Isaac Sharpless: COLONIAL PENNSYLVANIA: THE QUEST FOR NON-VIOLENCE

from The Quiet Battle: Writings on the Theory & Practice of Non-Violent Resistance, Mulford Q. Sibley (editor), Beacon Press (1968).

In 1654, Oliver Cromwell received an unusual letter from the Quaker George Fox. In the letter, Fox said:¹

God is my witness, by whom I am moved to give this forth for the Truth's sake, from him whom the world calls George Fox; who is the son of God who is sent to stand a witness against all violence and against all the works of darkness, and to turn people from the darkness to the light, and to bring them from the occasion of the war and from the occasion of the magistrate's sword....

In effect, as Frederick Tolles remarks, on this and other oc­casions Fox was "demanding nothing less than that the military ruler of all England should forthwith disavow all violence and all coercion, make Christ's law of love the supreme law of the land, and substitute the mild dictates of the Sermon on the Mount for the Instrument of Government by which he ruled."²

But Cromwell, of course, remained unconvinced.

Later on, however, another Quaker, William Penn, initiated the famous "Holy Experiment" in Pennsylvania. In it, he sought to apply Quaker principles to the sphere of politics and government and to demonstrate that a non-violent society could indeed be established. Colonial Pennsylvania down to 1756—when Quakers surrendered control of the Provincial As­sembly—became one of the most remarkable efforts in the history of mankind to build a warless community in which exact equity would prevent violence and coercion would be reduced to a bare minimum. The present reading deals at some length with this experiment, concentrating on Indian re­lations and on problems of maintaining intact the Quaker "testimony" against military violence.

Pennsylvania was founded on the proposition that if Indians were amply compensated for their lands and were treated on a basis of equality with white men, Indian wars and massacres would not occur. The difficulties were, of course, many, and were complicated by the colony's internal politics and by the demands of the British government. As time went on, the principles of the colony's founders became increasingly difficult to apply, and the society never attained the level of Fox's ethic. Yet these compromises should not be exaggerated. When all is said that can be said against the obfuscations and eva­sions of the Quaker Assembly, it did succeed in building a workable non-violent commonwealth and in living at peace with the Indians for about seventy years, and few political so­cieties in history can boast a comparable record. When at last external factors brought the "Holy Experiment" to an end, the Quaker majority in the Assembly resigned, for they saw that they could make no further compromises without undermining their basic convictions about non-violence and the nature of man.

The author of the reading, Isaac Sharpless (1848-1920), was for many years a leading Quaker educator, who became dean and later president of Haverford College. The material is taken from Chapters VI and VII of his book A Quaker Experi­ment in Government. (Philadelphia: A. J. Ferris, 1898)

THE INDIANS

No phase of early Pennsylvania history needs less defense than the Indian policy of the colonists. The "Great Treaty" at Shackamaxon has been immortalized by West on canvas and Voltaire in print, and historians have not hesitated to do it ample justice. The resulting seventy years of peace and friend­ship, as contrasted with the harassing and exterminating wars on the boundaries of nearly all the other colonies, attest its practical utility. The date of the treaty is more or less uncer­tain, its place rests on tradition, and its objects are not posi­tively known.³ It seems probable that it occurred in June, 1683, under the elm tree whose location is now marked by a stone, and that it was held for the double purpose of making a league of friendship and of purchasing lands.

There can be no doubt of Penn's benevolent intentions re­garding the Indians. The Quaker doctrine of universal di­vine light seemed to give encouragement to do missionary work among them. George Fox again and again in his letters urges ministers to convey to the Indians the messages of Christ's life and death, and God's love for them.⁴ The Indians responded as if they knew the reality of the indwelling of the Great Spirit. On that point their theory and that of the Quakers agreed, and this may have been the basis of the bond of sym­pathy which existed between them.

On the "18th of the Eighth month (October), 1681," the Proprietor sent by his cousin and deputy, William Markham, a letter⁵ to the Indians, simple, brief and kindly, admirably adapted to dispose them favorably to him. He had been authorized by his charter "to reduce the savage nations by gentle and just manners to the love of civil society and Christian religion." He was evidently greatly interested in them, as his long and elaborate descriptions sent home on the basis of rather insuffi­cient knowledge testify; and he seems to have had great hopes of making acquisitions to Christianity among them.

He saw, however, that Christian sentiment alone would not advance the standard or even prevent the degradation of In­dian morality. He knew at least partly the character of frontier traders, the valuable bargains to be obtained from a drunken Indian, and the weakness of Indian character in the face of sensual temptations. Whatever he could do to lessen these evils he stood ready to attempt. He refused an advantageous offer when he needed money badly lest he should barter authority to irresponsible people to the disadvantage of the Indian. "I did refuse a great temptation last Second-day, which was £.6000 ... to have wholly to itself the Indian trade from south to north between the Susquehanna and Delaware Rivers. . . . But as the Lord gave it to me over all and great opposition ... I would not abuse His love nor act unworthy of His provi­dence, and so defile what came to me clean."⁶

There is additional proof of the correctness of this statement in a letter of one of the intending purchasers, James Claypoole: "He (W. P.) is offered great things,- £.6,000 for a monopoly in trade, which he refused. ... I believe truly he does aim more at justice and righteousness and spreading of truth than at his own particular gain."

