(This editorial originally appeared in the June 26, 1917 edition of The North American (Philadelphia.) Reprinted in The War From This Side: Editorials From the North American, Vol. IV. Philadelphia: The North American Company; Press o f J.B. Lippincott, 1919.)

This document is on The Quaker Writings Home Page

At intervals since the United States entered the war observant readers have noted such headlines as "Quakers Discuss War Problems," "Friends Pledge Aid to Nation," "Quakers to Work Behind Firing Line," and these activities have created a wider interest than usual in a small but influential group of citizens. Indeed, it is chiefly the strong "testimony" of the Quakers against war, for any purpose whatever, which sets them apart from their countrymen. The members of this admirable body are now in most respects so far from being the "peculiar people" which the founders undertook to fashion that it needs some sharp divergence of conscientious conviction to distinguish them from the multitude. To the popular mind, we suppose, the designation suggests, first , an equable temperament and certain sturdy virtues of character, and, second; an uncompromising opposition to the use of armed force. It is only in a national crisis such as this, therefore, that the idea of separation which was originally so important becomes a reality. The Society of Friends is the only important religious organization which rejects the fundamental obligation of the citizen to defend the nation;(1) almost all others, by contrast, emphasize that duty as a Christian virtue.

It should be noted, in the first place, that in practice the Quaker attitude upon this issue is no more than that of Socialists, of whom some are ardent nationalists and some inveterate pacifists. The Friends have their patriotic and military heroes. Betsy Ross, who made our first flag, was a member of the society. Thomas Mifflin, a major general and Washington's first aide--de--camp, was a Quaker; so was Major General Nathaniel Greene; so was Jacob Brown, a Bucks county schoolmaster who rose to be commander--in-chief of the United States army. Robert Morris financed the Revolution largely by means of Quaker loans. John Bright, one of the foremost of English Quakers, justified the American war to exterminate slavery. Whittier's abolition poems were mil itant to the last degree. Even William Penn proposed an international "league to enforce peace," requiring compulsion by arms if necessary. The doctrine of pacifism, nevertheless, always has been vital in the principles of Quakerism, and one of the curio us chapters in American history deals with the strange expedients which members of the society employed to make their genuine love of country harmonize with their beliefs by supporting necessary projects of defense which they could not officially countenance. Franklin gives an illuminating account of "the embarrassment given them (in the Pennsylvania assembly) whenever application was made to grant aids for military purposes." Unwilling to offend the government, and averse to violating their principles, he says, they used "a variety of evasions," the commonest one being to grant money "for the king's use" and avoid all inquiry as to the disbursement. But once, when New England asked Pennsylvania for a grant to buy powder, this ingenious device would not serve:

They could not grant money to buy powder, for that was an ingredient of war; but they voted an aid of 3000 Pounds, and appropriated it for the purchasing of bread, flour, wheat "and other grain." Some of the council, desirous of giving the House still further embarrassment, advised the governor not to accept the provision, as not being the thing he had demanded; but he reply'd, "I shall take the money, for I understand very well their meaning -- other grain is gunpowder." Which he accordingly bought, and they never objected to it.

Concerning an appropriation "for the queen's use," in 1711, the fund being to outfit a military expedition, an eminent Friend wrote: "We did not see it to be inconsistent with our principles to give the queen money, notwithstanding any use she might put it to, that not being our part, but hers." The society's conscientious objection to war .was manifested in the various revolutions in England; the Quakers were always loyal to the existing government, and transferred their allegiance only when the "warlike" elements of the population had forcibly changed the system. A typical representative, perhaps, was John Dickinson, who wrote nearly every important state paper designed to extort justice from England for the American colonies, but refused to sign the Declaration of Independence, which necessitated an appeal to arms. The general Quaker attitude was expressed in a quaint statement of the society made in 1696: "The setting Up and putting down Kings and Governments is God's peculiar prerogative, for cau ses best known to Himself." Hence, altho on the roll of the of the Revolution may be found such wellknown Quaker names as Biddie, Mifflin, Wharton, Wetherill and Morris, opposition to the liberation movement was strong among the Friends. When Howe's army was approaching Philadelphia the Continental congress advised the council of Pennsylvania -to arrest certain British sympathizers, specifying that "a number of pesons who profess themselves to belong to the society called Quakers are with much rancor an d bitterness dis-affected to the American cause." And the pacifism of '76 is still held in high repute, for a well known historian of the society, a member of the faculty of Haverford College, wrote only six years ago:

