The Slavery Question.
John Woolman was the mouth-piece of the best Quaker conscience of the
eighteenth century on the slavery question. For twenty-five years
before his death, in 1772, he was pleading with the tenderness of a
woman that his beloved religious society should clear itself from
complicity with the system which held human beings in bondage. His
mantel apparently fell on Warner Mifflin, a young man residing in Kent
county, Delaware, near the little hamlet of Camden. In 1775 Mifflin
manumitted his slaves, and was followed by like conduct on the part of
his father, Daniel Mifflin, a resident of Accomac County, in Virginia.
Warner Mifflin is said to have been the first man in America to
voluntarily give freedom to his bondmen, and to make restitution to
such of them as were past twenty-one, for the unrequited service which
they had rendered him. Be that as it may, from 1775, until his death
in 1799, Warner Mifflin, with tireless zeal labored with Friends
personally, and with meetings in their official capacity, to drive the
last remnant of slavery from the Quaker fold. His efforts appeared in
various monthly meeting minutes throughout Philadelphia Yearly Meeting,
and he was not backward in laying his concern before the Yearly Meeting
itself. In 1783, on the initiative of Mifflin, the Yearly Meeting for
Pennsylvania, New Jersey, Delaware and the Western Parts of Maryland
and Virginia, memorialized the infant United States Congress in regard
to slavery. The document was a striking one for the time, was signed in
person by 535 Friends, and was presented to the Congress by a strong
committee headed by Warner Mifflin.
These efforts at internal deliverance from connection and complicity
with slavery produced speedy results, and before the close of the
century not a Quaker slave holder remained in the Society, unless in
some obscure cases that continued "under care." Having cleared its own
skirts of slavery, the members of the Society became divided into two
classes--the one anxious that the Quaker conscience should make its
appeal to the general conscience for the entire abolition of the "great
iniquity." The other class, satisfied with their own sinlessness in
this particular, wished the Society to remain passive, and in no way
mix with a public agitation of the mooted question. These two opposing
views distracted the Society down to the very verge of the final issue
in the slaveholders' rebellion.
Elias Hicks was three years Warner Mifflin's junior. He probably saw
the Delaware abolitionist during his visits to Philadelphia Yearly
Meeting before the death of Mifflin. Whether either ever saw or heard
John Woolman cannot be positively stated. Mifflin was twenty-seven when
the great New Jersey preacher and reformer passed away, and must have
fallen under the spell of Woolman's inspiring leadership. Elias Hicks
could hardly have escaped being influenced by this "elder brother,"
although he may never have seen him.
The subject of this biography was among those who believed that the
Society of Friends had a message to the world along the line of its
internal testimony against slavery, and he did not hesitate to deliver
the message, though it disturbed the superficial ease in Zion. Still he
had no definite plan apart from the appeal to conscience for settling
the problem.
It must be remembered, however, that Elias Hicks passed away before
the real abolition movement, as represented by Garrison and Phillips
and their compeers, had begun its vigorous agitation, or organized
its widely applied propaganda. What the attitude of Elias would have
been toward Friends becoming members of the abolition societies, which
after his death played such an important part, and touching which many
Friends were either in doubt or in opposition we cannot even surmise.
Benjamin Lundy[51] commenced his literary warfare against slavery, with
the ponderously named "Genius of Universal Emancipation," in 1821.
Elias Hicks was one of Lundy's most concerned and faithful patrons, in
some of his undertakings,[52] as appears in his personal correspondence.
[51] Benjamin Lundy was born of Quaker parents, First month 4, 1789, in
Sussex County, New Jersey. He learned the trade of harness maker and
saddler, and went to Ohio, where he became very much interested in the
slavery question. In 1816 he issued an "Address" touching the evils of
slavery. Of this Address, Horace Greeley says, it contained the germ
of the whole anti-slavery movement. In First month, 1821, he issued
the first number of _The Genius of Universal Emancipation_. Lundy was
interested in various schemes for colonization, and assisted many
emancipated negroes to go to Hayti, and contemplated the establishment
of a colony of colored people in Mexico. He died at Lowell, Illinois,
Eighth month 22, 1839, and was buried in the Friends' burying ground at
Clear Creek.