* * * * *

William Penn had paid King Charles £16,000 for Pennsyl­vania. He recognized, however, the Indian claims to the same territory, and was ready to purchase them. Moreover, as he determined never to engage in warfare with the natives, and was trustful in the efficacy of justice and reason to settle all disputes, he would begin with a friendly bargain with them for the land he was to occupy.

The purchase of lands of the Indians was no new thing. . . .

* * * * *

What seems to have impressed the Indians was the fact that Penn insisted on purchase at the first and all subsequent agree­ments as being an act of justice, to which both parties were to give their assent voluntarily. They also felt that the price paid was ample to extinguish their claims, and that no advantages were taken by plying them with drink or cheating them with false maps. . . .

*****

Practically the whole of Pennsylvania was purchased of the Indians, some of it several times over. . . .

During Penn's lifetime the relations continued so good that there was no difficulty in restraining unruly Indians. We find in the early minutes of the Council several complaints against Indians for stealing the settlers' hogs. The kings were sent for and presumably settled the matter.

Penn writes, in 1685, of the Indians:

If any of them break our laws they submit to be pun­ished by them; and to this they have tied themselves by an obligation under their hands.

He was equally desirous to punish white trespassers on In­dian rights. The great difficulty was to keep settlers off lands not already purchased. During his lifetime, he bought so far in advance of settlement that he managed to avoid any sense of injury on the part of the Indians. Later in the history of the Colony the problem became a serious one.

Another cause of complaint was the demoralization wrought by rum. . . .

The Friends who had settled at Burlington in advance of Penn's purchase of Pennsylvania had very early seen the ef­fects of the sale. By 1685 the Yearly Meeting was convinced on the subject, and "doth unanimously agree, and give as their judgment, that it is not consistent with the honor of Truth for any that make profession thereof to sell rum or other strong liquors to the Indians . . .

The Indian chiefs were sensible of the honesty of these ef­forts. In a conference held about 1687, one of them spoke as follows:⁷

The strong liquor was first sold us by the Dutch, and they are blind; they had no eyes, they did not see it was for our hurt. The next people that came among us were the Swedes, who continued the sale of the strong liquors to us; they were also blind, they had no eyes . . . But now there is a people come to live among us that have eyes; they see it to be for our hurt; they are willing to deny themselves the profit of it for our good.

*****

At the time of the death of Penn the relations between the whites and Indians could not well be improved. While there were individual outrages on the Indians, and individual steal­ings from the whites, they were punished as completely as the circumstances would admit, and never produced ill feeling. The frontier was safe from marauders, tomahawks and scalp­ing knives were unknown, and traders carried on their business with safety. A perfect confidence in the fairness of Penn and the Quakers existed among the Indians, which in time deep­ened into an abiding respect.

As lands became more in demand for settlement, difficulties increased. But it was a different spirit in the white negotiators, rather than inherent perplexities, which drove the red men first to estrangement, then to hostility, then to bloody revenge, mak­ing them an easy prey to French machinations. Much was said at the time about the peace policy of the Quakers making the Province insecure against French and Indian attack. A more profound study would indicate that that insecurity was prima­rily caused by rank injustice to the Indians at the hands of the sons and successors of William Penn. A policy of peace and one of justice combined may be successful; it is hardly fair, however, to provoke attack by iniquity and then saddle the inevitable consequences upon the lack of preparation for mili­tary resistance. Had the sons of Penn maintained the confi­dence and friendship of the Indians, an effective buffer against all hostile French designs would have existed, and Pennsyl­vania been spared the horrors of 1755 and succeeding years. This friendship, notwithstanding the increasing pressure on the Indian lands, might have been maintained, had there been no deceitful measures which left the red man quiet but sullen, with a brooding sense of wrong, and desire for revenge. Even then he seems to have understood that the Quaker was his friend and shielded him in his frontier raids. It is said that only three members of that sect were killed by the Indians in the Pennsylvania troubles, and they had so far abandoned their ordinary trustful attitude as to carry guns in defense.⁸

There were inherent difficulties in preventing rum being fur­nished to the Indians, and in keeping settlers off their hands. Charles Thomson⁰ says, in the case of the rum, that while am­ple promises were held out to them, they were never kept. In 1722 the Indians told Governor Keith that they "could live contentedly and grow rich if it were not for the quantities of rum that is suffered to come among them contrary to what William Penn promised them." Again in 1727 they complain of traders who cheat them, and give them rum and not powder and shot, so that the Indians nearly starve. The Governor in reply to this said he could not control traders, that Indians and whites all would cheat, and that they were at liberty to break in the heads of all rum casks. . . . The Scotch-Irish and Ger­mans were pressing in at a tremendous rate and cared nothing for Indian titles. It seemed to them absurd to allow Indians a great stretch of fertile land for hunting purposes only. Some­times the settlers were removed, at other times the Indians were satisfied by payments, but they still felt aggrieved as they saw their lands melting away before the ubiquitous whites.

These causes, while adding to the general discontent, would not with proper management have produced serious disaffec­tion had they not been re-enforced by a few cases of glaring injustice. The first of these was the notorious "Walking Pur­chase."

