Given that Quakers didn't believe in taking up arms it was difficult
to be both a "Quaker" and a "Founder" (at least one who supported the
American Revolution) at the same time.
So the two most
notable of America's Founders who happened to be both, technically,
weren't actual members of the Quaker club but considered themselves
something different. (On a personal note, I use the word "Quakerish" to
describe my religious sentiments.)
Those two men were John Dickinson and William Livingston. This links to a letter by Livingston to an actual Quaker whilst Livingston was serving as Governor of NJ in 1778.
Livingston,
while trying to balance the Quakers' privilege to absolutely refuse to
take up arms against the British, with the right of the State to demand
citizens do such, gives us a hint as to his personal faith when he
says, "I am more than half a Quaker myself."
10 comments:
Jon - great "tip of the iceberg" post on Burlington, NJ's Samuel Allinson. As I'm sure you found, his papers are at Haverford College, a Quaker archive goldmine. He corresponded with Livingston, and with Patrick Henry and Anthony Benezet against slavery. One item I've seen catalogued is a letter to George Washington about the "unlawful billeting of Army officer" in his house. But I only know of Allinson because of his unpublished work on "Why Quakers Cannot Pay Taxes For War" at https://sniggle.net/TPL/index5.php?entry=03Nov07. It is a very interesting essay.
In Jane Calvert’s article, Liberty without Tumult: Understanding the Politics of John Dickinson http://www.jstor.org/stable/20093948 she points out why so many scholars have misidentified Dickinson’s politics: “no single rubric they propose binds his ideas together or accounts completely for the persistence with which he advocated peaceful reconciliation; neither his language, his predilections, nor his concern for virtue and liberty can be explained in terms of the usual ideologies.
What most analyses fail to take seriously is Dickinson's religious belief. It was, of course, Christian; but it was not the hostile deism of men such as Paine, the blandly benevolent Unitarianism of Jefferson, or the stiff Puritanism of John Adams; it was strongly Quaker. Dickinson lived, worked, and thought in a Quaker culture. His immediate and extended family and heritage were all Quaker, and he gained professional experience as a lawyer and politician in the atmosphere of "civil Quakerism" in Pennsylvania. And though never a "convinced" member of the Society of Friends, he was a devout "fellow traveler" and, especially in his later years, a greater advocate for Quaker concerns than many Quakers.”
Calvert notes that, “Because Dickinson was born into a Quaker family, he had what is called "birthright" status in the Society. But when he failed to maintain connections by attending meeting and adhering to the Discipline, he effectively renounced it. Those who let their birthright status lapse or those who had no formal affiliation with Friends might later be "convinced," or converted, and thus return to formal membership, but Dickinson never did. Many people, such as Dickinson, with close ties to Quakerism but who chose never to become members are today called "fellow travelers." This category is a confusing concept for those not familiar with Quakerism. It does not imply lack of conviction or commitment to Quaker principles. On the contrary, it is an indicator of someone who is closely allied with Quakers on many, though not necessarily all, fundamental points of the faith and practice. Quakers themselves made little distinction between convinced members and fellow travelers.”
the blandly benevolent Unitarianism of Jefferson, or the stiff Puritanism of John Adams
For clarity's sake, it was Adams with a bland unitarianism. In the Founding era [unlike today's version], "unitarianism" was still recognizably Christian--the Bible was Divine Writ [even if corrupted by men], and Jesus was the Redeemer [even if not the divine Second Person of the Trinity] and who rose from the dead.
Jefferson referred to himself as "unitarian" but it really doesn't fit. More precise is when he called his idiosyncratic pontifications "a sect unto myself."
We're talking about a guy here who presumed to correct Jesus, afterall.
"...it is not to be understood that I am with him [Jesus] in all his doctrines. I am a Materialist, he takes the side of spiritualism; he preaches the efficacy of repentance toward forgiveness of sin. I require a counterpoise of good works to redeem it."
_____________________
As for John Dickinson's "Quaker-ish" pacifism,
In July of 1776 Dickinson voted against the Declaration of Independence, hoping that a peaceful solution could yet be found. But when the war officially came, he and Thomas McKean were the first two congressmen to join the fight. Dickinson led his Regiment to Elizabethtown and there assumed the Command of a full brigade.
http://www.revolutionarywararchives.org/dsdickinson.html
Dickinson was not a pacifist; he preferred reconciliation but believed in "defensive war." Calvert noted, "Dickinson’s religion was an important factor in his life. While he never became a member of the Society of Friends, citing his belief in the "lawfulness of defensive war" as his reason, his personal and political priorities and behavior were strongly shaped by Quakerism."