[52] Please inform Benjamin Lundy that I have procured fifty-two
subscribers, or subscribers for fifty-two books, entitled, "Letters,"
etc.--Extract from letter to his son-in-law, Valentine Hicks, dated
Jericho, Eleventh month 6, 1827.
The state of New York provided for the gradual emancipation of its
slaves in 1799, so that Elias Hicks had to go away from home after that
period to get into real slave territory. As has been seen he began
bearing his testimony in meetings for worship against the institution
in Maryland, where slave holding was the law of the land until the end.
There are statements more or less legendary to the effect that Elias
was the owner of one slave, but of that there is no authentic evidence,
while the probabilities are all against it. If he ever held a slave or
slaves, he undoubtedly manumitted them. An act of such importance would
hardly have escaped record in the Journal, and no reference to it
exists.
The controversies and disownments in the Society of Friends on account
of the slavery question really came after the death of Elias. The
trouble in New York resulting in the disownment of Isaac T. Hopper,
James S. Gibbons and Charles Marriott came on more than a decade after
his death. This entire controversy has been wrongly estimated by
most of the biographers and historians, representing the pronounced
abolitionists of the period. It was not simply a contest between
anti-slavery Friends and pro-slavery Friends. In fact the moving
spirits against Isaac T. Hopper were not advocates or defenders of
slavery as an institution. George F. White, who was probably the head
and front of the movement to disown Isaac T. Hopper, was not in favor
of slavery. After his death his monthly meeting memorialized him, and
among other things stated that he had for years refrained from using
commodities made by slave labor.
The conservative wing of the Society was opposed to Friends becoming
identified with any organization for any purpose outside of the
Society. George F. White attacked temperance organizations, as he did
abolition societies.
It was a common inference, if not a claim, of the Garrisonian
abolitionists, that there were no real anti-slavery men outside of
their organization. In Fifth month, 1840, there was a debate involving
the abolition attitude of the Society of Friends in the town of
Lynn, Massachusetts. In this debate William Lloyd Garrison said of
the Society: "If it were an abolition society, its efforts would be
identified with ours."[53]
[53] The "Liberator," May 1, 1841, p. 3.
In the same debate Oliver Johnson disputed the abolition claims of the
Society of Friends, saying: "They have asserted for themselves the
claim of being an abolition society. But we never could get into their
meeting house."[54] Thus was the test of abolitionism made to hinge
upon housing the Abolition Society.
[54] The "Liberator," May 1, 1841, p. 3.
That the attitude of the conservatives was ill-advised and
reprehensible may be true. It is also true that this body of Friends
were not in favor of any effort to overthrow slavery by popular
agitation. They held that all other Christians should do what Friends
had done, cease to hold slaves, and that would settle the whole
question. However shortsighted this attitude may have been, very few,
if any, of the Friends holding it, believed in holding black men in
bondage. In fact it is pretty safe to assert that at no time after the
Society had freed itself from direct complicity with slavery was there
any considerable number of strictly pro-slavery Friends in this country.
In the disownments in the Society growing out of the slavery
controversy there was never a direct charge of abolitionism brought
against the accused. In Kennett Monthly Meeting in Chester County,
Pa., where in about seven years thirty-four Friends were disowned, the
charge was that the persons had "associated with others in forming,
sustaining and supporting a professedly religious organization[55]
distinct from and not owned by Friends, and have wholly declined
attending our religious meetings."[56]
[55] The "Progressive Friends."
[56] Records of Kennett Monthly Meeting, First month 6, 1857.
Of course, it is true that the Friends who took part in the Progressive
Friends' movement were probably led to do so because the way did not
open for them to be aggressively anti-slavery in the parent meeting.
The colonization scheme, that is a plan to colonize emancipated negroes
either in Africa, or in Hayti, or elsewhere, was prominently urged
during the time of Elias Hicks. Benjamin Lundy had a plan of this
character which he attempted to make practical. Evan Lewis,[57] of New
York, in 1820, was interested in an effort of this sort, and sought the
advice of Elias Hicks in the matter.
[57] Evan Lewis, a New York Friend and business man. He corresponded
with King Henry, of San Domingo. Was a warm friend of Elias Hicks, and
after the "separation" wrote a pamphlet in defense of Elias.
We have not been able to find any reply to this particular letter, and
are thus not warranted in saying whether Elias Hicks sympathized with
such a scheme or not.