In a treaty in 1728 James Logan said that William Penn never allowed lands to be settled till purchased of the Indians. Ten years before he had shown to their chiefs deeds covering all lands from Duck Creek, in Delaware, to the "Forks of the Delaware,"¹⁰ and extending back along the "Lechoy Hills" to the Susquehanna. The Indians admitted this and confirmed the deeds, but objected to the settlers crowding into the fertile lands within the forks occupied by the Minisink tribe of the Delaware Indians. Logan accordingly forbade any surveying in the Minisink country. White settlers, however, were not re­strained, and the Indians became still more uneasy. A tract of 10,000 acres sold by the Penns to be taken up anywhere in the unoccupied lands of the Province, was chosen here and opened for settlement. A lottery was established by the Proprietors, the successful tickets calling for amounts of land down to 200 acres, and many of these were assigned in the Forks, without Indian consent.

In order to secure undisputed possession and drive out the Delawares, who it must be remembered had always been more than friendly, a despicable artifice was resorted to, which will always disgrace the name of Thomas Penn. A deed of 1686 of doubtful authenticity was produced, confirming to William Penn a plot of ground beginning on the Delaware River a short distance above Trenton, running west to Wrightstown, in Bucks county, thence northwest parallel to the Delaware River as far as a man could walk in a day and a half, which was no doubt intended to extend to the Lehigh Hills, thence eastward by an undefined line, left blank in the deed, presumably along the hills to the Delaware River at Easton. It was one of numerous purchases of a similar character which in the aggregate con­veyed to William Penn all southeastern Pennsylvania, and had with his careful constructions made no trouble. The walk, how­ever, had never been taken, and in 1737 the Proprietors brought out the old agreement as a means of securing a title to the Minisink country.

The route was surveyed, underbrush cleared away, horses stationed to convey the walkers across the rivers, two athletic young men trained for the purpose, and conveyances provided for their baggage and provisions. Indians attended at the be­ginning, but after repeatedly calling to the men to walk, not run, retired in disgust. Far from stopping at the Lehigh Hills, they covered about sixty miles and extended the line thirty miles beyond the Lehigh River. Then to crown the infamy, instead of running the northern line by any reasonable course they slanted it to the northeast and included all the Minisink country. It was a gross travesty on the original purchase, an outrageous fraud on the Indians, which they very properly re­fused to submit to. They remained in their ancestral homes, and sent notice they would resist removal by force. There un­fortunately seems to be no doubt of the iniquity of the trans­action. There is the testimony of at least two witnesses to the walk. It appears to have been a common subject of remark. In­different men treated it as sharp practice, and honest men were ashamed. But the Proprietors had a sort of a title to the fertile lands along the Delaware.

*****

Finally the Penns concluded at one stroke to extinguish all Indian titles to Western Pennsylvania. The rest was practically their own. The Indian chiefs were collected at Albany, and by means which will not bear examination were induced to sign the contract. . . .

*****

The victory over Braddock turned all doubtful Indians into the ranks of the hostiles. The fall of 1755 and spring of 1756 were dire seasons for the frontiers of Pennsylvania. The burn­ing of houses, the shooting down of men, the outrages on women and children, the flight to places of safety, the demands for protection from government and friendly Indians,—from all these things the policy of William Penn had shielded the settlers for seventy-three years. The very tribes with which he had formed his treaties, which were always so warm in their friend­ships for him, which had been the victims of the "Walking Purchase," been branded as women by the Six Nations, and moved about from place to place,—the Delawares and the Shawnees,—now proved as fierce as any. All that the brilliant author of the History of the Conspiracy of Pontiac has said of their general peacefulness was disproved. When ill-treated they had their bloody revenge, exactly as in New England. They showed no lack of Indian spirit. Hitherto overcome by the superior numbers and organization of the Iroquois, they now I under French tutelage and a sense of wrong turned on their oppressors and proved their equality in endurance, in resource and in cruelty. That Pennsylvania was saved by the just and pacific policy of the first settlers, and would have suffered just as the other colonies did by the reverse, seems as probable as any historical conclusion.

*****

MILITARY MATTERS

Of all Friendly ideas the most difficult to incorporate prac­tically into government machinery was that of peace. The un­compromising views which most Quakers held as to the iniquity of all war, seemed to those outside the Society Utopian if not absurd, and did not command the united support of its own membership. That justice and courtesy should characterize all dealings with other states, that no aggressive war could ever be justified, that in almost every case war could be honorably avoided, all were willing to endorse and practice, but a minor­ity, probably a small minority, held that circumstances might arise when war like defense was necessary and proper, and that the Sermon on the Mount was not to be interpreted any more literally when it commanded "Resist not evil" than when it commanded "Lay not up treasures on earth."

The general tenor of authoritative Quaker teaching, how­ever, admitted no such interpretation. It is not found in the writings of Fox, Barclay, Penington or Penn. Their language is always unequivocal in opposition to all war. The Quaker converts among Cromwell's soldiers, of whom there were not a few, left the ranks for conscience' sake as uniformly and as unhesitatingly as the Christian converts of the early centuries abandoned the Roman armies, with the plea, "I am a Christian, and therefore cannot fight."

"Not fighting, but suffering," says William Penn¹¹ in 1694, "is another testimony peculiar to this people. . . . Thus as truth-speaking succeeded swearing, so faith and patience suc­ceed fighting in the doctrine and practice of this people. Nor ought they for this to be obnoxious to civil government; since if they cannot fight for it neither can they fight against it, which is no mean security to any state. Nor is it reasonable that peo­ple should be blamed for not doing more for others than they can do for themselves."

