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.

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]

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.

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]

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.

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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.

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]

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.

---