Anthony Benezet is one of the giants of 18th century American Quakerism, particularly well-known for his efforts towards the abolition of slavery.
He was one of the signers of the “epistle of tender love and caution” that can be considered the founding document of American war tax resistance.
I’ve tried to find some additional information about Benezet’s attitudes toward tax resistance, but have so far only been able to find a fragmentary record that hints at more extensive writings that either no longer exist or that I haven’t managed to locate yet.
I found some good information in George S. Brookes’s Friend Anthony Benezet ().
From a letter to John Smith, :
Some time last week we understood a meeting was proposed by William Brown and John Churchman [two other “epistle” signers] to be held with all those who had refused to pay the Last Year’s Tax, to which we understood our English Friends intended to attend; as this proposal begat some uneasiness in some of us O.J. [“Very likely Owen Jones” — George S. Brookes] and myself went up to William Brown and told the Friends there that we must declare our disunity with said meeting, and on our own and the behalf of many of our Friends who we were assured could not approve of it as it will have a tendency to prejudice the mind of many young people and induce them to come to hasty conclusions.
Howsoever we were told the time was too short to contradict the meeting, which was held.
Where after a pretty deal of conversation it was concluded that the matter was now grown to such a height as to make it necessary to carry it to the Yearly Meeting.
The only matter in debate seemed how it should be introduced there, which I understand to be concluded to be done by the channel of the Meeting of Suffering, and as the matter will be probably debated at that Meeting next Fifth day, thought it necessary to acquaint ffd. of Burlington of it.
I hope they will with me think it their duty to attend.
We are also to have a Meeting of Suffering next Seventh day morning, before the meeting of ministers.
I need not expatiate on the matter as it speaks for itself: but remain in great haste as the boat is just going.
We have professed to be called & redeemed from the spirit of the world, from that prevalent pride & indulgence so contrary to the low, humble, self-denying life of Christ & his immediate followers; but have we indeed been such, has not our conformity to the world, our engagements of life, in order to please ourselves & gain wealth, with little regard to the danger to the better part, been productive to all the evils pointed out in the Gospel, has it not naturally led us & begot a desire in our children to live in conformity to other people; hence the sumptuousness of our dwellings, our equipage, our dress; furniture & the luxury of our tables have become a snare to us & a matter of offence to the thinking part of mankind; and the mind has been raised in our children & often in ourselves from the meekness & self-denial of the Gospel, into resentment in defence of what is become as our Gods; and the meek humble & poor self-denying life of Christ is become of no repute, or rather as a Shepherd was to the Egyptians.
The suffering providence which now is displayed over us seems particularly calculated to bring us to our selves, in some respects, as the trials & devastation is greater upon those whose possessions are most expensive, & have been at the greatest pains & expenses in adorning their pleasant pictures.
I trust this, at least, will teach us, in future, to live more agreeable to our profession; whereby our wants being made less, the perplexing, dangerous snares & engagements which attend the amassing & use of wealth would be much lessened.
If this afflictive providence does induce us to begin anew upon the true foundation of our principles, in that low & humble state of mind & conduct which becomes & indeed constitutes the real followers of Christ, it will have done much for us.
In , French diplomat Gérard de Reyneval, who was stationed in America, reported back to his government on the troubles caused to the revolutionary war effort by Quaker pacifism.
He said he had interviewed Benezet and that Benezet “at last declared, yielding to my arguments, that, agreeing with most of the fraternity, he thought that the Quakers ought to submit to the actual government and pay taxes, without questioning the use to which these might be put; but that they had weak brethren among them, whose scruples they were obliged to respect.”
Perhaps so, but I hear tell that there’s a letter co-authored by Benezet and a “B. Mason” under the title “Some Brief remarks offered as Reasons why we ought not to pay Taxes to support War.”
Alas, I haven’t yet been able to find a copy of this.
(See The Picket Line for for the text of that letter.)
I have to acknowledge the receipt of your several favors… except your thoughts on the payments of taxes for war, which by some mistake I conclude was left out in closing the packet.
As that is a subject much under the consideration of Friends [it] would have been particularly satisfactory to have seen your thoughts upon it.
Inclosed I send a few of mine of that subject on the occasion therein mentioned as they are the first I have communicated to any friend in writing.
If there be anything too strongly suggested I shall take it kindly if you’ll note it, as I have a care on me that we do not, in furthering this testimony which I have faith to believe is founded in the truth, do anything to support it in a wrong zeal and not according to knowledge.
As it is a step in the reformation that crosses a received testimony in Society more than perhaps any other, we had need to step wisely in it.
The want of your thoughts on paying taxes has hitherto prevented my sending Timothy Davis an account of your care and concern for him, hoping they would before long come to hand.
I have not seen him for some time but often hear from him; he is doubtless too much in the love of, and conformity to the world, and not enough the meekness and simplicity becoming his profession, as, indeed is the case with too many others.