Who will now say that if the American statesmen of Dickinson's day had been all of his mind all that we secured by war could not have been secured by diplomacy, and the bitter memories which lasted a century have been avoided?
The sincerity of the Friends' religious convictions against participation in war, and their right to maintain them, have long been recognized, and in the selective draft act a clause was included, with general approval, exempting from military service me mebers of "any well-recognized religious sect or organization" holding such principles. Some Friends, however, are by no means satisfied with this exclusion; they hold that even to pay war taxes would be to dishonor their faith. And there are some who become almost bellicose in resenting recognition of their scruples. At a meeting in New York a few days ago an eminent Quaker educator, the president of Haverford College, offered this singular protest:

The best advertisement that our movement could have lies in the possibility of being able to stand up for liberty of conscience. Personally, I do not think exemption will be a good thing. On the contrary, I think it would be a good thing if all our young Quakers should go to jail. In this way, by making the government feel that we are ready to suffer and die for our convictions, we would perpetuate our ideals and pass them on to future generations.

The intelligence which can concern itself with the project of extorting advertisement for a sectarian group from the nation's peril presents, is, we think, a curious subject of study. And it seems not to have occurred to the speaker that even the incarce ration of the young Quakers whom he lightly consigns to prison would not noticeably perpetuate anti--war ideals in a Prussianized world, which would be the infallible result if his scheme of resistance to the American government were success-ful It is to the credit of the New York society that it adopted a resolution of appreciation for the exemption, and a pledge to join "in any constructive work in which we can conscientiously serve." Again it must be noted that all Quakers are not extreme pacifists. There has not been from the representative of any group a more vigorous definition of the duty of American citizens at this time than that given recently by Horace Mather Lippincott:

Unquestionably the Society of Friends has stood from the beginning for peace to the limit of toleration, and their present book of discipline breathes this spirit. There are extraordinary circumstances, however, which cannot be rigidly or fully met by an y man--made set of rules. The life, liberty and pursuit of happiness which we enjoy are guaranteed and made real by our government. The industry which produces our livelihood exists thru its protection. It does not seem right for any of us to accept thes e benefits unless we bear our share in maintaining them; and in a democracy such as ours we do not look with favor upon a privileged class which will not do so, but sets itself up as "a little group of willful men" to render the government helpless in an emergency which most of the best minds and hearts are determined to meet after patient but unrewarded gentleness.

It might even be argued that it is invidious to treat as "news," rather than as matters of course, the various declarations of loyalty from Friends' meetings. Quakers, as a fact, have ever been noted for their fidelity to the "constituted authorities"; indeed, if they have a fault, it is too rigid an allegiance, as illustrated in the support given to Toryism in the eighteenth century and to Penroseism in the twentieth. They furnished an exceptional proportion of their membership in the Union armies half a century ago, and they will unquestionably give invaluable service in this great struggle to preserve democracy. Tho there should be not a single American Quaker in the trenches in France, there will be thousands of them who will be as truly soldiers o f civilization. The Friends of the United States will enlist and maintain a force of disciplined, uniformed but unarmed men whose task it will be to restore the shell-torn battlefields, rebuild shattered homes and make the war-ravaged territory behind th e front once more fit for human habitation. The first unit in this army of reconstruction, by the way, is to train on the Haverford campus, and we hope the president of that venerable institution will see in its activities an advertisement not inferior t o that which might be derived from the imprisonment of the members.

It is the judgment of impartial historians that the influence of the Friends throughout the last 250 years has been wholly beneficent and out of all proportion to the limited number of the society's adherents. To their fidelity and courage, even unto death, the world owes much of its priceless heritage of religious liberty and democracy. Their services in education, in philanthropy, in overcoming slavery and in promoting the moral welfare of mankind is incalculable. In this great war for human freedom and the peace of justice, it may confidently be believed, they will perform their part with that humane zeal and quiet efficiency which mark all their undertakings and have won for their association universal respect.