Quaker Ways in Foreign Policy [1 ed.] 9781442632790, 9781442651982

Citation preview

QUAKER WAYS IN FOREIGN POLICY Robert O. Byrd the Society of Friends, or Quakers, has been forwarding to governments recommendations on foreign policy, and it has often been in the vanguard of thought in its social and political views. In this study, Dr. Byrd brings together and states carefully and accurately those beliefs, principles, attitudes, and practices which have been fundamental to the Quaker approach. He illustrates and verifies his statement by an analytical summary of the history of these actions of the Society, and of individual Friends acting in official or semi-official capacities, which relate to foreign policy and international relations. Dr. Byrd's systematic exposition of the modern Quaker's theory of international relations offers a stimulating antidote to the realpolitik school of thought. His account of the Quaker interest in international affairs from 1647 to the present underlines for the diplomatic historian the role of morality in diplomacy, the influence of public opinion upon policy, and the part played by groups like the Friends in shaping public attitudes. As Hans J. Morgenthau comments in his Foreword, "In a world which uses Christian ethics for un-Christian ends it is indeed moving to follow the historical trail of a Christian sect which seeks to transform itself and political society in the image of Christian teaching.... In their convictions, achievements, and sufferings the Quakers bear witness to the teachings of Christianity; in their failures they bear witness to the insuperable stubbornness of the human condition. ... not the least of the merits of Professor Byrd's book is his ability to convey through the movement of his mind and pen something of that moving quality which makes the Quaker approach to foreign policy, i f nothing else, a noble ex­ periment in Christian living." FOR THREE HUNDRED YEARS

o. B Y R D was born and educated in Tacoma, Washington, graduating cum laude from the College of Puget Sound. He received M . A . degrees from The American University, Washington, D.C., in Public Administration, and also from Columbia University in the field of International Administration. A doctorate in International Relations was bestowed on him by the University of Chicago in 1955. Dr. Byrd has served in various capacities in the fields of social welfare and education, and is now Chairman of the Department of Political Science at North Park College, Chicago. ROBERT

This page intentionally left blank

Quaker Ways in Foreign Policy

ROBERT 0. BYRD

UNIVERSITY OF TORONTO PRESS

COPYRIGHT, CANADA, 1960 BY UNIVERSITY OP TORONTO PRESS PRINTED IN CANADA LONDON: OXFORD UNIVERSITY PRESS

FOR FRANK O. BYRD AND VINNIE

WILDER BYRD

This page intentionally left blank

FOREWORD

THE CONFLICT between the demands of Christian ethics and the way man must live is the overriding moral experience of Western civilization. That conflict is foreordained in the nature of Christian ethics and the nature of man. It is the very function of Christian ethics to call upon man to comply with a code of moral conduct with which, by virtue of his nature, he cannot comply. This function, it should be added in passing, is not only moral but also—and probably primarily— theological. For if that unbridgeable gap between the demands of Christian ethics and human nature did not exist, if, in other words, man could become a perfect Christian by his own unaided efforts here and now, the grace of God would have no object for its work and would have no organic place in a theological system. The moral function of Christian ethics is to hold up to man a code of moral conduct both unattainable and approachable. Man cannot attain moral perfection in this world; the best he is capable of is to conceive its meaning, to achieve through an isolated act of goodness a tiny fragment of it, and to make aspiration toward it the guiding principle of a whole life. Those who conceive the perfection of Christian ethics with their mind's eye are theologians and philosophers; those who from time to time do deeds conforming to the demands of Christian ethics are what we call good men; those who orient their whole life towards that perfection are saints. Few are the true theologians, philosophers, good men, and saints among us. Most of us try to escape the conflict between what is demanded of us and what we can do. For to face that conflict squarely places an intolerable burden either upon our actions or upon our consciences. Western civilization offers three main routes of escape. Western man has endeavoured to narrow the gap between the demands of Christian ethics and human nature in three different ways. First, he has reinterpreted the demands of Christian ethics, he has' liberalized" them, he has made it appear as though the Christian gospel did not mean what it obviously says, and he has invented ingenious theological devices which make it easier to sin because they make forgiveness easy.

Vlll

FOREWORD

He has tried to narrow the gap by watering down the demands of Christian ethics, thus making it appear as though human action were complying with these demands. The same result has been achieved by approaching the problem from the side of human action, that is, by trying to build a bridge on the foundation of distorted human action rather than on misinterpreted Christian ethics. Here we are in the presence of moralism, the most persuasive attempt by which our culture has undertaken to make its peace with the demands of Christian ethics without having to forgo its natural aspirations. Human action is here presented as almost naturally moral, which presentation allows man to do what he would like to do without feeling any qualms of conscience about it. It also allows man to dismiss as "cynics" those who in the name of an unadulterated ethics question that easy identification between morality and human action. Finally, Western man has endeavoured to escape the conflict between Christian ethics and human action by retreating from the world of action altogether. This is the solution which Hamlet suggested to Ophelia and of which the monastic life is indeed the prime example. Yet on a less consistent scale that escape is indulged in by all those millions who retreat from the public sphere into their private worlds, who refuse "to mix in politics/' and who seek moral innocence by shirking moral responsibility. Since to act means to sin, an action shunned appears to signify a sin avoided. It is against this background of the conflict between Christian teaching and human action and the attempts to escape it that one must put the Quaker attitude toward foreign policy. This attitude bears three distinct qualities. The Quakers have not endeavoured to escape that conflict but have had the courage to face it. They have had the still greater courage to try to overcome that conflict through action which is both politically relevant and morally tenable in the light of Christian teaching. Finally, they have endeavoured to elevate the political sphere to the level of Christian ethics not by superimposing upon that sphere a rigid dogma but rather by penetrating it with a pragmatic goodness inspired by the "Inner Light/' The Quaker approach to foreign policy is not so much a doctrine as a disposition of the soul translated into action. It is truly political in its adaptability to circumstances; it approaches Christian moral excellence in being consistently informed by the pure demands of Christian ethics.

FOREWORD

IX

The history of the unfolding of this approach is moving, and is so on three counts. It moves as human excellence in all spheres of human endeavour moves. We are moved whenever we see a man perform a deed seeking with singlemindedness the perfection of its realm. We are moved to an even higher degree when that perfection is sought by a group of men who have been tied together over the centuries through a pledge of voluntary allegiance to the seeking of perfection in the realm of religious practice. For no human enterprise has been more consistently debased than this most noble of all by having been made the servant and the shield of the seekers after power and wealth, the money changers and the Pharisees. I am reminded of the fictional account of Martin Luther whom Strindberg makes say of a rabbi that he was the only Christian in Rome and that it was too bad that he was of the wrong faith. In a world which uses Christian ethics for unChristian ends it is indeed moving to follow the historical trail of a Christian sect which seeks to transform itself and political society in the image of Christian teaching. Finally, there is something moving in the success of the endeavour on the individual level and its consistent failure on the political plane. The persistent effort, doomed to ever renewed failure, carries within itself an element of tragedy. In their convictions, achievements, and sufferings the Quakers bear witness to the teachings of Christianity; in their failures they bear witness to the insuperable stubbornness of the human condition. Professor Byrd has put in his debt not only the Quaker community but all of us who are troubled by the moral problem of politics. He has told his story with competence and insight. And for me, for one, not the least of the merits of his book is his ability to convey through the movement of his mind and pen something of that moving quality which makes the Quaker approach to foreign policy, if nothing else, a noble experiment in Christian living. His book carries its story forward with a gentle spirituality, a noble vibration of the soul, which are worthy of the subject. Thus the subject stands ennobled by the treatment it receives from the hands of the author, and the author is ennobled by touching so noble a subject. Thus, in the end, author and subject, as it were, become one, the "Inner Light" illumines both. There could be no greater praise for either. HANS J. MORGENTHAU

This page intentionally left blank

CONTENTS

FOREWORD, by Hans J. Morgenthau

vii

INTRODUCTION

xiii

PART I. RELIGION AND POLITICS—QUAKER PATTERNS

1 Some Essentials of Quakerism 2 "That of God in Every Man": General Implications 3 When "That of God" Becomes Political

3 17 30

PART II. QUAKER PATTERNS OF THOUGHT IN INTERNATIONAL RELATIONS

4 5 6

Essential Concepts On Power (I) On Power (II)

43 65 86

PART III. QUAKERISM AND FOREIGN POLICY— THE DEVELOPMENT OF A RELATIONSHIP

7 8 9 10 11 12

Winning the Right to Differ (1647-91) The Protection and Enjoyment of Their Differences (1691-1775) An Uneasiness That Something More Is Needed (1775-1850) From the General to the Particular (1850-1914) From Sins to Problems (1914-45) From Observer to Participant (1945- )

109 116 126 134 149 181

EPILOGUE

195

APPENDIX

209

BIBLIOGRAPHICAL NOTE

211

INDEX

225

This page intentionally left blank

INTRODUCTION

FOR THREE HUNDRED YEARS the Society of Friends or "the Quakers," as the group is more popularly known,1 has been forwarding suggestions to governments about foreign policy. This study has been undertaken to delineate the character, pattern, and development of these suggestions. That there would be certain special problems associated with the endeavour was anticipated. A primary problem arises from the decentralization that is characteristic of the Society of Friends. The reasons for this will be discussed later, but the facts are that Friends' views on foreign policy are not homogeneous and there is no organizational hierarchy to sift the variety of views into an authoritative statement of the position of the Society of Friends on any given subject at any given moment. The highest body of authority among Friends is the Yearly Meeting, of which there are twenty-five in the United States alone, and approximately as many again in the rest of the world. A thorough study of Quakerism, or any of its general aspects, would necessitate visiting each of these Yearly Meetings to view records available only in the Yearly Meeting archives.2 This vast amount of scattered material presents a crucial problem in any research pretending to involve the Society as a whole. A second problem results from the fact that these Yearly Meetings are not only dispersed geographically, but also represent differing emphases in the Quaker tradition. These differences are reflected most dramatically in the painful series of separations which took place in the Society of Friends during the second and third quarters of the nineteenth century.3 Differences are still marked, though the period when Friends 1 Thc term "Quaker" was a nickname first applied in the mid-seventeenth century to a group of people who called themselves by various names: "Seekers," "Children of the Light," and similar forms of nomenclature. Though a term of derision at first (traditionally ascribed to a Justice Bennett when George Fox »the founder of Quakerism, bid the Judge to "tremble at the word of the Lord"), the term has lost its derisive connotations. "Quaker" and "Friend" are now virtually interchangeable, though there is a tendency to use the latter on more formal occasions. See George Fox, Journal (Everyman ed., p. 34). 2 See Bibliographical Note. 'For the history of these separations see Brinton, Friends for 300 Years, pp. 187-96.

XIV

INTRODUCTION

of different branches would not speak to each other, and when a Friend of one branch would be disowned4 for marrying a member of another branch are, happily, now past. In recent years there have been many forms of co-operation among the various branches of Quakerism. Important differences remain, however, differences which are troublesome to any researcher who attempts to draw a picture of something that all branches of the Society will recognize and accept as "Quakerism." A third question concerns the role that should be assigned in this study to statements and activities of individual Friends. Any study of a group raises the problem of determining which action, if any, on the part of an individual in the group is to be considered a part of the group record and which action is to be ascribed to individual inclination. The problem is particularly acute when the individuals concerned are recognized leaders in the group being studied or when a given individual is active in various organizations other than the group that is the focus of attention. The problem is still more acute when, as will be seen to be true of Quakerism, the group being studied may have encouraged and supported individuals in action in which the group itself is not prepared to engage. Friends, for instance, generally approved of the activities of the Peace Societies in England and the United States, and supported those among their members who played leading roles in them, long before Friends felt that the Society, as such, had a role to play in general "peace education." Too, how is the researcher to cope with the activities of such notable Friends as William Penn, John Greenleaf Whittier, Lucretia Mott, and John Bright in earlier times and the various individual Friends currently prominent in public affairs? Such "public" Friends come to represent Quakerism in the eyes of many, though positions taken by them often find little support among their fellow Quakers. There is the case of Herbert Hoover, for instance, a member of the Society of Friends, putting his considerable prestige behind the proposal to form an association of nations that would exclude the Soviet bloc of powers and the American Friends Service Committee pointedly releasing a statement a few days later in which support for the United Nations within its present framework was urged.5 4

See infra, pp. 15/. See Minutes of the Executive Board of the American Friends Service Committee, May 3,1950. See report of Hoover's statement, New York Times, April 28,1950. 5

INTRODUCTION

XV

A fourth problem arises from the fact that this study has as its subject a group of people whose fundamental outlook and basic beliefs are opposed to the exclusive definition and isolation of beliefs involved in making such a study. Friends are apprehensive of descriptions and definitions of belief which may take on a credal aspect. The Quaker emphasis is pragmatic and experiential, being much opposed to the theoretical and the conceptual, or what Friends call "notional." In spite of this aversion to theory, however, there has been a need for formulating the basic Quaker ideas and beliefs and, though shying from the task in apprehension that some such formulation might become dogma and encourage a reliance on vicarious rather than firsthand experience, Friends have from time to time issued statements describing their beliefs. Rufus Jones, probably the leading interpreter of Quakerism in this century, said of such formulations, speaking to the World Conference of Friends in 1937: No important religious movement can keep moving and can maintain its vitality and spirituality without a body of cohesive principles which form the central structure— the invisible skeleton—of its life. These truths and principles often lie too deep for expression in words. They may be woven into the tissue of the life of these people rather than set forth in exact formulae, but nevertheless it will be found that deep down in the central current of the continuous movement there are significant ideas which give direction and moving power to it. It has been so for nearly three hundred years with the Society of Friends. Its members have usually been hesitant about formulations, and not very successful in making them, but there have always been in operation, in the widely dispersed Society, underlying principles of truth.6

This has encouraged the writer to go forward with what has so often resembled an effort to describe a wheel by using a straight line alone. A straight line can be used to describe the track the wheel leaves behind, but the wheel itself, with its central hub, radiating spokes, and moving rim, defies such linear treatment. There are, fortunately, certain factors which have pointed the way to a resolution of these problems, in so far as the purposes of this study are concerned. The task of selecting significant source materials on which to rely, when confronted with the decentralization of Quaker records, can be somewhat simplified because there has been a tendency for certain Yearly Meetings to be cast in a role of leadership. This is 'Friends World Committee, Friends World Conference, 1937: Report of Commission I (Philadelphia, 1937), P- 7-

XVI

INTRODUCTION

certainly not in accord with Quaker theory, as, in principle, complete equality as well as independence exists among the Yearly Meetings. It is a stubborn fact, nevertheless, but a useful one in this case, that London and Philadelphia Yearly Meetings, among others, have tended to be centres in which Quaker leadership has arisen and centres to which Quaker leadership has flowed. London Yearly Meeting has an unquestioned position of priority among Friends, though that priority is not recognized in any structural or formal manner. It is based on the feeling that London Yearly Meeting is the "home" of Quakerism, though New England Yearly Meeting has some claim to being the first Yearly Meeting in point of time.7 Similarly, the origins of the Philadelphia Yearly Meetings go back to the source of Quaker history, and in spite of subsequent divisions in the Society (divisions, incidentally, which with some assistance from London Yearly Meeting Friends were touched off by differences arising in Philadelphia Yearly Meeting),8 Philadelphia remains a focal point for Quakerism in the Americas. For these reasons, and because of the decentralized character of Quaker records, emphasis in this study has been placed on the documents of London and Philadelphia Yearly Meetings, though spot-checks have been made in the available records of other Yearly Meetings to guard against undue influence by particular local conditions in Philadelphia and London. It is fortunate that much of the documentation of London Yearly Meeting is available on microfilm in the Swarthmore and Haverford College libraries. Bridges between the Yearly Meetings can also be constructed through certain sources of information not exclusively connected with any one Yearly Meeting. The Quaker periodicals in the United States perform this function, though the periodicals elsewhere are inclined to serve as Yearly Meeting organs. While articles in these periodicals may voice opinions that would not be shared throughout the Society, they do provide helpful indicators when supported by other evidence. There are two associations of Friends' Yearly Meetings in the Americas, one of which holds a general meeting every two years and is referred to as the General Conference of Friends. The other association meets in general session every five years and is known as the Five 7 Russell, History of Quakerism, p. 40; Braithwaite, Beginnings of Quakerism, pp. 332 ff.; Jones, The Quakers in the American Colonies, pp. 143 f. These give differing accounts of the actual date of the first Yearly Meeting. 8 Jones, The Later Periods of Quakerism, I, 461 ff.

INTRODUCTION

XV11

Years Meeting of Friends. The proceedings of these associations are valuable, though they are not bodies possessing formal authority over their constituent Yearly Meetings. The same situation prevails with reference to the periodic regional and world conferences of Friends which were initiated around the turn of the century. The American Friends Service Committee, too, is without formal authority to speak or act for all Friends in the United States, though its informal authority is considerable and all but four Yearly Meetings9 in the United States now share in the responsibility of appointing the Committee's Board of Directors. In the United States the Friends Committee on National Legislation is a similar agent of the Society; a private corporation, not responsible to any one Yearly Meeting, its officials are registered lobbyists with the United States Department ofjustice and it represents many Friends' concerns before legislators and other public officials. The newsletters and policy statements of the Friends Committee on National Legislation have been helpful documents in pursuing this study. Finally, the publications and activities of the Friends World Committee for Consultation have provided a useful source of information, though the World Committee is primarily a channel of communication and exchange among Friends, not a central authority.10 In attempting to resolve these problems, this study has, first, minimized the role of the individual and unofficial groups of Friends, placing primary reliance on action sponsored by and carried out under the authority of recognized Friends' Meetings and agencies. The activities and points of view of individuals are sometimes important, however. In such cases it is usually possible to establish a link between the individual and the Meeting concerned. Sometimes the activities initiated by individuals or unofficial associations of Friends are later approved, supported, or taken over by the Meeting; the work of the Peace Association of Friends in Philadelphia is an example of this.11 Again, the Yearly Meeting may approve the publication and distribution of some individual's works; this approval is of particular importance in the case of the journals of leading Friends, a major documentary source in matters Quaker. The minute of unity which Friends are accustomed to request from their Meetings when undertaking a venture The exceptions are Oregon, Kansas, Rocky Mountain, and Central Yearly Meetings. See Friends World Committee, Handbook of the Religious Society of Friends, pp. vii-ix. "Philadelphia Yearly Meeting of Friends (Arch Street) Minutes, 1916, pp. 70-2.

10

XV111

INTRODUCTION

of importance is another possible link, as these minutes are duly recorded in the records of a Quaker Meeting. While such a minute may not mean that the issuing Meeting gives the project concerned its active support, it does mean that the Meeting approves of the individual Friend's going forward on his own or in co-operation with other likeminded Friends. A Meeting would not issue such a minute of unity to a Friend it felt was ill-prepared to undertake the venture proposed or to a Friend embarking on a venture that was in conflict with Quaker tenets.12 Minutes of unity were more meaningful throughout the seventeenth, eighteenth, and nineteenth centuries than they are today, when the bonds of the Meeting are looser and less inclusive. Because of the divergent views among Friends and among the different branches of the Society, it is quite possible, by logic and specific example, to reduce Quakerism to a meaningless conglomeration of diversity. However, a stubborn fact remains: there are three hundred years of unbroken Quaker history and a continuing Society of increasing membership that is identified with a particular way of life, including a particular approach to international relations. It is the stream of this tradition, and the sources from which it springs, which are the central points of interest in this study. But how, in the midst of this diversity, are the basic pattern, the central theme, to be identified? This study has attempted to identify them by the persistence and staying power of the varying trends. That which comes and goes in the Quaker tradition, that which has no antecedents or consequences in the beliefs and activities of prior or subsequent generations of Quakers, those beliefs and practices which have led their adherents out of the Society of Friends rather than deepening their interest in and attachment to it, have not been considered integral to the Quaker approach for purposes of this study. That which has persisted, that which has deepened and intensified attachments to the Society, have been considered in the main stream of Quakerism and germane to the present undertaking. Mistakes have no doubt been made about what has or has not been a part of this main stream. The likelihood of error, however, has not been considered sufficient reason to preclude the effort. There is comfort in the fact, too, that it is not of the nature of Quakers to allow such 12 See London Yearly Meeting Minutes, 1910, pp. 140 ff, for an account of the role of the "travelling minute" in the life of the Society.

INTRODUCTION

XIX

errors to remain; they will shortly be identified with precision and dispatched with definiteness, probably with humour. No claim is made by this study to confine itself to what is unique in Quakerism, nor has it attempted a comprehensive comparison between positions taken by the Quakers and those taken by other private groups. There is, however, an inclination to emphasize what is more uniquely Quaker and there are points at which the position of the Quakers can best be understood by reference to what other private organizations were saying and doing at the same time. While this study has drawn heavily on historical data, necessarily relying on history for its illustrative materials, and contains a section outlining the historical development of Quaker thought and action in international affairs, it is not primarily a piece of original historical research. Nor is it primarily an evaluation of the Society of Friends, or of the principles, attitudes, and activities for which Friends have stood in the field of foreign policy. The purpose here is descriptive and analytical: an effort to describe the nature of Quaker attitudes towards and activities in the field of foreign policy; an analysis only of the nature and source of these attitudes and activities, not their validity or worth, though a brief foray into the field of evaluation may be found in the Epilogue. It is particularly appropriate that evaluations in this study be left to the reader, as the writer is himself a member of the Society of Friends, having become a member subsequent to the undertaking of this study. He has held appointments with the American Friends Service Committee, and with British Friends Relief Service, and has undertaken various responsibilities in his Monthly, Quarterly, and Yearly Meetings. Caveat lector. A minimum of documentation has been included in the present work. Readers whose interests are more detailed will find fuller documentation in the writer's manuscript dissertation under the same title as this work. The dissertation was prepared for the Committee on International Rektions at the University of Chicago and may be obtained from the University library or from the Friends Historical Library, Swarthmore College, Swarthmore, Pennsylvania. To acknowledge the assistance one has received in completing a piece of research and writing is a hazardous proposition. What is intended to be a due recognition of assistance received may result in

XX

INTRODUCTION

undue responsibility being placed on those who have given generously of their time and effort, but who are in no position to save the author from all of his errors in planning, judgment, and manner of expression. Particularly as the present writer has not always followed the advice given, he alone is responsible for the errors that are doubtless a part of what follows. Professor Hans J. Morgenthau has been especially helpful. He has given both essential encouragement and criticism, invariably pointing out, in a few incisive words, the crucial flaws in the writer's approach to his task. Professor Quincy Wright undertook to read in its entirety and comment on an early draft of the manuscript. Professor Bert F. Hoselitz, of what was then the Committee on International Relations at the University of Chicago, first encouraged the writer to undertake this study and was most helpful during the early stages of its development. The writer considered himself fortunate indeed when Henry J. Cadbury, Emeritus Hollis Professor of Divinity at Harvard University, and former Chairman of the Executive Board of the American Friends Service Committee, agreed to read the manuscript. His comments and advice have provided important leads and have saved the writer from several pitfalls. The staff at Friends Historical Library and the Peace Collection at Swarthmore College have rendered the writer countless services over the ten years that the work has been in progress. The entire staff during this period should be mentioned, but especially Frederick B. Tolles, Dorothy G. Harris, Lyman Riley, the late Ellen Starr Brinton, Mary Gary, and Mary Ogilvie. Others who have aided in getting at the data on the basis of which this work was produced are: Hi Doty and Hester Grover, archivists of the American Friends Service Committee; Anna B. Hewitt of the Quaker Collection at Haverford College; Muriel Hicks of Friends Library at Friends House, London; James F. Walker and Hannah Stapler of Friends World Committee for Consultation; and Blanche Shafer and Michi Nakamura, Librarians at Pendle Hill, Wallingford, Pennsylvania. Material aid was also received from Pendle Hill, through its Director, Dan Wilson, and from the award of a generous grant under a fellowship programme established by Graceanna and the late Clement M. BiddleofNewYork.

INTRODUCTION

XXI

Publication would have been long delayed had it not been for the encouragement and facilities received by the writer from friends and colleagues at North Park College. To acknowledge the support of Earland I. Carlson and J. William Fredrickson in this connection is a pleasure. The writer would record here too his thanks to the staff of the University of Toronto Press, and particularly Francess G. Halpenny and M. Jean Houston. Their patience and consideration must have bounds, somewhere, though the writer did not discover them. Ackknowledgment is also due to the Publications Fund of the University of Toronto Press for a grant in aid of publication. The writer wishes to thank Mrs. Eleanor Roosevelt, Janet Whitney, The Progressive and The Atlantic Monthly magazines, and the United Features Syndicate for permission to quote from copyrighted materials. Perhaps most important of all, however, has been the encouragement the writer has received from his wife, the members of his family, and his friends, those named above and those unnamed only because space here is limited. It is these who helped most when the confusion was greatest, when ideas would not quite take shape, and the words would not come or when they did come, did not make sense.