We have important testimony to Penn's position in the un­sympathetic statement of James Logan.¹² After expressing his own view that all government was founded on force, he says: "I was therefore the more surprised when I found my master on a particular occasion on our voyage hither (in 1699), though coming over to exercise the powers of it here in his own person, showed his sentiments were otherwise." He adds that "Friends had laid it down as their principle, that bearing of arms, even for self-defense, is unlawful."

There seems therefore no doubt that the Society had with practical unanimity accepted military non-resistance in its most extreme form.

*****

It was easy to hold peace views as an academic proposition, supported by the spirit and letter of the New Testament; but when the actual problems of government arose how was this non-resistant principle to be applied to the protection of society against criminals? This logical difficulty does not seem to have troubled the early Pennsylvanians. So far as appears they drew a line between police and military measures, mak­ing one effective and barring out the other. There was to them no contradiction to call for explanation. With strict logic they might have been driven to the position of Count Tolstoi,¹³ who carries his non-resistance so far as to object to all govern­ment, and all restraint on criminals. Or the line might be sup­posed to be drawn on the sacredness of human life, but, as we have seen, opposition to capital punishment, per se, never arose before the Revolution. Probably if pressed for an answer to the question why it was right to resist a street mob of subjects with police and not to resist an attacking force with soldiers, they would have replied that one act was in defense of life and property under authority of civil powers "ordained of God," and involving no iniquitous means, while all military measures necessarily included the destruction of life and prop­erty, of innocent as well as of guilty, and reversed the estab­lished rules of morality in sanctioning stealing, lying, and kill­ing those who were not personally offenders.

The Quaker Assembly of 1740, in their ethical controversy with Governor Thomas, argued thus: "And yet it is easy to discover the difference between killing a soldier fighting (per­haps) in obedience to the commands of his sovereign, and who may possibly think himself in the discharge of his duty, and executing a burglar who broke into our houses, plundered us of our goods, and perhaps would have murdered too if he could not otherwise have accomplished his ends, who must know at the time of the commission of the act, it was a viola­tion of laws, human and divine, and that he thereby justly rendered himself obnoxious to the punishment which en­sued."¹⁴

Penn did not hesitate to commend force in civil affairs when necessary. "If lenitives would not do, coercives should be tried; but though men would naturally begin with the former, yet wisdom had often sanctioned the latter as remedies which, however, were never to be adopted without regret," he wrote in 1700.¹⁵ The whole machinery of courts and police was in­tended to be effective in resisting crime and criminals. All pris­ons were more or less work-houses, and the reformation idea had larger vogue than in some places, but there was no hesita­tion apparent to secure by force the ascendancy of law.

The position they took was probably this: We will never do an injustice, provoke a war, or attack an enemy. If attacked we will, therefore, always be in the right. We cannot do wrong even to defend the right, but will trust that having done our duty, Providence will protect us. Beyond this we cannot go.¹⁰

Penn had authority by his Charter "to levy, muster and train all sorts of men of what condition or wheresoever born in the said province of Pennsylvania for the time being, and to make war and pursue the enemies and robbers aforesaid as well by sea as by land, yea even without the limits of said province, and by God's assistance to vanquish and take them, and being taken to put them to death by the law of war, or save them at their pleasure, and to do all and every act or thing which to the charge and office of a Captain-general belongeth, as fully and freely as any Captain-general of an army hath ever had the same."

These powers were doubtless ample for a peaceable Quaker. He could not exercise them himself without trampling on the views to which he was indelibly committed. The power to use them implied the power to transmit them, and this is just what Penn did.

He was in a delicate position. He was, as feudal lord of the province, liable to be called upon to support Britain's causes by force of arms against Britain's enemies. This he could not personally do, but if the Deputy-Governor had no conscience in the matter, Penn would not interpose to prevent obedience to the commands of the Crown. He selected non-Quaker dep­uties, and doubtless this consideration had its effect in inducing the choice. If some were inclined to criticize him for appoint­ing others to perform acts he could not do himself, it must be remembered that deeds concerning whose culpability differ­ences may properly exist, are evil or good for an individual, dependent on the attitude of his own conscience. The Friends never asked a man to violate conscience, and recognized the differences due to education, enlightenment and mental con­stitution. If others honestly thought war right, it was right for them. Hence the actions of the Deputy were not of the char­acter which involved evil-doing on his part, even though the same actions would have been evil for Penn himself. Such was Paul's attitude, and such was probably Penn's argument. . . .

*****

The first trial of Quaker faith had, however, occurred prior to this, in 1689. The Crown had suggested that in order to de­fend the Colony against an attempted attack by the French, a militia should be formed. Governor Blackwell urged this, and he was supported by Markham and the non-Quaker por­tion of the Council. The Friends refused to have anything to do with it. They told the Governor that if he desired a militia he had power to create one, and they would not interfere if it did not offend any consciences.

John Simcock said: "I see no danger but from bears and wolves. We are well and in peace and quiet; let us keep our­selves so. I know not but a peaceable spirit and that will do well. For my part I am against it clearly."

Samuel Carpenter said: "I am not against those that will put themselves into defense, but it being contrary to the judgment of a great part of the people, and my own, too, I cannot ad­vise the thing nor express my liking for it. . . ."

