Quaker Hill Part 4

From the first the members found themselves subjected to a clear, simple standard of morals. Its dominion was unbroken for one hundred years, and came to an end with the Division of the Meeting; though that event was a result as much as a cause of its termination. For one hundred years a local ethical code prevailed. While they lived apart the Quakers in their community life rejoiced in the unbroken sway of a communal code of morals, the obedience to which made for survival and economic success.

When, with better roads to Poughkeepsie and to Fredericksburgh, newcomers began to invade the community; when in 1849 the railroad came to the neighborhood, immersing the Quakers in the world economy, the Quaker code was insufficient, r.e.t.a.r.ded rather than a.s.sisted survival, and rather forbade than encouraged success. It therefore lost its force.

Only in a few individuals has it survived.

The residents of the Hill, from their earliest settlement in 1728 to the time of the Division in 1828, knew no other government than that of the Meeting. They accepted no other authority, hoped for public good through no other agency, even read no other literature, than that of the Quaker Monthly Meeting of the Oblong. The religious Meeting House was also the City Hall, State House, and Legislature for the patriotism, as it was the focus of the wors.h.i.+p and doctrinal activity of this population. This cannot be stated too strongly, for there was no limit to its effect. It explains many things otherwise diverse and unexplained.

During all the periods of war the Quakers showed their separateness by refusing to pay taxes, lest they contribute to the support of armies. In the Revolution, the Meeting exercised unflinching discipline, for the purpose of keeping members out of the patriot armies, and punished with equal vigor those who paid for the privilege of exemption from military duty and those who enlisted in the ranks. In every act of the discipline of the Quaker Community appears the purpose of the Meeting, namely, to keep its members to itself and away from all other moral and spiritual control. This will appear in definite ill.u.s.trations below.

The standard of morals which the Meeting thus upheld with jealous care was a simple one, and logically derived from the distinctive doctrine of the Society of Friends. That the Spirit of G.o.d dwells in every man was their belief,[11] and from 1650, when Fox was called "a Quaker" before Justice Bennett at Derby, England, to the Division in 1830, they applied this doctrine in practical, rather than in metaphysical ways. They were a moral, rather than a theological people. It will appear in this chapter that only when the moral grip of the Meeting was broken in a division did doctrinal questions come to discussion on the Hill.

The moral bearing of the one cardinal doctrine of Quakerism is well expressed in the following quotation from a Friend qualified to speak with authority:

"The Friends have been consistent in all their peculiarities with one central principle, the presence and inspiration of the Divine Spirit in the human soul. This has been the reason for their opposition to slavery. They felt, You cannot hold in slavery G.o.d! And G.o.d is in this black man's life, therefore you cannot enslave G.o.d in him. So you must not inflict capital punishment upon this man in whom is G.o.d.

"The same argument dignified woman, who was made the equal of man. The same argument applies to the impossibility of war. You cannot think of G.o.d fighting against G.o.d. The Quaker had no sentimental idea of suffering; but he believed that you cannot take life, in which is G.o.d.

"The same argument applied to weights and measures; the Quakers early demanded that they be officially sealed. So they believed in only one standard of truth, rather than one for conversation and one for a court of justice. No oaths were necessary for those who spoke for G.o.d all the time."[12]

In this belief one sees the principle on which were selected the reforms in which the Quaker Preacher was interested. "He appears to have had ...

his mind strongly influenced to an active protest against the evils of slavery, war, capital punishment and intemperance."[13] Each of these reforms was inspired by reverence for human life, which was thought to be desecrated or abused.

This simple code expressed itself in abstinence from practices believed to defile the body. Members of the Meeting early adopted a strict rule against the use of intoxicating liquors. It is said of the ancestors of Richard Osborn that: "Of these six generations not a man has ever been known to use spirituous liquors, or tobacco, to indulge in profanity, or to be guilty of a dishonest action."[14]

A sense of personal degradation underlay their opposition to poverty among members. There is record of an order of the Meeting, in 1775, for the purchase of a cow "to loan to Joseph ----." The practice thus early observed has since then been unbroken. The member of the community who comes to want is at this day taken care of by popular subscription.

Through the early century the Meeting accomplished this end, sometimes by formal, sometimes by informal methods. In the later years of the nineteenth century it was accomplished by special funds to which everybody gave. Thus simply was poverty forestalled. The family a.s.sisted soon came to self-support again. No debt was incurred, and no obligation remained to be discharged; but every member of the Meeting and of the community felt obliged to give and was glad to give to this anti-poverty fund. The basis of it seems to have been respect for human embodiments of the Divine Spirit.