This page intentionally left blank

PART I R E L I G I O N A N D POLITICSQUAKER

PATTERNS

This page intentionally left blank

CHAPTER ONE

Some Essentials of Quakerism THE QUAKERS are a "peculiar people" as they themselves have been inclined to observe. They are also a religious people and view their Society as a community of individuals participating in a religious movement.1 Quakers are well known, perhaps best known, for their international activities, and their "peculiarities" are particularly evident in the international expression of their religious principles. Such expressions have sometimes led Friends actively to support aspects of the foreign policies of governments and there have been expressions resulting in close co-operation or even assistance in the implementation of official foreign policy. Characteristically, however, Friends have urged major or minor modifications in existing foreign policies, the modifications urged always being in the direction of advising less reliance on military and other coercive solutions to international problems. In the three hundred years of their history the Quakers may have developed insights that can place the relationships between nations in clearer perspective and they may have charted approaches that can decrease the likelihood of international violence. Friends themselves are convinced that their approach to international affairs has both relevancy and an increasing urgency.2 In the precarious state of the world, such a claim ought not to be treated lightly. THE CENTRAL FACT ABOUT QUAKERISM

The "peculiarity" of the Quaker approach stems from one factor, a factor that to Friends is a verified fact. Friends are convinced that every person, regardless of differences in ability, appearance, training, or political or religious allegiance, possesses a positive, creative, unifying quality. They express this conviction variously, sometimes giving it 1

Sec Rufus M. Jones, Introduction to Braithwaite, The Beginnings of Quakerism, pp. xxv ff. See American Friends Service Committee (A.F.S.C.) Steps to Peace: A Quaker View of Foreign Policy, pp. 4 f. 2

4

QUAKER WAYS IN FOREIGN POLICY

secular expression as the dignity, worth, or preciousness of the individual personality. More often the expression is religious: "that of God in every man," "the Seed within," "the Light within," or "the Christ within." However expressed, it means that there is something of infinite worth in every individual, and that there is an active or latent striving and capacity for creative and harmonious living in every personality. Friends find no reason to doubt that men also have a capacity for destructiveness, cruelty, and disunity, capacities often so well developed that it is necessary to take men's capacity for the opposite on faith. Nor do Friends feel that this central belief is an easy one to practise. It is considerably easier, at least in the short run, Friends would point out, to exercise superficial control over the inclination to destructiveness than it is to reach through and activate "that of God," the capacity for goodness, in the individual. Regardless of the problems involved, however, Quakerism is directed towards the development of and, ultimately, a complete reliance on man's inherent capacity to express and respond to goodness. Not only the international aspects of Quakerism, but also the procedures and structure of the Society and its Meetings for Business and Worship, and the Quaker approach to penology, poverty, the conduct of commerce and industry, mental illness, social relationships, and domestic politics all reflect the centrality of this belief in the individual.3 Friends have not always been in specific agreement about the nature of this "Light within" or "Inward Light"4 on which the fundamental Quaker belief in the preciousness of the individual personality rests. There have been a variety of interpretations within any given period of Quakerism and there have been discernible shifts in interpretation over the years. While early Friends were inclined to view the Inward Light as that "principle" which makes it possible to respond to God, thus tending to make God completely "other" and outside of human 3

For the application of this principle to domestic social, economic and political problems see Edward Grubb, Social Aspects of the Quaker Faith; Auguste Jorns, Quakers as Pioneers in Social Work; Arthur Raistrick, Quakers in Science and Industry; Howard H. Brinton, Quaker Education; W. A. C, Stewart, Quakers and Education; Thomas E. Drake, Quakerism and Slavery in America; Raynor W. Kelsey, Friends and the Indians, 1655-1917; Isaac Sharpless, A Quaker Experiment in Government. and Quakerism and Politics; and Francis Edward Pollard et al, Democracy and the Quaker Method. 4 Compare, for instance, Robert Barclay, in Barclay in Brief, ed. Eleanore Price Mather (Wellingford, Penn.: Pendle Hill, n.d.), pp. 38 f.; John W. Graham, The Faith of a Quaker, p. 146; Edward Grubb, Authority and the Light Within, pp. 104-11; Rufus M. Jones, The Nature and Authority of Conscience, p. 71; Gerald K. Hibbert, The Inner Light and Modern Thought, p. 44; Howard H. Brinton, Friends for 300 Years, pp. 31-58.

SOME ESSENTIALS OF QUAKERISM

5

existence, later interpretations bring God closer and the Light within becomes the very image of God in every man, not only the capacity to know God. There is still a quality of "otherness" about God, however, which takes Quakerism out of the path of humanism and results in seeing God as both immanent and transcendent. Though on the whole Friends are not particularly interested in being precise and definite about these theological matters, it is important both to Friends and to this study that the Light within be conceived as spirit. Friends feel a special kinship with the Gospel of John, being very much in accord with that Gospel when it records Jesus as saying: "But the hour cometh and now is, when the true worshippers shall worship the Father in spirit and in truth: for the Father seeketh such to worship him. God is a Spirit and they that worship him must worship him in spirit and in truth."5 Through the spirit, "that of God" in each individual, all men are related to each other and to God. If a person becomes sensitive to the spiritual centres of life there is an increasing realization of the unity that exists among all men and between men and God through these spiritual centres. The purpose of life, to Friends, is to develop this Spirit within and to experience the fullest possible harmony with other people and with God. HOW FRIENDS KNOW

How do Friends know that all men have this Light within? What is their evidence? These questions are important not only because of their relationship to the Inward Light, but also because they raise the general question of how Quakers establish the validity of other conclusions, their conclusions about foreign policy included. Experience is the final authority for Friends. Not doctrine, not scripture, not ecclesiastical fiat, and not logically established theory, but direct, personal experience.6 The approach is therefore pragmatic and inductive. Friends believe in God because they have experienced God. They believe in the Light within because they have experienced the Light within. They believe that all people are possessed of this Light because they have experienced it in other people and because they have experienced the validity of the principle as a universal. All 5

John 4:23-4. Fox, Journal, p. 9. Also London Yearly Meeting, Christian Discipline of the Religious Society of Friends in Great Britain (1953), part I, pp. 3 f. 6

6

QUAKER WAYS IN FOREIGN POLICY

the procedures and testimonies of Quakerism are directed towards creating a framework within which the personal anil pragmatic experience of truth may be most readily realized. The uniqueness of Quaker Meetings for Worship lies in their lack of sermons, professional ministry, liturgy, and scheduled reading of scriptures. These traditional accoutrements were eliminated by the Quakers to make the individual less likely to accept the second-hand experience of a minister or scriptural authority as a substitute for a direct personal experience of truth. There are no stained-glass windows, altars, or other symbols in a Quaker Meeting House: such symbols might distract the worshipper from a direct experience of reality. Quaker Meetings for Business have no chairmen, as chairmen tend to overpower a meeting: "clerks" collect and record the agreement reached among the individuals assembled. No votes are taken in these Meetings for Business as truth is indivisible and not a matter of percentages. Decisions reached through a mere majority would take too little account of the truth available through the minority. All must experience the validity of a decision before it can be recorded as the "consensus" or "sense of the Meeting." The refusal to use titles of honour and the emphasis on plainness of speech in address stem from the desire to respect the Spirit within all men, irrespective of the artificial adornments of dress, titles, and fine speech. Too, Friends are apprehensive of efforts to reduce their experience to a system of philosophy or theology, fearing that such a system would become rigid doctrine or dogma and stand in the way of the individual's first-hand experience of that which lies behind the form. Explanation and exposition, when needed for the information of others, can be provided to better advantage, Friends feel, in terms of simple narratives of experience rather than in philosophical or theological formulations. It is for this reason that the journals of leaders in the Society play an important role in Quakerism. Knowing that experience is the basis for Friends' assertion that there is "that of God" in all men does not carry the quest very far. Two further questions must be answered: Are Friends correct in thinking that they have experienced "that of God" within themselves, as well as the universal validity of that principle? If they are, have they interpreted the nature and meaning of that experience correctly? There is no doubt in the minds of Friends that they have experienced the fact that there is "that of God" within all men. The experience is "almost as

SOME ESSENTIALS OF QUAKERISM

7

real as the City Hall of Philadelphia,"7 as one Friend phrased it. The journals of Friends are replete with examples of experiences of this sort. The tenor, tempo, and direction of lives change as a result of these experiences.8 People do things that they would not otherwise have done. People decide to take or not to take a difficult journey, determine questions which are of fundamental importance to their careers and their own and their family's security, and undertake or decline to undertake extensive obligations, all in the light of these experiences. The nature of what has happened, Friends hold, is spiritual. Communication, communion, has taken place between the spirit that is in man and the God-Spirit in the image of which the spirit in man is formed. Friends claim that there is nothing unusual in this communication, nothing precious or esoteric. There is evidence that people of all times and places, all varieties of belief and non-belief, and all social and economic classes have had experiences of this sort. They are related to what Graham Wallas calls "inspiration," when he describes the "art of thought" as the process of the collection of data, "reflection," "inspiration," and "verification" of conclusions.9 It is the experience the artist feels in the process of creation, and is closely akin to "the quiet joy one feels in the presence of exalted beauty, or when listening to music that fits the inner need of the hour, or in the moment of the discovery of the meaning of love."10 This communion of spirit with spirit is, as a matter of fact, more explicable than communication between man and matter: If God is Spirit and man is spirit, it is not strange, absurd or improbable that there should be communication and correspondence between them. The odd thing is that we should have communication with the world of matter, not that we have correspondence with a world of spiritual reality like our own inner nature. The thing that needs explanation is how we have commerce with rocks and hills and sky. It seems natural that we should have commerce with that which is most like ourselves.11 7 From notes taken of a speech made by Rufus Jones at the A.F.S.C. General Meeting, January 28, 1938. See A.F.S.C. Archives at Haverford College. 8 For example, see the experience of the following: James Naylor, Works, p. 12; Francis Howgili's "Testimony Concerning Edward Burrough" in the Introduction to Edward Burrough, Works; the account concerning Marmaduke Stevenson in Joseph Besse, A Collection of the Sufferings of the People Called Quakers: 1650-1689,1, 508-10; Rufus M.Jones, A Call to a New Installment of the Heroic Spirit (New England Yearly Meeting of the Religious Society of Friends, 1948), p. 8. 9 Graham Wallas, The Art of Thought (New York, 1926). 10 Rufus M.Jones, Some Exponents of Mystical Religion, pp. 18 f. "Rufus M. Jones, The New Quest, p. 128.

8

QUAKER WAYS IN FOREIGN POLICY

How do Friends know that man and God are spiritual beings capable of communicating with each other? Friends find biblical authority for such a view, but biblical evidence is largely collateral for Friends as, again, they claim that they themselves have experienced the spiritual nature of God and man. As for proof of such experience, Friends would say that ultimately the validity of the experience must be seen in the lives of men who claim such experience or else the experience itself must come to those who seek proof. "Verification takes place daily and hourly in millions of inconspicuous lives. . . . each may share in the exciting and never-ending process of verification. [All may join] . . . the 'Fellowship of Verification.' "12 Friends are inclined to feel that verbal descriptions and explanations can never be completely satisfying as verification or proof of spiritual experience. To describe the experience verbally Friends feel themselves driven to a reliance on figures of speech and analogies drawn from one aspect of existence in an attempt to depict something that exists on another level of existence. The effort is similar to that involved in explaining colour to a person who has been blind from birth by resorting to examples and comparisons from the world of sound, touch, taste, and scent. The reality of colour needs no proof to the person who has experienced colour, but colour will remain, in part at least, an uncertain conjecture to anyone who has not experienced it directly. A question that will be of importance to the scientifically minded is the matter of reproduction or duplication of the claimed experience. The scientist goes into his laboratory and recreates the claimed experiment for the doubters and tells the doubters how they themselves may conduct the experiment and get similar results. While cautioning against using the same tests for spiritual phenomena that are used for physical ones, Friends would observe: "Yes, we have found that certain conditions tend to produce these experiences more readily than other conditions, just as scientists find that certain laboratory conditions tend to produce certain results. The conditions we have found conducive to the experience of God as Spirit and the experience of the Light within are the conditions we Friends suggest for private meditation and those we attempt to create surrounding our Meetings for Business and, particularly, our Meetings for Worship, conditions among which freedom and a vital quietness are crucial. Come and worship with us 12

D. Elton Trueblood, The Trustworthiness of Religious Experience (London, 1939), p. 93.

SOME ESSENTIALS OF QUAKERISM

9

and you, too, may sense this experience of an Inward Spirit that can be known to all men as all men are created in its image, are the children of God, Remember, though, there are conditions and there are stages through which any experiment must go. Too, faith is an important element in all experiments, and the more so in experiments in which spiritual factors are emphasized, as our scientific age gives credence more readily to experiences which can be tasted, heard, seen, felt, or smelled than to experiences which come to us through the more subtle awarenesses that involve the total personality rather than its isolated senses. If your initial efforts don't produce the experience you are seeking, and they almost certainly won't, don't despair; recall the Curies and Thomas Edison and their extended and repeated efforts before they found what they were seeking. Don't be surprised, however, if, after repeated efforts, you are suddenly aware of the fact that you have found that for which you were looking and that it had actually been present for some time without your having recognized it and made it a central and growing part of your life." On the objective verification of these experiences, William James, in his Varieties of Religious Experience, concludes: Our own "rational" beliefs are based on evidence exactly similar in nature to that which . . . [Friends] quote for theirs. Our senses, namely, have assured us of certain states of fact; but. . . [Quaker] experiences are as direct perceptions of fact for them as any sensations ever were for us. The record shows that . . . they are absolutely sensational in their epistemological quality... that is, they are face to face presentations of what seems immediately to exist, (pp. 415 f.)

And a leading twentieth-century Quaker interpreter of Quakerism has written: It must be admitted at once that the "evidence" which . . . [Friends'] experience supplies of contact with an inner realm of spiritual reality is not of a sort that can be interpreted in universal terms to the same degree as the objects of the sense can be interpreted, and consequently, the testimony of. . . Friends does not convince others in the same way, for instance, that the scientist's testimony to the existence of the atom does. For the ... Friend himself, however, the experience does often possess that conviction-compelling power which attaches to sense experience of external objects [Such experiences] cannot be universalized as information about the stars can. And yet the conviction-compelling aspect of these experiences is often greater than anything we ever get from the external world of atoms and molecules. . . ,13

The ultimate validating and informing experience upon which 1

^Jones, Some Exponents of Mystical Religion, pp. 18 f.

IO

QUAKER WAYS IN FOREIGN POLICY

Friends rely in establishing the principles by which they live and by which they construct policy is thus a mystical experience. It is not based on sensory perception, it is not based on logic or intellect alone. It occurs when there is a high degree of unity among all aspects of existence, physical, intellectual, and emotional, when the personality expresses a quality that can and by its nature must find union with the Reality of which it is an image. Then "God's image within recognizes God's truth without."14 As with all individual experience, the precise tempo, form, and intensity of these experiences will vary from person to person. For some the experience will be acute, even spectacular, but more commonly such insights come as a growing and quiet awareness and conviction that certain courses of action should be taken and that certain others should not, that certain things are true and that certain others are not.15 The truths, the principles of Friends which are based on these experiences of a mystical nature do not constitute knowledge of a different order from that which is dealt with through the channels of sense and intellect alone. The "conventional" (to people whose roots are in the Renaissance and Enlightenment of European history) ways of "knowing" are employed too, and the knowledge is of the same stuff, but things are intensified; heightened and unusual perspective, insight, and understanding become available as a state is reached in which the Spirit of God and the Spirit of God in man are in communion and harmony. It is this union and harmony which Friends attempt to attain as the proper condition in which to search for solutions to personal, national, and international problems. ABSOLUTES AND THEIR LIMITS

Given the general conviction that there is "that of God in every man," verified "experimentally," as George Fox stated, does this make any difference, except in terms of personal religious life? True, in the first instance these factors are concerned with the individual's relationship to God, but the consequences which flow from this relationship are great. First, the relationship to God is the basic fact of life to Friends, 14

Hibbert, Inner Light and Modern Thought, pp. 22 f. For a general discussion of the characteristics of mysticism see Evelyn Underbill, Mysticism (New York, 1911), especially chapter rv, "The Characteristics of Mysticism"; William E. Hocking, The Meaning of God in Human Experience (New Haven, 1907), pp. 350-5; Friedrich von Huegel, The Mystical Element in Religion (London, 1928), I, 3-82; II, 257-396, 15

SOME ESSENTIALS OF QUAKERISM

II

and its fullest possible realization and development constitute life's primary purpose. Nothing must be allowed to restrict the individual's capacity to develop and respond to it. Secondly, this approach of Friends assumes that an individual's progress and development are to be measured in spiritual terms, the importance of intellectual, social, and material factors being measured by the degree to which they support or retard spiritual development. When, in the course of the developing relationship between God and the God in man, specific rules of right and wrong take form, conscience becomes a factor. The conscience, to Friends, is an expression of God within the individual and is to be followed absolutely. This view is particularly important if, as Friends believe, conscience involves the individual's growing awareness of God's moral order, an awareness that can develop only as it is exercised, because it can move to new levels of development only after its claims are fully realized on prior levels. If the promptings of conscience are not followed, moral and spiritual sensitivity becomes calloused and the capacity to determine and respond to promptings arising out of the relationship between God and the God in man is weakened. Too, as one is bound to follow absolutely the dictates of conscience, it is imperative to grant others the freedom to do likewise; all men, in the Quaker view, being possessed of the same capacity and the same necessity in this respect. From this stems Friends' firm advocacy of freedom in its various forms. But there are limits to the claims of conscience and freedom, and situations in which the promptings of individual conscience do not constitute immediate and final authority for Friends. One qualification limiting the absolute claims of "conscience" arises because at times people think that they have experienced the prompting of the Inward Light and conscience when they have not. Many things, from the more subtle emanations of wishful thinking to full-blown psychopathic compulsions, can be mistaken for the promptings of conscience. It is for this reason that it is important to have a group of friends, a "society of friends," to serve as a touchstone against which the leadings of individuals may be checked. Among Friends, their Meetings serve in this capacity and Friends have a tradition of seeking the advice of their Meetings before concluding important decisions, whether the matters in question concern marriage, a business venture, or an extended journey. For the individual Friend this has the advantage of shared

12

QUAKER WAYS IN FOREIGN POLICY

responsibility, because the Meeting, were it to unite with a Friend in a decision, would have an interest in seeing the decision through to a successful conclusion. Were a Friend, for instance, for the sake of conscience and after due consultation with the local Meeting, to conclude that he could not conscientiously continue earning his living in the business in which he is engaged, the Meeting would feel a responsibility to help its member get a new start. The Meeting would not feel a responsibility to take primary initiative in the matter, nor would it feel a responsibility to relieve the Friend of all the consequences of his conscientious act, for the basic responsibility is the individual's and the acceptance of the consequences of the decision is an integral aspect of conscientiousness. The Meeting would, however, feel it important both for the member and for the Meeting to see to it that such consequences were not of a nature to be destructive of the "spirit within" the member. If a Meeting feels that a member is responding to forces other than those of conscience and the Inward Light, it will labour with him, perhaps in the regular Meeting for Business, but more likely through a group of seasoned Friends appointed for the specific purpose. When a particularly serious question arises there may be a series of extended sessions in which the matter is thoroughly explored and an effort made to attain a true unity of feeling on the issue in question. If, in the end, the member is still convinced that his leading is that of conscience and is from "that of God within," Friends will expect him to follow what he feels to be his best understanding of the matter, even though the Meeting is not able to unite with him in his decision. It is not the function of the Meeting to instruct the individual as to what he ought to understand his Inward Leading to be, but rather to see that the individual interprets his own leadings against the background of what others see as important factors. For Friends, conscience and morality are strictly individual matters and no one can decide for another what is and what is not the moral thing to do. An imposed morality would be a contradiction in terms, as there can be no morality without free choice. Nevertheless, in certain particularly serious matters, Meetings have felt that they could not let the matter rest with the member left to follow what is, to the Meeting, a clear misunderstanding of the requirements of morality and conscience. In such cases the Meeting

SOME ESSENTIALS OF QUAKERISM

13

may feel that the Friend's acts have created such a division between himself and his Meeting that he is, as a result, no longer a member of the Meeting. After further consultation with him, indicating to him what the Meeting feels the consequences of his acts to have been, the Meeting will, if the member does not feel free to take action to heal the breach, record and send him a minute of disownment in which the Meeting indicates that this Friend is no longer "under the care" of the Meeting, emphasizing that it is the member himself, by his action, who has created the condition and that the minute is merely a recording of the situation thus created. There is, for instance, the minute of disownment, in the records of Philadelphia Yearly Meeting for August 27, 1799, concerning one Samuel Wetherill: ". . . we apprehend ourselves under the necessity, in support of our Christian, peaceable testimony, to declare that he hath separated himself from fellowship with us and secluded himself from membership in our religious society."16 A member thus disowned may be reinstated in his Meeting if he is willing to recognize the error of his former ways and is prepared to follow a different path in the future. It should be noted here that, while the Quaker Meeting continues to serve as a touchstone for testing the validity of the leadings of the individual conscience, this check seldom expresses itself in the extreme form of disownment among contemporary Friends. In common with all revolutionary groups, Friends needed to exercise a strong discipline over their members during the earliest period of Quakerism when Friends were a severely persecuted minority, in order that the Society be persecuted only for its principles and not for some member's whims or delusions. This revolutionary period was followed by a period of toleration when Friends were anxious lest some Friends' foolishness might jeopardize the Society's right to toleration or that deviations from established practices might dilute the Society's principles and precious peculiarities. Disownments, however, have now become virtually non-existent, though Meetings have retained the power to issue them. A second limitation on the absolute authority of the conscience is the fact that Friends consider conscience to be in the process of gradual "Quoted in Charles Wetherill, History of the Religious Society of Friends Called by Some the Free Quakers in the City of Philadelphia (Philadelphia, 1894), pp-16-17, as being in the Philadelphia Yearly Meeting Minutes for August 27,1799.

14

QUAKER WAYS IN FOREIGN POLICY

growth and development. That which may be in accord with conscience at one time, in one situation, may not be in another, and probably ought not to be, as an increasing sensitivity to moral values is an end earnestly to be desired. Thus, in the act of responding to the promptings of conscience in the matter of caring for the slaves in the possession of early Friends, it became unbearably clear that it was wrong to have slaves at all, or at least wrong to acquire slaves other than those that were inherited and for whom responsibility was felt. Gradually it became clear that it was wrong to increase the number of slaves held by anyone, and the slave trade was opposed. Finally it became clear that the whole institution of slavery had to be opposed and slaveholding became a disownable offence throughout Quakerism shortly before the American Revolution. Thus is the absoluteness of conscience relative to time, and similarly, to place. There is a third sense in which Friends would admit that conscience is not final; this, however, refers to absolute respect for the conscience of others, rather than absolute obedience to one's own conscience. There are situations in which a limited development of conscience may result in a person being led to do unnecessary harm or violence to another person. Such acts are sometimes the result of delusions or mental illness, but at other times probably proceed from a sincere pursuit of a clear conscience. The burning of witches on Boston Common was doubtless, for some, the result of a response to conscientious leadings. Friends would have no qualms about deterring such conscientious activities by appropriate measures. Situations of the sort are by no means hypothetical for Friends. Friends were among those hanged as heretics on Boston Common and Friends have worked closely with the Doukhobors in Canada, one group of whom are accustomed to burn their own and other people's property, public and private, as a form of political and religious protest. Friends would urge that such situations be met with a programme that attempts to provide conditions in which the offender's conscience might have the most favourable opportunity to develop towards more enlightened standards, rather than meeting the situation on the basis of punishment and retribution, though restraint and detention may be necessary as a part of the process. In general, where one person is made to suffer as a direct result of another's act of conscience, restraint may be necessary, but that restraint should be minimal and need not and ought not to be vindictive.

SOME ESSENTIALS OF QUAKERISM

15

Finally, the leadings of conscience with respect to any one matter must be considered within a framework that will include various other matters of conscience. This has been a particular problem for "public Friends," as Friends have called those among their membership who undertake responsibilities necessitating frequent public appearances. Friend Thomas Taylor must have had pause when he was confronted with the necessity of choosing between staying at home with his wife and five youngsters or taking up the ministry which carried him up and down seventeenth-century England until he was placed in jail and kept there for ten-and-a-half years.17 A century later, the slowness with which John Woolman came to the conclusion that he was rightly led to undertake his various journeys was not unconnected with the fact that his leadings, if properly understood, would result in his being away from his family much of the time.18 Journal accounts note Friends in the nineteenth century being faced with the same problem, and in 1937 Harry and Rebecca Timbres laboured with the problem when they were considering plans to undertake anti-malarial work in the Soviet Union, involving considerable risk for their two young daughters.19 Conflicts of a similar sort have existed between responsibilities to professional and business undertakings and, of course, between the individual and the Society of Friends on one side and responsibilities to the state on the other. An influential Friend of the twentieth century has said of these conflicts of conscience: ... there often appears to be a "rivalry" among the ideals which control us and shape our deeds. There are many possible ruling systems of sentiments, and the world has never fully agreed upon an unvarying order of importance. Love of family, love of friend, love of country, love of Church, love of race, love of truth, love of God— which of all of these is the highest loyalty and the most sacred system of desire or of sentiment? Temperament, education, character, will in large degree determine in our personal lives in which direction our ideals will organize our sentiments, and so form the dominating passion of our souls. The lover, the patriot, the martyr, the saint, have each felt clearly that life came to consummate glory in the end for which they severally lived and died. There is no arbiter who can settle this question between ends which are all goods in themselves. But surely nothing can be higher or diviner than a life organized under the ideal which Christ has revealed and fused with his spirit— His way of life reveals individual 17 Thomas Taylor, Works; see especially in this connection the various testimonies concerning Thomas Taylor's life which preface this volume. 18 Amelia Mott Gummere, The Journal of John Woolman, pp. 248 fF. 19 Harry and Rebecca Timbres, We Didn't Ask Utopia.

16

QUAKER WAYS IN FOREIGN POLICY

conscience in its most acute and exalted form. It holds the soul like adamant, and is near to an absolute authority as one can find in this world of change and process.20

It would thus appear that, in reaching conclusions concerning the claims of conscience in these various relationships, the ultimate authority, again, must be the individual conscience, best exemplified in the life of Jesus. But the promptings of conscience, with respect to particular relationships must be considered to be subject to the limitations imposed by the promptings of conscience with respect to other relationships. The leadings of conscience, then, provide no simple rule, according to Friends, because such leadings are (i) subject to checks for accuracy in consultation with others, (2) subject to group controls when the pursuit of a mistaken leading will result in direct injury to others, (3) relative to a given time and place, and (4) to be checked within a frame of reference that permits conscientiousness in all of life's relationships, not in but one or a few only. 20

Jones, Nature and Authority of Conscience, pp. 63-5.

