The Peacable Kingdom by Edward Hicks (1780-1849), minister of the Society of Friends
Previous: The Cavaliers
The Quakers (pages 419-603)
Perhaps the first thing that comes to people’s mind regarding this group is the word “pacifism.” And while it’s true that the Quakers were indeed pacifists when it came to physically engaging in war, they were quite the activists when it came to other areas of life, such as family, community, and societal progression. Moreover, despite their war pacifism, while not covered in detail in this particular writing, as I’ll stick to the serial focus on the folkways of each of these groups, the Quakers did indeed play a role in the Revolutionary War and did not simply sit back and leave to chance the war’s outcome. For just as it was in the group interests of the Puritans and Cavaliers—the leading groups of the Revolutionary War—as well as the Backcountry folk (part 4 of the series), this was also true of the Quakers. The Quakers had—still have—a distinct way of living, and they believed their way of life would better thrive in a sovereign land, even if it took war to bring about those ends.
Origins:
The largest influx of British Quaker migration to Colonial America occurred in the early to middle 1680s. The makeup of the Society of Friends migrants was more similar to that of the Puritans in that they traveled in family groups and were more of middle-status than high or low. Unlike both the Puritans and Cavaliers, however, the Quakers were much more amenable to ethnic plurality—German Quakers, Dutch Quakers, etc.—were all welcome, with of course the evident common denominator. As with the other groups, religious persecution played its role in the migration, again more-so than with the Cavaliers but not as much as with the Puritans. And while they did suffer physical persecution in England, as well as financial in the form of Anglican-imposed taxes, they often framed their religious migration in a more positive light: it was God’s purpose for them to travel to a new land, a guiding light from within leading them toward pilgrimage.
Family Ways (The Idea of the Family of Love):
In certain respects, family was viewed as a more nuclear unit—similar to how family is construed in modern times—among the Quakers than what it was with the Puritans or Cavaliers. The nuclear family was more egalitarian with the Quakers, even more-so than with the Puritans, and did not adhere as strictly to a hierarchical structure. However, unlike most modern concepts of family, a form of the Quaker’s idea of extended family extended even further than that of the Puritans and Cavaliers, with relation to the Family of God; if you were member of the Society of Friends, then you were also considered to be a part of the Family of God; something that’s certainly not unique to Quakers, but was perhaps more widely expressed than with other groups. And in the interest of keeping consistent with this larger family, the nuclear unit within Quaker homes carried this theme: “The Quaker family was never thought to be an end in itself, but an instrument of God’s holy purposes in the world.” (pg. 485)
Child-rearing Ways (Bracing the Will):
While the will of the children being raised in Puritan and Cavalier homes were, respectively, to be broken and bent, the will of Quaker children was to be braced. Braced for what exactly? Generally speaking, the world in which they entered. While not true of all Quakers, a good amount did not believe in the concept of original sin, therefore the idea of breaking a child’s will, because said will was not believed to be bent towards carnality, did not follow. However, along with “bracing” came the idea that the world was indeed sinful, so it was the duty of the parents to prepare the child not to fall into such ways. The idea of “bracing” also meant having an assignment of duty towards the community in order to purify it of its sin. The “bracing” was two-fold, then: preparation for evil, and cultivation to replace that evil with good. And as has already been alluded to, how this cultivation within the home manifested itself varied from that of the Puritans and Cavaliers. It was collaborative, based more on rewarding good behavior than on punishing bad. This is not to say that Quaker parents were pushovers, though: rules still had to be adhered to, and boundaries were expected to be maintained.
Religious Ways:
While the Puritans worshiped a God who they thought of as “equally capable of love and wrath,” and the Virginians worshiped one who ruled above, “firmly but fairly over the hierarchy of his creatures,” the Quakers theology may be the one that most persists within the American Christianity today, that being of the “inner light,” an “emanation of divine goodness and virtue passed from Jesus into every soul.”
Consistent with this more egalitarian theology, the Quaker services were also less hierarchical: everyone attending had permission to speak. But as it often goes with such set-ups, each church did end up having its dominant speakers and contributors; hierarchy persists even when there is an explicit attempt to diminish it. The buildings in which the Quakers worshiped also differed from those of the Puritans and Cavaliers. Plainness, as we saw in the churches of Massachusetts but not with the Virginia churches, was certainly present in the churches of Delaware Valley, as very little to no inner decoration could be found, even to the point of Quakers not even having pulpits. But the Quaker churches were painted with much lighter colors than the Puritan’s, both inside and out. They also had larger windows, usually placed high up on walls, leading to more sunlight shining in—all of this perhaps with the intention of using both manufactured and natural light as a guide to receiving the desired Inner Light.