After much discussion the five Quaker members of Council asked leave to retire for a conference. On their return they announced, "We would not tie others' hands, but we cannot act. We would not take upon us to hinder any, and do not think the Governor need call us together in this matter. . . . We say nothing against it, and regard it as a matter of conscience to us. ... I had rather be ruined than violate my conscience in this case."¹⁷ The matter was dropped.

Again in 1693, Governor Fletcher, who was also Governor of New York, in the interval of Penn's deposition, asked the Assembly for money to support a war against the French and Indians of Canada, which had been raging on their frontiers. He knew the difficulties. "If there be any among you that scru­ple the giving of money to support war, there are a great many other charges in that government for the support thereof, as officers' salaries. . . . Your money shall be converted into these uses and shall not be dipt in blood."¹⁸ Upon the basis of this promise, after some delay, the money was voted.

In May, 1695, a requisition was made on Pennsylvania for eighty men with officers for the defense of New York. The Council advised calling together the Assembly, but not until harvest was over. The Assembly united with the Council in re­fusing the bald request, reminding the Governor of Fletcher's promise that the last appropriation should not "be dipt in blood," but should be used "to feed the hungry and clothe the naked" Indians, and suggested that such of it as had not been used as promised should go towards the present emergency. The Council finally offered two bills, one to make an appro­priation, and one to demand a return to Penn's Frame of Gov­ernment, which was held in abeyance since his return to power. As the Governor had to take both or neither he dis­solved the Assembly. A year later he was willing to make the required concession, and urged that the money was needed in New York "for food and raiment to be given to those nations of Indians that have lately suffered extremely by the French. . . ." The Assembly made the necessary vote and the Con­stitution of 1696 was obtained in payment.

The next time the pacific principles of the Assembly were tried was in 1701, when the English Government asked for £350 for the purpose of erecting forts on the frontiers of New York on the plea that they were for the general defense. Penn, who was then in the Province, faithfully observed his promise "to transmit," but declined to give any advice to the Assembly. The members were evidently greatly agitated, and repeatedly asked copies of his speech, which was in fact only the King's letter. After some fencing two reports appeared. One, from the Pennsylvania delegates, urged their poverty, owing to taxes and quit-rents, also the lack of contributions of other colonies, but added plainly, "We desire the Proprietor would candidly represent our conditions to the King, and assure him of our readiness (according to our abilities) to acquiesce with and answer his commands so far as our religions persuasions shall permit, as becomes loyal and faithful subjects so to do."¹⁰ The other answer came from the Delaware portion of the Assem­bly, excusing themselves because they had no forts of their own.

When the Assembly met, a month later, Penn again referred to the King's letter, but nothing was done, and the matter was not pressed.

Governor Evans made several attempts to establish a militia, but the Assembly refused any sanction, and the voluntary or­ganizations were failures.

The military question came up in 1709 in a more serious form. An order came from the Queen to the various colonies to furnish quotas of men at their own expense towards an army to invade Canada. New York was to supply 800, Con­necticut 350, Jersey 200, and Pennsylvania 150. In transmit­ting the order Governor Gookin, who evidently anticipated difficulty, suggested that the total charge would be about £4,000. He says, "Perhaps it may seem difficult to raise such a number of men in a country where most of the inhabitants are of such principles as will not allow them the use of arms; but if you will raise the sum for the support of government, I don't doubt getting the number of men desired whose princi­ples will allow the use of arms."²⁰

This was too manifest an evasion for the Assembly to adopt. Its first answer was to send in a bill of grievances. The oppor­tunity was too good to be lost, and David Lloyd, then Speaker, made the most of it.

In the meantime the Quaker members of the Council met some of their co-religionists of the Assembly "and there de­bated their opinions freely and unanimously to those of the House, that notwithstanding their profession and principles would not by any means allow them to bear arms, yet it was their duty to support the government of their sovereign, the Queen, and to contribute out of their estates according to the exigencies of her public affairs, and therefore they might and ought to present the Queen with a proper sum of money."²¹

The Assembly the next day sent an address to the Governor which said, "Though we cannot for conscience' sake comply with the furnishing a supply for such a defense as thou proposest, yet in point of gratitude of the Queen for her great and many favors to us we have resolved to raise a present of £500 which we humbly hope she will be pleased to accept, etc., etc."²²

To this the Governor replied that he would not sign the bill. If the Assembly would not hire men to fight, there was no scruple which would prevent a more liberal subscription to the Queen's needs. The Assembly was immovable, and asked to be allowed to adjourn, as harvest time was approaching.

The Governor refused consent, when the House abruptly terminated the whole matter.

Resolved, N.C.D., That this House cannot agree to the Governor's proposal, directly or indirectly, for the expe­dition to Canada, for the reasons formerly given.

Resolved, N.C.D., That the House do continue their resolution of raising £500 as a present for the Queen, and do intend to prepare a bill for that purpose at their next meeting on the 15th of August next, and not before.²³

The House then adjourned without waiting for the Gover­nor's consent.

* * * * *

In 1711 a similar request was made by the Government, and in response £2,000 was voted for the Queen's use. This money never aided any military expedition, but was appro­priated by a succeeding Governor to his own use, and the fact was used as an argument in 1740 against similar grants.²⁴

* * * * *

Then followed the thirty-years peace, when no calls for military service or money were made. Occasionally the Gov­ernor would think it necessary to establish a militia, when the Assembly would caution him to make it purely voluntary and force no conscience. There were friendly relations with the Indians. No European troubles necessitated money or troops for Canadian attack or defense. But, beginning with 1737, the gradual alienation of the Indian tribes made a disturbed fron­tier ready to be dangerous at the first outbreak of war, and new conditions prevailed.