CHAPTER TWO

"That of God in Every Man": General Implications THE ONENESS OF MAN

AMONG THE IMPLICATIONS attached to a belief that there is "that of God in every man" is the corollary that all men share and are thus equal in this common inheritance. Thus, the conception of the Inward Light leads to a belief that the fate of all men is inextricably interrelated; that, ultimately, no man is free so long as one person remains in bondage, that no man is secure so long as one man lives in fear, that no man is virtuous so long as one person is lacking in virtue, that no man is wealthy while another lives in poverty, and that God may make truth available through anyone, not only through an intellectual, political, or religious aristocracy. The God within is bound, crippled, desecrated, unexpressed, and undeveloped to the extent that any man is bound, crippled, desecrated, unexpressed, or undeveloped. This unity of fate makes inevitable an interest in the condition of all men and it is this interest that has motivated Friends towards the efforts at social, political, and economic reform for which they are perhaps best known by the world at large. Doing good is not the fundamental reason for these reform and welfare programmes, but the fact that he suffers a corrosion of spirit who stands by unconcerned in the presence of the burdened spirits of others. Friends are not extremists nor are they doctrinaire in the practice of their awareness of a common fate for all men. They have shown little inclination to sell all and share the standard of living of the poorest. When wealth comes, a Friend is apt to view it as somehow incidental to the working out of the moral order and a trust which he is no more free to reject than he would be free to accept as life's major purpose. Should wealth come as an incidental result of being faithful to the promptings of the Inward Guide, the possession of that wealth is

18

QUAKER WAYS IN FOREIGN POLICY

neither moral nor immoral in itself. If both the acquisition and use of wealth are in response to the leadings of the Inward Light, that wealth, to Friends, would be moral. While emphasizing the importance of community, Friends have felt little inclination towards "intentional communities" of the type founded by Robert Owen, Charles Fourier's disciples, and, in more recent times, the Society of Brothers. It is probable that Friends' emphasis on the development of the individual personality has led them to be apprehensive that the individual personality and its Inward Light would be submerged in a group in which so much of life was held in common. There would be too little opportunity for the individual personality to exercise its individuality and freedom of choice, moral or otherwise. Nor has their belief in the oneness of mankind led Friends into a radical equalitarianism. Friends are regularly admonished not to "overreach themselves" and not to "engage in activities beyond their measure." Though all men possess "that of God within," all men, patently, are not equally able. Each person should direct his or her efforts towards those activities which are appropriate, which he or she is properly led to undertake. Care should be taken that one does not "outrun one's Guide," launching into activities that because of their nature or extent are not appropriate to one's abilities or situation. Each person, however, has his or her measure of "potential" that is precious and which it is important to see developed to the fullest extent possible. Friends would note the importance of activating the latent potential in the most unpromising of personalities. None are to be written off as hopeless. It is thus that Friends have a record of pioneering in such fields as mental health and penology. Where there is "that of God," "that of God" may be expressed. God is, thus, not limited to a chosen few in selecting channels for expression. Also based in Friends' belief in the essential unity of mankind is their comparative lack of concern to persuade other people to accept the labels and other particulars of the Quaker way of life. Unity exists in the Spirit within, not in outward forms, nor in political or religious allegiances. For this reason Friends have not emphasized organizational forms as solutions to social, economic, political, or religious problems, and for this reason, too, an important segment of the Society of Friends has been opposed to all forms of what usually is referred to as

THAT OF GOD IN EVERY MAN

19

"missionary activity." To bring pressure of any kind to bear to encourage a person to accept a set of religious beliefs, authorities, and procedures seems to those Friends to be a violation of the personalities of those towards whom such pressure is directed. Friends wish those who associate themselves with Friends' beliefs to do so on the basis of the same kind of experience which brought Friends to these beliefs originally. While it is true that much of the missionary activity that certain groups of Friends have undertaken has little to distinguish it from the missionary work of other religious groups, characteristically, Friends have been rather less interested than others in making "converts" of the people among whom they work in the mission field.1 This is illustrated by a note in the bulletin of the American Friends Board of Missions, the missionary agency for an evangelical sector of American Quakerism: Recently a statement was quoted stating that one of our schools was neither Christian nor Quaker. Years ago a former pastor's wife said: "Well, did you finally make Americans of those Cuban people?" Our reply was, "We hope not." And should we make them Quakers? Should we plant in the countries to which we go all the denominational divisions and schisms which have grown out of our American, Anglo-Saxon, and European thought life? . . . To say that . . . our institutions are neither American nor Quaker is one of the highest compliments that could be paid to the work of those who have labored, provided positive, creative work has filled the vacancies where these negatives are lacking.2

Currently this uneasiness about bringing pressure on others to accept new patterns of belief and ways of living has led to an important movement among Friends that would extend membership in the Society to people who are adherents of forms of religion other than Christianity.3 Friends have held that this oneness of mankind leads to community J Henry Hodgkin, Friends beyond Seas\ D. Elton Trueblood, The Theory and Practice of Quaker Missions. ^Friendly Flashes, XXIV, no. I (January 1951), 4. 3 Horace G. Alexander, "A New Fellowship in Truth," Friends Quarterly, IV, no. 7 (January 1950), 14. See also various issues of The Friendly Way\ and Teresina Rowell Havens, "Should Quakerism Include Non-Christians," The Friends Intelligencer, CX (Eleventh Month 21, 1953), 633-5; this article was stimulated by events arising out of a memorandum presented at the Lake Erie Association of Friends in the Fall of 1953 by Arthur E. Morgan which appears in The Friends Intelligencer, CX (Tenth Month 17, 1953), 558. See also The Vocation of Friends in the Modern World: Study Booklet No. i (London, Friends World Committee for Consultation, 1950), pp. 31-4, and Friends Face Their Fourth Century (London, Friends World Committee for Consultation, 1950), pp. 41 f.

2O

QUAKER WAYS IN FOREIGN POLICY

of both guilt and virtue. We may not share equally in all guilt and virtue, but we do share it, are a part of it, and bear a responsibility for it. It is at least partially for this reason that Friends are less inclined than most to draw a sharp line with respect to the location and punishment of particular evidences of guilt. Essentially, all are culpable and the real issue is how to go forward to the creation of a situation in which the guilty act will not reappear. Thus Friends have been among the earliest, if not the earliest, advocates of a corrective rather than a retributive penology and were among the first to view insanity as a medical problem rather than a condition calling for punishment. It is thus, too, that Friends have preferred conferences and negotiation to the legal settlement of disputes. Implicit in this Quaker belief in the profound interrelatedness of men is a belief in the essential immorality of gratitude. If, as a result of the working of the same God in all men, one man performs an act of service for another, there is no cause of particular gratitude. The individual who performs the service does so in response to the God within both himself and the recipient of the service, the servant being an instrument of God and not the source of the service. It is for this reason, for instance, that it is not considered good form among Friends to express gratitude towards a person who happens to provide the voice for a helpful message in a meeting for worship. If the message is authentic it is not primarily the result of any one individual's will and intellect, though such will and intellect undoubtedly play a role, over a period of time, in making the individual a sensitive instrument for the expression and fruition of the Light within. The individual is encouraged to act and speak in a manner required if that individual is to develop an increasing sensitivity of spirit. Lines of inquiry and action are discouraged when it seems clear that such inquiry and action arise from the rootless do-goodism that so quickly degenerates into sentimentality. OPTIMISM AND GRADUALISM

Friends' belief in the Inward Light involves an essentially optimistic view of human nature. There is no place here for the Calvinistic emphasis on Original Sin. Man is born into the world with a potential for good or for evil; he is not prenatally involved in or committed to either. Both potentials are always present, no matter how deeply one

THAT OF GOD IN EVERY MAN

21

or the other may lie buried under the accumulation of years of living. Which tendency is the stronger? A contemporary Friend phrased the question: "The real problem which always confronts us is whether the white squares are on a black background or whether the black squares are on a white background."4 Characteristically, Friends are inclined to count on the white background, or as George Fox said: "I saw . . . that there was an ocean of darkness and of death, but an infinite ocean of light and love which flowed over the ocean of darkness."5 Friends tend to follow this optimistic pattern and believe that in the long run life on earth improves, and that, though it has its ebbings and Sowings, the "ocean of light" will ultimately dominate the scene. This is not an easy optimism. There will be suffering in the process, but there is an inner compulsion which will make it inevitable that men will be led to make the effort and pay the price. Though there is this element of suffering in Friends' outlook on life, their outlook is optimistic in the sense of being an essentially happy view of life. God is good and is in life and a part of life, not a judge sitting apart from it. Lijfe is not a vale of tears in which man's bestial nature must forever be kept in chains. Spiritual development is not primarily a matter of suppression of desires. Inclinations towards evil are to be outgrown, not suppressed and forced into subterranean perversions; immorality is seen to wither and drop away from life; the fires go out beneath the boilers of immoral desires. In fact, the moral life, the "life in the spirit," is seen as issuing in the greatest possible pleasure. As Gerald K. Hibbert, a Friend of weight in the councils of British Friends, noted in the Swarthmore Lecture at London Yearly Meeting in 1924: "A good test (when the morality of a given act is in doubt) is surely our power of pure enjoyment; whatever helps us more fully and truly to enjoy life is good, for evil robs us of our power to enjoy even that to which our passion clings."6 It has been noted that the Inward Light is not a static concept. One reason that Friends have avoided anything like a creed, and have been careful to structure their Society as loosely as possible, is that Friends view all life and man's understanding of that life as in a constant state of movement. Creeds and institutional framework limit man's capacity ^Friends World Conference Official Report (Philadelphia, 1937), p. 12. *Fox, Journal, p. n. 'Hibbert, Inner Light and Modern Thought^ p. 41.

22

QUAKER WAYS IN FOREIGN POLICY

to respond to this dynamic. But, just as it is important to be open to change, open to "new invasions of truth," it is important to make these changes step by step. Friends are much more interested in the step just ahead than they are either in the ones just completed or in the one that will finally bring them to some distant goal. The top of the mountain tends to be beyond present vision and one is more than a little apt to be tripped by various obstacles along the way if one dashes headlong for the top without making sure of the path. Too, further experience along the way may change one's mind about the wisdom of going up that particular mountain. Thoughts such as these lead Friends to be gradualists in their approach, not revolutionaries. Life to them is too complex an operation to lay out neatly very far in advance. Rather, they would check their bearings at each milepost, being careful not to "outrun their Guide." RESULTS AND EXPEDIENCE

Results, to Friends, are incidental. Friends do not undertake a piece of business because they anticipate certain desirable or useful results to issue from it. Man's capacity to predict future consequences is very limited, and decisions determined primarily by an effort to bring about such predetermined results are inclined, in Friends' view, to be artificial, unreal, rootless conjecture. Friends urge the basing of present action on an authority available to us in the present: the immediate perception of the natural order through the agency of the Inward Light. As the late Friend and former President of Haverford College, Isaac Sharpless, wrote: Our belief [is] in ... a divine law of right as against utilitarianism. In our Yearly Meetings how dead has often fallen an appeal in favour of some course of action, on account of its results, which sounded all right.... Friends have been unmoved because, without realizing it, the habit of arguing from effect to cause has never been a part of their mental equipment. They base their beliefs on principle, strained perhaps sometimes, and follow where it leads.7

Friends will not undertake a service unless that particular service is in response to an Inward Leading. Though it might appear that much good could be done through a given piece of work, it would be, to Friends, a mistaken effort if they had undertaken the task on the basis of their own volition and computation of anticipated results rather than in response to an inner prompting. Conversely, a piece of work may 7

Sharpless, Quakerism and Politics, p. 212.

THAT OF GOD IN EVERY MAN

23

appear to be a certain failure to other observers, but Friends would be clear that it would be a proper undertaking providing only that they were urged towards it by the prompting of that of God within. Though results are not to be in the centre of one's thinking, according to Friends, this does not mean that results are to be ignored, that there is no place for a calculated expedient, and that one must be resigned to aimlessness and inefficiency. Once the Inward Light has guided to the proper course, there is ample scope for a consideration of the proper timing of efforts and the possibility of accomplishing the determined ends through the use of various equally moral means. It is only on basic principles that there must be no "expediency." A series of articles appeared on this subject in one of the Quaker periodicals in which a respected American Friend, Elbert Russell, pointed out: "Jesus performed his primary mission without letting scruples about matters of secondary importance get in his way... .Jesus adapted his methods and manner of his teaching to circumstances. . . . Jesus did not scruple to seem inconsistent. . . . Jesus recognized the expediencies of time and occasion."8 Efficiency and persistence in the pursuit of a course once indicated by the Inward Light are qualities rated highly among Friends and are, actually, a part of the popular stereotype of the typical Quaker. This trait is not surprising when it is recalled that a Friend would undertake a task only if he felt it to be a part of the divine design and not merely a personally selected project. It is difficult to treat lightly an undertaking that is seen as a part of the fundamental pattern of the universe, even though it is also difficult, when the undertaking is viewed solely through intellect and reason, to anticipate anything but failure. Another aspect of the problem of expediency is reflected in Quakerism. It is difficult to isolate expediency from the various considerations that may determine the direction and character of any given act. Expediency is always related to an end in view, and that which may appear to be free of expediency with respect to an immediate purpose may be eminently expedient with respect to some more distant goal. Examples of this paradox among Friends are numerous. For example, it is difficult to see how it could have been deemed expedient for Friends to have allowed their property to be confiscated and themselves 8

Elbert Russell, "Conscience and Expediency," The American Friend, XXXIX, no. 6 (March 15, 1951 86.

24

QUAKER WAYS IN FOREIGN POLICY

to be put in prison for years on end for refusing to remove their hats when going into court, or for refusing to take an oath when called upon to testify in court. Friends did this, however, and as a result were probably more responsible than any other group for obtaining the passage of the Act of Toleration in 1689, which established the principle of freedom of religious belief in Britain.9 The regularity with which such short-run non-expediency has turned out to be long-run expediency in the hands of Friends has led some Friends to conclude that the uncompromising act, where fundamental principles are concerned, is also, in fact, the most expedient one. The dividing line between a proper expediency and a compromise on principle is difficult to determine. Friends certainly have not been unerring in their decisions at this point; they cannot, nor would they, wish to claim that they have been free of making decisions on the basis of expediency that should have been made on the basis of principle and vice versa. The important consideration here, for present purposes, is that Friends do not make utility or expediency legitimate principles of discrimination with respect to decisions where matters of basic import are involved. Conscience, not logic, nor utility, nor pleasure, nor any other criterion, is the ultimate arbiter. ENDS, MEANS, AND MOTIVATION

Based on the belief in "that of God in every man" is a particular view of the classic problem of ends and means. The central question involved in the problem relates to the morality and efficacy of being somewhat less than particular in the selection of the means used to attain an admittedly desirable end. Friends believe that questionable means are not justified by good ends because both are a part of the moral order and inseparable from that order and from each other. Here, again, is the sense of unity in all things that is characteristic of Quakerism and other mystical approaches to life. It is, for Friends, impossible to separate ends from the means used to attain them. Every act affects the personality, the conscience of the actor, increasing or decreasing sensitivity and unity with God and man. Every act conditions the actor with respect to what follows. Every act is a prelude to the next and a consequence of the one gone before. Every act is an "end" with respect to what precedes and a "means," a cause of what follows. The act of 9

Gcorge M. Trevelyan, England under the Stuarts (New York, 1938), p. 436.

THAT OF GOD IN EVERY MAN

25

employing a "means" will thus modify the "end" towards which that means is directed, unless the means is consistent with and provides a natural approach to that end. From this point of view it is clearly impossible for a Friend to accept the proposition that a moral end may issue from an immoral act or, conversely, that an immoral end could ever result from the employment of a moral means. Of the relationship between ends and means, Friends would hold that it is more nearly correct to say that the means determines the end. As could be anticipated from the preceding discussion of "results" in Friends' thinking, Friends are inclined to place their emphasis on taking present action that will best establish and support the fundamental unity among men and between man and God, allowing the ends to which such action is a means to take care of themselves. But Friends do not rest content in a concern with the relationship between ends and means. A three-way relationship is involved: motivemeans-ends. As means and ends are intimately interwoven, so, too, is motive interwoven with the other two. Our lives of action appear, to Friends, to be located on spirals, each level of which merges imperceptibly into the levels above and below and, in any given segment of the spiral, motives, means, and ends also shade into each other as the end of one action becomes the means for the subsequent action. Though all are intimately interrelated and interdependent, motive, for Friends, is of particular importance. If motive is wrong, the end will become perverted and the means impotent. The report of the 1937 World Conference of Friends noted: "First of all there must be a purification of motive, a removal from one's way of life of everything which promotes injustice and hate, and then the formation of a spirit of readiness . . . [to accept] whatever consequences are involved."10 In general, then, Friends have concluded that if the motive is wrong, the act is poisoned at its source and nothing short of God's grace can redeem it. Regardless of the lofty morality of the purpose in view, if the means selected reflects a disregard for the spirit in man, the whole process becomes immoral. If treatment of an individual or a group of individuals is evil, then only evil results can be anticipated. Friends understand the moral order to be of such a nature that this is inevitable. The strategic point in all relationships, then, is at the point of motive, of 10

Friends World Conference, The Spiritual Message of the Society of Friends: Report of Commission I (Philadelphia, 193?). p. 15-

26

QUAKER WAYS IN FOREIGN POLICY

desire, and it is at this level that the causes, the "occasions," as George Fox called them, for tensions among individuals and groups can be met. THE DEPRECIATION OF COERCION

Just as a belief in "that of God in every man" has led Friends to a basically optimistic outlook on life and a sense of unity with all men, it has also led them to depreciate the role of coercion. For one person to coerce another is to violate the respect and freedom that is required if the Spirit within is to develop to its fullest. Coercion sets people in opposition to each other and crystallizes differences rather than strengthening a sense of oneness among men. Friends have been too pragmatic, however, to claim that coercion can be altogether dispensed with in the foreseeable future, if ever in this life. Society cannot, for instance, at least not yet, do without some degree of coercion in relationships with those who are mentally, emotionally, or socially immature.11 A Friend would be no less quick than any other man forcibly to restrain or, if necessary, even knock down a criminally insane person bent on violence. But coercion, for Friends, has a humble and decreasing role to play in the affairs of men, and Friends would exert constant effort to create those conditions in which it increasingly may be outgrown. Every use of coercive measures is under continuing question by Friends, in order that such coercion may not exist one moment longer than necessary and in order to keep it from becoming an accepted and habitual method of coping with problems in any area of life. In determining the limits within which the use of coercion may be justified, Friends have developed criteria which relate both to the person employing coercion and to the person on whom coercion is exercised. With respect to the former, Friends appear to have concluded that it may be more immoral to coerce oneself into relinquishing the use of coercion than it is to employ coercion on others. The individual should go no further in eschewing coercive methods than his inner condition makes it possible for him to go freely. George Fox's reputed reply to William Penn, when Penn asked Fox if he should continue wearing his sword, is the prototype of the Quaker position: "William, wear thy sword as long as thee canst."12 11 For a particularly succinct expression of this view, see Joseph John Gurney, Observations on the Distinguishing Views and Practices of the Society of Friends (New York, 1840), pp. 37-8. 12 William I. Hull, William Penn: A Topical Biography, p. 308.

THAT OF GOD IN EVERY MAN

27

This approach is characteristic of Quakerism. Values, to Friends, must first be realized within the individual. From this centre, values can then be established in increasingly extended circles, in the manner in which slavery was abolished within the Society of Friends. It first became the concern of a few individuals, particularly John Woolman in the case of the United States. These individuals then stimulated the Society of Friends to abolish slavery within its own membership, and only then did Friends focus attention on abolishing the practice nationally and internationally. It is as grievous an error, to Friends, to move too quickly in these matters as it is to move too slowly. If a move is made too quickly, with a minority of some sort imposing its will on the group, the move will be a mere formality, lacking conviction, reality, and spirit. Coercion, then, would not be eschewed by Friends until the desire to use it has been smothered under the growth of a way of life with which coercion in its varying degrees is inconsistent. As usual in Quakerism, this approach is not an absolute. There are limits beyond which the individual should not feel free to indulge in coercion, occasions when the individual should restrain himself, coerce himself into non-coercion towards others, should restrict the freedom of his own development rather than impair the freedom of development in others. Friends would agree that it is necessary, too, for society to define some of the occasions on which the individual must thwart inclinations towards coercive action in the form of violence, as the capacity to draw and observe such distinctions is apt to vary in inverse proportion to the need to employ such distinctions. In particular, freedom to coerce would cease when the exercise of such freedom would result in irreparable or serious damage to others. When these distinctions are not observed, when violations do occur, however, Friends would be inclined to absorb such violations in so far as possible in order that a sequence of crimination and recrimination might not be set in motion. Friends would encourage society, too, to go as far as it can in rejecting coercion as the reply to violations of the limits of permissible coercion. The aim should be the development, habilitation, and education of the violator in such cases, not retribution and punishment. With respect to the person on whom coercion is exercised, Friends would urge a further consideration. People who must be coerced because of social, emotional, or intellectual immaturity, can only

28

QUAKER WAYS IN FOREIGN POLICY

attain the desired maturity through practice in making the judgments that are necessary to creative social living. Thus, those who do require coercion should receive a minimal and decreasing amount in order that they may learn to function freely and not become permanently dependent upon coercion or the threat of coercion for guidance in marking the limits between the permissible and unpermissible.13 THE UNITY OF LIFE

A belief in "that of God in every man" also results, for Friends, in a belief in the wholeness of life. There is no compartmentalization of life into public and private, religious and temporal. All of man's activities are of a piece; they all find their common end and their common means in a realization of that of God within each individual.14 The same rules and the same standards of behaviour govern men in whatever capacity they act. For this reason, Friends draw little distinction between their Meetings for Business and their Meetings for Worship. It is not unusual for a Friend to find himself led to lay before Friends, in a Meeting for Worship, a concern involving social or political action. Such a concern would most appropriately be mentioned in the Meeting for Worship in a general way, unimpassioned and making no effort to persuade or reach a decision there. The concern would come as a suggestion that the possibility of this particular action might be something which Friends would want to consider in the atmosphere provided by the Meeting for Worship. Nor is it unusual for Friends to stop in the midst of a Meeting for Business to hold a period of worship together in an effort to gain greater unity among themselves and greater insight into the proper disposal of the business before them. The underlying spirit should be the same in both types of Meeting, the essential character the same; that which is or becomes implicit in the course of a Meeting for Worship is made explicit through a Meeting for Business. Just as Friends make little distinction between business and worship in their Society, they make little distinction between the spheres of religion and business in their individual lives and in the world at large. The source of the inspiration and power is the same whether a question concerns a new Meeting House, a new factory, a new home, or a new 13

John Kavanaugh, ed., The Quaker Approach, pp. 137-62. Fosdick, Rufus Jones Speaks to Our Times, pp. 200-7.

14

THAT OF GOD IN EVERY MAN

29

city hall. All are dedicated to the same end for Friends: that the Light within may be more completely experienced and expressed in all men, and the Light is not divided, but is one and the same at every level and in every facet of existence.15 16 London Yearly Meetings, Christian Discipline in the Religious Society of Friends in Great Britain (1945), part II, pp. 114-15, 138-9.

CHAPTER

THREE

When "That of God" Becomes Political AS JUST NOTED, Friends make no distinction between public affairs and private affairs. Patterns of value, responsibility, authority, and behaviour are the same in both areas. In public affairs no less than in private, it is a realization of "that of God within" which is both the source and the object of policy. In governmental affairs no less than in private, true policy consists in making explicit in particulars the Spirit which is implicit in all; policy is the precipitation of the spirit into political, social, and economic relationships. True policy results when it is the spirit of the Light and not the darkness within that informs policy. Though expressed differently at different periods of Quaker history, this belief that the Light within can and should be expressed through governments has been the basic factor in determining Friends' political attitudes. A firm emphasis on "that of God in every man" not being a popular emphasis, Friends' views have frequently been unpopular or at least unusual. i Not only have Friends tended to view governments as capable of serving as instruments of God, instruments which can make possible a fuller "realization of that of God within"; Friends have gone further to hold that ultimately it is only in some such organization of society that the fullness in man can be realized. "We cannot be content to look to the Spirit of Christ to redeem our lives alone. We are knit together in a wide fellowship. We can only realize our lives in fullness in ... society."1 Though Friends have varied, from time to time and place to place, in their expectation that governments could be brought soon to serve these ends, and in some cases Friends have felt the possibility 1

Friends World Conference, 1937, The Spiritual Message, p. 19.

WHEN

THAT OF GOD

BECOMES POLITICAL

31

so remote that they have withdrawn from active involvement in politics,2 they have never lost sight of the ultimate necessity and potentialities of governments as instruments for providing a more congenial environment for the spiritual growth of the individual, and of the role of leadership which government can play in this growth. The function of government, for Friends, is thus fundamentally spiritual. It is to aid in the spiritual development of individuals, to eliminate from Society those things which pervert, stunt, and retard the spiritual growth of individuals, and to aid and encourage its citizens to express and live according to the most profound insights they can attain. Governments, therefore, have both a negative and a positive function, police powers and welfare powers. Friends have never denied the necessity of coercion in the form of police power. As in all areas, force and coercion are to be minimal, but cannot be avoided in the present state of society. This is in accord with morality, as it would actually be immoral not to use coercion in the face of evil unless a better way of coping with the situation is at hand. Of this Isaac Pennington said, in the early days of Quakerism: I speak not . . . against any magistrates or peoples defending themselves against . . . evil-doers within their borders (for this the present state of things may and doeth require, and a great blessing will attend the sword where it is borne uprightly to that end, and its use will be honourable; and while there is need of a sword, the Lord will not suffer that government, or those governors, to want fitting instruments under them for the management thereof, to wait on him in fear to have the edge of it rightly directed). ...

But this is not the end of it. Coercion is to decrease and pass away. There is a better way and that better way can only come about as individuals begin to practise living with less reliance on coercion and police power: . . . there is a better state, which the Lord hath already brought some into and which nations are expected to travel towards. . . . And where should it begin but in some particular in a nation and so spread by degrees, until it hath overspread the nation, and then from nation to nation until the whole earth be leavened?3

Friends have exerted a constant pressure on governments to exercise their police powers in creative ways, in ways which show the greatest possible reverence for the Spirit within every man. They view with *Infra, pp. 116 ff. Isaac Pennington, The Works of the Long-Mournful and Sorely Distressed Isaac Pennington, III, 182-3.