Our friend Abraham Griffith had a large opportunity with him and his adherents who stand out against the body, please to be referred to him for his state and that of the shattered meeting where he lives.
He has been writing against Friends under the character of vindicating of himself, with which I was grieved and sent him word by his and my friend, who had seen his performance, my prospects of such a procedure.
He has not fit yet to publish it.
Davis eventually did publish it, in , under the title “An Address to the People called Quakers, concerning the manner in which they treated Timothy Davis, for writing and publishing a Piece on Taxation.”
I haven’t seen this leaflet yet, but hope to get a peek at it through interlibrary loan.
(See The Picket Line for ) One of these days maybe I’ll have a chance to scavenge through the various Quaker archives back in Pennsylvania.
Brown continues:
I have several times felt much for Timothy and longed for his restoration, and though I have several times begun to write to him I have felt a cautious fear, and though when I saw him while under dealing, the way to freedom seemed open between us, yet it is not to write.
Perhaps you may not be so restrained.
His letter to Abraham upon the subject of taxes shows him to be in the reasoning.
Benezet wrote to George Dillwyn about Moses Brown’s letter (unmatched left-quote in the original):
What I mentioned to Sister Peggy was the desire I had to communicate parts of Moses Brown’s letter relating to the payment of taxes for the purposes of war.
This testimony he appears fully convinced is founded on truth, and sends me a copy of a letter he had purposed to send to friends in England on that head, but at the same time he appears very desirous friends should not do anything in a wrong zeal, not according to knowledge more especially as he says it is a step in the reformation that crosses a received testimony in society more than perhaps any other, we had need to step wisely in it.
He adds: “It is apprehended the many difficulties friends were under at their first appearance and the manner of the English collecting their taxes, being such that a refusal must have greatly encreased them, the first reformers were excused from that burden, and permitted to pay them, that by so doing they might (as George Fox said in an epistle on the subject in ) better claim their liberty.
The trials (he further says) of those who may refuse the payments of taxes will be increased at this time by their conduct being construed into a disaffection to their country; and we hope will be a bar to any’s running in a forward spirit to become reformers without feeling the meek & humbling evidence of truth.
“we fear some take up the testimony more on account of the authority that demands the taxes than because they are used for war”
Another letter to Benezet from Moses Brown, dated , touches on Timothy Davis again:
Having had a concern for some time for Timothy Davis I took an opportunity with our friend John Lloyd and paid him a visit, and while there introduced your concern for him and read your observations concerning him and his state, which he seemed to take well, and said they would be of service if attended to, and on the whole I believe Timothy sees he has missed it but can’t get down enough to submit to the cross and acknowledge his mistake whereby he might be reconciled to his brethren.
He seems to think friends have been too hard with him, but yet said he thought at times Friends were as near or nearer than ever.
He continues to have Meetings by himself and goes some in the neighborhood round and preaches to his adherents.
As to taxes, he told us he expected one account that he could not pay, which I have since to mention to others who have paid all, even some who had been on appointment to treat with Timothy.
I think if he could be prevailed on to drop his Meetings at home and not go abroad preaching to others he would very soon apply to be restored, which I mention believing if you attend to your concern on his account it may be useful to him.
Your notes on taxes are satisfactory.
We having for some time an apology for those who refuse the payment of taxes, our meeting for sufferings have of late appointed a committee to examine it, which has been done, and alterations & additions made, and it has been proposed to send it to your meeting for sufferings for your approbation before it is printed, and I expect it will be forwarded soon after our next Meeting for Sufferings.
It is pretty extensive on the subject, containing near 60 quarto pages.
Should friends think it suitable at this time to publish it, I have thought it might come in as an appendix although it has been written by one friend, diverse others having assisted in collecting material and suggesting their prospects, it is at present undetermined whether it will be best for one or more to sign it, which occasioned the proposal of sending it to you.
The subject is weighty and should be well considered, those friends in our meeting who pay the taxes of whom there are a number of concerned friends and leading members seem to be much more cordially consenting to the publication than could be expected.
The principle difficulty with some of them and those of us who decline is we fear some take up the testimony more on account of the authority that demands the taxes than because they are used for war.
Such we fear instead of forwarding will eventually retard the testimony, and as some Friends refuse all taxes, even those for civil uses as well as those clear for war and others that are mixed, and thereby dropping our testimony of supporting civil government by readily contributing thereto, it has been a fear whether this variety of conduct won’t mar rather than promote the work.
Could we be more united in the ground of our testimony and in our practice in it, I should have more hopes of its speedy obtaining in society.
A time will doubtless come when a smaller proportion will be for war than at present when the greater part being for civil uses, friends may pay as there is and ought to be according to the apostle, a conscientiousness in paying to the support of civil government as well as refuse that for war, to refuse the payment of such when even a lesser part be mixed for war before we applied to the authority to separate them would not at present be my place, but probably before that time come when the lesser part will be for war friends may be agreed to ask a separation which, if it should be refused, we might be united in refusing even those the greater part of which may be for civil uses.