This ideal of personality, divinely indwelt, created a sense of personal duty, even in opposition to all men. In the years of anti-slavery agitation David Irish and his sister "made their protest against slavery by abstaining as far as possible from slave-made products; and together they made maple, to take the place of cane sugar, and used nothing but linen and woolen clothing (largely homespun)."[15] This later Quaker, possessed of the spirit of the community of his fathers, shows his inner conflict with the ideals of a compet.i.tive age in the expression "so far as possible." It was not as practicable in 1855 to "abstain from slave-made products," as it would have been in the year 1755.

The hospitality of the neighborhood expressed this simple code. It was the custom to entertain the traveler in any house to which he might come. It would have been wrong to exclude him; he was welcomed with a dignified and formal respect by these old Friends, because entertainment of guests in those days was a vital reality, as well as a religious practice. These settlers in the wild forests believed that in every wayfarer was a divine voice, a possible message from heaven. They also treated every traveler as a possible object of their "preachments," and spared not to "testify" to him of their peculiar beliefs and "leadings."

It was the Friends' method of propagating their gospel to send men and women on journeys, without pay, to distant states and provinces. This religious touring was not peculiar to them, but it was made by them an official agency of great power in evangelizing the Colonies.

As an itinerant Friend, Woolman, the anti-slavery apostle, came to the Hill in 176-. So Paul Osborn joined himself to a party of Friends "travelling on truth's account," and with them visited the Carolinas, in the years before the Revolution. The same pioneer left in his will directions for the entertainment of such travellers upon his estate forever.[16]

This religious itinerating was a part of the economic life of those days as well; for the Friends never separated the one from the other.

Wherever they went they "testified," and to every place they came with shrewd appreciation of its value as a place of settlement. Says James Wood: "Each Quaker home as it was settled became a resting-place for those who followed, for it was a cardinal principle of Quaker hospitality to keep open house for all fellow-members, under all circ.u.mstances."[17]

The development of the hospitality that was a part of the religion of the Quakers would be itself a sufficient study. It has furnished some of the most interesting chapters of the history of the Hill. It is now completely transformed, through the pressure of compet.i.tive economic life; and, with undiminished activities, has become a means of revenue in "the keeping of boarders." Seven of the old Quaker homes, in the period of the Mixed Community, took on the aspect of small hotels. For this business the Quakers have a preparation in their history and traditions. They have an inbred genius for hospitality. They have also a thrift and capacity for "management" which have made their efforts successful. One is impressed in their houses by a union of abundance with economy, impossible to imitate.

Like other American pioneer neighborhoods, of a religious type, the Quaker community at Oblong had a history in the matter of s.e.xual morality. The relations of the s.e.xes offered to the Friends a field in which their favorite doctrine of the indwelling divine spirit produced moral harvests. The records of Oblong Meeting are filled with cases of moral discipline. There is scarcely a meeting in whose minutes some case is not mentioned, either its initial, intermediate or final stages. No family was exempt from this experience. The best families furnished the culprits as often as they supplied the committees to investigate and to condemn.

The regular method of procedure in marriage will best exhibit the moral standards of the time. When a couple would marry, they indicated to the Meeting their intention; and a committee was at once appointed to investigate their "clearness." That is, these two must be free of other engagements, and must be free of debt or other inc.u.mbrance of such sort as would render marriage impossible or unadvisable. At the next monthly meeting the report of the committee advanced the case one stage; and if they were found "clear of all others," another committee was appointed "to see that the marriage was orderly performed."

The parties on the day set appeared before the Meeting,[18] and in its regular course, stood up and said the words of mutual agreement which made them man and wife. A certificate was used, and to it the guests signed their names. But no minister had official part in the ceremony.

It was their belief, to which they adhered with logical strictness, that the divine spirit in each of the parties to a marriage made it sacred, and that in marrying they spoke the will of the Spirit.

Entire continence was expected of every unmarried person, and the strictest marital faithfulness of man and wife, because of the sacredness of personal life. But in a pioneer society, through those rough early decades, when for long times war was disturbing the serenity of social life, the conduct of men and women, not mindful of propriety, was determined by the strong, masterful pa.s.sions of an out of door people. Besides, the government of the Meeting was contrary to the general opinion of the countryside, and the Meeting House members were immersed in a population whose standards were looser, as well as sanctioned by authorities not recognized by the Meeting. The result was that in the first century of the Hill, 1728-1828, there were many instances of s.e.xual immorality, many accusations of married persons untrue to their vows, and a resulting attention of the whole community to this theme which we do not know to-day. Frankness of discussion of these matters prevailed. The punishments inflicted, the public confessions demanded, the condemnation of specific and detailed offences read from the steps of the Meeting Houses, were all as far from present day approval as the offences themselves from modern experience. The writer is sure that, comparing the records of the Quaker Community with his own knowledge of the annals of the Mixed Community, there were more offences of this kind considered by the Monthly Meeting of Oblong in any one year, 1728-1828, than were publicly known in a population of the same extent in the ten years 1890-1900. The commonest of these offences were simple cases of illicit relations between unmarried persons, or between persons, one of whom was married; the offence often being a.s.sociated in the minds of the accusers with "going to frollicks." In these, as in all cases, the Meeting received the complaint and appointed a committee to investigate and to labor with the accused. On receiving its report, if guilt was evidenced, the Meeting pressed the matter, often increasing the size of the committee. It always demanded an expression of repentance, and the restoration of right conduct, without which no satisfaction was to be had. If the accused persons, being found guilty, did not repent, they were in the end "disowned." The disownment by the Meeting was a serious penalty. It diminished a man's business opportunities, it shut the door of social life to him, and it effectually forbade his marriage within the Meeting.