32

QUAKER WAYS IN FOREIGN POLICY

considerable approval the British practice of using unarmed police, and were among the earliest to urge the abolition of capital punishment as an exercise of the police power of the state. Friends have approved the use of the police power to establish orderly procedures and, when necessary, to restrain those who would destroy conditions necessary for the fullest possible development of the citizenry. They would, however, have the police power used only with the object of returning the person or persons policed to a useful position in society, a result Friends have not thought likely from retributive uses of police power. Moreover, as previously stated, they feel that all society shares the guilt of any crime, that the law violator has been as much the object as the subject of guilt. n As Friends have not denied the necessity of a police function, neither have they denied the necessity of a leadership function for government. Friends have a tradition of visiting governmental officials to urge bolder action, and acts of intellectual and moral leadership. They do not view public officials as "rubber stamps" for the current opinion in their various constituencies: officials should do more than enact into law the lowest common denominator among those whom they represent. Congressmen should do more than reflect current standards of social justice; members of Parliament should do more than reflect parochial conceptions of welfare which may be prevalent in their various constituencies. Friends have thus stood for representative democracy, never suggesting that officials are made intellectually and morally impotent by the act of accepting office, nor have they suggested the possibility of running governments on the basis of the radical democracy that prevails in a Friends' Meeting for Business. ra Related to their respect for the potentialities and necessity of government as an instrument for the greater realization of the Spirit in man is their deep sense of responsibility for government. Among the "Queries" which Friends are asked periodically in their Meetings for Business is the following, or a similar one: "What are you doing as individuals or as a Meeting ... to carry your share of responsibilities in the government of your community, state and nation .. .?"4 Following Philadelphia Yearly Meeting of the Religious Society of Friends, The Book of Christian Discipline (Philadelphia, 1955). P- 94-

WHEN

THAT OF GOD

BECOMES POLITICAL

33

the reading of this Query, the meeting will slip into a period of worship in the course of which each Friend is expected to search his heart and mind as suggested by the Query. The clerk of the Meeting will draw up a minute recording the response to the Query, and this minute may then be forwarded to the Quarterly and Yearly Meeting for information and observation. Friends' sense of responsibility for government is thus something more than civic duty. Their support of government is actuated by fidelity to God and not fear of man. In this responsibility, too, there is the brotherhood of guilt and virtue involving each individual in a degree of responsibility for every act of government. No specialization of duty and responsibility exists which can exonerate the individual from responsibility for his government's policies. Failure to meet this public responsibility can but result in making the individual less sensitive to and less able to express "that of God within." The Spirit is thwarted and development retarded, if not actually set in reverse, when this responsibility is slighted. IV

In spite of their respect for the potentialities of government, Friends recognize grave dangers in viewing government as an instrument for bringing about the highest values, particularly individual values. Friends have been apprehensive of the increasingly pervasive claims of government, claims which can increase until the governmental instrument itself becomes the ultimate value. They have been aware of the tendency of all groups, institutions, and organizations to become "ends in themselves," and have been but slightly less apprehensive of this tendency in their own Society than of the tendency elsewhere. It is thus that each member has what amounts to a veto power in a Quaker Meeting, and Friends have been loath to rely on professional leadership that might acquire a "vested interest" in the group, in a particular form of the group, or in a particular type of group activity. It is also for this reason that Friends have favoured as decentralized a form of organization as possible to keep preponderant influences from congregating at any one point. In short, in their own organization everything possible has been done to protect the individual personality from group encroachment. If these things are true of Friends' relationships within their own group, Friends cannot be expected to look, nor have they looked, with approval on governmental procedures and policies which assume that

34

QUAKER WAYS IN FOREIGN POLICY

the welfare of the state is the final standard of value. They have been opposed to all absolute claims of governments, whether those claims were made in the name of the divine right of kings, the fruition of national or racial destiny, or the realization of some economic, social, political, or theocratic ideal. Friends have also been opposed to tendencies to view states and governments as "organisms," with the accompanying inclination to be willing to sacrifice individual interests to the interests of the artificially created organism when it develops an artificial personality and interests of its own. Friends have opposed, too, the "percolation" theories of general welfare under which it is assumed that the greatest possible welfare of the individual is obtained when the welfare of the group is assured, group welfare being percolated down through a group hierarchy to the individuals at the bottom. Friends have had no confidence that much welfare gets through to the individual under such schemes. In brief, Friends have urged that governments in themselves have no value; they are not the embodiment of an ideal or value in the name of which the welfare of the individual is expendable. A government's only reason for being is that it enhances the individual's opportunities for full expression and development. There is thus no such thing as a "reason of state" and no public morality apart from private morality. v Friends have therefore consistently supported measures which protect the individual from the encroachments of government. The measures Friends have seen as important in this protection of the individual have included: the institutional separation of church and state; recognition of a right to freedom of religion and conscience; the right to trial by a jury free from judicial duress; government institutions that are close to the people through decentralization and popular election; limiting the size and powers of the military establishment; limiting the functions of government to those things which people cannot do effectively as individuals or in private association; education to equip people to live up to the responsibilities and possibilities of their freedom; and a care for the quality of life there is in men who exercise the powers of government. In several of these areas, such as that of freedom of conscience and religion, and trials by uncoerced jurymen, Friends have been in the vanguard of developments. They have visited the men who exercise the powers of government, in order to provide what stimulus they

WHEN 'THAT OF GOD" BECOMES POLITICAL

35

could to deepen the quality of life expressed and experienced by those leaders, from Oliver Cromwell and the later Stuarts to the leaders in post-1945 Soviet Russia.5 In their belief in a limited role for government, Friends have not been doctrinaire and would not approve of the Jeffersonian maxim that "that government is best which governs least." They have, perhaps, been rather in advance of most in noting areas in which governmental activity is required if the freedom of the individual is to be protected. For instance, the American Commission's pre-conference report in preparation for the 1920 All Friends Conference in London concludes: "Unearned wealth is a menace to its recipients and a burden upon society. The competitive system is on trial and the burden against it. Probably government must take a larger part in industry than in the past."6 But what of those situations where governments transgress the limits of their role? What action do Friends take? As with those who transgress the bounds of propriety in their own Society, Friends do everything they can both to prevent such occurrences and to rectify them when they do occur, but if, having done all they can, the situation is not altered for the better, Friends will disown the act or acts of government concerned, but will take care to show a continuing respect for the government and its officials. It then becomes a matter of ends and means and Friends' basic distrust of coercion as an appropriate means to any appropriate end. In effect, after having done everything possible to bring about a change in situations they oppose, Friends have said, "We cannot co-operate with or support the government in these matters. We feel morally bound to separate ourselves completely from these acts of which we disapprove." Such action may then involve Friends in a violation of the law concerned. If an act of government involves a legal obligation to act or not to act in a prescribed way, Friends are clear that they have an obligation prior to their obligation to government which must prevail when government follows a course leading out of harmony with God's moral law. As one Yearly Meeting explained: We uphold the duty of civil obedience unless it conflicts with our allegiance to God. 6 See entries under index headings for Cromwell, Charles II, James II, and William III in William Charles Braithwaite, Beginnings of Quakerism and The Second Period of Quakerism. See also William Wistar Comfort, "Quaker Visits to American Presidents," Friends Historical Association Bulletin, XXXVIII, no. 2, (autumn 1949), 63-74; Kathleen Lonsdale, ed., Quakers Visit Russia; and A.F.S.C., Meeting the Russians. 6 See Personal Life and Society: Report of American Commission III (Philadelphia, 1919), pp. 28 £, one of a series of pre-conference study booklets issued in preparation for the 1920 All Friends Conference.

36

QUAKER WAYS IN FOREIGN POLICY

We owe much to our government and desire to comply with its requirements. Our obedience should be conscientious, actuated by fidelity to God, and not fear of men. We hold, however, that liberty of conscience is the common right of all men and essential to the well-being of Society. When, therefore, the government requires of any that which is prohibited by conscience, the duty of civil obedience ceases. We must obey God rather than man. The authority of the state is a subordinate authority. It has no right to claim moral infallibility.7

This is no mere theoretical formulation for Friends. There has never been a generation of Friends, including the present one, which has not seen an important segment of its membership in prison on grounds of conscience for one reason or another, beginning with early Friends and their opposition to proving their truthfulness in court by swearing oaths and extending to the present period when Friends have refused to establish their "non-disloyalty" by swearing to their innocence of traitorous activity. It should be noted that Friends do not conceive of this opposition to governmental acts as a matter of privilege to be enjoyed; opposition is an obligation where the orders of Caesar are contrary to one's best understanding of the orders of God. As one Friend said in court in 1949: "I hold that the disobedience of unmoral. . . laws is the duty of a responsible citizen.... Civil disobedience is never desirable for its own sake. Yet, we cannot hesitate when conscience clashes with the law. I believe the disobedience of immoral or repressive laws is an honorable act, in keeping with American tradition/'8 Even in their opposition, however, Friends reflect their fundamental obedience to constituted authority, for they see such non-co-operation as a requirement of true love for one's country and they make no effort to avoid the penalties to be paid for their refusal to comply with duly established law. The authorities can expect to receive prior notification when a Quaker has concluded that he will or will not do something enjoined by law, and the Friend will be scrupulous to inform the authorities where he may be found, even when the authorities indicate that they would prefer it if such a Friend got lost. Friends hold that the refusal to connive at immorality, even though such immorality chances to gain official sanction, is high patriotism as "disobedience may be Philadelphia Yearly Meeting held on Arch Street, Faith and Practice of the Religious Society of Friends of Philadelphia and Vicinity: A Book of Christian Discipline (Philadelphia, 1943), pp. 49 f. 8 Claire E. Street, Conscience Clashes with Law (Chicago, Fifty-seventh Street Meeting of Friends, 1949)-

WHEN

THAT OF GOD

BECOMES POLITICAL

37

the best means to call a state to its obligations."9 Hence, disobedience may not be inconsistent with patriotism of a high order. It is clear to Friends that the practice of loyalty to God is at the same time the highest loyalty they can render their respective nations. Adam Smith here appears in politico-religious guise and the "percolation" theories of general welfare are set in reverse: the greatest love of country is wrought by individual devotion to moral law and the general welfare is greatest when its reservoirs are filled by the flow from a fulness of individual welfare. VI

But Quakers have not felt their responsibilities confined to acquiescence in acceptable acts of governments and opposition to those acts of government which are unacceptable. Quakers, at times, have been impelled to support vigorously, to extend, to improve, and to "fill in the gaps" in governmental activity. This is not to say that Friends have felt called upon to serve as the fillers-of-every-gap in public policy that is too timid or as the policeman at "policy corner" whose task it is to direct every public policy into its proper street. Very serious and obvious miscarriages of justice in the formulation or administration of public policy might not call the Quaker conscience into action. As one Friend noted: " . . . in the ... background is a ... concern for all the good things that need doing. Toward them all we feel kindly, but we are dismissed from active service in most of them. And we have an easy mind in the presence of desperate real needs which are not our direct responsibility. We cannot die on every cross, nor are we expected to."10 It is in Meetings for Worship, public and private, that one attains the insights which direct one's attention and efforts to those matters which do require one's immediate active service. When an individual or a Meeting becomes concerned to offer some supplement or alternative to public policy, such a concern is certain to arise because it is felt that, in some way, public policy is failing to express sufficient regard for individual personality. Such situations may result from (a) policy which is not doing what it should to ameliorate the effects of destructive forces; (b) policy which is not doing what it might to remove such destructive forces; or (c) policies which are not doing all that might be done to prevent forces from arising which •Philadelphia Yearly Meeting held on Arch Street, Faith and Practice, p. 50. Thomas R. Kelly, Testament of Devotion (London, 1943), P- 9^.

10

38

QUAKER WAYS IN FOREIGN POLICY

would degrade or cripple individual personality. Characteristically, Quaker action in these areas has taken the form of (a) direct political action in an effort to influence policy, or (6) demonstration projects to illustrate what policy could and should be. Friends have not, as a Society, engaged in political campaigns, except where policy, rather than the selection of representatives, was the direct issue. A Friends' Meeting, for instance, might take a position with respect to a referendum on racial segregation in education, but would not do so with respect to candidates for election to a legislature in which this issue would be decided. In the election of officials Friends apparently feel that personalities play so large a part that it is impossible to keep issues in sharp focus and to keep the election from being a judgment for or against a person rather than a policy. Too, the issues in selecting a representative are many and complex, and different individuals will be led to place different emphases on the different issues. Friends, however, maintain a close contact with representatives, once they are elected, and have been active in making their views known to them. Deputations, memorials, and letters have been the traditional methods of contact with officials. There has been a preference for the direct, personal relationship provided by dispatching a deputation to meet with appropriate officials and by delivering memorials and letters by hand rather than through the impersonal channels of the mails. In the early days of Quakerism such messages were sent to reigning sovereigns and then, as the legislative branches of government became more decisive, to members of parliaments. In the course of the nineteenth century, with the extension of the electoral franchise and the democratization of policy formation, Friends began to "go to the country" with general educational programmes on issues of concern.11 In recent years the relationship to government has been marked by the creation of the Friends Committee on National Legislation in the United States,12 which maintains offices in Washington, D.C., and a full-time staff to express Friends' concerns at the various points in the process of policy formation. Similar committees have been organized at the state level in several areas in the United States.13 At the grass-roots level, u

l«/ra, pp. 136 f. See Clarence E. Pickett, For More than Bread, p. 405, and the Minutes of A.F.S.C., Peace Section Round-up, August 9-11,1943, announcing the release of E. Raymond Wilson for this work. 18 Among these are the Northern and Southern California, the Illinois-Wisconsin, and the Virginia Friends Committees on Legislation. 12

WHEN

THAT OF GOD

BECOMES POLITICAL

39

conferences, institutes, and seminars have been held and numerous publications have been issued dealing with such questions as labour relations, race relations and the care of the mentally ill, as well as international affairs.14 Except for the work of committees specifically concerned with legislation, Friends have generally avoided the support of or opposition to specific legislative acts in the course of these educational programmes. The purpose has been to bring facts and issues before the public, particularly when it is felt that certain facets of a problem are not finding public expression or when a question has become so controversial that there are no neutral platforms from which it is being discussed. Friends feel it important that such divergent views be brought together, be confronted with each other in as calm and searching an atmosphere as possible, rather than be allowed to continue in their divergent ways. It should be noted that Friends have been concerned to educate themselves in these matters, as well as the public in general. A large part of the work of the "Social Order" and "Peace and Service" committees established in virtually every Monthly Meeting of Friends,15 and of such agencies as the Friends Committee on National Legislation and the American Friends Service Committee, has been to inform and stimulate Friends' thinking, as well as to express Friends' views to public officials or public audiences. Friends have felt that a visible piece of work is more convincing than any words. They have thus shown a preference for demonstration projects that will provide a living illustration of what they believe to be right policy. It is not possible to create such demonstration projects in all areas of concern, but many do lend themselves to such expression. Work in the field of mental health, as illustrated by the York Retreat in York, England,16 and in the field of low-cost housing, as illustrated by the self-help housing programme of the American Friends Service Committee are examples.17 This "pilot project" approach is basic in Friends' conception of the proper relationship between individuals, u

lnfra, pp. 156, 175 f. I«/m, pp. 143 f«, 155 fInitially the York Retreat was a concern of the Tuke family. For the founding and early days of the Retreat, see Samuel Tuke, Description of the Retreat (London, 1813). See reports of the Retreat in London Yearly Meeting minutes since 1918. 17 For accounts of this project see the annual reports of the A.F.S.C. The report for 1948, p. 8 gives a review of this type of project undertaken by the Committee up until that time. Subsequent reports keep the account current. 15 1

4O

QUAKER WAYS IN FOREIGN POLICY

private groups, and governments. They feel that all advance must come through individuals who make of themselves pilot projects illustrating the next step to be taken. Individuals then help private groups of which they are a part to become pilot projects, on a larger scale, expanding thus until the nation as a whole becomes a pilot project for the world at large. In his Guide to Quaker Practice, Howard Brinton notes that in Quakerism: The emphasis has been placed on the means of creating changes for the better within the individual and within the specific group. Experience shows that, as the individual becomes more sensitive, or, to use the old Quaker word, more "tender" to the movings of the Divine Spirit, this sensitivity finds its outward expression not simply within the group itself but also in widening circles outside. Divine-human bonds produce inter-human bonds. Men should begin the reformation of society in that area where his most immediate responsibility lies, that is, in himself, and work from there outward as the way opens.18 18

Brinton, Guide to Quaker Practice, p. 50. Sec also T. Edmund Harvey, The Christian Citizen and the State (London, 1939).

PART II QUAKER PATTERNS OF THOUGHT IN INTERNATIONAL RELATIONS

This page intentionally left blank

CHAPTER FOUR

Essential Concepts WE HAVE NOTED that all life is of a piece to the Quakers. Fundamentally there is nothing singular about the relationships among the nations. The same principles are appropriate to the affairs of nations that are appropriate to individual relationships, and the relationships among individuals in their business, professional, religious, social, and recreational groups. The scope is wider in international than in domestic affairs, the number of people involved larger, but the patterns are the same and any differences are in degree only, not in kind. As noted in the 1945 edition of the London Yearly Meeting Discipline: " . . . we cannot recognize two doctrines, one for individuals as between themselves, and another for nations. The morality [required of men] . . . in their intercourse with one another is surely no less binding on them when they are called to act in the name of and on behalf of their country."1 Friends take this position because, as indicated earlier, they view governments as people, as individuals, and not as organisms which bear values of their own apart from those of the people who compose their constituencies. Thus, for Friends, policy in the international area as in all areas of life is a matter of making explicit that of God which is implicit in every man. That is true international policy which realizes and allows the expression of "that of God within"; that is mistaken policy which realizes "that of God within" to a lesser degree than might be. The matter was stated succinctly in 1942 by a Quaker conference on foreign policy: "Since all men are potential temples of the Divine, all are sacred. Men everywhere are God's children, the object of His anxious, loving concern, and of immeasurable worth in his sight. Hence, all that develops, strengthens and builds up persons is good. Everything that tears down or destroys personality is evil."2 With this London Yearly Meeting, Christian Discipline in the Religious Society of Friends in Great Britain, part II, p. 138. 2 Friends Conference on Peace and Reconstruction, Looking toward the Post-War World, p. 12,

44

QUAKER WAYS IN FOREIGN POLICY

as the touchstone, what have Friends said about foreign policy? What basic patterns of thought emerge when foreign policy recommendations are based on a belief in that of God in all men? What happens when that of God is precipitated into the foreign affairs of nations? Friends have not conceived it to be their responsibility to develop a detailed statement of what foreign policy ought to be. They have had no desire or inclination to do the government's job for it. Friends, however, have felt that they have a responsibility in the field of foreign policy. Horace G. Alexander, a British Friend active in international affairs, has written of this responsibility: ... we surely have a duty today as in every age to publish the truth. Truth, that is, more especially of a religious and moral order. I doubt that it is the function of a religious society as a whole to advocate political or economic measures. . . . [But] from time to time ... we must strive to present statements of fact where we see that the world is being fed on half-truths. And . . . [we] can, I think, rightly advocate specific policies for healing the world's wounds provided they keep close to the deep moral issues. ... It is our function as a body composed of citizens who try to study the world in which we live to point out the moral issues which are so often obscured in political discussion . . .3

What follows is an effort to set forth what might be called a general Quaker foreign policy from the statements Friends have made and the activities they have undertaken in response to particular policies and particular situations. It is an effort to do what Friends, as a Society, on principle are not likely to do: delineate the outlines and, in so far as possible, the specific content of a general foreign policy based on Quaker presuppositions. The focus of attention in this part will be on the pattern and principles of the Quaker approach, not the deviations from it; that is material for another study. As with all principles, Quaker principles have often failed to find expression in the acts of their professors. Reference will be made to such failures when they have seemed to be important to an understanding of the principle itself. STILL LIFE OR MOVING

It must be noted that a discussion of Quaker reactions to international affairs and foreign policy runs the danger of painting as "still life" something that is very much in motion. The Quaker reaction to foreign *Horace G. Alexander, The Growth of the Peace Testimony of the Society of Friends, pp. 26 and 29.

ESSENTIAL CONCEPTS

45

policy has not been the same over the three hundred years of Quaker history.4 Friends' views in this as in other matters have changed from time to time and place to place for two fundamental reasons. Friends have not insulated themselves nor have they wished to insulate themselves for the most part, from their surroundings. Different generations of Friends have been influenced strongly by the changing and differing forces at work in the world. Sometimes there has been a positive reaction to these forces and sometimes a negative one. Friends absorbed much, for instance, from nineteenth-century liberalism and from the evangelical religious fervour that swept the Anglo-Saxon world in the 1830*8 and 1840*8. They reacted against the jingoistic nationalism of Palmerstonian England with vigour, as they did against that of the United States in the administrations of McKinley and Theodore Roosevelt. Colonial and frontier conditions in the United States caused Quakerism to develop differently in the United States than in England, in spite of the powerful influence exerted on American Quakerism by visits from English Friends. The more direct involvement of British Friends in the two world wars of the twentieth century has also left marks of difference. So great have these differences been that British and American Friends often have not found it easy to work out common programmes and approaches in their joint undertakings.5 But Friends' views have changed not only because of differences in time and locale, but also because Friends' beliefs make change a matter of principle. It was noted previously that Friends believe in a gradual and continuing realization of the moral order. Foreign policy is but one aspect of the fuller realization of the moral order. A British Friend of the nineteenth century who had seen considerable service at home and abroad in the pursuit of Quaker concerns expressed the point as follows: "I feel that my real conviction is short of the highest standards in this matter of war. That is, it is a matter of spiritual growth, or state rather than mere theory. . . . there is an infinite variety of states, and many things are permitted, temporarily, as fitted to a less enlightened condition, which are afterward shown to the conscience as wrong, and to be given up."6 Friends thus expect to be infected with a "divine discontent" and do not anticipate a state in this life in which "that of 4 6

/«/ra, pp. 109 f£, for a discussion of the development of Quaker thought in this area.

Infra, p. 161. 6 John Bellows, Letters and Memoirs, p. 297.

46

QUAKER WAYS IN FOREIGN POLICY

God" in man will find complete and final expression. There is a compulsion, however, to proximate this goal as nearly as can be. The emphasis in the present study will be on the patterns of Quaker thought and action with respect to foreign policy at mid-twentieth century, as Quakerism enters its fourth century. Development, however, cannot be ignored if contemporary Quakerism is to be placed in proper perspective and if the discussion is to have the concreteness which can come only from knowledge of the relationship of Quakerism to international affairs of the past. A final problem connected with outlining the Quaker approach to international affairs is inherent in the nature of the Society of Friends. The decentralization of the Society has been mentioned previously as has the Society's lack of dogma and creed. With no recognized authority to speak for all Quakerism and no common creed, it is uncommonly difficult to speak definitively about Friends' beliefs and activities. There is great variety among Friends, as individuals and as Meetings. One group of Friends' Meetings went so far, at one point, as to question the validity of the conception of the Inward Light.7 This diversity is not chance; it is inherent in the conception that every man is answerable to his own conscience as sensitized by the Light within and every encouragement is given to the individual to follow this Inward Guide. Such beliefs and practices do not make for uniformity, and nowhere is there more diversity among Friends than in the matter of international relations. Friends see differently the requirements imposed upon them through an acceptance of the infinite worth of the individual personality. Despite all this diversity, however, there is a core of thinking, belief, and activity which may be taken to represent the Quaker pattern.8 THE INDIVIDUAL AS OBJECT

It has been noted that the belief in "that of God within" is the key to the Quaker approach to international relations. The primary implication of this belief for foreign policy has also been indicated: that governments are instrumentalities and have no values in and of themselves, apart from their excellence as instruments for furthering indivi7 Sec Proceedings, Including Declaration of Christian Doctrine of the General Conference of Friends in America (Richmond, Indiana, 1887), pp. 24-43, 274-91,294-311, wherein the so-called Richmond Declaration is reproduced and discussed. 8 For criteria of "Quakerism" adopted for use in the study, see Introduction, pp. xviii-xix.

ESSENTIAL CONCEPTS

47

dual welfare. The proper concern of foreign policies is the welfare of individuals. Making the welfare of individuals the sole object of foreign policy leaves unanswered, however, the question of the terms in which individual welfare is to be couched. For Friends there could be no other answer than that spiritual welfare is the criterion, all life being spiritual in its essential meaning to Friends. Friends do not, however, depreciate the importance of material welfare: food, clothing, health. Nor do Friends depreciate the importance of opportunities to develop the intellect, an atmosphere of freedom, and even time for leisure creatively spent. Full spiritual development is impossible without all of these things, but they are not objectives; rather, they are the conditions within which the search for welfare is best conducted. Thus, the maintenance of a "standard of living," conceived in terms of affluence, as it usually is, is not an objective that would justify jeopardizing conditions essential to the realization of spiritual welfare. In particular, the search for material welfare would not justify a threat to the continuing development of a sense of oneness among all men. Too, placing the individual at the centre of foreign policy means that state welfare is ancillary to individual welfare, and not the reverse. Individual welfare is not dependent upon the prior welfare of entities known as state, nation, or government. This was earlier indicated as characteristic of Friends' outlook on domestic politics. The principle is no less true, but infinitely more difficult to practise, in international politics where, by definition, states and nations are the primary actors. Nevertheless, individuals are not to be the pawns of international statecraft, for when they are so treated the state loses its very reason for existence: protecting and encouraging the free development of the individual personality. According to the All Friends Conference of 1920, the state does violate its reason for being if it adopts a policy "which ignores or degrades the individual; [when] it asserts that the individual was made for the State, not the State for the individual. . . . [The state then] itself abjures the deepest and broadest needs of humanity. . . [cutting] across the deepest spiritual claims of the individual. . . . [the value] of the individual is set at nought. We . . . [become] a means, not an end: a pawn in the achievement of means which are ... of no real import for individual human life/' 9 9 A11 Friends Conference, 1920, National Life and Internationl Relations: Report of Commission II (London, 1920), pp. 17-18.

48

QUAKER WAYS IN FOREIGN POLICY

The question of "what" individuals is crucial in Friends' conception of the individual as the object of foreign policy. Is the aggregate of individuals working together in a state concerned only with the welfare of the individuals within that state? Or is it to concern itself with all men, everywhere, all of whom share a possession if not a knowledge of "the Light within"? Friends could take but one position at this point: every man is linked to every other man in both fate and responsibility, regardless of national allegiances. With John Donne, Friends would say: No man is an Hand, intire of itselfe; every man is a peece of the Continent, a part of the Maine; if a clod be washed away by the Sea, Europe is the lesse, as well as if a promintorie were, as well as if a Manner of thy friends or of thy owne were; any man's death diminishes me, because I am involved in Mankinde; and therefore never send to know for whom the bell tolls; it tolls for thee.

But the welfare of all is best furthered when individuals assiduously endeavour to order their lives around the Light within. The greatest welfare of all can but arise from the greatest possible spiritual development of the individual. If self-interest is viewed in terms of interest in spiritual development, the welfare of all humanity is best served as each individual devotes himself to his own interest; that foreign policy most redounds to the benefit of mankind as a whole that is dedicated to the establishment of conditions in which its citizenry can best pursue their own interest. Friends have not shrunk from saying so much in so many words: "This peace-method ... is based upon enlightened self-interest. ..." And "... the world [peace] ... to which we look forward can be built only on enlightened self-interest."1 ° This view, however, will give no comfort to those with "isolationist" tendencies, for Friends cannot forget for a moment their conviction that the interrelatedness of mankind makes it impossible for one to purchase self-interest at the cost of the interests of others and that "he is the truest patriot who benefits his own country without diminishing the welfare of another/'11 Two further factors are implicit in making the individual the central object of foreign policy, when the individual is conceived as possessing "that of God within": namely, gradualism and optimism. Both have 10 Friends World Conference, 1937, Methods of Achieving Economic, Racial and International Justice, being a Report of Commission III (Philadelphia, Friends World Conference Committee, I937)» P- 85. See also Toward Peace and Justice: A Symposium on Methods for the Prevention of War and the Achievement of International Justice (Philadelphia, Friends Peace Committee, 1937), p. 29. "London Yearly Meeting, Christian Discipline in the Religious Society of Friends in Great Britaint part II, p. 142.