Sport Ways:
Thus far the Quaker communities have presented themselves as the most permissible, least hierarchical of the three folkways discussed. One point of deviation with regard to permissibility, however, came in the form of sports, with the Quakers being even more strict than the Puritans. Like the Puritans, any sport that involved heavy gambling, such as horse racing and card playing, was prohibited. Additionally, in relation to horse racing, any sport involving animals was condemned; only hunting for the dinner table was allowed in these communities, as the Quakers took very seriously their respect for animals. Organized sports, such as the Puritan’s love for what is now American football, were also discouraged, due largely to the physical violence these sports entailed. Like those of the New England colonies, though, “useful” and “needful” forms of recreation were permitted, typically of individual form: swimming, gardening, and even ice skating.
Work Ways:
The Quakers were also more similar to the Puritans than the Virginians when it came to the concept—or perhaps even the idea—of work. If work in and of itself wasn’t a form of worshiping God, as was often the case with the people of New England, the actual doing of the work, for the Quakers, was in a way glorifying God because it was keeping them from being idle. The Quakers also strongly believed in the idea of man’s work being his earthly calling. If he did not adhere to this calling with the utmost dedication, he was falling not just into idleness but also being “of the world” instead of, as God commands, “in it.”
The Quaker communities were capitalistic in nature, though not without restraints, mainly ethical in nature. Such restraints did not prevent Philadelphia from becoming the most important city for capital in America until New York’s emergence in the early 19th century. This rise also came about in spite of a Quaker hatred of both debt, which they felt to be a “palpable evil” in the world, as well as a strong distrust of creditors. Related to their distrust of creditors, the Quaker-owned banks extended lower—sometimes even zero— interest rates to those who were also members of the Society of Friends. And in another money-related fact, the Quakers were perhaps the most instrumental group in developing the current American insurance industry.
Order Ways (The Quaker Idea of Order as Peace):
Differing from both the Puritan’s democratic order and the Virginian’s hierarchical order, both of which required strict structure, the Quaker’s means for keeping order within their communities was based more upon social peace, led by a certain code of ethics all Friends members were expected to keep, than on top-down organization and/or methodological law-making and keeping. This is not to say, however, that the Quaker’s did not have officers whose main responsibility in these communities was to maintain said social peace. Again, among these officers, like the Puritans and Virginians, the county sheriffs bore most of the responsibility. The time in office these sheriffs had was much shorter than with the other groups; the intention here being a desire to not fall into the trap of creating political corruption through long-standing office-holding.
Punishments for crimes committed in the Quaker communities, unsurprisingly, weren’t as severe as in New England and Virginia. Hangings, while they indeed did occur, mainly for the crime of murder, weren’t near as prominent as with the other groups. But the Quakers weren’t pushovers. Crimes of one person intruding upon the peace of another were especially punished, such as sexual violence toward women: in one such case, a sexual offender, subject to a public whipping for his crime, instead slit his own throat before the assembled crowd before the whipping could occur.
Freedom Ways (The Quaker Idea of Reciprocal Liberty):
With regard to the philosophy of “live and let live,” it was the Quakers who best represented this idea in their daily lives. “Reciprocal liberty” was simply defined as “the liberty that I possess must also be extended to you.” Where confusion with this lifestyle comes in, however, is a misconception of what the Quakers believed to be Liberty. As seen above, while certainly more permissive than the Puritans and Cavaliers, a free-for-all libertine society this was not. The basis behind the reciprocal liberty the Quakers desired, as well as that which they extended to others, came from within—that Inner Light given to us by God. Therefore, “live and let live” did not include vice but rather Christian virtue. And even though more egalitarian than hierarchical, positions of authority, such as the sheriffs covered above, as well as elected governors, were instructed by William Penn to “rule the meek meekly, and those who will not be ruled, rule with authority.”
Albion's Seed: The Quakers
The Quakers were probably the most likely of all religious groups to use women in ministry. Instead of being present and not heard, women could speak in their meetings and could also exhort or preach and teach.