Hitherto the relation of the Friends to these inevitable mili­tary solicitations had been largely that of passivity. They would not interfere with the movements of those who desired to form military companies. If the Governor chose to engage in the arming and drilling of voluntary militia, he had his commission from the Proprietors, and they from the Charter of Charles II. It was no matter for the Assembly. The meeting organizations would endeavor to keep all Quakers from any participation in these un-Friendly proceedings, and the Quaker Assembly­men had their own consciences to answer to, as well as their ecclesiastical authorities, if they violated pacific principles.

When it came to voting money in lieu of personal service, the legislators had a difficult road to follow. If the govern­ment needed aid, it was their duty, in common with the other colonies, to supply it. Even though the need was the direct re­sult of war, as nearly all national taxes are, they were ready to assume their share of the burden. Caesar must have his dues as well as God, and a call for money, except when coupled directly with a proposition to use it for military attack or de­fense, was generally responded to, after its potency as an agent in procuring a little more liberty was exhausted. They would not vote money for an expedition to Canada or to erect forts, but they would for "the King's use," using all possible securities to have it appropriated to something else than war expenses. The responsibility of expenditure rested on the King. There were legitimate expenses of government, and if these were so inextricably mingled with warlike outlay that the As­sembly could not separate them, they would still support the Government.

It is easy to accuse them of inconsistency in the proceedings which follow. It was a most unpleasant alternative thrust be­fore honest men. The responsibility of government was upon them as the honorable recipients of the popular votes. Great principles, the greatest of all in their minds being freedom of conscience, were at stake. Each call for troops or supplies they fondly hoped would be the last. Their predecessors' actions had secured the blessings of peace and liberty to Pennsylvania for sixty years, and if they were unreasonably stringent, their English enemies held over their heads the threat to drive them from power by the imposition of an oath. Then the persecu­tions of themselves and their friends, which their forefathers had left England to avoid, might be meted out to them, and the Holy Experiment brought to an end.

Nor is it necessary to assume that their motives were en­tirely unselfish. They had ruled the Province well, and were proficients in government. Their leaders doubtless loved the power and influence they legitimately possessed, and they did not care to give it away unnecessarily. They tried to find a middle ground between shutting their eyes to all questions of defense on the one side, and direct participation in war on the other. This they sought by a refusal for themselves and their friends to do any service personally, and a further refusal to vote money except in a general way for the use of the govern­ment. If any one comes to the conclusion that during the latter part of the period of sixteen years now under consideration the evasion was rather a bald one, it is exactly the conclusion the Quakers themselves came to, and they resigned their places as a consequence. The iniquities of others over whom they had no control brought about a condition where Quaker prin­ciples would not work, and they refused to modify them in the vain attempt. For a time rather weakly halting, when the cru­cial nature of the question became clear, and either place or principle had to be sacrificed, their decision was in favor of the sanctity of principle.

They were on the popular side of the questions of the day, in close association with Benjamin Franklin and others. The fact that these allies in their other battles were unwilling to stand by them on this question made their position especially difficult. They, however, always carried the popular Assembly against all combinations.

In 1739, urged by the Proprietors, the Governor presented to the Assembly the dangers of the defenseless condition of the Province in the approaching war with Spain and asked for the establishment of a militia.

This opened the way to an interchange of long argumenta­tive papers between Governor and Assembly in which the positions of the two parties were laid down with considerable ability. The Assembly said: "As very many of the inhabitants of this Province are of the people called Quakers, who, though they do not as the world is now circumstanced condemn the use of arms in others, yet are principled against it them­selves. . . ."²⁵

*****

To this the Governor replied that no religious opinions would protect the country against an invading force, and as representatives of the whole people, not of a denomination, they must defend the Province from external enemies as they did from criminals within, and that there was no intention to force any one's conscience.

*****

The Assembly reminded him that the Province had pros­pered under Quaker management for a number of years be­fore he had anything to do with it, and would in the future, if his misrepresentations should not prevail in England, even "though some Governors have been as uneasy and as willing and ready to find fault and suggest dangers as himself."

The Governor in despair replies: "If your principles will not allow you to pass a bill for establishing a militia, if they will not allow you to secure the navigation of a river by build­ing a fort, if they will not allow you to provide arms for the defense of the inhabitants, if they will not allow you to raise men for his Majesty's service for distressing an insolent en­emy ... is it a calumny to say your principles are incon­sistent with the ends of government?"

After pages of argument, . . . the Assembly refused to do anything.

Governor Thomas, under royal instructions, approached the same subject a year later with a similar result. . . .

*****

In 1744 he used his authority as Captain-General in organis­ing a voluntary force said by Franklin to amount to 10,000 men. On this the Assembly took no action.