I understand some Friends have fallen in with or been overpowered by the common argument that civil government is upheld by the sword, and therefore they decline paying to its support, which appears to me a great weakness, for I see a material distinction between civil government and military, or a state of war, and on this distinction our ancient testimonies was and remain to be supportable of paying tribute & customs for the support of the civil, and yet to refuse to pay trophy money and other expenses solely for war.
Civil government is in the restoring & supporting power, yet there is a separation, as of the precious from the vile, in respect of this subject, through the lusts and fallen ages under the specious claim of being the disciples and followers of the Prince of Peace, have greatly contributed to cloud and obscure it.
The thoughts on paying taxes of Samuel Allinson is well thought of even by those who yet pay them, and as he has got diverse arguments not in the piece now sent to the clerk of your Meeting for Sufferings, I have suggested to him if Friends with you should agree to the publication of anything, I thought some Friend might, out of them all, make the apology much more complete, which I could wish as done in preference to publishing this now sent.
On , Benezet wrote to Robert Pleasants, saying:
The consistency of paying tax for war is becoming so interesting a subject to the Society that I trust it will be agreeable to you to see some note which we have made on that weighty subject and which by a copy or other I request you will communicate to our dear Friend Edward Stabler with whom we much sympathize in the loss of his dear companion; but cannot write to him as I could wish, I have not even time to read over the copy so that you must help omission we have a care that is furthering this testimony which we have faith to believe is founded on truth not to do any thing to forward or support it in a wrong zeal and not according to knowledge.
As it is a step in the reformation that so directly crosses a received testimony in Society more than any other we had need to step carefully and wisely in it.
He that believes makes not haste.
And that’s the last word I’ve been able to uncover.
Benezet died in .
Timothy Davis rejoined the orthodox Meeting in .
It seems from these excerpts that a number of war tax resisting Quakers were working to assemble a major argument or statement of doctrine on the subject that could be published by the Society under the imprimatur of their Meeting — probably incorporating Allinson’s work.
I haven’t been able to find any drafts of this, though, if any exist.
I’ve been digging through the archives looking for more information on
American Quaker war tax resistance, and found this interesting aside in Susan
Martha Reed’s Church and State in Massachusetts,
():
While the Quakers insisted strongly upon resistance to the payment of taxes
in certain cases, they were, on the whole, law-abiding citizens, the various
meetings using their influence to accomplish this result. The Rhode Island
Quarterly Meeting was in much distressed by
complaint that certain Friends “Eastward” refused to pay any public taxes to
the government on the ground that a great part of the money was used for war.
A paper was drawn up on the subject and travelling Friends were asked to urge
Hampton and Dover people to pay the rates.
Reed sources this to the records of the Rhode Island Quarterly Meeting pages
38–9 and says “Another case appears in” the records of Dartmouth Monthly
Meeting, pages 47–8. I have not been able to check these original sources.
For the most part, American Quakers who resisted war taxes were very careful
to distinguish “war taxes” from ordinary and “mixed” taxes, believing
themselves to be forbidden from paying the former, but required by just as
much of a holy duty to pay the latter. But there is some indirect evidence
that some groups of Quakers went to the radical extreme of refusing to pay any
tax that went even in part to pay for war. This note in Reed’s book is one
example; another comes from a letter from Moses Brown to Anthony Benezet in
:
[W]e fear some take up the [war tax resistance] testimony more on account of
the authority that demands the taxes than because they are used for war. Such
we fear instead of forwarding will eventually retard the testimony, and as
some Friends refuse all taxes, even those for civil uses as well as those
clear for war and others that are mixed, and thereby dropping our testimony
of supporting civil government by readily contributing thereto, it has been a
fear whether this variety of conduct won’t mar rather than promote the work.
Could we be more united in the ground of our testimony and in our practice in
it, I should have more hopes of its speedy obtaining in society. A time will
doubtless come when a smaller proportion will be for war than at present when
the greater part being for civil uses, friends may pay as there is and ought
to be according to the apostle, a conscientiousness in paying to the support
of civil government as well as refuse that for war. To refuse the payment of
such when even a lesser part be mixed for war before we applied to the
authority to separate them would not at present be my place, but probably
before that time come when the lesser part will be for war friends may be
agreed to ask a separation which, if it should be refused, we might be united
in refusing even those the greater part of which may be for civil uses.
I understand some Friends have fallen in with or been overpowered by the
common argument that civil government is upheld by the sword, and therefore
they decline paying to its support, which appears to me a great weakness, for
I see a material distinction between civil government and military, or a
state of war, and on this distinction our ancient testimonies was and remain
to be supportable of paying tribute and customs for the support of the civil,
and yet to refuse to pay trophy money and other expenses solely for war.