ESSENTIAL CONCEPTS

49

been noted as Quaker characteristics. In international relations Friends reflect a belief in the ultimate decrease of international forces which degrade the individual personality and in the gradual increase in man's capacity to express his inherent goodness in international terms.Men have been slow to realize the extent to which the welfare of self is mated to the welfare of all and have been even slower in expressing this realization as it has dawned upon them. Men generally were aware of the denial of self-interest involved in the slave-trade long before society was able fully to separate itself from it. Men have been aware of a basic denial of self-interest that is involved in war, but have not yet been able to make war obsolete. As stated by one Friend: ... we start out [in life] conscious of our self and are selfish. As we grow we expand our consciousness to include our family and our friends and we act more unselfishly. And if we continue to grow, we expand our consciousness to include those less fortunate, those exploited, those in "foreign lands," those who were once "not my people" but are now. . . . It is because we have failed to expand our consciousness enough, because we have failed to mature our sense of community responsibility enough, because we have failed to recognize our community as inclusive enough, that we have had these repeated breakdowns in our civilization, these repeated judgments of God. It is because our consciousness is gradually expanding that there is hope.12 THE INDIVIDUAL AS OBJECT

The preceding discussion raises the question of the role of the individual as the primary subject, the basic factor in foreign policy as well as the object of it. If the individual's development is the object of foreign policy and that can best be attained by a pursuit of self-interest based on a gradually expanding consciousness, how is this gradually expanding consciousness to be brought about? It cannot be imposed on the individual from without nor can it be accomplished by executive order or legislative enactment. Its development can be encouraged; that is the responsibility of government as well as of the individual citizen in his relationships to other citizens; but an expanded consciousness of unity among mankind cannot be created by the imposition of will and intellect. It must come from within and in the meanwhile, any signs of such an expanded consciousness should be carefully nurtured. Patience is here important. Governments cannot go forward ^Building Tomorrow: Some Quaker Explorations (Philadelphia Yearly Meetings of Friends, 1943), p. 17-

50

QUAKER WAYS IN FOREIGN POLICY

with policies that are much in advance of their people. George Fox would not disarm William Penn until Penn could live in confidence without his sword at his side.13 This is no less true of governments: "To attempt on a national scale to deprive the country of its right to self-defense at a time when only a very small percentage of its citizens were convinced of. .. the futility of war and when the machinery for the peaceful settlement of international disputes has not been firmly established, would arouse even fiercer and more elemental passions because it involves not only the instinct of self preservation but all the emotions of patriotism."14 Though foreign policy can, at best, but move on the forward fringes of the public opinion of its citizenry, the individual or the government must not resign themselves to a passive acceptance of the status quo. Both have a responsibility to condition the standards of behaviour of the general public to show an increasing awareness of the unity that exists between particular self-interest and general self-interest not limited by national boundaries. Consistent with the general pattern of Quakerism, this gradually increasing awareness and practice of the oneness of mankind is held to be established most firmly when it takes place in one individual, then another, and then still more individuals, until a new level of awareness becomes characteristic of all. This is the meaning of freedom: that all men are free to practise the next step, that they are free to pursue the future, for themselves and for mankind. It is the virtue of private groups that they can begin to practise the future now, or as soon as they are ready, while governments based on popular consent must be expected to follow only when the trail has been well marked and charted to the proximate satisfaction of the population as a whole. The government must stand ready to protect the right of private groups to practise such different standards when other groups become apprehensive, fearful, and desirous of terminating these "dangerous" experiments. All of this, again, is not necessarily altruistic on the part of individuals or governments; rather, their self-interest requires it. The cord of vitality in each will go slack, vision will become myopic, unless governments and individuals continue to cultivate and practise the capacity to reach for the future. "Hull, William Penn, p. 308. A.F.S.C., Peace Section Minutes, October 29,1931.

U

ESSENTIAL CONCEPTS

51

Through all of this the individual's responsibility remains prior. No plea of "superior orders" can release the individual from this responsibility. The fact that a course of action is ordered by a duly constituted government does not relieve the individual from that responsibility which is ultimately solely a matter of the relationship between the individual and God's moral order. As in domestic policy, this responsibility involves informed, active participation in the formulation of foreign policy, as well as active opposition when foreign policy takes a form with which the citizen cannot in clear conscience allow himself to be associated. The forms of opposition to and co-operation with foreign policy would be no different than in the case of other policies, and the reasons would be the same: calling the state and nation to their highest obligation, and a fuller realization of the potential worth in each individual personality. In the field of foreign policy, then, Friends' general outlook has been in accord with the underlying note of citizen responsibility, most dramatically sounded at the War Crimes Trials following the Second World War.15 Though Friends could not be in accord with the philosophy of retributive justice involved in the Nuremberg and Tokyo trials, Friends would agree that those who "perpetrated" and "participated" in the criminal acts involved in that war were no less responsible than were those who "ordered" the acts. Friends would not, moreover, feel the individual absolved if personal involvement in such criminal acts had been avoided. When the Nuremberg Court stated that responsibility exists "only where knowledge [of the criminal act] . . . i n fact exists, and it is not sufficient that [mere] suspicions [have been aroused],"16 Friends would go further to hold that the individual is morally bound to make himself knowledgeable when suspicions have been aroused. One does not gain moral anonymity when acts are committed in association with others or when acts are committed by others on behalf of an association, including a nation, in which one holds responsibility. Though believing in individual responsibility for group action, Friends do not take the step from individual responsibility to "collective guilt," as the term is commonly used. It would seem logical, if one "Telford Taylor, "Nuremberg Trials: War Crimes and International Law," International Conciliation, no. 450 (April 1949), passim. "Ibid., p. 334.

52

QUAKER WAYS IN FOREIGN POLICY

holds that all citizens are responsible for the acts of their government, to go on to maintain that all citizens are culpable and, therefore, guilty when their government violates the accepted precepts of justice in its dealings with other nations. Friends do not take this step, however, for three reasons. First, as indicated earlier, they do not readily think in terms of guilt. It is more natural for them to think of a situation in terms of its causes, the reasons why a person or people, grouped in nations or otherwise, have or have not responded to an apparent responsibility. Friends tend to see things in terms of problems for which causes should be discovered and remedies found. Secondly, Friends would not find "collective guilt" a congenial conception just because of their belief in individual responsibility. They may not be entirely consistent in this position, but consistency as such is no great virtue among Friends, expecially if they feel that consistency is leading them to an absurdity with respect to their basic belief in the worth of the individual personality and its potentialities. Even though individual responsibility means individual responsibility for group acts, Friends cannot extend this proposition to hold that individual responsibility for group acts means collective criminal responsibility for the acts of individuals, even though the individuals involved are elected government officials. While there is collective responsibility, Friends would think of it in terms of moral not criminal responsibility, and moral responsibility is not enforceable by means of legal, political, or any other man-made sanction. Finally, Friends do not accept the "collective guilt" doctrine because, as noted earlier, they are not inclined to emphasize the personal location of culpability. All share in guilt and virtue both in domestic and in international affairs. International boundaries do not mark the limits of shared responsibility. The British shared with the German people in responsibility for the rise of Hitler, as Americans shared with the Japanese in responsibility for the rise of Japanese militarism in the late 1920*8 and the ipso's. The only sense in which "collective guilt" has any meaning for Friends, then, is a recognition of mankind's "collective guilt" for the strains and tensions of international relations. The point was stated clearly by London Yearly Meeting with the outbreak of war in 1914: "Whatever the responsibilities of governments and leaders, we ordinary folk are guilty too; for in spite of our concern for peace, we are unable to make clear, or even see ourselves,

ESSENTIAL CONCEPTS

53

how deep-seated was the world's disease or to understand how drastic a remedy was required."17 This sense of individual responsibility for collective acts thus leads directly to a consideration of the sense of unity that is implied in the conception of the Light within, as that unity is applied to foreign policy. COMMUNITY, UNITY, AND DIVERSITY

Friends believe in an international community, in its necessity, in its existence, and in its potential for growth. The reality of international community is based, for Friends, in that pervasive Quaker belief in that of God in all men. The necessity of international community arises from the nature of that of God within, which can be fulfilled only through the individual's growing awareness of unity and community with all individuals and all life. Foreign policy is thus directed aright, in Friends' view, when that policy leads to an increasing sense of international community, and is awry when the bonds of international community are loosened. When Friends conceive all life to be essentially spiritual, it is not surprising that they conceive of the international community as a spiritual community, and fundamentally a matter of experiencing the community between God and the individual and then between and among an ever widening circle of individuals, a circle not limited by national boundaries. International community thus begins with the relationship between the individual and God in worship. Worship and spiritual insights and awarenesses, basic as they are, are not substitutes for the labour of gathering facts, studying and attempting to understand them. Such understanding and knowledge, however, should not become an end in itself, but should constitute the basis for deeper insights and a wider experience of life's essential unity. Facts have had a special attraction for Friends. Their basic philosophy is conducive to such an interest, with their emphasis on direct, firsthand experience and their belief that all life is an expression of God. For Friends, to get close to the facts is to get close to God. Friends, Meetings and periodicals have had active programmes designed to bring Friends close to the facts about the international community in which they live. The Quaker periodicals, usually running to but a "London Yearly Meeting Minutes, 1915, pp. 334-5.

54

QUAKER WAYS IN FOREIGN POLICY

dozen or so pages, were unusually cosmopolitian even in the United States of the early nineteenth century when that country was particularly absorbed with its own internal problems and expanding frontiers, and other sectarian journals were generally concerned with sectarian activities and theological problems. One, not unusual, issue of The Friend (Philadelphia) carried the following featured articles in 1829: "Earth Quake in Spain," "The Emperor in China," "Egyptian History," "Egyptian Ruins," "A Sketch of the History of Haiti," "The King of Portugal's Diamonds," "Subterranean Waters of Constantantinople," "Expedition to Timbuctoo," and "Civilization of West Africa."18 This interest in information about things international is indicated further by the Quaker practice of "liberating" qualified Friends to travel abroad to inquire about and report on situations of concern to Friends. Study groups and "watching committees" are also characteristic aspects of Friends' efforts to keep themselves informed on situations that seem crucial. In recent years a network of Quaker international centres has been established for the purpose, among others, of interpreting international developments to Friends at home. Examples of these various methods of gathering information are the delegation commissioned by the 1937 Friends World Conference to visit and report on racial tensions in South Africa, the "watching committees" on India and Germany that were established by London Yearly Meeting in the late 1920*5 and early 1930*8, the "working party" drawn together by the American Friends Service Committee in 1949 to study the deteriorating relationships between the United States and Soviet Union, and the World Quaker Centres in New York and Geneva, where respresentative Friends are in continuing contact with the work and personnel of the various international organizations located there.19 But Friends have not felt their responsibilities in this matter of gathering facts to end with the effort to keep only themselves informed. As early as the mid-nineteenth century Friends felt it important to establish channels by which others might be provided with factual and interpretative information on the basis of which a greater awareness of international community might be built. Certain Friends were encouraged to prepare books and pamphlets which would bring the l

*Thc Friend, vol. XXII (October 1828 to September 1829), passim. For discussion of the work of these bodies see infra, pp. 152 ff.

19

ESSENTIAL CONCEPTS

55

public into closer contact with the realities of international life, as Friends saw those realities. It was thus that Joshua Rowntree wrote his Imperial Drug Trade™ and William I. Hull wrote his accounts of the Hague Conferences.21 Somewhat later, Friends began to sponsor various kinds of "platform programmes," endeavouring to bring to the general public information and points of view not readily available otherwise.22 It was for this reason, too, that the American Friends Service Committee assisted in the establishment of a news service in the ipso's23 and seriously considered the sponsorship of a radio and television news service in the I95o's. All of these efforts have been focused on bringing to the public information or points of view which were being ignored or overlooked by other sources and which would tend to increase knowledge of and a sense of unity with the peoples the world over. The emphasis in these informational programmes has been on the basic needs and aspirations that people hold in common, together with an appreciation of the interesting and rich variety there is in the manner of expressing these common factors and ways in which such variety can be accommodated peacefully. International work camps and seminars24 have been characteristic Quaker approaches to the problem of increasing knowledge, experience, and understanding as a basis for strengthening the bonds of international community. As arranged by Friends, work camps and seminars involve bringing together groups of from fifteen to thirty people for an experience in international community. They attempt to create an international community in miniature, with as broad a representation of cultures and nationalities as possible. In the work camps the programme is focused on a service project of significance: the building of a playground in a slum area in some city in the United States, helping to build houses for displaced persons in Finland, undertaking a malaria control programme in a Central American village. In the seminars the programme is focused on a study programme empha20 London, 1905. This book expressed Friends' long-standing concern over the relationship of British policy to the drug trade, particularly in India and in China where that, and associated policies, had issued in the Opium War of 1840. *lThe Two Hague Conferences (Boston, 1908). Of interest in this same connection are the two histories by Josiah W. Leeds, A History of the United States of America (Philadelphia, 1877), and A Smaller History of the United States (Philadelphia, 1882), they were written to present history in terms that would place less emphasis on wars and battles and greater emphasis on peaceful achievement. 2 u 14 *Infra, pp. 175 f. lnfrat p. 159. /«/raf pp. 159 ff.

56

QUAKER WAYS IN FOREIGN POLICY

sizing the problems behind international tensions and the resources available to aid in the reduction of such tensions. While work is emphasized in the one and study in the other, work and study are important in both, and most basic to both is the experience of living together for periods of from three weeks to two months while cooperating on a common project. Friends have shown a notable interest in international trade, and their interest has been not only in the nature and conditions of economic exchange, but also in international trade as one of the most fruitful channels by means of which peoples can come to know and understand each other, thus making stronger the sense of international community. The Quaker recommendations looking towards the improvement of relationships between the Soviet Union and the United States contain an example of this aspect of the Quaker approach. Among these recommendations was the following: In view of the importance of credit in stimulating international trade, and particularly of its importance in stimulating new sources of supply for raw materials, we urge a fresh study of the extent to which the United States might usefully extend such credits to the eastern European Countries. The economic policy suggested is one of increasing the welfare of East and West by opening up the channels of trade and encouraging in particular the constructive personal contacts made possible by increased trade between the United States and the U.S.S.R.25

The international relief and welfare activities undertaken by Friends also have international understanding as a factor in their reason for being. Time and again Friends have declined to undertake programmes which were of material assistance only, providing no opportunity for people to meet in a demonstration and experience of common fate that crosses national boundaries. Relief workers themselves approach the monotonous in their assertions that what they receive in terms of a sense of community with other peoples is more meaningful than anything they can do in terms of rendering material assistance. The relief work of Friends introduces another aspect of Friends' conception of international community. There is a community of needs that reaches across national boundaries, and self-interest makes it necessary to respond when persons are suffering physical, social, or emotional indignity or starvation, particularly when such is the result 85

A.F.S.C.t The United States and the Soviet Union: Some Quaker Proposals for Peace, pp. 24, 39.

ESSENTIAL CONCEPTS

57

of the inhumanity of man or his institutions. The spirit of the person who stands by without response to such needs is dwarfed, self-limited, made callous, and the same is no less true of a nation than of individuals. Self-interest, then, indicates the wisdom of active involvement in the international community of needs. Public policy no less than private activity should reflect an awareness that self-interest requires a policy directed towards decreasing the suffering and increasing the capacity for self-realization of men everywhere; that national well-being requires the increasing well-being of the people of all nations; that national well-being in one country cannot be secured while the people of all nations suffer in the thralls of ill-being. Specifically, for example, trade policy must not attempt to gain domestic advantage at foreign expense; it must ultimately be based on a realization that trade, to be of advantage to any, must be of advantage to all the parties involved. Too, no national economy can long remain healthy if it depends upon or results in curtailed economic development or a depressed standard of living in other countries; nor can one people continue to mature politically while denying the same possibility of development to others. The fundamental and inescapable unity of all results in the existence of an inherent balancing mechanism in life which will not allow great divergencies in economic, political, social, or spiritual development to endure over an indefinite period. The only real question, when such divergencies exist, concerns the process and the timing of adjustments. n The basis for Friends' affinity for the method of example, including their use of "pilot projects," as the means of bringing about social change has been described previously.26 This aspect of Quakerism has two important implications for international community. First, the individual Quaker and the Society of Friends are seen as the vanguard of a developing international harmony, always showing the way to the next step by putting into practice an advanced degree of international community. The Minutes of the 1937 World Conference of Friends express this view: "Our . . . task is that of remaking the world as it is to be. ... The local Quaker society ought to be a specimen of such a group, revealing the way o f . . . cooperative social activity."27 **Supra, pp. 39 £ "Friends World Conference, 1937, Official Report, p. 119.

58

QUAKER WAYS IN FOREIGN POLICY

How Friends have attempted to accomplish this specimen world community in their own Meetings, in so far as gaining a familiarity with the world community is concerned, has been mentioned earlier. Friends' publications, study groups, travelling ministers, and welfare activities have all contributed to this end. Friends' Meetings have attempted to feel the sufferings, the concerns, the needs of each member as though they were, as indeed Friends believe that they are, the sufferings, needs, and concerns of all. This attempt has been extended in an effort to feel the sufferings, needs, and concerns of the world community in the same way. The latter efforts have been expressed in the relief work abroad which has characterized Quakerism, and in Friends' persistent effort to understand and find a basis for reducing the tensions that develop among nations. The effort to pioneer in the development of an expanded sense of community is also expressed in the membership policy of Friends' Meetings as Friends have moved in the direction of offering membership to all who find Friends' procedures congenial.28 The Wider Quaker Fellowship was established to serve the needs of those who wished to associate themselves with Friends while maintaining membership in other religious communities, and as we have seen a movement has developed to open membership in the Society to those who are not professing Christians but who find the framework of Quaker Meetings, procedures, and activities the most helpful environment within which to seek and express a deeper understanding of life. This sharing of concerns and needs within the Society has not been limited to local and Yearly Meetings. Friends have entered into the concerns and sufferings of each other when Friends of different nationalities were involved. They have sent funds, supplies, and personnel to relieve the suffering of Friends in other countries and, more extensively, to assist Friends in other countries to carry on the welfare activities they had undertaken in behalf of non-Friends. Examples are the relief funds sent to Ireland to be administered by Irish Friends during and following the many uprisings and rebellions from 1689 down to the twentieth century; the assistance sent to American Friends by British Friends to be administered to the needy during the American Revolutionary and Civil wars; the assistance forwarded to British Friends by 28

Horace G. Alexander, "A New Fellowship of Truth," Friends Quarterly, IV Qanuary 1940), 14 f. See also supra, p. 19.

ESSENTIAL CONCEPTS

59

American Friends during the wars of 1914 and 1939, and the funds and personnel dispatched to European Friends after I945.29 Friends have also supported each other in furthering mutual concerns in the field of government policy. Friends on both sides of the Atlantic co-operated in efforts to keep the Oregon boundary dispute from reaching open violence in the 1840*8, in efforts to keep the American Civil War from spreading by the entry of England,30 and in efforts to bring all outstanding disputes between the United States and England to arbitration.31 Similar efforts have continued in the twentieth century with American Friends expostulating with the British Government on the treatment of minorities during the early phases of the First World War, and in various concerted efforts supporting disarmament.32 Secondly, Friends see their respective countries in the role of pioneers in international relations. They feel it a high form of patriotism to keep one's country among the leading practitioners of international community, taking the initiative, rather than holding back and doing those things which all other nations also are ready to do. It is thus characteristic of the Quaker approach that emphasis is placed upon what "our nation" ought to do and can do in the strengthening of the world community, rather than emphasizing what "other nations" ought to do. The report on United States-Soviet Union relations issued by the American Friends Service Committee in 1949 is an example of this emphasis,33 an emphasis, incidentally, which was the basis for a large proportion of the criticism which that report received. A degree of boldness is also characteristic of the approach advocated by Friends. They are opposed to a policy which levels activity at a point equal to that which can be expected from the least forward member of the family of nations. As a Friend once replied to a heckler in an audience of the early nineteenth-century American frontier: ". . . so then thou hast a mind to be the last man in the world to be good. I have a mind to be one of the first and set the rest an example."34 "Margaret Hirst, The Quakers in Peace and War, pp. 202, 224, 232, 390-2,427,447; also Minutes of A.F.S.C., and reports to London Yearly Meeting of British Friends Relief Service. 30 Hirst, Quakers in Peace and War, pp. 288-91, 422-8. 31 lnfra, pp. 131 f£ 32 See, for instance, London Yearly Meeting Minutes, 1922, pp. 218-19, in connection with co-operation in support of the Washington Arms Conference 01*1921-2. 33 A.F.S.C., United States and the Soviet Union, pp. 22 ff., and The United States and the Soviet Union: The Quaker Report after Six Months (reprinted from The Friend (Philadelphia) for Sixth Month 15, 1950), pp. 12 ff. 84 Joseph Hoag, Journal, p. 201.

6O

QUAKER WAYS IN FOREIGN POLICY

m But is international community enough? Is this developing sense of unity sufficient in itself? Does this community need to be strengthened by law and does it need the structural support of institutions? Friends think that it does. A booklet issuing from the 1952 World Conference of Friends notes: "While no political organization is a substitute for the life that removes the occasion of war, conversely saintliness and good will are no substitute for adequate organization."35 Friends William Penn and John Sellers, in the late seventeenth and early eighteenth centuries, were the first to write in English of plans for the organization of the international community, plans which embodied an international executive, legislature, and army, and judicial institutions possessing powers of sanction to support their judgments.36 The British Friend John Fothergill was in correspondence with Benjamin Franklin concerning the establishment of an international court late in the eighteenth century.37 But these were the undertakings of individual Friends, not Friends' Meetings. It was early in the nineteenth century that Friends' Meetings began to urge the creation of international institutions for the arbitration of international disputes,38 and Friends generally supported the later efforts at international organizations: the Hague Courts, the League of Nations, and the United Nations.39 Thus Friends have indicated that they do not feel the nation-state to be the last word in political development and they have tended to view nationalism in its existing forms as singularly unenlightened parochialism. Rather than focusing attention on an opposition to nationalism as such, however, Friends have tended to support developments which would be inconsistent with the more destructive forms of nationalism and a crotchety touchiness about sovereign rights. As might be anticipated from their emphasis on continuous evolution and first-hand experience, Friends are inclined to take present conditions of international organization as the point of departure from which a more desirable state of affairs can be developed. There is no inclination towards a revolutionary cleaning of the slate in preparation for a radically new world order. 36 Friends World Committee for Consultation, The Vocation oj Friends in the Modern World: Fourth Study Booklet, Practical Implications of Our Faith (Philadelphia, 1953), p. 16. 36 William Penn, The Peace of Europe, Some Fruits of Solitude and Other Writings of William Penn (Everyman 1916), pp. 1-22; A. Ruth Fry, John Betters: 1675-1725, pp. 89-103. 37 Hingston Fox, Dr. John Fothergill and His Friends, pp. 323-37. "Infra, pp. 132 f., 145 f. "Infra, pp. 145 £, 165 f£

ESSENTIAL CONCEPTS

6l

A pamphlet, New Nations for Old, sounds an authentic Quaker note here, though the author, Kenneth Boulding, was speaking only for himself in connection with the specific proposals he sets forth. After noting that the old nationalism of restricted conceptions of self-interest must first be outgrown in the thinking and attitudes of individuals within the nation, he goes on to suggest a national Declaration of Dependence, a "statement of principle by a national government recognizing its dependence on and responsibility for people who live outside its immediate jurisdiction." The second step would be a symbolic restitution for acts of the past which were not in accord with the principle of dependence. As an illustration, the author mentions the possibility of the United States sending a corps of medical and agricultural experts to Mexico as a gesture of goodwill and of penance for the role of the United States in the Mexican War of 1848. A third step would be to establish procedures by which representatives of foreign countries might advise and might influence legislation having an important impact on international relations. Present diplomatic practices in this connection are seen as being too spasmodic and incidental. A final step would be the formation of a "Third House" in the legislature, made up of representatives of foreign governments, "to advise and even legislate on matters affecting foreign interests."40 While Friends, as a Society, would have considerable difficulty in agreeing on these specific suggestions, the suggestions do illustrate the general direction of Friends' thinking: namely, a belief in the essential unity of all mankind and the necessity of a gradual evolution of present thinking and practice to give clearer organizational expression to that unity. But Friends have their apprehensions about the structure of the international community, much the same apprehensions that they have about national governments and, especially, much the same apprehensions that they have about the structure of their own Society, domestically and internationally. While wishing to draw themselves together in a closer international community, Friends have been loath to create an organizational structure that might weaken the Society's foundations in its individual membership and local Meetings. It was not until 1937 that a continuing international agency of any kind was established for world Quakerism, and that was the Friends World Committee for Consultation, the function of which is to facilitate travel and the 40

Kenneth Boulding, New Nations for Old, pp. 29, 31.