The attitude of Elias Hicks on the slavery question is only minutely
referred to in his Journal. His private correspondence gives his
feeling and conduct in the case, in not a few instances. From his
general disposition one would expect to find his objections to slavery
based entirely on moral and religious grounds. Still, evidence abounds
that he had also considered the economic phases of the question, as
note the following:
"I may further add that from forty years of observation that in all
cases where opportunity has opened the way fairly to contrast the
subject, it has afforded indubitable evidence to my mind, that free
labor is cheaper and more profitable than that done by slaves."[58]
[58] From letter written to James Cropper, of England, dated Baltimore,
Eleventh month 2, 1822.
It seems to have been laid upon him to present the claims of the truth
as he saw it, in slave-holding communities. He makes the following
statement touching service of this kind in Virginia:
"I have passed through some proving seasons since I left Baltimore,
in meetings where many negro masters attended, some of whom held
fifty, some an hundred, and some it was thought one hundred and fifty
of these poor people in slavery. Was led to treat on the subject in
divers meetings, in such a manner and so fully to expose the iniquity
and unrighteousness thereof, that some who had stouted[59] it out
hitherto against all conviction, were much humbled and brought to a
state of contrition, and not one individual had power to make any
opposition. But truth reigned triumphantly over all, to the rejoicing
of many hearts."[60]
[59] "Stouted" seems to have been a favorite word with Elias. He
habitually uses it as representing an aggravated resistance to the
truth.
[60] From letter written to his wife from Alexandria, Va., Third month
15, 1798.
Elias Hicks wrote a number of articles on the slavery question, and
some of them were printed and publicly circulated. A letter written
at Manchester, England, Seventh month 5, 1812, by Martha Routh, and
addressed to Elias Hicks, says: "I have not forgot that I am debtor to
thee this way, for two very acceptable and instructive epistles, the
latter with a pamphlet setting forth the deep exercise of thy mind, and
endeavors for the more full relief of our fellow-brethren, the African
race." This letter informs Elias that the author sent his pamphlet to
Thomas Clarkson.
Considerable was written by Elias Hicks on the slave trade, some of it
existing as unpublished manuscript. An article, filling four closely
written pages of foolscap, is among his literary effects. A very long
letter was written to James Cropper, of England, on the same subject.
Both of these documents were written while the slave-trade bill was
pending in the British Parliament. Elias considered the measure
entirely inadequate, holding that the domestic production of slaves was
as inhuman and abhorrent, if not more so, as their importation from
Africa. In the letter to Cropper this strong statement is found: "It
ought ever to be remembered that it is one of the most necessary and
essential duties both towards God and man, for individuals and nations
to exert all the power and influence they are possessed of, in every
righteous and consistent way, to put an entire stop to all oppression,
robbery and murder without partiality, as it respects nations or
individuals."
Many times, in his published sermons, Elias Hicks dealt with the
iniquity of slavery. Without doubt he expressed himself in like manner
in sermons preached before interest in the man and his utterances
caused his sermons to be stenographically reported and published.
"Oh! that our eyes might be opened, to see more deeply into the
mystery of iniquity and godliness; that we might become conversant
in godliness and so reject iniquity. For all this wicked oppression
of the African race is of the mystery of iniquity. The man of sin
and son of perdition does these works, and nothing else does them.
Justice is fallen in the streets, and in the councils of the nation.
How much justice there is; for they have it in their power to do
justice to these poor oppressed creatures, but they are waiting till
all their selfish notions are gratified."[61]
[61] From sermon preached at Newtown, Pa., Twelfth month 18, 1826. The
"Quaker," Vol. 4, p. 183.
Elias Hicks was as strongly opposed to the lines of interest and
economic conduct which indirectly supported slavery as he was to the
institution itself. We quote:
"And for want of a sight of this oppression, how many there are
who, though they seem not willing to put their hands upon a
fellow creature to bind him in chains of bondage, yet they will
do everything to help along by purchasing the labor of those poor
creatures, which is like eating flesh and drinking blood of our poor
fellow-creatures. Is it like coming home to justice? For the thief
and oppressor are just alike; the one is as bad as the other."[62]
[62] From sermon preached at Abington, Pa., Twelfth month 15, 1826. The
"Quaker," Vol. 4, p. 155.