Civil government is in the restoring and supporting power, yet there is a
separation, as of the precious from the vile, in respect of this subject,
through the lusts and fallen ages under the specious claim of being the
disciples and followers of the Prince of Peace, have greatly contributed to
cloud and obscure it.
I have been long waiting for an opportunity to write, in answer to thine of the & and expected to have had one by Willm Turpin, but his departure was so unexpected that I had but just time to give him a packet for thee, containing the Thoughts I had collected on the payment of taxes, which thou desired to see; which thou wilt find mostly coincide with thy own; also a number of pamphlets both in French & English which have been lately published, by direction of Friends of the Mg of Suffering, after they had been received & corrected by them; It’s a matter I had long had in prospect, & is chiefly intended for the information of my country people, but may also we hope be of service in removing mistakes & prejudices from others.
The perusal of thy remarkes, in thy letter, on the payment of Taxes for war, & those thou proposed to communicate to Friends in England, both afforded me much satisfaction.
I am much concerned with thee that nothing be done in a wrong zeal, & I have been particularly desirous, as well for my self as others, that we don’t undertake to become reformers without feeling the meek & humbling evidence to attend, more especially, as thou observes, “this is a step in the reformation that crosses a received testimony”, so long & strongly established by the practice & the writings of several Friends of note, which will remain as a standing plea to cavillers & such as are inclined with Naaman, to say, “Pardon thy servant in this thing;” who tho thy may receive as quieting an answer as he did, may swerve from the most excellent way.
However, I believe in the consistency of such a testimony, & that if it is of the truth, it will make its way in the love & patience; and that great care should be exercised that no censure, or even slight should be cast upon an honest hearted brother in that and all other cases, that cannot see as I do.
To make our union to consist in a conformity of sentiments & practices in matters in which faithful men are not agreed from their different apprehensions of what the Gospel requires, is a great mistake; & has a greater tendency to beget hypocrisy, than true fellowship.
It cannot be expected that children in the Truth will have the same prospect as young men, & these may not see things in the same light as elders; here the necessity & advantage of meekness, patience & charity is experienced.
Our Friends so freely paying taxes, the greatest part of which they knew was appropriated for military purposes, has from my first coming amongst them, which is near 50 years; as well as their being so active in government, even when military matters were mixed with civil always appeared to me inconsistent, & was what I have frequently expressed, even in the Yearly Meeting, more than 20 years past.
I have observed that foreigners with whom I have conversed upon this weighty subject, have looked on the payment of these taxes to be inconsistent with a clear testimony against war: Nay the very thoughtful Indian has reproached us on this head.
I trust, if such who apprehend themselves called to bear a testimony of this kind, do it with meekness & consistency, it may bring some to deeper considerations of Truth’s Testimony against War.
The love of the world & the deceitfulness of riches, the desire of amassing wealth, of living a life of ease, delicacy & shew, is the great rock against which our Society has dashed, & Many not to rise again; from this mighty snare, I trust, the Almighty will, in a measure, deliver us by means of this testimony.
Here it is the minds of the young people are carried away in the air & the world; and the parents, as in the case of Eli, give way: hence we are, generally, more like those clothed in purple & fine linen, — in soft raiment in kings’ houses, than conformable to our Saviour’s example & imitation of his followers, (ie) that cloud of witnesses, of whom the Apostle bears record, of whom the earth was not worthy; far opposite to the state of Pilgrims & Strangers, followers of him, who, tho Lord of all, claimed not so much in the world, as, even where to lay his head.
— Now when this is the case of the young & unexperienced, it’s not to be wondered at, considering how strongly the bent of the human heart flows towards the world, its pleasures, honors & friendships; but to see those who have apprehended themselves peculiarly called to follow Christ in the regeneration; gifted ministers, well qualified elders, engaged in laying up riches, even sometimes by means of business, such as disputed titles, distillations, &c. doubtful as to their moral rectitude; as well as of a contentious nature & dangerous in themselves; others endeavouring to advance themselves by marriage with persons, on account of their wealth, who are unacquainted with the truth: Nay, I have in several, I may say in many instances, with sorrow of heart, seen preachers both young & old, whom the Almighty had called to his service in a low situation, so far insinuate themselves in the farms of the rich, by means of the esteem & respect gained thro the jewels God had adorned them with, for the carrying on his spiritual work, as to get advanced in the world & even join hands in marriage with people, which, had they not been rich, they would, as Job expressed it, not even “have put with the dogs of their flock”; making public declaration that they took one another in the presence of God; whence a query may arise, What God?
Why the God of this world.
Moreover, this terrible deviation from the path of truth, has been generally approved & even vindicated by professors, under the specious pretense, that, by means of the wealth thus attained, they would have more leisure to attend upon their ministry; forgetting that the Gospel has been predominantly dispensed to, & by, the poor, rich in faith, whom God has especially called, & will enable to perfect the work to which they are called, without going to Egypt & Babylon for help.