Its power is shown in a number of cases recorded in the minutes, in which the ban of the Meeting had been laid upon some one, who was compelled later to come to the Meeting, make a tardy acknowledgement, and be restored, before he could proceed freely in some of the communal activities controlled by the Meeting. Often the committee appointed by the Meeting reported that they were not satisfied with the repentance offered, seeing in it evidently more of policy than penitence. Usually they received, in later visitations of the accused, sufficient tokens of submission, and the Meeting was satisfied; but not always.

The most curious instance of the working out of this control exercised by the Meeting, especially over the s.e.xual relations, is in the marriage of Joseph ---- with Elizabeth ----. The first act in the little drama was the formal written statement of Joseph that he was sorry for "having been familiar with his wife before his marriage to her." The Monthly Meeting appointed a committee, as usual, after making record of this "acknowledgment." After a month the committee reported that they had visited Joseph, and found his repentance sincere; and another committee was appointed to draw up a testimony against his former misconduct, to which Joseph was required to subscribe; and in a later month to hear it read from the steps of the Preparative Meeting in the neighborhood where he lived--or perhaps in that in which the offence was best known. After this had all been done, with patient detail, and reported and recorded, a further month elapsed, and then announcement was made at the Meeting of the intention of Joseph and Elizabeth to marry. The reader is astonished, thinking that Joseph has already evidenced his loyalty to his wife. A closer re-reading of the stages of the incident shows that the wife mentioned in the original offence was now dead; but that the offence was not dead. Joseph had to be restored to the Meeting before he could marry Elizabeth, who was very evidently a devoted member. To win his new wife, he had to make acknowledgment of the offence which preceded his former marriage.

This incident ill.u.s.trates the whole att.i.tude of that community toward these moralities. They were thought to be defilements of the body, the temple of G.o.d. No change of outward condition could eliminate the offence, which must be wiped out by repentance, public acknowledgment and formal restoration.

It is evident from the foregoing that the Meeting maintained control over the community, at least of its own members, by possessing an effective power to approve or to disapprove of the economic and the marital condition of each individual.

The code of morals practiced in this community required strict business honesty. The Quaker has moral discretion in economic affairs. He "expects to get what he pays for, and he expects to give what he has agreed." The honesty of "stroke-measure," by which bushels are topped off, the faithful performance of contracts and payment of debts were inculcated by the Meeting and enforced by its discipline.

This chapter may fitly close with a statement of the anathema of Quakerism, p.r.o.nounced many times in a year, during the century. The offence selected shall be a moral one:

"Whereas, Jonathan Osgood hath had a right of members.h.i.+p among us, the people called Quakers, but not taking heed to the dictates of truth, hath so far deviated from the good order established among Friends as to neglect attendance of our religious meetings for wors.h.i.+p and discipline, to deviate from the plain scripture language, and to refuse to settle with his creditors, and pay his just debts; and hath shut himself up concealed from the civil authorities, therefore for the clearing of truth and our Religious Society we do testify against his misconduct, and disown him, the said Jonathan Osgood, from being any longer a member of our Society, until he shall from a true sight and sense of his misconduct condemn the same to the satisfaction of the Meeting. Which that he may is our desire for him. Signed, in and on behalf of Purchase Monthly Meeting this th day of the th month."