In dealing with slavery and slaveholders, his language often bordered
on what would now be called bitterness. Here is a case in point:
"Can slaveholders, mercenaries and hirelings, who look for their gain
from this quarter, can they promote the religion of Jesus Christ? No,
they are the cause of its reproach, for they are the cause of making
unbelievers."[63]
[63] A series of extemporaneous discourses by Elias Hicks. Joseph and
Edward Parker, p. 24.
His concern touching slavery was largely based on considerations of
justice, and regard for the opportunity which he believed ought to be
the right of all men. In one of his sermons he said:
"Thousands and tens of thousands have been forbidden the enjoyment
of every good thing on earth, even of common school-learning; and
must it still be so? God forbid it. But this would be a trifle, if
they had the privilege of rational beings on the earth; that liberty
which is the greatest of all blessings--the exercise of free agency.
And here we are glutting ourselves with the toils of their labor!...
But this noble testimony, of refusing to partake of the spoils of
oppression, lies with the dearly beloved young people of this day. We
can look for but little from the aged, who have been accustomed to
these things."[64]
[64] From sermon preached in Philadelphia, Twelfth month 1, 1824.
Parker's "Discourses by Elias Hicks," p. 60-61.
In the sermon "just referred to," we find the following:
"We are on a level with all the rest of God's creatures. We are not
better for being white than others for being black; and we have no
more right to oppress the blacks because they are black than they
have to oppress us because we are white. Therefore, every one who
oppresses his colored brother or sister is a tyrant upon the earth;
and every one who strengthens the hand of an oppressor is a tyrant
upon earth. They have turned from God, and have not that powerful
love, which does away all distinction and prejudice of education, and
sets upon equal grounds all those that have equal rights."[65]
[65] The same, p. 79.
Of the "essays" on the slavery question written by Elias Hicks, one has
survived, and is bound in the volume, "Letters of Elias Hicks." The
pamphlet in question, though small, like many "ancient" productions,
had a very large title, viz.: "Observations on the Slavery of the
Africans and Their Descendants, and the Use of the Produce of Their
Labor."[66] It was originally published in 1811, having been approved
by the Meeting for Sufferings of New York Yearly Meeting. Nearly half
of the "essay" is made up of a series of questions and answers. When
printed it made six leaves the size of this page. On the subject of the
product of slave labor, decided ground was taken, the claim being that
all such produce was "prize goods." The reason for this claim was that
the slaves originally were captives, practically the victims of a war
of capture if not conquest. Among other things the essay argues the
rightfulness and justice of any State to pass laws abolishing slavery
within its borders.
[66] "Letters of Elias Hicks," p. 9.
While the arguments presented in this document are of general value, it
is probable that the pamphlet was in the main intended for circulation
among Friends, with a view to stimulating them to such action as would
forward the cause of freedom. This essay by Elias Hicks antedated by
five years the address by Benjamin Lundy, already referred to, and
was probably one of the first publications in the nineteenth century
actually advocating the abolition of slavery.
In studying the slavery question it is necessary to remember that
before the invention of the cotton gin, about 1793, a considerable
but unorganized and ineffective anti-slavery sentiment existed in the
country. But after that invention, which rendered slave labor very
remunerative, sentiment of this sort subsided so that the Friends, who,
like Elias Hicks, advocated abolition during the first quarter of the
nineteenth century, were really pioneers in the attempt which resulted
in the freedom of a race.
At one time church organizations, even in the South, especially the
Baptists, passed resolutions favorable to the abolition of slavery.
Churches North and South in the decade between 1780 and 1790 were well
abreast of Friends in this particular. Touching this matter Horace
Greeley remarked: "But no similar declaration has been made by any
Southern Baptist Convention since field-hands rose to $1,000 each, and
black infants at birth were accounted worth $100."[67]
[67] "The American Conflict," by Horace Greeley, Vol. I, p. 120.
We could make copious extracts from the anti-slavery utterances of
Elias Hicks, but our object is simply to give the scope of his thinking
and purpose in regard to this matter. Few men at certain points were
more altruistic than he, and as an altruist he could not do other
than oppose the great social and economic iniquity of his time. From
his standpoint slavery was utterly and irretrievably bad, and to bear
testimony constant and consistent against it was part of the high
calling of the Christian.