Many who have too much given way to a self seeking, worldly spirit, have nevertheless retained in a great measure their prospects of many Gospel Truths, by means of which, & their wealth, they have become as leaders in their several Meetings; from hence our church has suffered much.
People have been pleased they had the example of active members who seemed to have so good a prospect of things relating to the kingdom of God; not considering the many instances recorded in Scripture, where it appears, God did not withdraw a prospect of the truth, as an ability for service, from those he had once called, notwithstanding their deviation from the narrow way of the cross, as, in the case of Balaam, who so clearly prophesied to the rising of the Star of Jacob, even when he was seeking occasion to curse Israel, for the wages of covetousness.
Well, if a faithful testimony prevails in the matter of taxes for war in those who are favored with the prospect, who, I am inclined to think, are many, I trust it will have a great tendency to wean such from the world, teach us to bring our wants & desires into a much narrower compass than they are at present; hence those corrupt propensities which are thereby so much fed in ourselves & our children, may more easily be kept under.
I would judge the state of no man, with respect to God & him, but I cannot look upon the love of the world & giving way to a desire of riches, as many do, as a pardonable frailty; but rather esteem it a departure from the divine life, which must either gradually kill all religion in the Soul, or be itself killed, by it.
If one tittle of the law was not to fail but all be fulfilled, can we believe we may act with impunity in so diametric opposition to solemn truths so agreeable to the nature of the Gospel, & so plainly verified to be so in their effects, particularly on the offspring of those who deviate from them, & yet retain the favor of God?
Love not the world &c. Lay not up for yourselves treasure on earth, &c. How hardly shall those that have riches enter, &c. Wo unto you that are rich, &c &c. They that will be rich fall into snares &c. These are certainly fruits of the flesh; & the watch word still is, That ye cannot serve two masters, — Where your treasure is, there will your heart be also, — If ye live after the flesh, ye shall die; but if thro the Spirit, ye mortify the deeds of the body, ye shall live.
But, putting Christianity out of the question, let me say that there is a certain proportion of wealth in the world, which should be applied, & circulate for the general benefit & comfort of mankind; according to each’s particular circumstances, this is the duty & will be the concern of every feeling heart; Now that one more knowing or crafty than the rest, should, by buying cheap & selling dear, get possessed of such an heap, which might answer the sober wants of hundreds, who are actually under great discouragements & difficulties for want of their share thereof: to see this person make use of his abundance, principally to increase his heap, &, finally, leave it solely or even principally to his heir or heirs, to the gratifying their idleness & pride, & every other noxious passion of the human mind, this appears to me to be an atrocious degree of Vanity.
I fully believe that a people will arise, whether Friends or others, who will absolutely refuse wealth, will make it one article of their fellowship that none suffer more wealth to accumulate than may be necessary to enable them to follow their several callings, & thereby remove from themselves & their children that grievous snare, which has arisen from the Society’s being so fond of amassing & enjoying wealth, in opposition to our Saviour’s positive injunction, indeed to the whole nature of the Gospel.
The situation of our Friend Timothy Davis is a matter of great importance to himself, & may in its consequences be so to many others.
If the innocent childlike nature of the Gospel was suffered to prevail, how easily would matters of this nature subside; our very steps & mistakes would become an occasion of instruction to us, & rather tend to strengthen our union & mutual charity than otherwise.
Ah! the strong will of man, the corruption of the human heart; nowhere more manifest than in the support of our own missteps, which we have, often, some distant prospect we were mistaken or too hasty in, & yet what havoc it has made, & nowhere more than under an apprehension (I would rather say, than pretense,) of zeal for the truth.
I do not know that it is safe for me, at this time, to say anything to Timothy, not having yet seen Abraham Griffith; perhaps thou mayst think well of communicating to him these or part of the thoughts I now express, with the Thoughts on Taxes for war.
Timothy is a friend & held in much estimation & whom I still love.
I earnestly wish for him, as for myself, that in any contention of this kind, [self?], that enemy of all good, may be held in no estimation, but that the honor of God & the good of our fellowman may be the only object of our desires; & then I have no doubt but things between Timothy & his Friends, will soon settle right.
“I will be more vile than thus & will be base in mine own sight,” saith king David; & when reproached for his humiliation, gives this weighty reason, It was before the Lord, — who chose me.
Oh that this may likewise be Timothy’s situation.
It is recorded of our Lord, That in his humiliation his judgment was taken away.
I take it to be the reasoning part, which so strongly asserts, I am right.
When we are favored to pierce thro the mists & crowds that surround us, as well arising from our own passions & wrong pursuits, as the incumbrances of the world, & are favored with a sight of that which is of an eternal duration, that which soon will be all in all to us, — even a communication with a state & with beings of as different nature from humanity, as exalted above it, — all Contention & Striving will subside, & we shall feel the truth of [Edward] Young’s assertion, —
Th’ Almighty from his Throne, on Earth surveys Nought greater, than an honest, humble Heart, — An humble Heart, His residence; pronounc’d His Second Seat.