62

QUAKER WAYS IN FOREIGN POLICY

exchange of information among Friends around the world. This committee is still the sole central organ of Quakerism and it has no authority over the Yearly Meetings.41 Similarly, in the area of public international organization Friends have been wary of centralization. They fear that too much integration would result in a loss of grass-roots initiative, responsibility, and variety in traditions and approaches. Friends have been apprehensive, too, that organizational integration would proceed more rapidly than habits of co-operation in the international community, that a centralized world government would decree unity of form in excess of the unity of spirit in the international community, and that, therefore, explosive and violent frictions would develop as the central organization attempted to press people into organizational patterns for which they were not yet prepared. Though inclined to believe that some form of "world government" will develop ultimately, Friends have a preference for a system of federalism containing within it the potential for increasingly concerted action as the peoples of the world are ready for it, preserving regional and local variety, and relying on the development of voluntary patterns of cooperation rather than the enforcement of uniformity.42 As in the local Meetings of Friends, and in the Society of Friends as a whole, the emphasis is on a decentralized form of organization, rooted in the locality rather than suspended from an overarching framework. In addition to a predilection for federalism, Friends are inclined towards the functional approach in developing international organization. Friends hold that it is in the working out of solutions to specific, commonly recognized problems of man's existence, such as housing, food, health, and working conditions, that men learn most readily to communicate with each other understandably and to create patterns of co-operation which can later provide the basis for bringing the more explosive political aspects of international relations under firmer legal and institutional controls. As stated in one Quaker study booklet: The greatest progress... has been made when international cooperation was attempted in such fields as control of epidemics, stamping out malaria, police cooperation in 41

See Friends World Committee for Consultation, Handbook of the Religious Society of Friends pp. vii-x. 42 See, for instance, Friends Conference on Peace and Reconstruction, Looking toward the PostWar World, pp. 19 f. See also the emphasis placed on development within the Uni:ed Nations in the three pamphlets of the A.F.S.C.: The United States and the Soviet Union, pp. 29 f£; Steps to Peace, pp. 38 f£; Toward Security through Disarmament, pp. 42 f£

ESSENTIAL CONCEPTS

63

running down drug trafficers, the concurrent and uniform improvement of labor standards throughout the world, currency stabilization, child welfare and protection of youth, the stamping out of slavery and forced labor. . . ,43

And again: ... Because of the complexity of relations among nations and peoples, the organization of government will probably develop in several ways. . . . [One such] way is that of regional groupings of nations, always provided that such groupings are consistent with the development of harmonious world-wide organization. It is probable that there will be a simultaneous development along both functional and regional lines.44

The international organization Friends favour is a universal one. International organization should be an expression of the international community in which all nations hold membership simply by the fact of their existence. Action within this universal organization should emphasize procedures based on something approaching universal agreement, not, in the present state of affairs, procedures based on simple majority votes. Both of these positions are in accord with the pattern Friends follow in their own Meetings. Friends are reluctant to take a position which will exclude anyone from either participation in or responsibility for the decision reached. If anyone is left behind through failure to feel involved in developments, the seeds of friction are sown. The inclusiveness of Penn's and Beller's early schemes of international organization and Friends' early support of the inclusion of the Central Powers in the League of Nations are expressions of this view. The pamphlet, Steps to Peace, made the proposition clear with respect to Communist China and the United Nations: "... it is better to have all countries in the United Nations and it is unwise to prevent any country from accepting the responsibility of membership."45 It follows, too, that Friends have not been greatly disturbed by the existence of the "veto power" in international organizations, inasmuch as Friends practise the veto procedure, to all intents and purposes, in their own Meetings for Business, where Friends take no action as long as a single member is convinced that the action contemplated should not be taken. Friends are concerned, however, when the use of the veto power is a prerogative of a limited number of members of the community, international 48

Friends World Committee for Consultation, Peace Study Outline, pp. 45 f. Friends Conference on Peace and Reconstruction, Looking toward the Post-War World, p. 20. "A.F.S.C., Steps to Peace, p. 44. 44

64

QUAKER WAYS IN FOREIGN POLICY

or local, political or religious, and not the right and responsibility of all. In one respect it would be more accurate to speak of Friends' belief in world community and world organization, rather than international, for people and not nations constitute the fundamental components and concern of this community and organization. International organization must deal directly with people as individuals and not with governments alone. The Conference on Peace and Reconstruction held by Friends in 1942 stated the position: "World wide and interlocking needs of nations should be met by international organization, representative of all the nations concerned, and responsible directly to peoples as well as governments."46 Friends have felt not only that the international or world community requires organizational form, but also that this organization must be based on law, law which is seen as an increasingly full and accurate embodiment of the law of the moral order. In addition to legal institutions, Friends have been eager to see established in law, with varying emphases at different times, the principle of third-party settlement of international disputes, with its 1920-39 corollary, the outlawry of war; the outlawry of piracy and the slave trade; the principle of universal accountability of individuals before international law; and respect for human rights and freedoms as embodied in the Declaration and Covenant of Human Rights and the Genocide Convention which have been opened by the United Nations for ratification by national governments. The 1951 Policy Statement of the (American) Friends Committee on National Legislation stated: We would encourage the systematic development of enforceable world law. .. . This would include the power to apprehend and bring to trial in world courts individuals or groups. . .. [We urge] support for the United Nations effort to encourage respect for human rights and universal freedoms, with education for the Declaration of Human Rights and sympathetic consideration of the Covenant of Human Rights.47

Friends have the same attitude towards sanctions in international law that they have toward sanctions in municipal law, that is, as little coercion as possible, forcible restraint where inescapably necessary, with rehabilitation and not retribution as the aim. 4C

Fricnds Conference on Peace and Reconstruction, Looking toward the Post-War World, p. 18. Friends Committee on National Legislation, Statement on Legislative Policy for 1951 (Washington, 1951), Section 1-3. 47

CHAPTER FIVE

On Power (I) EVEN THE EARLIEST FRIENDS recognized the fact of power in human relations and recognized its relevancy in international affairs. An entry in George Fox's Journal for the year 1651, for instance, notes Fox's reply as he chose to remain in prison rather than accept a proffered captaincy in Cromwell's army: "I told them I knew from whence all wars arose ... and that I lived in the virtue of that life and power which took away the occasion of all wars."1 The American Friends Service Committee issued a pamphlet in 1947 in which the international situation was summarized thus: "The problem is one of the nature of the power to be used and the purposes for which it is to be employed."2 This power which is able to "take away the occasion of all wars" is real to Friends, not rhetoric or theological or philosophical hyperbole. The Epistle issued by London Yearly Meeting during its annual session in 1939 stated its conviction: "There is a power within the world able to set men free from fear and anxiety, from hatred and from dread; a power able to bring peace within society and to establish it among the nations. This power we have known in measure, so towards this we call all men to turn."3 It may be said that all of this is a bit soft-headed, that it sounds vague, unrealistic, and quite without relevance for the day-to-day problems of living. Friends do not feel this power to be irrelevant. In fact, they feel it to be the only power that is relevant and they make super-atomic claims for it. The following was included in Notes on the Frame of Government, a document prepared by Friends in connection with their discussions on the League of Nations: This power is, to Friends, the ultimate, the supreme and the wholly adequate sanction of international, as of national and individual conduct as well. Judaism, ^ox, Journal, p. 35. 2 A.F.S.C, Summons to Faith and Repentance (Phikdelphia, 1947). 'London Yearly Meeting Minutes, 1939, pp. 309 f.

66

QUAKER WAYS IN FOREIGN POLICY

Confucianism, Buddhism, Mohammedanism, and Christianity all profess to accept the will of God as the supreme guide of human conduct. To give this power [supremacy].,. within the international, the national, and the individual realm, would be to make all other ... as unnecessary as is a candle in the beams of the noon-day sun.4

The power on which Friends would rely, and encourage others to rely, is not the pressure of economic, social, psychological or armed might exerted on individuals or groups from without. Friends would rely on nothing less than the inner dynamic of the universe, the moral order to which all men are related through the spirit that is within each. This power operates from within, and in the degree to which the Godwithin is allowed to move in harmony with the God-Spirit. This power is brought forth in human relations, including international relations, when individuals are able to reach through to that of God within themselves and also to that of God in others; when people are able to "speak to that of God" in others, as Friends frequently phrase it. This is a power which unifies people, does not divide them into winners and losers, friend and enemy, conquered and conqueror, majority and minority; it releases and frees the personality in which it works rather than restraining it; and it affects behaviour at the motivational level, not at the behavioural level alone. What then is the nature, what are the characteristics of this power for which such claims are made? Perhaps it would be helpful, in staking out an answer to this question, to begin by indicating some of the things which Friends are clear that this power is not. i First, this power is not coercive. It has been noted earlier that Friends have little confidence in the power of coercion because it tends to crystallize differences and set people in opposition to each other, and ultimately it is self-defeating. Coercion does not have the support of moral and spiritual power because it denies the most fundamental condition of all moral and spiritual effort: the condition of unity in which the human spirit may find increasing opportunities for development and expression. *Notes on a Frame of Government for the League of Nations, p. 6. This was a mimeographed working paper, prepared for the 1920 All Friends Conference by a study group of American Friends. A copy may be seen in the archives of the A.F.S.C. at Haverford College. See also the printed Tentative Outline of Frame of Government for the League of Nations (Philadelphia, Philadelphia Delegation to London Conference of All Friends, 1920), pp. 10 f. This printed outline was also prepared for the conference.

ON POWER (l)

67

Opposition to coercion in the international field was first expressed by Friends through their refusal to be a part of military establishments. A frequent phrase found in early Quaker literature is the phrase "carnal weapons." Friends eschewed the use of such weapons for any purpose whatsoever and would not put their trust in them. A classic statement of Friends' position in this matter is found in the London Yearly Meeting Epistle for 1805, at the time that Napoleon's shadow was looming large over Europe: "Guard against placing your dependence on fleets and armies; be peaceable yourselves, in words and actions, and pray to the Father of the Universe that he would breathe the spirit of reconciliation into the hearts of his erring and contending creatures."5 This position has persisted among Friends. A statement in 1919, entitled A Real Peace, an Appeal from the Society of Friends, for instance, read: ". . . if we are looking once more to force for our security, the world has learned no lesson."6 Friends early opposed conscription for themselves, and pointed out its general folly for all concerned. Friends later opposed conscription and military training as such. They have held universal military training to be a particularly vicious influence on the young people subjected to it. As one Yearly Meeting stated in 1944: If our boys, and possibly girls, too, are drafted into governmental training at an immature age, before they are prepared to make far-reaching decisions and before their characters are fully developed, they will come to be military-minded and in the course of a few generations, at the most, our democratic and peace-loving people will tend to be molded into an imperial military power, perpetuating the ideals of war and domination, and in the course of time, as history teaches us, spiritual values having been discarded, the nation becomes morally and physically weak, and finally succumbs to a power that has grown stronger. "They that take the sword shall perish by the sword."7

Friends have felt reliance on the power of military force and training for military service to be so mistaken that they have expressed apprehensions about the quasi-military aspects of the Boy Scout and allied 6 London Yearly Meeting Minutes, 1805, quoted in Friends Peace Committee, Peace, a Positive Testimony, p. 7. 6 London Yearly Meeting Minutes, 1919, pp. 123-4. 7 Ohio Yearly Meeting (Barnesville) Minutes for 1944. Quoted in pamphlet, Peacetime Conscription Considered, "Issued by Authority of Ohio Yearly Meeting of the Religious Society of Friends held at Barnesville, Ohio, 1944." See also the Testimony of J. Henry Scattergood before the U.S. House of Representatives Military Affairs Committee, and reprinted in The Friend, CXIV, no. 13 (Twelfth Month 20, 1945); and also Friends Committee on National Legislation Newsletter, no. 94 (November 16, 1951), p. 4.

6%

QUAKER WAYS IN FOREIGN POLICY

movements. They have been adamant in their opposition to mixing education and military training, even when military training is ostensibly voluntary, and have been particularly opposed to compulsory training in colleges and the use of deferments and officers' commissions as inducements to accept training when it was not compulsory. As declared in the Friends Committee on National Legislation's Statement on Legislative Policy for 1950: "We reiterate our determined opposition to universal military training, to the Selective Service System, to the increasing militarization of America through military training in the schools. . . ."8 It is interesting to note that Friends' concerns about military conscription have not been confined to conditions in their respective countries. This has been particularly true of British Friends, who, in the latter half of the nineteenth and early twentieth centuries, visited a number of countries on the continent of Europe to oppose or moderate the effects of systems of conscription. These visits were sometimes undertaken to obtain specific relief for a group of people, such as the Doukhobors or the Mennonites, or sometimes a small group of Friends, who were suffering for their opposition to conscription. Such visits were made to Norway, Denmark, Germany, France, and Russia, among others.9 In the course of these missions Friends gave extensive circulation to the London Yearly Meeting "Plea on Behalf of Liberty of Conscience," which was, in part, a plea for recognition of the right of the individual to decline, for reasons of conscience, to participate in programmes of military training and service.10 Friends early noted that military service is not necessarily confined to service with the armed forces. This problem came into focus in connection with provisioning the British fleet and keeping mounted guns on the decks of Quaker merchant vessels.11 Standing watch and guard duty was also an early point at which Friends were troubled about assuming "the postures of war," as George Fox called them.12 The problem was first presented clearly by conditions on the Island of Barbados and Nevis. The Friends on Barbados and Nevis suffered 8 Friends Committee on National Legislation, Statement on Legislative Policy for 1950 (Washington, 1950), unpaged, under heading "Militarization of the United States." 9 See London Yearly Meeting Minutes, 1857, p. 41, and 1872, pp. 56-60. lo lbid., 1857, PP- 54 & and infra, p. 135. u /«/ra, pp. 121 £f. 12 Fox, Journal, p. 187.

ON £OWER (l)

69

considerably for their refusal to comply with a law requiring "every man who kept a horse to ride [on patrol] armed 'with swords and pistols fixed and (with) powder and ball suitable about him/ "13 Here Friends did not object to riding on patrol and watching, but they did object to doing so armed. The matter was of sufficient concern to come to the attention of Friends in London and George Fox then wrote to Friends on Nevis that "Friends have always proffered [to] magistrates, though they could not join with them in carrying arms, swords and pistols, yet to watch in their own way against the evil doer."14 This problem of "watching" and its close connection with military postures continues to the present day in the form of air-raid duty, fire-watching, and other aspects of civil defence programmes in an age of aerial warfare. It was in Great Britian from 1939 to 1945 that the modern problem came into sharpest focus. American Friends summarized wartime thinking and experience in this area in 1951 in a pamphlet entitled Speaking of Civil Defense: An important new issue will be raised . . . if conscription is introduced in connection with the civil defense program. There were several hundred . . . [persons], including a considerable number of women, in England during World War II who suffered imprisonment after conscription for civil defense had been introduced, though in a number of instances they had been willing or even eager to render voluntarily the service now imposed upon them. Others did not feel it necessary to protest at this point. Even these, however, stated: "They realize that by registering they may commit themselves not only to participation in an organization called Civil Defense, the line between which and offensive action is becoming increasingly thin, but also to acceptance of the principle of rigid regimentation of man's life." Finally it was recognized that in this as in other matters equally sincere and courageous. . . [people] would be led to draw the line at various points. In deciding where to draw the line all would recognize two sets of values and the need of effecting a balance or integration between them in shaping their course from day to day. One set of values consists in the maximum identification with all human beings, especially in suffering; the maintenance of fellowship with all men, however their views may differ from ours; the desire to live as good citizens in a democratic society and to obey the laws, save where this means the violation of conscience; and the impulse to minister to human need. Another set of values springs from our commitment to the "life which taketh away the occasion of all war" and our faith in the dignity and freedom of the human person, in "that of God in every man" which forbids us to 18

Scc Joseph Bcsse, A Collection of the Sufferings of the People Called Quakers, 1650-1689, II, 278-351, for an account of this situation. "George Fox, Epistle no. 319, from Swarthmore, November 5,1675, approved by Six Week Meeting, December 7, 1675. Quoted in Braithwaite, Second Period of Quakerism, pp. 620 f.

7O

QUAKER WAYS IN FOREIGN POLICY

take part in any war and war preparation or in the denial of liberty to, and imposition of slavery on, human beings.15

Recently, in light of the totalitarian claims and totalitarian effects of modern warfare, Friends have tended to emphasize the inevitable involvement of everyone when war comes, regardless of what an individual's business or occupation may be. The line between participation and non-participation has become increasingly theoretical. Friends are still concerned, however, to keep themselves separated from anything that supports or encourages reliance on military efforts. To this end Quaker business men have had occasional week-end retreats and conferences,16 Quaker scientists were among the moving spirits behind the foundation of the Society for Social Responsibility in Science,17 and Friends Meetings consider the implications of paying taxes when from a half to three-quarters of such taxes go for military purposes. The Society as a whole has taken no specific position on these questions, leaving it to the individual Friend to find his and her own solution. A few Friends have refused to pay their income taxes, or at least that percentage that goes for military purposes, informing the authorities of their reasons for doing so and making an equivalent contribution to the work of one of the Friends' service organizations or some other philanthropic or educational programme.18 Friends have not, however, been content to rely on general statements of their position with respect to military coercion in international affairs, supported by a personal refusal to be associated with such activities; they have actively opposed public policy which tended to rely on such military coercion. Since emerging from their eighteenth15

Friends Peace Committee, Speaking of Civil Defense (Philadelphia, 1951). See, for instance,}. E. Hodgkin, ed., Quakerism and Industry (Darlington, England, 1918) being the full record of a conference of employers, chiefly members of the Society of Friends, held at Woodbrooke, Birmingham, England, April 11-14,1918. See also two addresses that were presented at the National Conference of Quaker Business Men, held at Earlham College, Richmond, Indiana, October 20, 1952. Earlham College printed the addresses under the title: A Mission for Quaker Business Men and Quaker Business Men and Current Issues. See also A Report of a Called Conference of Quaker Economists (Philadelphia, A.F.S.C., 1949). See also occasional reports in Quaker periodicals of meetings of Quaker business men, for instance: Ellis T. Williams, "Responsibility of Quaker Businessmen," Friends Intelligencer, CVIII, no. 27 (Seventh Month 7, 16

1951), pp. 387 £ 17

The first meeting of this organization was held in September 1949, on the campus of a Quaker college, Haverford; its President and Vice President were Friends and at least half of its ten-man council were Friends in 1951-2. See also "Social Responsibility in Science," The Friend (Philadelphia), CXXIV, no. 5 (Ninth Month 7, 1950), p. 7518 See, for instance, "Norwegian Friends and War Taxes," The Friend (London), CVII, CVIII (1949 and 1950), passim. See also Philadelphia Evening Bulletin, March 13, 1951, for the position taken by a group of Friends in the Philadelphia area.

ON POWER (l)

71

century quietism, Friends regularly have expressed opposition to increases in armaments and have decried each instance of reliance on military solutions to international problems.19 It is clear that they have been as opposed to systems of alliance which have as their objective a massing of coercive power as to a unilateral build-up of power. Friends have, for instance, viewed the North Atlantic Treaty Organization in the same light as unilateral efforts to find coercive solutions to international problems.20 Not only, however, have Friends opposed the build-up of military potential; they have supported with vigour the various modern proposals for disarmament, beginning with the proposals of the First International Peace Conference in i848.21 Friends supported the calling of the Hague Conference on Disarmament in 1899, congratulating the Czar for initiating it and dispatching a message of encouragement and a deputation of unofficial observers.22 The various disarmament conferences in the 1920*5 and 1930*8, beginning with the Washington Arms Conference in 1921-2, found Friends urging bold action.23 The post1945 period has seen no decrease in Friends' interest in disarmament. One of the three pamphlets on foreign affairs published by the American Friends Service Committee between 1949 and 1952 was entitled Toward Security through Disarmament and both the Friends Committee on National Legislation and the "Quaker Team"24 at the United Nations have had as cardinal points in their agendas the support and encouragement of the United Nations Atomic Energy Commission and the United Nations Disarmament Commission. The one exception to Friends' support for disarmament proposals is the case of the "Frazier Amendment" to the Constitution of the United States. This amendment was put forward during the 1930*8 and would have made unconstitutional the use of government funds to wage war.25 Friends did not support the amendment as many Friends felt its 19

Sce Infra, pp. 135 fF. See, for instance, London Yearly Meeting Minutes, 1949, p. 291. 21 See A. C. F. Beales, The History of Peace, pp. 66 f£, for the development of the peace conferences of the late nineteenth century. 22 London Yearly Meeting Minutes 1899, pp. 10, 17, 128. 23 I«/ra, p. 217. 24 A.F.S.C., Annual Report, 1951, p. 15; Friends Committee on National Legislation, Statement on Legislative Policy for 1951, under heading 1-3. 25 Senator Frazier introduced this amendment in the United States Senate on May 16, 1929, as a Senate Joint Resolution. See the Congressional Record, jist Congress, ist Session, LXXI, pt. 3, 2748-50, for a copy of the resolution together with Senator Frazier's comments in support and explanation. 20

72

QUAKER WAYS IN FOREIGN POLICY

demands too far in advance of what public opinion was prepared to effect. Would Friends advocate unilateral disarmament? Have Friends advocated the disarmament of their own country whether other governments disarm or not? There have been numerous statements indicating that Friends would approve of such action, providing only that the people of the country concerned were behind it and prepared to meet situations arising out of such a policy.26 But as indicated above, Friends would think it unwise to deprive a nation of the capacity for armed self-defence until that nation is psychologically, morally, and spiritually prepared to rely on another form of power. Once the nation is prepared for it, Friends would be pleased to see their nations take this step unilaterally. In addition, Friends have considered it a particular concern of theirs to hasten the day when their respective nations would be prepared for such a step. As the matter was presented in 1920 at the Conference of All Friends: . . . it is only the ... total disarmament of a single nation as a venture of faith that affords a real illustration of the heart of the Christian ethic, or that would be a worthy outcome of the Quaker testimony to peace. It is the only one that offers any of the romance of a Christian crusade, or the risks of a real experiment in righteousness. The supreme Christian ethic demands a right line of action at all rimes, in all places, whether it pays or not, and whatever the circumstances, conditions or immediate results. It is seldom that individuals and still more seldom that nations can see such a line of action clearly before them in the confusion of the world's activities and passions. It is more seldom still that they can trust themselves to take it when they do see it. Those who have taken it are the martyrs of history. Those who would take it today must face the risks of today.27

And as Friend Horace Alexander later wrote of unilateral disarmament: [The improvement of international relations] may, indeed, involve a willingness for one nation to disarm completely in an armed world . . . .This world society of ours [The Society of Friends] must play its part in calling the political world in which our lives are set to see its true destiny: one great family, linked together in bonds of firm necessity, marching forward in harmony. . . ,28

The evidence, however, indicates that Friends in the post-1945 period are placing more emphasis on an international agreement for disarmament than they are on unilateral disarmament. As stated in the 26 See, for instance, Horace G. Alexander, The Growth of the Peace Testimony of the Society of Friends, pp. 28-30. 27 All Friends' Conference, 1920, National Life and International Relations, p. 64. "Alexander, Growth of the Peace Testimony, pp. 28-30.

ON POWER (l)

73

Disarmament pamphlet of the American Friends Service Committee: "With tensions what they are, caused partly by the falure of nations to disarm after the war, it does not seem reasonable for any nation to disarm unless others do also."29 Using the international machinery provided by the United Nations to work out an international agreement on disarmament has been a key point in all Quaker proposals for foreign and international policy in the cold war period. This method is urged, in part, it would seem, because the United Nations would be strengthened by the fullest possible use of its machinery.30 It may be that these later statements were more conservative because they were meant to influence immediate policy rather than provide an indication of the limits to which Friends, themselves, would be prepared to see their governments go. These statements may also mean that Friends, in general, have concluded that a world-wide agreement to reduce armaments would be more speedily achieved than the development in one nation of an attitude of mind which would support and justify a policy of unilateral disarmament. Friends are clear that political, economic, and psychological coercion issues in results basically the same as those issuing from armed coercion. In this they would agree with the much-quoted statement of von Clausewitz: "War is nothing but a continuation of. . . [international] intercourse with . . . other means."31 In Friends' view, if the spirit of coercion motivates relationships between nations, whether that spirit expresses itself economically, politically, or psychologically, it can but result in military coercion in the last analysis. Even if it did not, it would still be wrong in itself for the same reason that military coercion is wrong: it creates an atmosphere in which the spirit in man is stunted. These non-military forms of coercion are also futile for the same reason that military force is futile: they are not supported by moral and spiritual power. In the area of economics, Friends have opposed coercive policies with as much vigour as they have military coercion. One Friend commented during the ip2o's: Economic sanctions... are inseparable from the threat of Military Sanctions.... My reading of recent events is that hope in the benefits of sanctions is a delusion: they lead 29

A.F.S.C., Toward Security through Disarmament, p. 9. ™Ibid., pp. 42 £

General Carl von Clausewitz, On War (Modern Library Edition; New York, 1943), p. 596.

74

QUAKER WAYS IN FOREIGN POLICY

to animosity, with greatly increased danger of war, and that countries will not use them against their policies and tendencies. If politicians ever dared confess that they had been wrong, I believe that they would say so now of their advocacy of [economic sanctions].32

When economic coercion becomes "starvation politics," Friends are even more positive. They were horrified by and vigorously opposed to the food blockade of Germany during and after the armistice in 1918.33 They understood the reasons for maintaining a blockade against food supplies going to Occupied France in 1940 and 1941, but were none the less opposed to it, too.34 They were greatly disturbed over the tendency of the United States Congress to refuse shipments of wheat to India in 1951, such refusal arising because India had not shown sufficient alacrity in co-operating with the cold war policies of the United States. The Friends Committee on National Legislation observed: "It is difficult to reconcile this kind of economic imperialism with the professed policies of our government/'35 There is one possible exception to Friends' aversion to the calculated use of economic pressure to force other countries into supporting a predetermined policy. Friends have been inclined to feel that economic sanctions may be justified when such sanctions are for the purpose of drying up the materials necessary for both sides to continue a war, particularly if that war shows signs of dragging out into an indecisive stalemate or of developing from a local into a more general war. The minutes of the American Friends Service Committee express approval of such a course of action in 1932 with respect to the Sino-Japanese conflict: "It was decided to ask the chairman of the Peace Section to appoint a delegation of three Friends to visit President Hoover, to express appreciation for his efforts, sympathy for him in his responsibilities, and to encourage the placing of embargoes on shipment of arms and the refusal of loans to [all] belligerent countries."36 Political sanctions offer yet another type of international sanction 32

A. Ruth Fry, Sanctions Junction: Change Here for Peace, p. n.

"London Yearly Meeting Minutes, 1919, pp. 123-4. 34 See Minutes of A.F.S.C. Joint Foreign Service Executive Committee for December 23 and 30,1940, and March 5,1941, for reports of the mission American Friends sent to England to work with British Friends in an effort to get permission to send relief supplies through the blockade to civilians in Occupied France. The reports of the mission itself are to be seen in the archives of the A.F.S.C. at Haverford College. 35 Friends Committee on National Legislation, Newsletter no. 88, May 23, 1951, p. 4, 36 A.F.S.C., Board Minutes, February 27,1932.

ON POWER (l)

75

and coercion. Political sanctions involve such measures as the withdrawal of diplomatic and consular representatives, or both, when sanctions are to be applied against a country already "recognized" diplomatically, or a refusal to recognize a government that is otherwise eligible for admission to the family of nations. But slightly less coercive than the ultimate political sanctions mentioned above is the tone and temper of diplomatic correspondence that threatens or implies the application of such sanctions. It has been noted that Friends consider communication between and among nations to be of fundamental importance and that de facto recognition, at least, should be accorded powers actually in control of governmental affairs in a given area regardless of whether or not approval can be given to the methods that government used in the process of coming to power. Friends would think it folly to cut off a channel by which negotiations might be kept open and influence brought to bear on undesirable policies. All avenues of contact should be kept open in the hope that continuing explorations may find bases of common interest on which understanding might be furthered and mutually satisfactory solutions sought. The possibility of political sanctions was explored and rejected by the American Friends Service Committee in connection with the Japanese intervention in China in the early 1930*5: The withdrawal of our ambassador to Japan without severing diplomatic relations was discussed as a possible measure to express disapproval and deep concern over Japanese aggression in China. L. Hollingsworth Wood especially felt that ways should be found for a more distinctly Christian contribution. He suggested that more contacts with Japan should be sought rather than severing those which already existed. There was general agreement that ways should be sought to express the power of spiritual forces in such situations and to encourage the [seeking of]... such ways of expression.37

So strongly have Friends felt on this matter of keeping open the channels of communication and potential understanding that they have sometimes been concerned to provide an unofficial supplement to public channels that were being choked off and reduced to impotence. Probably their earliest such effort was in 1675 when a group of Friends met with King Philip, the Indian King and son of the fabled Massasoit, in an effort to forestall what became King Philip's War.38 David "ibid. 88

Rufus Jones, Quakerism in the American Colonies, pp. 181-9, giye$ £n Account of this episode,

76

QUAKER WAYS IN FOREIGN POLICY

Barclay and John Pother gill, British Friends, acted similarly in an effort to stave off the American Revolution.39 The delegation dispatched to St. Petersburg by London Yearly Meeting on the eve of the Crimean War is another example,40 as was the delegation sent to Germany following the infamous "Day of Broken Glass" in November 1938, when Hitler's anti-Semitic programme reached one of its most vicious phases.41 Friends have always been careful to keep the responsible public authorities informed of what they were doing when they undertook such missions. They have wished to avoid even the appearance of subverting or subsuming responsibility for public policy. Psychological coercion has found no more support among Friends than has military, political, or economic. A "war of nerves" cannot be waged with the support of spiritual power. Policies that keep other governments in a state of suspicion and unrest, particularly when such policies are directed toward fomenting revolution in other countries, have not found favour among Friends. In spite of their interest in keeping all possible channels of communication flowing full, the coercive aspects of such efforts as The Voice of America have seemed to most Friends to vitiate any possible good that might be accomplished.42 But what of coercion in the hands of an international organization? How does this differ from coercion in the hands of a national government? During the inter-war years, 1918-39, there was probably no international issue upon which Friends held such divergent views as on this question of international coercion, or sanctions. All Friends, however, felt that powers of coercion and discipline should be deemphasized in international organizations. As one Friend expressed it with respect to the League of Nations: ... the League of Nations was founded on sand and not on rock, in so far as it is based on the idea of threatening nations into being good. The world has got punishment on the brain, like inexpert nurses and teachers who are constantly cuffing and slapping their unfortunate charges in the hope that it will somehow produce good results.43

When it came to a clear question of whether, in the existing state of the 39

Amelia Mott Gummere, The Quaker in the Forum, pp. 215-30, and Hingston Fox, Dr. John Fothergill and his Friend's, pp. 314-67. 40 See Infra, pp. 137 £ *llnfra, pp. 82, 154. 42 In/ra, p. 188. 43 A. Ruth Fry, The Spectacles of Faith, p. 3.