Re: Jon's post on Robert Carter III, "Dickinson was one of the few members of the [Constitutional] Convention on record to take a principled stance against slavery. Dickinson himself had manumitted his slaves conditionally in 1777 and unconditionally in 1786. He was the only Founding Father to do so."
http://dickinsonproject.rch.uky.edu/biography.php
As for John Dickinson's "Quaker-ish" pacifism,
In July of 1776 Dickinson voted against the Declaration of Independence, hoping that a peaceful solution could yet be found. But when the war officially came, he and Thomas McKean were the first two congressmen to join the fight. Dickinson led his Regiment to Elizabethtown and there assumed the Command of a full brigade.
http://www.revolutionarywararchives.org/dsdickinson.html
August 3, 2015 at 3:18 PM Delete
Anonymous JMS said...
Dickinson was not a pacifist; he preferred reconciliation but believed in "defensive war." Calvert noted, "Dickinson’s religion was an important factor in his life. While he never became a member of the Society of Friends, citing his belief in the "lawfulness of defensive war" as his reason, his personal and political priorities and behavior were strongly shaped by Quakerism."
True enough, but I thought Jon's report on Dickinson was incomplete without mention of his eventual military service.
While approximately 10% of American Quakers supported the war in some fashion, the rest were militantly neutral. In this respect, Dickinson's "Quaker-ishness" was tepid. Many non-Quakers had Dickinson's sensibilities about war as well--indeed the D of I frames the conflict as a defensive one.
As for the "real" Quakers
In 1776, after the Second Continental Congress declared American independence, Philadelphia Yearly Meeting, the governing body of Friends in Southeastern Pennsylvania and New Jersey, insisted on unconditional neutrality, purging from membership those who violated the Peace Testimony in any way. While the vast majority of the Yearly Meeting's 30,000 members remained neutral, 1,276 were disowned for supporting the American Revolution: 758 for joining the Continental Army; 239 for paying taxes in lieu of military service or helping to collect revenues to finance the war; 136 for subscribing loyalty tests; 69 for actively assisting the American war effort; 32 for serving on committees for defense; and 42 for miscellaneous deviations, including watching military drills and celebrating independence.
http://www.philly.com/philly/opinion/20150705_Quakers__painful_choice_during_the_American_Revolution.html
Ooops, I missed the colon: Only ~5% of Quakers supported the revolution as of 1776.
Tom - thanks for the weblink to the Kashatus article.
(in case of double post, this one is slightly modified at the end!) I found this blog while googling Thomas Paine. As a conservative, Christian, homeschooling, Vision Forum lectures listening, mom (full disclosure....), I hold a rather low view of Mr. Paine. I remember hearing Joseph Morecraft (in one of the aforementioned VF lectures on American history) refer to Mr. Paine as "that great athiest," Then I picked up a children's biography on Thomas Paine, thinking it might be useful for our history studies this year. It;s written by a Grace Neff Brett and was published in 1965. I'm almost through it (all 144 pages), and to read it, one would think that if there hadn't been a Thomas Paine (and his Common Senses), there would have been no successful American revolution! She states that Paine was a Quaker who took up arms and participated in some of the battles when he wasn't writing stirring pamphlets. The excellent discussion about Common Sense by Tom Van Dyke on this blog, shed some light for me by pointing out that his writing in the 1770s was of a different flavor than his writings in the 1790s. And then his further comments here on this blog post making the point that the Unitarians insisted on complete neutrality means that, at best Paine was considered a fellow traveler, correct?
So while I think my little book was very useful for ME, as an adult, giving me some (biased?) insight into Thomas Paine, it probably is not the best choice for my middle schoolers. I would be interested in knowing what some of you would recommend for middle schoolers in terms of biographies of great men in American history =)
I have bookmarked American Creation and consider myself blessed to have found it. Thank you all so much.
Sincerely,
Jennifer in VA
classicalmom@hotmail.com
Thank you kindly, Jennifer. I assume you're referring to this piece
http://americancreation.blogspot.com/2010/04/thomas-paines-common-sense-as-heard-by.html
which shows how dependent Paine was on religious/Biblical language and argument in encouraging the revolution.
As for recommendations on American history for kids, I find it amusing that instead of working up substantive refudiations of Rush Limbaugh's books on history for young readers, the academic left [but I repeat myself] pretends to ignore them completely. ;-)
http://www.npr.org/sections/thetwo-way/2014/05/15/312693461/book-news-rush-limbaugh-wins-children-s-book-author-of-the-year-award
Post a Comment