Well, it is time to conclude, by saying that I am persuaded the testimony to the peaceable, suffering spirit of the Gospel will prevail, in opposition to the cruel & corrupting spirit of war, & that it will be attended with blessed effects to individuals, who will be thought worthy, thro suffering, in innocent simplicity to be the promulgators of it.
—
I have expressed myself with great freedom, but I fear without sufficient guard, tho I trust in great good will; nevertheless if thou apprehends me under any misapprehension, be so kind to mention it to him, who is indeed, with much sincerity thy affectionate friend Anthony Benezet.
[P.S.] I find there was a considerable debate amongst Friends in the year , on account of a tax laid for to assist queen Ann’s troops in an attack upon Canada.
I have a pamphlet published at that time, by a Friend Jos. Rakestraw, grandfather to Isaac Zane, wherein he tells us he was disowned, in consequence of the debate which arose amongst Friends on that account.
At the upcoming national gathering of NWTRCC at Earlham College in Richmond, Indiana, I’m going to be presenting a summary of the history of war tax resistance in the Society of Friends (Quakers).
Today I’m going to try to coalesce some of the notes I’ve assembled about how the Quaker practice of war tax resistance evolved, particularly in America, during the period of time surrounding and including the American Revolution.
The American Revolution and Aftermath ()
When Quakers resisted tithes, militia exemption taxes, explicit war taxes, and things of that nature, the government would usually respond by seizing the resister’s property and selling it at auction in order to recover the tax.
(In the earliest years of the Society of Friends, many such resisters were imprisoned, but this practice later became uncommon.)
Quaker meetings developed a protocol that good Quakers were supposed to follow when such property seizures took place.
They were not supposed to cooperate in any way, but neither were they supposed to resist.
They were not supposed to suggest which property the tax collector might seize, and they certainly were not supposed to leave the amount of the tax lying out on the table in plain view (some Quakers evidently tried this way of getting out of resisting).
Instead, when the collector came and said he was going to seize property for unpaid taxes, the Quaker was supposed to step aside and say something along the lines of “do as you think you must,” perhaps explaining the reason for his refusal to pay, but not otherwise interfering.
If the collector seized property worth more than the amount of tax, and was able to auction it off for more than the amount owed, the collector (if honest) might try to return the surplus to the resister.
A Quaker was not supposed to accept such money, it having been tainted by the process.
(However, if the collector seized too many items, and only auctioned off some of them, the Quaker could accept the return of the additional items themselves.)
This part of the protocol made Quakers especially vulnerable to particularly unscrupulous tax collectors.
Such a collector could seize the most valuable thing he could get his hands on, sell it, apply some of the proceeds to the tax, and then pocket the rest.
Many other collectors were also accused of selling property at cut-rate prices to themselves, to their friends, or in exchange for kick-backs.
The result of all of this meant that tax resisting Quakers were often setting themselves up for considerable financial losses.
These “sufferings” were part of the glory of being a Quaker, and, as such, were well worth the price to some Friends, but to others they were just an unwelcome financial hardship.
Meetings had to be diligent to keep wavering Friends from trying to sneak out from under the requirements to refuse to pay certain taxes, to refuse the return of surplus money, and to not cooperate with the tax collector as a way of trying to ameliorate the burden of the seizure process.
If a Friend failed in any of these ways, someone at their meeting might “produce a testification” against them.
The meeting would then investigate the charges and would send out a delegation to talk to the wayward Quaker and try to bring them back into compliance.
This often would include the Quaker standing up at a future meeting to read an acknowledgment of their error and promise never to do it again.
If the Quaker refused to get with the program, the meeting could “disown” them — basically kick them out of the meeting.
Simply not reporting any “sufferings” to the meeting for failure to pay war tax might be enough to start this process.
(“We notice thou hastn’t had any property seized this year for failure to pay the bounty tax, Friend Johnson.
Care to tell us how thou hast been so lucky?”)
American Quakers during the American Revolution were, in many places, pillaged ruthlessly by the authorities by this process of property seizure.
Several things contributed to this:
The Society of Friends was not united.
Dissident Quakers promoted paying taxes to the rebel government, and some “Free Quakers” even abandoned the peace testimony entirely to enlist in the rebel army.
This made it even harder for resisting Quakers to appeal to Quaker beliefs and practices as an explanation for their stand.
Quakers had wavered in their war tax resistance stand in the recent past, for instance when the Quaker-led Pennsylvania Assembly voted to tax the colony to pay for fortifications during the French & Indian War.
This was deployed as a precedent to argue that Quakers only have scruples against war tax paying at convenient times or depending on their sympathy with the particular war or government.
The Quaker peace testimony was often publicly expressed with an eye to being reassuring to the authorities.