ON POWER (l)

77

international community in the inter-war period, an international organization should possess powers of coercion, Friends found it difficult to agree. In the preliminary materials prepared for the 1937 World Conference of Friends, the pro-sanctionist and the antisanctionist positions were stated in parallel columns.44 The final report of the conference could go no further than the statement of an amicable agreement to differ on the point.45 Yet even anti-sanctionist Friends have not been absolutists with respect to their position on coercion in international affairs, any more than Friends in general have been absolutists with respect to the elimination of coercion in domestic affairs. Force has a role to play. The power of the magistrate, the power of the police, is a necessary power. But Friends differed from that point forward. The pro-sanctionist Friends took the position that such police powers can and should be exercised on behalf of the international community. The anti-sanctionist Friends took the position that, in the existing state of the international community, such police powers could amount to nothing less than war under another name. The latter view appears to have gained increasing acceptance among Friends since the outbreak of World War II, at least as indicated by official publications and proceedings.46 The feeling now appears to be that there can be no police, in a proper sense, unless there is a body of law that is freely accepted by a vast majority of the people over whom that law is to exercise jurisdiction and unless there is common agreement as to what the law is to mean. Too, a police force can exist only when the component units to be policed are essentially disarmed, when the police, in other words, have the exclusive right and capacity, under law, to use force in settling disputes. These conditions, Friends emphasize, do not yet exist in the international field. In the pattern of Quaker thinking it seems that ideally there would be no coercive laws or forces in society, domestic or international. The habits and channels of co-operation can become so well established, they feel, that coercion will not be necessary. Over a period of generations it is possible to practise such respect for the individual personality and 44 Friends World Conference, 1937, Methods of Achieving Economic, Racial and International Justice, pp. 98 f. 45 Friends World Conference, 1937, Official Report, p. 100 f. 46 See A.F.S.C., Toward Security through Disarmament, and A.F.S.C., A Practical Approach to World Disarmament (Philadelphia, Peace Education Program, 1953). See also the reports of the Peace Committee in London Yearly Meeting Minutes, 1949, pp. 131-8, and 1951, pp. 79-86.

78

QUAKER WAYS IN FOREIGN POLICY

its spiritual development that the desire to violate co-operative methods will no longer exist; these disruptive drives being based in the fears and hostilities which arise from the violation of personality, both in the violated and the violator. The world, however, is not achieving this ideal state with notable speed, and in the meanwhile coercive restraints in the form of laws and courts and police are desirable until the community has progressed to a point where a greater sense of common purpose and common fate has developed than has yet been achieved in the international community. Thus sanctions, particularly the armed variety, do not have an adequate base in the present international community. This would appear to be the meaning of such statements as that published in 1942 by the Friends Conference on Peace and Reconstruction: It seems to us that Friends, when making political proposals, can include only the elements of cooperation and the implementation of good-will, not the element of armed coercion. Such proposals should provide all the machinery necessary for negotiation, mediation, arbitration or other non-violent solutions of problems. Friends should seek to create the good-will to make the machinery work for the aggregate good of all. If this machinery breaks down and fails to produce an acceptable solution of any problem, that problem remains unsolved, but always to be reexamined in the same spirit. Such proposals should not provide for armed coercion or threat of coercion as a solution of the problem, for ... force itself creates problems and may render cooperation and adjustment more difficult.47

In similar vein there is the memorandum Friends forwarded to the San Francisco Conference on the United Nations in 1945: Peace rests on confidence and good-will. The concentration of overwhelming power may temporarily prevent a fresh outbreak of aggression, but such measures are only a precarious expedient. Not by coercion and penalties will the world be turned from war and competing armaments, but by the single-minded pursuit of the individual well being of ordinary men and women.48

In brief, Friends appear to feel that coercion in the international community is both wrong and impotent, being equally wrong and impotent whether that coercion is of a military, political, economic, or psychological nature and whether it is employed by national governments or international organizations. However, while coercion is never the best possible course of action, it may be better than inaction 47

Friends Conference on Peace and Reconstruction, Looking toward the Post-War World, p. 23. A.F.S.C.t Board Minutes, May 5, 1945. For reaction to the collective security measures in Korea in 1950, see infra, p. 188. 48

ON POWER (l)

79

in the face of injustice or other forms of evil, and may be the only alternative to such callous inaction until a nation's citizenry acquires greater confidence in non-coercive moral and spiritual power than in coerciveness. Aside from the positive effect of taking a moral stand in the face of immorality, coercive measures, to Friends, are at best but negative, exercising a restraining influence while more positive forces are released into a situation. But even the temporary usefulness of such restraints has become increasingly questionable as the coercion necessary to serve as a restraining influence in contemporary international affairs absorbs so much of a nation's resources that concurrent positive efforts become impossible. Too, the degree of coercion necessary has become so great that restraint and wide-spread destruction, perhaps mutual annihilation, have become synonymous.49 ii As coercion is not the means of spiritual power, security is not its objective. Friends see the conception of security as fundamentally static. To make anything "secure" involves the protection of some existing condition or value that is threatened with change, or the restoration of some such condition or value that has already succumbed to the forces of change. An established balance of power or patterns of prestige may be at stake. Systems of religion, economics, or government have sometimes been threatened or have been thought to be threatened. Often it has been more nearly true to say that a standard of living was to be made secure. But whatever the value involved, a policy centred on security inevitably involves an effort to protect an actual or hypothetical value that has suffered change or is threatened with change. Such a policy to Friends is negative, brittle, and unreal when confronted with life's dynamic quality. Statements of this Quaker point of view may be seen in the pamphlet, No! Not Safety First, issued privately by A. Ruth Fry, a British Friend of influence, or the statement by the American Friend, James G. Vail: Security then is a wrong approach to the problems of peace because it breeds fear and because it shackles men's minds against the sort of thinking that accepts the idea of change as a part of any living organism and thus closes the door to discovery.... The heroes of history are the people who have rejected the idea of security for some higher value. 49 Scc A.F.S.C, Toward Security through Disarmament, pp. 7 £, and Steps to Peace, pp. 12 f.

8O

QUAKER WAYS IN FOREIGN POLICY

... traditionally the Quaker believes that there is something of God in every human being and that he has a responsibility to ... be the apostle of change.50

As indicated in the quotation just cited, Friends are opposed to a policy centred on security, not only because of its static nature but also because it encourages the development of fear, which Friends view as extremely unhealthy, dangerous, and unreliable as a motive force. Fear is inherent in the static nature of a "security-centred" policy confronted with life's dynamic. The attempt to maintain things as they are increases the pressures for change, and results in an increased fear that the status quo cannot be maintained. This fear may then be converted into violence and forceful opposition, which may take the form of aggression and expansion as an attempt is made to control those areas and forces which increasingly threaten security, that is, constitute a threat to established patterns. It was this to which American Friends referred in 1951 when they wrote that to the people of Asia and Europe "our policy of military containment does not mean freedom; it often means the maintenance of an unpopular status quo, and at times the outbreak of catastrophic violence which instead of freeing, utterly destroys . . . we need not be surprised to find them turning to violent revolution as a way out. . . ."51 Not only does such a policy increase fear in those who use it, but it also increases a similarly unhealthy fear in any nation against which it is directed. Friends have felt that this factor was an important element in Germany's aggressions in World Wars I and II and Friends identify similar forces at work in the post-Potsdam world.52 A 1927 statement on Anglo-Russian relations, written by a Friend who frequently represented British Friends on international missions, voiced this point of view: "Above all, I believe that mutual fear is ruining AngloRussian relations. Each side is genuinely afraid of the victory of the other's ideas, with consequences they feel sure to be disastrous. Such fear is useless, and is no protection. But an England where justice and righteousness always prevailed, would have no need of fear of propaganda from without."53 In itself, however, security is not bad. Concern for it is mistaken only 5a james G. Vail, "Security and Change—a Quaker Approach," The Friend (Philadelphia), CXXIV, no. 5 (Ninth Month 7, 1950), 69. 61 A.F.S.C., Steps to Peace, p. 12. "Kathleen Lonsdale, Removing the Causes of War, pp. 22-62, gives one expression of this. 5S A. Ruth Fry, Anglo-Russian Relations, unpaged.

ON POWER (l)

81

when it becomes the absorbing purpose of life, as security can only be realized as a by-product, and not as life's central purpose. Friends are clear that security will result from the practice of spiritual and moral power, but spiritual and moral power is inconsistent with security when security is a central aim, in international affairs as in private life. Friends would no more have their nations make safety and security their primary goals than they would have such considerations the central values in the life of an individual.54 What should be central? From what is security derived? Friend James Vail has suggested: "There is no security except in creating situations in which people do not want to harm you."55 Friends hold that such situations arise only from lives that express a harmony of spirit, towards God and towards men. It is the purpose of life as a whole, but of worship in particular, to create this relationship of harmony between man and man, and man and God. m Certain connotations have grown up around the use of the word ' 'power" which are appropriate enough when considering aspects of physical or material power, but which are misleading when considering power as Friends use the term. First, to Friends, spiritual and moral power is not a force to be used in behalf of any cause that may suit the fancy of a person fortunate enough to possess such power. Just as coercion, carnal weapons, cannot be made to serve spiritual ends, so too spiritual power cannot be used to further carnal aims. This is but another expression of Friends' approach to the problem of ends and means. It has been noted that Friends think that ends and means cannot be separated; actually, that ends, means, and motive cannot be separated. Thus spiritual power is not a tool to be picked up at will for any purpose. The will, the motive behind the will, and the will's orientation constitute important elements in the generation of spiritual and moral power. Secondly, spiritual power cannot, then, be stockpiled, as commodities are stockpiled. Spiritual power is the product of a particular time, place, purpose, and set of relationships. It is available or not as a result of a total situation, as a result of the unity which a given situation may have "Horace G. Alexander, Growth of the Peace Testimony, pp. 28-30. 58 James G. Vail, Science and the Business of Living (Wallingford, Penn., Pendle Hill, 1953), p. 13.

82

QUAKER WAYS IN FOREIGN POLICY

with the moral order. It is a matter of the total quality of being, a matter of what an individual or a group is in relation to a specific set of circumstances. In one sense, perhaps, spiritual power can be accumulated: each act taken, each decision made, each relationship established that is in harmony with the moral order makes it more likely that subsequent acts will also be in accord with the moral order. As time passes, "the life of the spirit" can become so deeply ingrained that reactions "in the Spirit" are anticipated by others. It is perhaps something of this that Eleanor Roosevelt had in mind when she spoke of the Friends' trip to see the leaders of Nazi Germany in 1938. She wrote in her syndicated column, "My Day": The luncheon . . . was a gathering largely composed of women, but I sat next to Mr. Rufus Jones who came back from a successful trip to Germany a short while ago. Some people laughed when three Quakers went over alone and unarmed to talk to the military head of a nation. There is strength, however, in representing an accumulation of good works and a spiritual power . . . which functions even in the midst of hate. When the three came home again, the laughter seemed to have died down.56

A third characteristic of spiritual power that tends to distinguish it from material power is that it can be wielded only by those who have confidence in it. It cannot be used in a timid or tentative manner, nor with the thought that the more orthodox instruments of material power will be held in reserve to be called up as needed. The citizenry of a nation must have a clear understanding of the nature of spiritual power and implicit confidence in it if foreign policy is to rely on it rather than the power of munitions and the other forms of coercion. This does not mean that there must be a detailed knowledge of spiritual power on the part of every individual any more than a modern army needs to be backed up by a citizenry versed in the intricacies of nuclear physics. But it does mean that the citizenry must have a feeling for the kind of relationships on which spiritual power rests, a confidence that true policy requires a reliance on such relationships, and realistic expectations about the course such relationships are likely to follow. In particular, it is important that the public realize that the course of moral and spiritual power does not necessarily issue in comfort or short-term parochial "victories." It would be a mistake to rely on moral and spiritual power as long as there is a lingering belief that military power 66

"My Day," issued by United Features Syndicate, January 18,1939.

ON POWER (l)

83

might be more desirable. A Peace Conference of American Friends in 1901 placed the following in the record of their proceedings: We cannot expect men who have not recognized [spiritual power] . . . to act in accordance with it. ... We should be ready, however, as their brothers, . . . to suffer patiently with them in every way not inconsistent with our position. We can do what lies within us to bring them to see what is so clear to us, and we can encourage everything ... that will help to bring in an era of true and permanent good feeling at home and abroad.57

A fourth characteristic that distinguishes spiritual power from material and mechanical power is that it does not leave the individual, person or state, in a position of irrelevance. As military efforts have grown in size and complexity, there has been a tendency for the individual, person or state, to be relegated to positions of impotence. The individual could add little to the aggregate of military power available or do little to influence the purposes for which it was used. This has been as true of nations as of persons. No single nation can go forward with a military venture in the modern world unless it is certain of the support of allies. Even the behemoths among the nationstates, China, India, the United States, and the Soviet Union, cannot act as powers unto themselves. The individual is impotent until the army is ready to release him for action, controlling both the timing and direction of such action. These things are not true of moral and spiritual power. Such power is a function of the relationship between individuals and God's moral order; it is available whenever the individual is ready. The nation, likewise, can begin to base its foreign policy on it as soon as its citizenry is prepared, and need not wait for others before going forward. A fifth characteristic of moral and spiritual power is that it influences others from within. It is thus distinct from the more orthodox, ultimately coercive, conceptions of power, in that they function by bringing pressure to bear from the outside. This difference is basic and radical with respect to conceptions of political power. It has been habitual to speak of power in terms which equate political power with the physics of mechanical power. The very terms which have gained currency in such discussions are indicative: "balance of power," "power vacuum," "structure of power," "international frictions," and "depreciation of power." In such analyses, when the power exerted at one point is 67

The American Friends' Peace Conference (Philadelphia, 1902), pp. 77-8.

84

QUAKER WAYS IN FOREIGN POLICY

slackened, "the equilibrium of power" is disrupted and the "power world" creates a new "balance" around a new "centre of gravity." Power is thus seen as the energy which is exerted, actually or potentially, by two opposing forces. "Realistic" politics then involves a decrease in the amount of power which may be mobilized against one's self and an increase in the amount at one's disposal to be mobilized against any possible, but especially the most likely, adversary. Such politics, to Friends, is distinctly unrealistic. It deals with the superficial of behaviour, relying on various modifications of the "stick" and "carrot" themes to control the actions of others, but never reaching through to the motivational levels where hostilities, aggresions, and tensions can be dissipated and outgrown rather than merely controlled. Thus spiritual and moral power is more akin to the power of growth than it is to mechanical power. It is akin to those powers of nature which activate the potential for growth in a seed lying dormant in the earth. A sixth characteristic of spiritual and moral power is that it does not meet situations of conflict with an effort to win the conflict.58 The effect of moral and spiritual power is to convert conflicts into problems. Attention is distracted from a mutually antagonistic goal of winning, as both sides in a conflict cannot win, to a mutually consistent goal, that of an agreed solution. Policy based on spiritual power does not envisage two opponents in a ring, but rather two parties to a situation at the opposite ends of a base line which can resolve and complete itself only by projecting either extremity to a higher level where both may meet in an apex. A principle of indirection is at work here, a principle which runs through Quakerism, making it appear at times that Friends are less than candid and are reluctant to recognize problems when they are obvious to others. To Friends, problems, relationships, paradoxes, can never be resolved on their own level, but only through concentration on values and truths discerned at successively higher, or perhaps deeper, levels until finally all is resolved in an awareness and experience of the Spirit that is central to all. There is a final distinguishing characteristic of spiritual and moral power. It cannot be sought as power. As with security, it is strictly derivative, incidental to another pursuit: the pursuit of truth and the the fullest possible realization of the God within. Just as mercury slips 68

Friends World Committee for Consultation, Peace Study Outline, p. 41.

ON POWER (l)

85

through the fingers when seized directly, so, too, does the power on which Friends would rely. It is a by-product of a way of life in which the direct pursuit of power can have no part, would, indeed, deny its basic nature. It is quite common for governments to establish boards of economic warfare and boards of psychological warfare, since these non-military forms of coercive power have become important in international affairs. There would be a fundamental contradiction in the creation of a Board of Spiritual Warfare. Spiritual power is the by-product of a quality of being, a quality of being in which the desire to achieve power for the sake of having power could not survive. Derivative though spiritual power may be, Friends are clear that spiritual power is real, that there is none greater. As the 1920 All Friends Conference reported: "Friends . . . have found a way of life which is divinely revealed, and which, therefore, is backed by the eternal nature of things."59 And as Thomas Kelly wrote: "God breaks through, miracles are wrought, world renewing divine forces are released, history changes."60 59

A11 Friends Conference, 1920, Friends and War: A New Statement of the Quaker Position, pp. 14 f. Thomas Kelly, A Testament of Devotion, p. 47.

60

CHAPTER

SIX

On Power (II) FUNDAMENTALLY, power is based, for Friends, on the certainty that there is in all men a strain of goodness, the image of God, on which reliance can be placed and to which appeal can be made. This is no less true when men function in groups, as races and nations, than it is when men function as individuals. There is this something to which appeal can be made even in the most hardened of "opponents." Power is generated when that of God in one person or one nation is "in phase" with that of God in another person or another nation. The study of power, for Friends, consists of gaining an understanding of those conditions under which this kind of relationship is most likely to be established. Anything that places barriers in the way of the spirit within flowing through to the spirit in all dissipates potential power. Anything that facilitates this oneness augments power.1 Humility is an inherent attribute of moral and spiritual power. This is true because power does not arise from any strength of the individual or group concerned. Power flows through relationships and is not a particular virtue of the persons or groups participating in the relationship and, ultimately, is not dependent upon any particular individual or group. There is nothing that particular individuals or groups can do to increase or decrease this power, except to express it more or less My. Too, the basic motivation of spiritual power is not altruistic. Acts in this power are carried through because there is a greater sense of wellbeing in doing them than in not doing them. There would be no power in an act motivated by a masochistic do-goodism. Acts done with the backing of spiritual power are no "sacrifice," thus there can 1 Sec statement by Carl Heath, All Friends Conference, 1920, Official Report, p. 134; and Philadelphia Yearly Meeting of Friends, Building Tomorrow: Some Quaker Explorations, pp. 13 flf.

ON POWER (ll)

87

be none of the ego-supporting virtue attached to them that the world attaches to sacrifices. This aspect of humility is not merely philosophically interesting. It has very concrete and specific results. In their own work Friends have emphasized what one Friend has termed "the immorality of gratitude."2 They point out that they do not, and could not, act in their own power, but are merely channels for a power that is greater than any human agency. The fact that gratitude is not to be expected for acts in moral and spiritual power has a direct impact on foreign policy. How often have amicable international relations been threatened because one nation expected another to be grateful for some act of supposed altruism? The United States accused France and Britain of being ungrateful for the assistance given them in the course of World War I.3 Europe and Asia have been accused of ingratitude for the aid forwarded in the post-1945 period.4 What good did the Quaker food programme do in Germany after World War I when the children fed grew up to fight in Hitler's army in World War II?5 Friends would reply that these things were not, or should not have been, done because they would result in a grateful response expressed in terms of support for United States foreign policy. They were done or should have been done simply because it would be inconsistent with the desires or needs of the people of the United States not to do them.6 It was for this reason that Friends were critical of United States economic assistance to Europe in the post-1945 period. While wishing to encourage the recognition of international responsibilities, Friends were apprehensive of the tendency to interpret the assistance programmes as acts of altruism and to anticipate in return for them a more whole-hearted support for United *Supra, p. 20. 8 Sec Thomas A. Bailey, A Diplomatic History of the American People (3rd ed., New York, 1947), pp. 702-5, for description of this reaction. 4 See the United States Congressional Record for examples of this reaction in Congress: 82nd Congress, 2nd Session, XCVIII, pt. 5 (May 26, 1952), 5947-54, 6107-14, and pt. 9, Appendix, A2506-7; 83rd Congress, ist Session, XCIX, pt. 5 (June 23,1953), 7095-6, and pt. 10 (March 23, 1953), Appendix, Ai492~3; 82nd Congress, ist Session, XCVII, pt. 8 (August 28,1951), 1072-4. 6 For discussion of this see Walter Fales, "Did the Germans Understand Quaker Relief?" The Friends Intelligencer, CII, no. 27 (July 7,1945), 429 £; Henry J. Cadbury, "Bread upon the Waters; Letters from the Past, No. 133,'* The Friends Intelligencer, CX, no. 2 (January 10, 1953), 20 f. 6 See, for instance, comments of Clarence E. Pickett, Executive Secretary of the A.F.S.C., before the National Planning Association in Washington, D.C., excerpted in The American Friend, XXXVI, no. 10 (May 13,1948), 154 £

88

QUAKER WAYS IN FOREIGN POLICY

States policy in combating Communism. Friends wished to see economic aid sent to Europe for no other reason than that Europe needed it and that the United States was in a position to send it. They feared that these assistance programmes would result in misunderstanding, tension, an inclination toward self-righteous indignation, and ultimately a rejection of internation responsibilities. Later charges in the United States Senate and elsewhere have done nothing to dissipate these apprehensions. II

Truth has earlier been discussed as being of importance to the capacity of the individual to relate himself or herself to more inclusive areas of life, including the area of international community.7 Truth is also an attribute of power. Friend Herrymon Maurer has given his pamphlet The Power of Truth the sub-title: It is a Force Vaster than Weapons, More Compelling than Fame or Fear. It is important in this connection to emphasize that truth, to Friends, is something more than facts. Truth is never at variance with the facts, but it is not facts alone; it also involves an understanding of facts in relation to each other. Truth, then, can never be an absolute for Friends. No group of men, nor even mankind as a whole, can anticipate arriving at a complete and final understanding of the relation and meaning of every object and event in relation to every other object and event. With the discovery and isolation of new objects and processes and the occurrence of new events, truth is in process of continuous discovery, constant change. As every group and every individual's "angle of vision" is different, every individual and every group can expect to have a different perspective and interpretation of the meaning of these discoveries and events, and no group or individual will have a total perspective. It is the same "truth," however, though the vantage points from which it is viewed are different. It is thus important that a variety of vantage points be encouraged. A single outlook would be limiting in the extreme. Just as one dimension is eliminated when a person views an object with but one eye, so, too, does society lose a dimension whenever a standpoint is eliminated from which truth may be observed. Uniformity reduces society to an effort at triangulation from but a single point. 7

Suprat pp. 64 f£

ON POWER (ll)

89

These aspects of Quakerism are pertinent to matters of foreign policy. Friends believe that truth is much larger than any one nation. The whole truth will never be found in the particular views of any one nation. An approximation of "truth" is much more likely to result from an effort to find those points on which all angles of vision converge than from an effort to get some one point of view accepted as "the truth." Agreement, therefore, is of more importance than "victory." Friends have therefore repeatedly urged negotiation as the central tool of foreign policy. There is no international tension that is not subject to negotiation, in their view, though men and nations may get themselves into situations where a problem temporarily is not negotiable. Friends also advocate mediation after disputes have erupted into open warfare and insist that the key function of international organizations is peaceful, negotiated settlement of disputes and not the application of sanctions.8 Friends have been persistent advocates of negotiation in connection with various aspects of post-1945 tensions. The following statement of the American Friends Service Committee, which appeared as a paid advertisement in a number of leading daily newspapers in 1948, is illustrative: "Begin peace talks now. Let a group of leading American citizens meet this Spring to formulate proposals for a general settlement of outstanding issues between the United States and the Soviet Union. Let these proposals be widely debated and then laid before the American and Russian heads of government, urging that they meet again in new faith and a fresh spirit."9 Central to their emphasis on negotiation is their predilection for a personal approach to international problems, their conviction that if responsible leaders will but sit down together, and if even one such leader makes himself an instrument of moral and spiritual power, then the first step at least can be taken toward a solution of outstanding problems.10 Friends are concerned too that every effort be made to improve the tools of negotiation. A key point in their more recent suggestions on foreign policy has been the strengthening of the "peaceful settlement" function of the United Nations, and the revamping of negotiation 8

/«/w, pp. 165 £, 182 ff.

9

From statement that appeared in the New York Times, the Philadelphia Bulletin, and other newspapers in the United States on April 21, 1948. Printed separately as a broadside. 10 See, for instance, London Yearly Meeting Minutes, 1859, the Yearly Meeting Epistle of that year, pp. 24-8, especially p. 27.

