The Friends Peace Testimony
In World War I (US)
Part III

NOTE: The following essay was published as a pamphlet by the Advancement Committee of Friends General Conference.  The date of 4th Month (April) 18 means it appeared barely two weeks after the United States officially entered the war.
The 1918 pro-war statement reproduced in Part II, which was drafted and signed by FGC Friends, may have had this pamphlet in mind when it was issued.

The Higher Cause

4th mo.(April) 18, 1917
Thomas A. Jenkins

THE present is an opportune time to assure ourselves and our Friends, and all those whose conscience is tender as to participation in war and in preparations for war, that an unwillingness to take part in violence or bloodshed, as a means to effect or prevent changes in government, is no new conviction or notion of modern times, but is as old as Christianity itself. Jesus, in disarming Peter, disarmed every soldier (except those upon police duty), and many were the martyrs who went to their death saying, "I am a Christian, therefore I cannot fight."

The pagan Celsus, in the second century, made it one of his main charges against the Christians that they refused to bear arms for the emperor, even in the case of "necessity" and when their services would have been accepted. The Christians were told that if the rest of the people were of their opinion, the empire would soon be overrun by the Barbarians.

The Reformation, affirming the moral responsibility of each man for his own conduct, did much to dispel the idea that the service of God can be performed by proxy. In the next century, George Fox, renewing the faithfulness of the earlier Christians, refused to accept an appointment as captain in Cromwell’s army. He was sent to a foul prison in consequence. Thence he wrote to Cromwell, condemning "the drawing of a sword or any other outward weapon against any man." He declared that his own weapons were spiritual, and that his mission was "to bring people out of the causes of war into the peaceable Gospel."

A declaration, presented by Friends to Charles II in 1660, contains the following: "We utterly deny all outward wars and strife, and fightings with outward weapons, for any end, or under any pretence whatever; this is our testimony to the whole world. The Spirit of Christ by which we are guided is not changeable, so as once to command us from a thing as evil, and again to move into it; and we certainly know and testify to the world, that the Spirit of Christ, which leads us into all truth, will never move us to fight and war against any man with outward weapons, neither for the Kingdom of Christ, nor for the kingdoms of this world." (Quoted in Christian Discipline of the Society of Friends, Part II, p. 139, 1911 edition.)

William Penn and his companions in the "Holy Experiment" had to deal with the same savage Indians as the other settlers. They proved the sincerity of their profession of friendship for the natives by continuing in a defenseless condition. They armed themselves against the wild beasts of the back-country, but not against their fellow men, and no Quaker settlers, when known to be such, were killed by the Indians.

During the Revolution, many Friends suffered severely for their testimony against war. Coercion by fines and imprisonment was very commonly tried, but with little result. In 1777, a forged and spurious document caused the exile to Virginia of twenty Philadelphia citizens, seventeen of whom were Friends. They remained in exile for a period of over seven months; two of them died there.

The others, on being released, met with George Washington, to whom one of their number, Warner Mifflin, said: "I am opposed to the Revolution and to all changes of government which occasion war and bloodshed." Later he added: "All that was ever gained by revolutions is not an adequate compensation for the loss of life or limb." To this Washington answered: "I honor your sentiments: there is more in that than mankind have generally considered." (Janey’s History, III, p. 464.)

In the Colonies there were Friends whose strong sympathy for the cause of American Independence induced them to join the army. In Philadelphia, a body numbering about one hundred set up a separate organization, the "Society of Free Quakers," professing the principles of Friends, except in the article of bearing arms in self-defense and to repel invasion. (Janey’s History, III, p. 467.) many Friends, as well as others in the North, were opposed to the war with Mexico, and later some of these reproached themselves that they had too easily "acquiesced in that injustice." (Friends’ Intelligencer, XVII1, p. 26.)

The Mexican War, according to Thoreau, "was the work of comparatively a few individuals using the standing government as their tool; for, in the outset, the people would not have consented to this measure." In the Civil War, Friends were put un- der even greater pressure to give up their testimony against fighting. The nearness and the magnitude of the conflict, their opposition to all kinds of oppression, and (in a minority of cases) their active work against slavery, made participation in the war appear as a duty to many of their members. Nevertheless, even the ardent abolitionists Lucretia Mott and John G. Whittier could not feel it right for them to use or advise force and violence as the best means to promote the cause so near their hearts.

Lucretia Mott wrote: "The fact that the cause is glorious does not sanctify the means: the resort to bloodshed is barbarous, besides making the innocent suffer with the guilty." (Letter of Dec. 27, 1862. Life and Letters, p. 404.)

John G. Whittier’s circular letter To Members of the Society of Friends, June, 1861, said: "Steadily and faithfully maintaining our testimony against war, we owe it to the cause of truth to show that exalted heroism and generous self-sacrifice are not incompatible with our pacific principles. Our mission is, at this time, to mitigate the sufferings of our fellow countrymen. . ."