So often it would include phrasing like this:
[T]he setting up and putting down kings and governments is God’s peculiar prerogative; for causes best known to himself: And that it is not our business to have any hand or contrivance therein; nor to be busy bodies above our station, much less to plot and contrive the ruin, or overturn of any of them, but to pray for the king, and safety of our nation, and good of all men, that we may live a quiet and peaceable life, in all godliness and honesty, under the government which God is pleased to set over us.
For this reason, some Quakers felt that to adhere to this testimony they could not cooperate in any way with the rebel government, as to do so would be to contribute “to plot and contrive” against the king (others disagreed, feeling that the rebel government had become the one “which God is pleased to set over us”).
Such absolutist resisters were easy targets for patriotic anger.
Both armies were authorized to take any property they needed during the course of their campaigns.
They were usually supposed to pay for what they took, but Quakers, being under an obligation not to supply goods to belligerents, could not accept money in such cases.
This made their farms and stores particularly tempting targets for thrifty officers.
Quakers who would neither serve in the military, pay war taxes, nor take oaths of allegiance to the rebel government (Quakers generally would not take oaths of any kind) were suspected of using their conscientious scruples as a cover for loyalist sympathies.
Speaking of oaths, Quakers could be fined for refusing to take an oath of allegiance to the new American government.
They were forbidden by Quaker discipline from paying such fines.
So this became another opportunity for plunder and to me it looks like this was used deliberately as a revenue-raiser or as a way of punishing Quakers for their lack of enthusiasm for the rebel cause.
An additional complication for Quakers at this time was the fuzziness over what counted as a “war tax.”
For example, one of the ways the Continental Congress funded its military campaign was to issue its own paper currency and make the acceptance of this currency as legal tender mandatory.
This was certainly easier than trying to raise the money through an explicit tax, but it amounted to just as much of an imposition: as the Congress issued more and more currency to finance the war, the value of the currency plummeted, taking resources away from people who were forced to use it.
Some Quakers refused to handle the continentals, and some were imprisoned and others were threatened with execution.
In other cases, such refusers were declared outlaws and boycotts were enforced against them — in one example “it was publicly proclaimed that there was no protection for him [John Cowgill], that all persons were forewarned at their peril to have no dealings with him.
Even the miller was threatened with the destruction of his mill if he ground for his family, and the school-master forbid receiving his children at school.”
The official stand of the Philadelphia Yearly Meeting was neutral on the currency question, and asked Friends to come to their own decisions and not to chastise one-another about it.
The Virginia Yearly Meeting, on the other hand, formally forbade Friends from using continentals.
The official Philadelphia Yearly Meeting position on war taxes, as put forth in , was much as it had long been: “It is the judgment of this meeting that a tax levied for the purchasing of drums, colors, or for other warlike uses, cannot be paid consistently with our Christian testimony.”
Timothy Davis published a tract in laying out the case for why American Quakers should pay most of the taxes being demanded by the rebel congressional government.
He was disowned by his Monthly Meeting, both for the content of the tract and for publishing it without the Meeting’s approval.
He left and took a few other Quakers with him to found a rival Meeting.
This conflict was still dividing the Society a decade later, when the Revolution was over and American Quakers had pretty much all adjusted to the new government God was pleased to have set over them.
The tract was well argued.
Those Quakers who were trying to strengthen and broaden the practice of war tax resistance beyond what the Philadelphia Yearly Meeting was willing to advocate tried to come up with an authoritative and thoroughly scripturally-backed response.
Benjamin Mason, Anthony Benezet, Moses Brown, and Samuel Allinson all pursued efforts in this direction.
I’ve seen some drafts of their work and their correspondence, and Allinson’s draft, at least, seems to have been widely-distributed in manuscript form, but as far as I know, no official version ended up being published.
Benezet believed that because the stronger position they were advocating would demand more from Quakers than before, and would subject them to more persecution than before, it would make the Society of Friends stronger and less-corrupted by worldly riches:
[It] will not be like a passing storm but an abiding trial, which, as it will come heavier upon those who are most loaded & encumbered with the clay of this world, will have I trust a blessed effect to every one who will willingly receive it to keep us low & humble.
Part of what may have restrained them from publishing was caution about introducing new doctrinal innovations at a time when the Society of Friends was already beginning to show signs of fracturing on party lines.
Part also may be that the Meetings that would have to authorize the publication of such a pamphlet were probably hoping to quiet such debate rather than stir up a new hornet’s nest.
But there was also the emerging trouble of an ultra-radical war tax resistance position that was beginning to develop.
Moses Brown wrote to Anthony Benezet about this concern, saying:
[S]ome Friends refuse all taxes, even those for civil uses as well as those clear for war and others that are mixed, and thereby dropping our testimony of supporting civil government by readily contributing thereto, [and] it has been a fear whether this variety of conduct won’t mar rather than promote the work… I understand some Friends have fallen in with or been overpowered by the common argument that civil government is upheld by the sword, and therefore they decline paying to its support, which appears to me a great weakness…
Around this time, you start to see meetings supplementing their discipline about not paying explicit war taxes (“for drums, colors, and military attire”) with advice that Friends not criticize one another over their positions on whether or not to pay “mixed” taxes.