The next year the Governor asked them to aid New Eng­land in an attack on Cape Breton. They told him they had no interest in the matter. He called them together again in harvest time to ask them to join in an expedition against Louisburg. A week later came word that Louisburg had surrendered, and the request was transferred to a call for aid in garrisoning the place, and in supplying provisions and powder. The Assembly replied that the "peaceable principles professed by divers members of the present Assembly do not permit them to join in raising of men or providing arms and ammunition, yet we have ever held it our duty to render tribute to Caesar."²⁶

They therefore appropriated £.4,000 for "bread, beef, pork, flour, wheat or other grain." The Governor was advised not to accept the grant, as provisions were not needed. He replied that the "other grain" meant gunpowder, and so expended a large portion of the money.²⁷ There is probably no evidence that the Assembly sanctioned this construction, though they never so far as appears made any protest.

Again in 1746 aid was asked of the Assembly towards an expedition against Canada. After forcing the Governor to yield the point as to how the money should be raised, they ap­propriated £5,000 "for the King's use."

This seems to have been the attitude of the Quaker As­sembly for the ten years to come. . . .

*****

In 1754 the Governor, at the instance of the Proprietors, who anticipated the French and Indian troubles on the west­ern frontier, endeavored to induce the Assembly to pass a bill for compulsory military service for those not conscien­tious about bearing arms.²⁸ He evidently did not expect much. . . .

*****

This was after the Assembly had voted £10,000, but cou­pled the grant with conditions the Governor would not accept.

While they were debating the question Braddock came into the country as commander of the combined forces in an ex­pedition against Fort DuQuesne. Pressure came down strong and heavy on the Quaker Assembly. Their own frontier was invaded. Their own Indians, as a result of the wicked and foolish policy of their executive, were in league with the invaders. All classes were excited. To aid the great expedition which at one stroke was to break the French power and close the trou­bles was felt to be a duty. Franklin diligently fanned the war­like spirit, procuring wagons for the transfer of army stores, and was extremely valuable to the expedition at some cost to himself.

*****

Braddock was defeated. The Indians were let loose on the frontiers. Daily accounts of harrowing scenes came up to the Council and Assembly.²⁹ Settlers moved into the towns and many districts were depopulated. Strong were the expressions of wrath against the Quakers, who were held responsible for the defenseless state of the Province.³⁰

This was hardly a just charge, even from the standpoint of those who favored military defense, for the Assembly had signified its willingness to vote £50,000, an unprecedented amount, to be provided by "a tax on all the real and personal estates within the Province," which the Governor refused to accept. While the matter was in abeyance the time for the new election of Assemblymen came around, and both parties, ex­cept the stricter Quakers, who were becoming alarmed, put forth their greatest exertions. The old Assembly was sustained, the Friends, with those closely associated with them, having twenty-six out of the thirty-six members.

The new House went on with the work of the old. They adopted a militia law for those "willing and desirous" of join­ing companies for the defense of the Province. This is pref­aced by the usual declaration: "Whereas this Province was settled (and a majority of the Assembly have ever since been) of the people called Quakers, who though they do not as the world is now circumstanced condemn the use of arms in others, yet are principled against bearing arms themselves,"³¹ explaining also that they are representatives of the Province and not of a denomination, they proceed to lay down rules for the organization of the volunteers. After the Proprietors had given their £5,000 the Assembly also voted £55,000 for the relief of friendly Indians and distressed frontiersmen, "and other purposes," without any disguise to the fact that much of it was intended for military defense, though it was not so stated in the bill. Before this was done, while they were still in­sisting on taxing the Perm estates, in answer to the charge that they were neglectful of public interests, secure in the confi­dence of their constituents just most liberally given, they say: "In fine we have the most sensible concern for the poor dis­tressed inhabitants of the frontiers. We have taken every step in our power, consistent with the just rights of the freemen of Pennsylvania, for their relief, and we have reason to believe that in the midst of their distresses they themselves do not wish to go further. Those who would give up essential liberty to purchase a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety."³² Their position definitely was, We will vote money liberally for defensive purposes, but we will take care to secure our rights as freemen, and we will not require any one to give personal service against his conscience.

The money was largely spent in erecting and garrisoning a chain of forts extending along the Kittatinny hills from the Delaware River to the Maryland frontier.³³

The amount of defense the Assembly had provided, while probably expressing the will of their constituents, did not sat­isfy the more peace-loving of the Friends on the one hand, nor the advocates of proprietary interests on the other.

In Eleventh month 1755 twenty Friends, including Anthony Morris, Israel and John Pemberton, Anthony Benezet, John Churchman, and others, representing the most influential and "weighty" members of the Yearly Meeting, addressed the As­sembly. They say they are very willing to contribute to taxes to cultivate friendship with Indians, to relieve distress, or other benevolent purposes, but to expect them to be taxed for funds which are placed in the hands of committees to be expended for war, is inconsistent with their peaceable testimony, and an infringement of their religious liberties. Many Friends will have to refuse to pay such a tax and suffer distraint of goods,³⁴ and thus "that free enjoyment of liberty of con­science for the sake of which our forefathers left their native country and settled this then a wilderness by degrees be vio­lated." . . .

*****

As the Assembly was composed, this was an earnest plea from the responsible Friends to their fellow religionists to stand uncompromisingly by their principles. It was not very kindly received. ...