The above wording except the name is taken from the minutes of Purchase Meeting; and some of the offences mentioned in a few pages of those minutes, for which men were disowned, or for acknowledgment pardoned and restored, are the following: "deviating from plainness of speech and apparel"--"not keeping to the plain scripture language;" "going to Frollicks," "going to places of amus.e.m.e.nt," "attending a horserace;"

"frequenting a tavern, being frequently intoxicated with strong liquor;"

"placing his son out apprentice with one not of our Society;" "leaving his habitation in a manner disagreeable to his friends;" "to use profane language and carry a pistol, in an unbecoming manner;" "bearing arms;"

"to challenge a person to fight;" "to marry with a first cousin;" "to keep company with a young woman not of our Society on account of marriage;" "to be married by a magistrate;" "to marry with one not of our Society before a hireling priest;" "to join principles and practice with another society of people;" "to be guilty of fornication;" "to be unchaste with her who is now my wife" (the person afterward married by the accused). Oblong minutes: "to have bought a negro slave," "to have bought a negro wench and to be familiar with her."

It was the operation of this code of morals, and of its ecclesiastical checks and curbs, that made the Quaker Hill man and the Quaker Hill sentiment what they are. And having done its work this code at the last tended to weaken the Meeting, as it had strengthened the public conscience. In talking recently with a sweet old lady past eighty, I asked her, "Did you ever hear anyone disowned in meeting?" "No," she never had, and "doubted if there had been many." Later, her daughter said, "Why, Grandmother, you married out of meeting yourself!" Whereupon I asked again, "Well, what did they do with you then?" "Oh," she replied, not at all embarra.s.sed, "they turned me out!"

"But what was the outcome of it all?" asks James Wood, in the closing sentences of his monograph, "The Purchase Meeting." He continues: "As a church the Quakers here missed their great opportunity. As settlers came among them in increasing numbers, the Friends became solicitous to preserve the strictest moral observance among their members. They withdrew from contact and a.s.sociation with the world about them and confined their religious influence and effort to themselves. The strictest watch was maintained over the deportment of old and young.

Members were dismissed for comparatively slight offences. Immigration further reduced their numbers. Hypercriticism produced disagreements among themselves. Finally, doctrinal differences arose which resulted in a disastrous separation into two bodies in 1828."

[11] Francis B. Gummere of Haverford college says of George Fox, the founder of the Society of Friends: "The central point of his doctrine is the direct responsibility of each soul to G.o.d, without mediation of priest or form, because of the presence of the Holy Spirit in the heart of every human being." Johnson's Universal Cyclopedia, 1894.

The following is authoritative for the Society: "We believe in no principle of life, light or holiness, but the influence of the Holy Spirit of G.o.d, bestowed on mankind, in various measures and degrees, through Jesus Christ our Lord. It is the capacity to receive this blessed influence, which, in an especial manner, gives man pre-eminence above the beasts that perish; which distinguishes him, in every nation and in every clime, as an object of the redeeming love of G.o.d; as a being not only intelligent but responsible;..."--"A Declaration of Some of the Fundamental Doctrines of Christian Truth, as held by the Religious Society of Friends."

[12] Mr. James Wood, in an address at Quaker Hill Conference, 1907.

[13] "David Irish, A Memoir," by Mrs. Phoebe T. Wanzer.

[14] "Richard Osborn, a Reminiscence," by Margaret B. Monahan.

[15] "David Irish, A Memoir," by Mrs. Phoebe T. Wanzer.

[16] To "friends travelling on truth's account" the doors of the old house always swung wide. Paul Osborn kept open house for "his friends, the people called Quakers," during his lifetime, and his will provides in the most minute and careful manner for his wife "the better to qualifye her to keep a house of entertainment for friends." ... The "littel meadow in lot 29" he gave to Isaac Osborn, that "he shall keep well all horses of friends my wife shall send him;" and should Isaac "neglect the injunctions herein enjoined," and cease to keep such house of entertainment for friends then his right to certain legacies "shall descend and revolve to them, him or her that shall truly fulfill them."

All his lands in the latter case Paul gives to the "Yearly Meeting for Friends, the people called Quakers, of Philadelphia."--"Richard Osborn, a Reminiscence," by Margaret B. Monahan.

[17] "The Bi-Centennial of the New York Yearly Meeting, An Historical Sketch," by James Wood, 1895.

[18] "It was Wednesday, the day of the regular mid-week meeting, and the house was crowded. The young people took their places upon the facing seats, and the meeting began. Daniel Haviland was minister and he spoke at length. Then, after a short pause, Richard Osborn and Roby Hoag arose, and clasping hands, spoke alternately the solemn sentences of the Friends' marriage ceremony, which have united them for sixty years. Then was brought forth the marriage certificate, fairly engrossed in the bridegroom's own hand, and many names of those present were affixed, after which it was read aloud. This being done, and kindly greetings offered, Richard and Roby Osborn drove back to their home. The wedding was well furnished with guests, and four fat turkeys graced the board that day."--"Richard Osborn, a Reminiscence,"

by Margaret B. Monahan. Quaker Hill Series.

CHAPTER VIII.

THE TOLERATION OF HOSTILE FORCES.