Philadelphia Quakers and the American Revolution-Blog Post #2

"The Testimony of the People Called Quakers," January 24, 1775

The new year began as the old one had ended—with more controversy. Christopher Marshall recorded in his diary on January 2, 1775, that there were "meetings daily amongst the Quakers," and on January 5, the Meeting for Sufferings, effectively their executive council, issued an epistle from their meeting not only "to act agreeable to the peaceable principles and testimony we profess" but also because "some public resolves have been lately entered into, with the concurrence and approbation of some members of our religious society." The Society warned its members that engaging in resistance was unacceptable and could not be undertaken "without deviating from our religious principles." The second document issued that month by the Quakers was on January 24, titled, "The Testimony of the People called Quakers," which left little doubt where the Quakers stood in relation to the building crisis with Britain. Marshall considered the testimony "such gross abuse against all persons that oppose their fallacious schemes, and stuffed with such false contradictions." From London, Dr. Fothergill compounded the misery in a letter to James Pemberton. "Your fast friends on this side of the water are reduced to almost an insignificant number," he wrote. "From the temper of the Parliament, from, the language of the Ministry, from the disposition of the King, there is too great reason to apprehend that violent measures will be pushed." Fothergill had thus warned Pemberton that the Quakers were on an island and the tide was coming in on all sides.

It was clear by late January 1775 that the lines were drawn. The position taken by the Society directly contradicted those of the radical forces establishing a confrontational stance against Great Britain. The Philadelphia radicals opposed the Quaker stance not because of any religious principles but because they saw their loyalty to the king as allied with British policy. Internally, not all Quakers were united. Some felt the publication of the testimony had gone beyond adherence to religious principles and had entered the political sphere, where it had no business. As a matter of fact, those Quakers who had been active in colonial politics—such as Thomas Mifflin, Benjamin Marshall, Owen Biddle, and Joseph Wetherill—were rebuked for their activities and eventually disowned. Some non-Friends thought the disownments were groundless, again mixing the political and religious domains. In the same way, Friends were rapidly becoming unpopular for their failure to sign the "Association," which in effect bound the signatories to the new regime and the local committees, all with the blessing of the Continental Congress.