*****

In the minds of the Friends the crisis was reached when the Governor and Council (William Logan, son of James Logan, only dissenting) in the spring of 1756 declared war against the Delaware Indians, the old allies and friends of William Penn, but now in league with the French and killing and plundering on the frontiers. They were quite sure that peaceful and just measures would detach the Indians from their alliance, and that war was unnecessary. The lines were becoming more closely drawn, and the middle ground was narrowing, so that it was impossible to stand upon it. Either the principle of the iniquity of war must be maintained in its entirety, or war must be vigorously upheld and prosecuted. Some Friends with Franklin took the latter position, but the great majority closed up their ranks around the principle of peace in its integrity. ... In the same fall several . . . Friends declined re-election, and after the next House assembled four others, Mahlon Kirk-bride, William Hoyl, Peter Dicks and Nathaniel Pennock, also resigned. "Understanding that the ministry have requested the Quakers, who from the first settlement of the Colony have been the majority of the Assemblies of this Province, to suffer their seats during the difficult situation of the affairs of the Colonies to be filled by members of other denominations in such manner as to perform without any scruples all such laws as may be necessary to be enacted for the defense of the Province in whatever manner they may judge best suited to the circumstances of it; and notwithstanding we think this has been pretty fully complied with at the last election, yet at the re­quest of our friends, being willing to take off all possible ob­jection, we who have (without any solicitation on our part) been returned as representatives in this Assembly, request we may be excused, and suffered to withdraw ourselves and va­cate our seats in such manner as may be attended with the least trouble and most satisfactory to this honorable House."³⁵

The places of all these Friends were filled by members of other religious denominations, and Quaker control over and responsibility for the Pennsylvania Assembly closed with 1756 and was never resumed.

*****

¹ The Journal of George Fox, rev. ed. by John L. Nickolls (Cambridge University Press, 1952), pp. 274-75, 197-98.

² Frederick 13. Tolles, Quakerism and Politics (Guilford College, North Carolina, 1956), p. 4.

³ Pennsylvania Magazine, Vol. VI., pp. 217-38. Article by Fred-crick D. Stone, which is frequently used in the succeeding pages.

⁴ "You must instruct and teach your Indians and negroes and all others how that Christ by the grace of God tasted death for every man, and gave himself a ransom for all men, and is the pro­pitiation not for the sins of Christians only but for the sins of the whole world."- G. F., in 1679.

"And God hath poured out his spirit upon all flesh, and so the Indians must receive God's spirit. . . . And so let them know that they have a day of salvation, grace and favor of God offered unto them; if they will receive it it will be their blessing."- G. F., in 1688.

⁵ "My Friends: There is a great God and power that hath made the world and all things therein, to whom you and I and all people owe their being and well-being; to whom you and I must one day give an account for all that we do in the world.

"This great God hath written his law in our hearts, by which we are commanded to live and help and do good to one another. Now this great God hath been pleased to make me concerned in your part of the world, and the King of the country where I live hath given me a great province therein, but I desire to enjoy it with your love and consent, that we may always live together as neighbors and friends. . . ."

⁶ Hazard's Annals of Pennsylvania, p. 522.

⁷ Janney's Life of William Penn, p. 123.

⁸ Dymond, Essay on War.

⁹ An Enquiry into the Cause of the Alienation of the Indians, 1759. The facts which follow are mainly derived from this book. C. T. was afterwards secretary of the Continental Congress and author of a translation of the Bible.

¹⁰ Between the Delaware and Lehigh rivers, where Hasten now stands.

¹¹ The Rise and Progress of the People Called Quakers.

¹² Pennsylvania Magazine, Vol. VI., p. 404.

¹³ See, for example, Leo Tolstoy's novel Resurrection and his essay The Kingdom of God Is Within You.—Ed.

¹⁴ Colonial Records, Vol. IV., p. 373.

¹⁵Janney's Life of Penn, p. 441.

¹⁶ In a pamphlet printed in 1748, entitled The Doctrine of Chris­tianity as held by the people called Quakers Vindicated, in an­swer to Gilbert Tennent's sermon on the "Lawfulness of War," substantially this position was taken. The pamphlet appeared anon­ymously, but is known to have been written by a Friend of promi­nence, closely connected with James Logan, who doubtless was expressing the recognized views of the Society. A copy is in the Philadelphia Library.

¹⁷ Colonial Records, Vol. II., p. 470. Samuel Carpenter, who ex­pressed this sentiment, was adjudged the richest man in the Prov­ince.

¹⁸ Colonial Records, Vol. I., p. 361.

¹⁹Ibid., Vol. II., p. 26.

²⁰ Ibid., p. 740.

²¹ Ibid., p. 478.

²² Ibid., p. 479.

²³ Colonial Records, Vol. II., p. 486.

²⁴ Ibid., Vol. IV., p. 366, et seq.

²⁵ Colonial Records, Vol. IV., p. 366, et seq.

²⁶ Ibid., p. 769.

²⁷ This is on the authority of Franklin.

²⁸ Pennsylvania Archives, Vol. II., p. 189.

²⁹ Votes of Assembly, Vol. IV., pp. 481, 699.

³⁰ The people exclaim against the Quakers, and some are scarce restrained from burning the houses of those few who are in this town (Reading).—Letter of Edmund Biddle, Colonial Records, Vol. VI., p. 705.

³¹ Pennsylvania Archives, Vol. I., p. 516.

³² Votes of Assembly, Vol. IV., p. 501.

³³ Pennsylvania Magazine, July 1896. Dr. Still6 on "The Fron­tier Forts of Pennsylvania."

³⁴ This afterwards happened in numerous cases.

³⁵Votes of Assembly, Vol. IV., p. 626.