Two years later, in the midst of the conflict, Whittier read at Newport, R. I., an Anniversary Poem in which occur these expressions as to the duty of Friends:

Our path is plain; the war-net draws
         Round us in vain,
   While, faithful to the Higher Cause,
   We keep our fealty to the laws
         Through patient pain.

The levelled gun, the battle-brand
       We may not take:
   But, calmly loyal, we can stand
   And suffer with our suffering land
        For conscience' sake.

Baltimore Yearly Meeting was situated on the verge of the Confederacy. Although its members were often disheartened by the dreadful conflict raging so near them, they spoke as follows, in 1862:

"However ardently we may feel attached to our excellent government, its preservation, or that of any civil institution, is of small importance when compared with the sublime principles of the Gospel of Christ. . . . The terms of discipleship are unchangeable: we cannot serve two masters."

And a year later: "It is not our place to judge others who may believe themselves called into a different path from that in which we walk. ‘What is that to thee? Follow thou Me.’

At the time of the Spanish War, in 1898, Philadelphia Yearly Meeting of Friends (Race Street [Hicksite]) declared that "Quarrel and conflict, whether proceeding to bloodshed or stopping short of it, are in violation of the Christian profession. Friends have at times suffered grievously for this testimony, when its consistent application was found difficult."

The Boer War period, which extended from the Jameson Raid of 1895 to the peace of 1902, was a time of severe trial the Friends in England. A prominent Friend, John Bellows, of Gloucester, in a pamphlet, The Truth about the Transvaal War and the Truth about War, condemned war in general, but sought to defend and justify the English Government for its part in the Transvaal War. John Bellows, it is true, maintained that "All war is wrong. It is wrong," he said, "because it deadens the sympathy placed in every human heart. Even in an absolutely just cause, it cannot be carried on without itself creating new and immeasurable wrongs."

The author also said, speaking of the Society of Friends: "Its members keep as one man faithful to the practice of refusing to bear arms; and, if it came to the test, I believe numbers of them would suffer death rather than inflict death." Nevertheless John Bellows spoke of the Transvaal War as just and right- eous; his reason was, because those who were responsible for it thought it was right.

At about the same time another Friend, Joshua Rowntree, a former member of Parliament, wrote as follows: "Our duties to the State, which are many, are conditioned by our primary duty to our God, which includes all. If at any time they clash, the less must give way to the greater, and in the long run the State will be the gainer by our so doing. But it should all be done in a quiet spirit. ‘The wrath of man worketh not the righteousness of God.’" (S. E. Robson’s Memoir, p. 110.)

In the present war with Germany, in spite of the apparent danger of destruction to the British Empire, large numbers of young men Friends in England have refused to bear arms or to undertake any sort of military service. Fines, imprisonment, and even threats of execution have been their lot. At one time, it was noted that the largest Friends’ Meeting in England was held behind prison doors. Before the Courts Martial, a typical statement is that of H. G. Hodson, March 16, 1917:

"It is indeed hard for me to refuse to obey a demand made upon me by the State, as the idea that the individual has to obey his State under all circumstances has been handed down to me by my forefathers. But circumstances have led me to think that there are higher laws than those of the State, laws on which each State depends in the end. These are the laws of conscience and of moral responsibility of each of its subjects. I am convinced that war is absolutely wrong and immoral, and I cannot therefore do otherwise than refuse to take part in it."

In course of his statement at the Court Martial held near Plymouth, March 15, 1917, Wilfred G. Hinde, of Street, said:

"I have refused for a second time to wear military clothing because I am convinced that it is wrong for me to become a soldier. My refusal is not due to any wish to be disrespectful to the Army, nor do I pretend to judge the actions of any man, for God alone is the Judge before whom we shall all appear. During my recent imprisonment I have been able, not only to study the New Testament very carefully, but also to spend much time in waiting upon God, and the result has been to strengthen any conviction of the sinfulness of all war, and to lead me to see that I can best serve my fellow men by a loyal obedience to God’s will. I hope, in view of these circumstances, that this court will be able to see why my refusal to wear khaki is the only course I could honorably adopt." (London Friend, March 30, 1917.)

Other groups of English Friends have organized a War Victims’ Relief Committee and a Friends’ Ambulance Unit; these have been active, since early in the War, in binding up the wounds of conflict and in relieving distress in France, in Belgium, in Holland, in Serbia, in Russia, and among the "alien enemies" in Great Britain.

Numbers of Friends in both England and America joined the Fellowship of Reconciliation, an organized group which is humbly seeking to root out the war idea in men's hearts, to replace it with the spirit of good- will and mutual confidence, to establish a secure and permanent world-peace in which political freedom and democracy may thrive; in a word, to keep alive faith in the insight and worth of the plain teachings of Christ, and to encourage each other iii suffering, if need be, for that faith.

4th mo. 18, 1917.