Apparently the arguments in Meetings had become troublesome and did not seem to be near a resolution.
The way Quaker Meetings recorded “sufferings” went something like this: When a Quaker was subjected to persecution of some sort for taking a conscientious stand required by Quaker discipline, that Quaker would report this to his or her Monthly Meeting.
That Meeting would periodically forward on a list of such reports to its Quarterly Meeting, which in turn would compile these into a report that it would submit to the Yearly Meeting.
At each stage, a Meeting might decide that some particular report wasn’t worth recording for some reason.
During this period, for instance, some Monthly Meetings were recording the sufferings of Quakers who were persecuted for resisting mixed taxes, as well as for explicit war taxes.
Some Quarterly Meetings dropped these reports from their submissions to the Yearly Meetings.
This could lead to debate in the Meetings, which would bring the issue of war tax resistance back on to the front burner.
The Rhode Island Yearly Meeting, for instance, decided to begin accepting such reports in .
The Salem Yearly Meeting debated the issue and eventually followed suit.
The war tax question didn’t end with the end of the fighting.
The war still needed to be paid for, and the continental currency that funded it needed to be redeemed, and the government used a variety of taxes to do this.
Among these were a new set of import duties instituted in to pay war debts.
A few Quakers took note of this and decided they could not pay.
For example, Joshua Evans stopped using imported goods.
Isaac Martin, who ran a drug store, stopped stocking and selling imported products.
The new government was also working on a unified militia law, which, though it enabled Quakers to be exempt from service, required any such conscientious objectors to pay a fine in lieu of service.
A representative of the Philadelphia Yearly Meeting addressed Congress, telling them that Quakers would feel obligated to refuse to pay such a fine and to suffer the consequences.
Many Quakers did refuse to pay and were fined (and, as usual, the tax collectors took far more from them in property than the amount of the fines).
In one area, a law was passed exempting members of the volunteer fire department from militia service without necessity of paying a fine, and this led many Quakers to sign up.
Meanwhile, what was happening in England?
Quakers there were much more restrained than their American counterparts on the war tax question.
When they reprinted John Woolman’s Journal in , they omitted the parts where he talked about his war tax resistance.
There were some exceptions to this relative conservatism.
John Payne, for example, boarded up a third of the windows of his home to avoid a property tax, put his coach up on blocks to avoid a vehicle tax, and rode miles out of his way to avoid toll gates, all to avoid paying for the war to suppress the American rebellion.
He also wrote a tract chastising the Society of Friends for investing in government bonds, on the same grounds.
In the years before his death he gave away his property to members of his family so that he would not be liable for any estate tax.
The War of 1812 was largely funded, on the American side, by debt spending, and so explicit war taxes did not become such an acute issue, though the issue of “mixed” taxes again became a heated topic.
The military would again requisition supplies from Quakers, which Quakers felt obligated to refuse to voluntarily give them or to accept money for.
And Quakers were frequently fined (and then plundered for their refusal to pay) when they would not join the militia.
Influential Quaker Elias Hicks reported in (before the Hicksite/Orthodox split) that he had addressed his Meeting’s “meeting for discipline” to ask “whether while we were actively paying taxes to civil government, for the purpose of promoting war or warlike purposes in any degree, we were not balking our testimony in that respect and pulling down with one hand what we are pretending to build with the other.”
He compared this to abolitionist Quakers who nonetheless supported slavery by buying slave-produced goods.
In , several young Quaker men were imprisoned in Baltimore for their refusal to pay militia exemption fines.
The state court would not interfere, as they were imprisoned under a federal regulation at the pleasure of the military, and the judge recommended that they instead apply to President Madison for help.
They did, and the president said that he wouldn’t do anything about it, as the law was clear on the point.
But as the Quaker delegation was leaving the president’s makeshift office (the White House had been put to the torch by the British the year before), the president’s wife, Dolley Madison, called them aside and asked to speak with them.
She had been raised a Quaker.
When she heard what had happened, and what the president’s response had been, she told them “I am determined that the President shall never close his eyes in sleep until these children are liberated from confinement.”
It took the delegation two days to return to Baltimore, and when they got there they learned that the Quaker conscientious objectors had been released on the President’s orders.
I end this period, somewhat artificially, at .
This doesn’t represent a firm boundary in the evolution of the practice of war tax resistance in the Society of Friends, but it does mark a significant milestone in the Society itself.
By that year, the society had fractured into irreconcilable Orthodox and Hicksite factions that would each form their own structures of Meetings and would evolve separately in parallel for decades.
This was caused in part by a passion for strengthened religious purity among American protestant Christians that peaked in .
This striving probably both contributed to a strengthening of war tax resistance (among other traditional Quaker practices) and distracted from it by making other issues more central.