9O

QUAKER WAYS IN FOREIGN POLICY

practices.11 They have urged that the United Nations delay a consideration of the more explosive political issues of the cold war and concentrate on problems that can be more readily resolved, emphasizing problems that are apt to find the United States and the Soviet Union in agreement. After a habit of agreement develops to replace the existing habit of disagreement, it would be possible, they suggest, to undertake a consideration of more explosive problems. As the relations between East and West increased in intensity following 1948, Friends continued to urge negotiation. In 1951 a second newspaper statement was placed in the press by the American Friends Service Committee urging: A new kind of negotiation. America should seek not so much to impose as to listen. The situation demands that we forget protocol, national pride, vituperation and formalities in a strong lead toward genuine discussion. A new approach to negotiation might include, as in labor disputes, less publicity during sessions, but full publicity of results; more flexibility in the instructions given negotiators; more use of skilled, neutral mediators; and at least on our side an open minded approach to matters at issue as problems to be solved rather than public debates or contests to be won.12

Having urged the need for improving the machinery of negotiation, Friends undertook to be qf some assistance in this effort. They felt that the techniques of international negotiation could be improved by a study of labour-management negotiation, and therefore organized a series of sessions in which persons experienced in both kinds of negotiation met and compared notes. Friends then sponsored the publication of an analysis of these sessions.13 Though they lay great stress on negotiation, Friends are aware that it is no panacea. It is a channel by which agreements may be reached, but it is not itself a settlement, and much depends upon the attitude in which the negotiators come together. As the 1951 pamphlet on Steps to Peace noted: "To what extent can new negotiations with the Soviet Union succeed? No one knows. Suspicion and lack d£ confidence in mutual good faith have grown so great that negotiation on any basis is difficult."14 m But what of justice? With Friends' emphasis on the direct negotiation of agreements between partisans who can but know partial truth, is U

A.F.S.C., United States and the Soviet Union, pp. 30 f. From statement published in the New York Times and the Chicago Tribune and other papers on April 22, 1951. 18 Elmore Jackson, ed., Meeting of Minds. 14 A.F.S.C., Steps to Peace, p. 37. 12

ON POWER (ll)

pi

power at all concerned with what is right, what is just? Is it not simply a matter of what is agreeable? The power of which Friends speak is indeed concerned with justice.15 Justice will result from spiritual power, but, as with security and power itself, justice is not enough, it cannot be the sole aim. It, too, is derivative, incidental to a way of life, the same way of life from which moral and spiritual power is derived, a way of life centred in the fullest possible realization and expression of the uniqueness that there is in every individual. The central task of justice lies in making clear what respect for the uniqueness in every individual means, in terms of behaviour. The relevance of justice, for Friends, like the relevance of truth, is that it provides direction and a goal, not that it is attainable. As a goal it is absolute; in practice it can only be relative. Justice can be no more than an "impossible ideal" for two reasons. First, justice and injustice are too inextricably entwined in practice to be distinguished with precision.16 An act of injustice reflects and embodies previous injustices suffered, and the interrelatedness of life results in there being too much right in every wrong and too much wrong in every right. Who would be bold enough to sort out the line of justice and injustice involved in World War I and their relation to World War II? Who can chart the course of justice and injustice that led up to Pearl Harbor, or the Soviet Union's post-1945 policy in Eastern Europe? Secondly, man's understanding of the requirements of justice is in a continuing state of development. Because man's understanding of ideal justice is thus imperfect, justice is, in practice, like truth, relative to time and place.17 The legal norms and procedures with which jurisprudence concerns itself are not, then, to be confused with ideal justice. Hopefully, jurisprudence reflects an increasingly effective effort to approximate justice, but proximate it will always be and, as such, cannot claim the prerogatives of the absolute. Law is but the agreed statement of the minimal requirements of justice at one time and place, a statement limited by man's limited understanding and the inseparable character of justice and injustice, good and evil, guilt and innocence. Judgments on such a basis are imperfect efforts to balance degrees and changing conceptions of guilt and innocence. "Friends World Committee for Consultation, Peace Study Outline, pp. 27 f. 16 Konrad Braun, Justice and the Law of Love, pp. 3-8. 17 Friends Peace Committee, Toward Peace and Justice, p. 5.

92

QUAKER WAYS IN FOREIGN POLICY

Because the practice of justice is so far removed from ideal justice, Friends have been reluctant to make judgments according to these imperfect standards, especially when such judgments are to be backed by coercive sanctions. There is no real justice in the punishment of one person for what is really a sin of all. Spiritual and moral power can more readily find its way into such situations as judgments are replaced by attempts to understand and to remove the causes of unjust acts and prepare the way for a further understanding and closer approximation to justice in the future. Justice that emphasizes punishment is thus not enough to Friends. An element of forgiveness, mercy, love, is required, both that justice may be done in the present and in order that a closer approximation of ideal justice may be realized in the future.18 The requirements then are three when law and justice function as attributes of spiritual power, (i) Justice is to be seen in terms of aiding the fullest possible opportunity for the development and expression of each person's unique contribution to life. (2) Law must be seen as in a process of development, reflecting new understandings of the nature of truth and the requirements of justice. (3) The practice of justice must, itself, be an agent for further understanding of truth and its practice, rather than an agency of punishment and repression, which violate the central conception of justice: a freeing of the uniqueness in every man. It is because legal norms and procedures have not reflected these qualities that Friends have been loath to rely on them. In the earlier days Friends cautioned against making a profession of the law and Friends were disowned by the Society for taking cases into court without the specific permission of their Meetings.19 Friends preferred to rely on non-legal procedures that were more flexible, less vindictive, and, Friends felt, came closer to truth and ideal justice than did the courts, where imperfect legal norms were accorded the finality of absolutes and where abstract principles, derived from a limited understanding of justice, were applied rigidly in situations that bore only superficial similarities because the underlying motivation and reasons were various. Friends early established elaborate procedures for the non-legal settlement of disputes involving their own members and it was not unusual for non-Friends to avail themselves of this Quaker machinery.20 These 18 1

Braun, Justice and the Law of Love, pp. 23-45. Holies, Meeting House and Counting House, pp. 50 f. lbid., pp. 75-8. This also notes the role of the Meeting in international commerce.

zo

ON POWER (ll)

93

non-legal procedures correspond quite exactly to the various forms of "third party settlement" commonly discussed in connection with international relations. If direct negotiation, with repeated encouragement from the Meeting to persevere in negotiation, did not produce results, the Meeting would offer what amounted to its "good offices" in an effort to help the parties reach agreement. Efforts bearing the characteristics of conciliation, mediation, commissions of inquiry, and arbitration might follow, as required. Since they relied on these non-legal procedures in their own Society, it was consistent with their belief in the expanding applicability of experience for Friends to transfer this parochial experience to the international field. Since their earliest days Friends have urged thirdparty settlement as a supplement to direct negotiation and an alternative to legal or military solutions. Friends in Rhode Island attempted to persuade the Indians to submit to arbitration the disputes which resulted in King Philip's War in 1675.21 Individual Friends were active in efforts to mediate the War of the American Revolution,22 the French-American hostilities in the 1790*8, and the War of 1812.23 There were concerted efforts by Friends to mediate the Schleswig-Holstein dispute in iSfo 24 and the Crimean War.25 Friends congratulated the governments involved in the arbitration of the Alabama Affair which arose out of the Civil War in the United States,26 urged the arbitration of the Venezuelan boundary disputes with Great Britain in the i88o's and i89o's,27 congratulated President Theodore Roosevelt on his tender of good offices and subsequent mediation of the Russo-Japanese War settlement,28 urged the full use of the offer of the Belgian and Dutch governments to mediate the conflict which broke out in September I93929 and the various efforts at mediation put forward by India in connection with the Korean conflict of 1950-3.30 As could be antici21

Infra, pp. in f. Hingston Pox, John Fothergill and His Friends, pp. 342-65, 393-408. 23 /«/ra., pp. 131 f. 24 Hobhouse, Joseph Sturge, pp. 131 fi".; Hirst, The Quakers in Peace and War, pp. 255-6, 291-2. "Hobhouse, Joseph Sturge, pp. 139 fF. 2 *Infra, pp. 135 f. 27 Philadelphia (Race Street) Yearly Meeting Minutes, 1873, p. 44. 2 Philadelphia (Arch Street) Yearly Meeting Minutes, 1896, pp. 12-14. 9 * Infra, p. 176. 80 See The Friend (Philadelphia), CXXIV, no. 2 (Seventh Month 27, 1950), 20-3; ibid., no. 3 (Eight Month 10,1950), 37-8; The Friend (London), CVIII, no. 27 Quly 7,1950), 503-4; A.F.S.C. Steps to Peace, p. 45. 22

94

QUAKER WAYS IN FOREIGN POLICY

pated from Friends' attitude toward coercion, Friends have consistently advocated the form of "third party" settlement involving the least possible coercion consistent with the reaching of agreement. Conciliation and mediation are thus preferable to arbitration, and mediation would not be attempted if the provision of good offices could be expected to produce agreement. Though Friends would prefer non-legal solutions for international problems, legal procedures and legal norms have a legitimate place. One aspect of the attitude of Friends has been indicated in the previous discussion of the international community and coercive sanctions. It was there indicated that, in Friends' view, international organizations must be based on the development of law which, in turn, is based on an increasing sense of community among the world's peoples. This, in its turn, is based upon an increasing realization of that uniqueness which is an attribute of every personality. Legal norms thus come to define the level of cohesiveness attained by the international community at any one point. But legal norms and procedures, to Friends, have another function too. It is not always possible for the parties to a dispute to reach agreement by direct negotiation or through the use of various non-legal forms of third-party intervention. Additional outside assistance in needed. Such assistance can be provided in two forms: (a) through the formulation of statements embodying norms of justice, which disputants can use as touchstones in the process of reaching agreement, and (b) through the establishment of institutions and the appointment of officials to aid the disputants to interpret the proper application of accepted norms. It is important, too, that agreements reached in direct negotiation reflect at least a rough approximation of justice, and not a preponderance of material power on the part of one of the disputants or a disregard for nations not participating in the agreement. An agreement between the United States and Guatemala or France and Luxembourg might or might not reflect such a rough approximation of justice. The Munich agreement of 1938 has come to be the popular prototype of all settlements reached between two parties at the expense of a third party. An agreement between three parties providing for the annexation of portions of a fourth can scarcely meet the requirements of justice. Here, too, legal norms and institutions can play an important role in establishing procedural safeguards to help adjust the balance. There may be some relief for the fourth party in

ON POWER (ll)

95

the above case if there are legal norms or institutions to which the fourth party can appeal. Too, law in these and other situations is recognized by Friends as having an important educational role. As noted above, Friends have felt the importance of this educational role sufficiently to have urged certain substantive rules of international law which would make clear the world community's developing disapproval of various practices: slave trade, piracy, the opium trade, genocide, and the violation of human rights. Similarly, in the 1920*8 and 1930*8 Friends supported the effort to outlaw war. Their primary interest in statements of these norms, however, has been for their educational effect and for the definition they give of standards of conduct which the international community has come to approve. They have little interest in the creation of a corpus of international criminal law backed by threats and sanctions and relying on fear as the motive for observance. These facts are evident in their apprehensions about the war crimes trials arising out of World War II, of which a Friend who often spoke for Friends in international affairs wrote: This trial, for all its justice . . . leaves one with a most unhappy feeling. It cannot effect what people imagine ... in this fearful matter [we] have no justification for satisfaction in Mosaic justice. That can only leave the world society dependent upon material force. The feelings these hangings raise in particular are such as care naught for the degraded souls of the men involved. . . . All that is thought of is to hurl men out of this world. The dictum of the leading paper in this country [England], speaking of Goering, that "he goes to his deserts, beyond the reach of pity" is civilized heathenry. That indeed is the worst of these hangings. The spirit they seek to crush is the very one they produce. The Nuremberg judgments... [are] a challenge to the mind of the religious spirit more than even to the heart perhaps. What, after all, is the new world we are building, as we get rid of the old by punishment, death and vengeance and atomic bombs? Is this age still in that new "medieval night of civilized barbarism" Berdyaev spoke of? Then the need for awakened spirits is great indeed.31

Friends' conception of the more useful role of legal norms is defined in their reaction to the United Nations Declaration of Human Rights: But will all nations accept these provisions and act upon them? Let us be quite realistic. Some representatives did not vote for the Declaration. Others did so, but their governments will not immediately change their habits and revise their practices wherever they may conflict with the standards here prockimed. No one can compel 31

Carl Heath, "World Affairs," The Friend (London), CIV, no. 41 (October u, 1946), 810.

96

QUAKER WAYS IN FOREIGN POLICY

them to do so by force. It is on the moral power of persuasion and example that this effort must rely. Christians will never lose faith in man's power, in spite of his wickedness and sin, to respond to the promptings of the Spirit. The nations have now a yardstick with which to test one another's actions. When the government of Hungary arrests the Lutheran Bishop of Ordass or the Roman Catholic Mindszenty, the world can measure their conduct by these standards of freedom, even though Hungary may not have accepted the Declaration. Those who are concerned can do the same wherever fundamental rights and freedoms are denied, in totalitarian states, in countries under Moslem governments like Egypt, or under Roman Catholic influences like Spain. They can scrutinize the new constitutions and practices of Pakistan, India, Ceylon, Burma or Korea; they can draw attention to the race problems in the United States or South Africa and we here can and must apply the same standards to our colonial territories and to the life of our community. It is our faith and hope that the people and governments of the world will feel morally challenged and stimulated to live up to the higher level of civilized life which the majority of them have now accepted in this Declaration.32 IV

If unity is the necessary condition, and truth and justice are expressions of moral and spiritual power, what are the patterns of policy through which moral and spiritual power are implemented? Certain basic implications of Friends' belief in "that of God within" stake out these patterns. First, there is Friends' conviction that the moral order involves a sequence of cause and effect: a given situation cannot be considered apart from the causes that have created it. This would seem so obvious as to be trite, but Friends are inclined to feel that it has too often been ignored. They felt it futile, for instance, to consider a "German policy" in the 1920*8 without considering both the forces that had been set in motion in France by the 1914-18 War and in Germany by the Treaty of Versailles. Yet both British and United States policy followed lines that attempted to ignore the fact that either of these events had occurred.33 A concerted effort to mitigate France's fears and Germany's humilation was seen by Friends as the necessary prelude to any sound policy.34 Secondly, there is the related belief in continuous, gradual development. Unity, truth, and justice are realized increasingly through a succession of steps and actions, not through some single, messianic 32

Donald D. Rees, in The Friend (London), CVII, no. 4 (January 28, 1949), 66. Sce, for instance, Frank P. Chambers, Christina Phelps Harris, and Charles C. Bayley, This Age of Conflict (New York, 1950), pp. 152-69, 3I7-31* 383-90. 34 All Friends Conference, 1920, Official Report, pp. 163-5. 83

ON POWER (ll)

97

stroke. There will always be a tension between the "is" and the "ought to be" because the act of practising community at one level will reveal additional levels to be attained and areas to be explored. There is thus a perpetual hiatus between the awareness of what unity, truth, and justice require, and the degree to which they are practised. Friends' views of the gradual growth and development of the international community, which have already been described, provide an example of this belief in action. While recognizing the need for international organizations, Friends have not been active in the crusade for world government. The gradualism of the world federalists, working for growth within the framework of the United Nations, has been more congenial.35 Thirdly, there is Friends' emphasis on beginning to practise in the smaller unit that which it is not yet possible to practise in the larger. National policy, therefore, should call for a more advanced standard of unity, truth, and justice than is possible at any given time in international policy. Too, the foreign policy of any nation that would be a pace-setter among nations—and Friends always see their respective countries in such a role—should demonstrate in the present what the policy of all ought to be in the future.36 Fourthly, there is the relationship between motives, ends, and means. Unity has been mentioned as the condition of power, and the realization of truth and justice as the ends of power. To Friends the practice of unity, truth, and justice is also the method of power. As one Friends' publication described it, "There is no way to peace, peace is the way."37 It was noted earlier that Friends are convinced that methods have a tendency to determine purposes. The reverse is also true: purposes cannot be equally well served by all available methods. If a nation acquires a large military establishment as the principal support of its foreign policy, the purposes of that policy will become strongly influenced, if not determined, by reliance on this method. The policy followed must support and augment its principal tool. If, on the other hand, the objective of a nation's foreign policy is world domination, coercive measures would be the only possible tool. 35 Supra, p. 615, Friends Conference on Peace and Reconstruction, Looking toward the Post-War World, p. 20. 36 /«/ra, pp. 39, 59; supra, p. 177. 37 Joint Friends Peace Committee of the Friends Meetings of Washington, D.C., Of the Quaker Testimony against War (1949), p. 10.

98

QUAKER WAYS IN FOREIGN POLICY

This, however, is still too general and nebulous. More specifically, what does the practice of unity, truth, and justice mean in terms of directives flowing from a foreign office? Respect would be a primary characteristic; respect even for the nation whose interests may seem to be antagonistic. The importance respect holds for Friends is rooted in their firm conviction that all nations, as all individuals, by the mere fact of their existence are entitled to respect and are in a position to add something unique in the search for truth and justice in international life. To this extent, at least, Friends endow governments with "personalities" that are worthy of respect as symbols of respect for the individuals composing that government's citizenry. One expression of respect lies in the policy toward diplomatic recognition and the universality of membership in international organizations. Friends' views on these points have been discussed earlier and it was indicated that they have opposed policies of nonrecognition and the punitive exclusion of states from representation in international organizations. But to Friends respect means more than recognition. It also means freedom. Characteristically, Friends have been among the early supporters of national self-determination when a group of peoples attains sufficient unity to support such requests. However, they have deplored the violent means by which national groups have attempted to acquire their independence, and even more the attitudes on the part of colonial powers which have made the use of violence seem necessary. Friends' attitudes towards both Spanish and United States policy in the Caribbean area in the late nineteenth and early twentieth centuries and toward British policy in Ireland, India, and British Africa are cases in point.38 Unbidden intervention in the affairs of another nation is a common form of disrespect and denial of freedom. Friends were thus opposed to the intervention of the United States in Mexico in 1914 and both British and American Friends were opposed to the post-revolutionary intervention in Russia in ipiS-ip.3 9 They have also urged the avoidance of political, economic, and "psychological" intervention as well. **Infra., pp. 141 £, 146 £., 164 £, 219 ff. "Infra, pp. 165 ff.

ON POWER (ll)

99

British policies towards the production and distribution of opium in India and China in the nineteenth and early twentieth centuries,40 and the more recent Marshall Plan and Point Four programmes of the United States in so far as they have been attempts to press other governments into policies more acceptable to the United States, have displayed a lack of respect for other peoples and governments, according to Friends.41 The treatment accorded nationals of foreign governments is another area in which respect may or may not be shown. Friends were vigorously opposed to the Oriental Exclusion Act of the United States as an affront to the Japanese people.42 British Friends have been disturbed by the colour bar to which Indians and Africans have been subjected when visiting England.43 Discrimination against Negroes in the United States has become an increasingly important international issue for Friends, as it has for others, with the increasing number of sovereign governments among the coloured peoples of the world.44 Too, while the behaviour of tourists may not be a direct responsibility of their home governments as long as that behaviour is within the law, the behaviour of military and civilian government employees is a direct responsibility of the government. Military policies toward "indigenous personnel," particularly non-fraternization orders, have frequently been opposed by Friends,45 though they have been inclined to view such policies as inherent attributes of a military approach which they have opposed in toto. The behaviour of civilian personnel on civilian missions may be another matter. Something of the attitudes which should be encouraged in such personnel is indicated in a recent Quaker pamphlet which discussed social and technical assistance programmes: Whoever goes should not assume that the local . . . agricultural practices are wholly in error. When farmers in any locality pursue certain practices for years, or generations, or perhaps centuries, it is well to search out the reason. Improvements will have to come from knowing the local situation from experience and observation.... In every locality the most successful results seem to follow where the new is not much more 40 I«/ra, p. 136. ^Infra, pp. 187 f. uinfra, pp. 168 f. 43 All Friends Conference, 1920, National Life and International Relations, pp. 83-118. 44 See, for instance, Richard K. Kennett, "Segregation and World Peace," Friends Intelligencer, CIX, no. 22 (Fifth Month 21, 1952) 306-7. 46 See The Friend (London), CHI, no. 23 (Sixth Month 8, 1945), 373 £; ibid., no. 40 (Tenth Month 5, I945). 660.

too

QUAKER WAYS IN FOREIGN POLICY

difficult than the old, and where the income of local people can continue with the improvement without outside help.46

In direct relief and reconstruction activities it is particularly necessary to respect the dignity of recipients, be they individuals or governments. Friends have been long-time practitioners of the "help others to help themselves" philosophy as a necessary expression of respect.47 In their own relief activities Friends have attempted to build up and support the established local channels of distribution, when that was feasible, rather than building an extensive organization of their own. The objective has been to support local personnel and institutions in the belief that giving and receiving are essentially immoral because they are destructive of the self-respect of receivers and tempt the givers to "play God." Friends have urged these same considerations on governments. They are pleased with that aspect of the Marshall Plan, for instance, which required the governments of Europe to get together and work out their own plans for the use and distribution of the funds made available to them. They were not pleased by the criteria adopted by the United States government in judging the acceptability of the plans developed by the European governments, particularly when such factors as the degree of support for United States policy in the cold war increased in importance.48 Actually, any contact with a foreign government or its nationals is a test of respect. Either a government and its peoples are dealt with as being of worth, worth knowing, worth cultivating, and capable of making a worth-while contribution to the international community, or they are not. A second characteristic that Friends would urge on their foreign offices is generosity. It may be displayed in at least two ways: (i) in an attitude that can disagree with or even actively oppose the views of others while expressing, at the same time, a fundamental sympathy for the factors which led to such opposite conclusions; and (2) a readiness to enter into and share the misfortunes of others. If such acts are to be the instruments of moral and spiritual power they must be genuine, not contrived reactions adopted to serve some other objective or even some detached altruistic abstraction. "Friends World Conference, 1952, The Vocation of Friends in the Modern World, p. 21. 47 See Braithwaite, Second Period of Quakerism, pp. 570 fF. i8 /n/ra, pp. 187 f.

ON POWER (ll)

IOI

Often this generosity is most clearly expressed through the spontaneous reactions of private groups rather than through official channels, and Friends themselves have been notable for their efforts in this area; but governments also play an important role here. Governments have expressed such generosity in response to natural disasters suffered by the people of other nations: floods, fires, and earthquakes in Japan and the Netherlands are among the disasters which have elicited such generous responses. These acts of generosity are more difficult, however, when the misfortunes arise from another government's pursuit of its policies, particularly policies pursued through persecution and war. Generosity is still called for, however, in Friends' view. Friends' urging of the Canadian government to grant asylum from Czarist Russian persecution to Doukhobors was a successful effort to encourage official generosity.49 The effort to get the British government to allow civilian relief supplies to pass through the naval blockade of Germany in 1917-20 and to France and the Lowlands in 1940-1 was not successful.50 Following is a portion of the appeal, under the title "If Thine Enemy Hunger . . . ," which Friends placed as a full-page advertisement in a number of leading metropolitan dailies in the United States at the Christmas season of 1945: Fellow Americans, in our efforts this winter to feed the hungry in many war-stricken lands, let us not neglect the German children and all those who have been our enemies. . . . The official daily ration in Germany today . . . is about one half a normal diet and means certain death if continued throughout the winter. Only the United States has the power and supplies to act in this crisis. Yet little or nothing is being done. . . . With great humility, we Quakers undertake to speak for the crushed and silent masses of Germany. . . . This is no humanitarian impulse merely. We speak under a compelling sense of the power of love to heal our wounded universe. For in this world of ours there are certain moral laws which operate irresistibly whether we acknowledge them or not. If we Americans want a rightly ordered world, we must put in operation the methods which will build it. The feeding of starving children is a sure step toward 61 peace

It thus is clear that the principle of unity does not allow Friends to exclude anyone, not even their country's enemies, from a generous sharing of misfortunes and needs. This is no less true of those aspects of 49

See Elkinton, The Doukhobors, pp. 171-236, for an account of this effort. For an account of this effort, see The American Friend, XXVII, no. 2 (January 19, 1939), 22; The Friends Intelligencer, XCV1, no. 2 (First Month 14, 1939), 19. York Times, December i, 1945. 50

IO2

QUAKER WAYS IN FOREIGN POLICY

generosity which express themselves in a sympathetic understanding of the forces which lead another nation into opposition. A nation that enters into a relationship with a second, in the conviction that any views of truth and justice other than those it espouses are wrong, has already erected barriers to a developing sense of unity. The pamphlet, Steps to Peace, noted: "Each side must be prepared to examine proposals of the other on their merits. Flexibility on one's own position must be matched by a willingness to try to understand other points of view. This requires that neither side assume its position to be clothed in moral infallibility."52 It is in this area of generous service that Friends find their moral equivalent for military service, and it was for this purpose that the American Friends Service Committee was founded in 1917. In service of this sort, relieving peoples of the hunger, sickness, and lack of shelter and clothing which warp and stunt personality and spiritual development, Friends feel there is a major opportunity to develop an alternative to coercion in public policy. It must be emphasized again, however, that acts of generous service are largely vitiated, in so far as power is concerned, if they are done with ulterior views in mind. Generosity loses its essential character if undertaken in expectation of return in terms of support, alliances, gratitude, or even the building of a reservoir of goodwill. Acts of generosity must be "things in themselves"; the satisfaction must come from the doing, not from anticipated returns. Such acts bring with them a confidence and £lan\ ungenerous acts on the contrary create attitudes of apprehension, defensiveness, and, perhaps, guilt. Noting the lack of generosity in the Treaty of Versailles, diplomatic historians have indicated that just such apprehensions and feelings of guilt weakened the inter-war diplomacy of Britain and France with respect to Germany.53 Friends concurred in this judgment. Patience, too, is characteristic of the policy Friends would urge on statesmen. Moral and spiritual power can afford to be patient because it is confident that the future belongs to it. Nor is it anxious for the arrival of anticipated results. Patience is of particular importance in difficult negotiations; as the Quaker study, Steps to Peace, held: "There M

A.F.S.C., Steps to Peace, p. 34. See also a leaflet of the Friends Peace Committee, Peace Methods in the Far East (Phikdelphia, 1932). 68 Chambers, Grant, and Bayley, This Age of Conflict, p. 327.

ON POWER (ll)

IO3

may be times when fundamental disagreement on matters of genuine principle force negotiations to be broken off, but no termination should ever be regarded as permanent, for new developments at any time may serve to break an apparent dead-lock. It negotiators become discouraged or exhausted, they should be replaced/'54 This study goes on to note, in connection with post-war negotiation of international problems: "Negotiators have been too persistent in insisting on a particular agenda or in supporting a particular plan, and not persistent enough in exploring new possibilities that might move discussions off dead center."55 The circular relationship of factors must be re-emphasized here. If patience, for instance, is buttressed by respect and generosity, many a deadlock may be broken. If, at a crucial moment in a deadlocked negotiation, one party were to make a gesture expressing genuine respect and generosity and patience, a changed atmosphere might develop in which unity would become possible. Believing, as they do, in undertaking to do in a small way what they believe governments should do in a larger way, Friends attempted to provide such a gesture in East-West tensions in 1948 by sending a shipment of the scarce antituberculosis drug, streptomyacin, to the Soviet Union.56 Conversely, patience may be the most effective expression of respect and generosity at certain points. Such might be true, for instance, in the case of policies which have the appearance of flamboyance and irresponsibility. Such patience was urged on their government by British Friends with respect to United States policy in the late 1940*5.67 V

Finally, there is a special sense in which unity is an attribute of power. Power depends upon a sense of unity resulting from a high degree of integration around a central factor. Power then requires a firm refusal to accept those things which disrupt this integration, and a willingness to accept the consequences, whatever they may be, rather than acquiesce in a policy which attempts to embrace divisive factors. For Friends, the W

A.F.S.C., Steps to Peace, p. 36.

55Ibid

"A.F.S.C, Annual Report, 1948, p. 18. See also the New York Times, April 29, 1948, p. 6, June 28, 1948, p. 36, and August 6, 1948, p. 4. "See, for instance, The Friend (London), CV, no. 13 (March 28, 1947), 227 f. and CVI, no. 46 (November 12, 1948), 948, for articles interpreting the American policy in Greece and Turkey and the 1948 presidential election in the United States.

104

QUAKER WAYS IN FOREIGN POLICY

integration upon which power depends can occur only when the realization of that of God within the individual is the nucleus. At this point Friends may well be asked the ultimate questions: What is to be done when there are forces at work which are both able and likely to destroy the most fundamental values of life? If all possible respect, generosity and patience were shown, there still would be injustice in the world, people who believe, or act as though they believe, injustice to be justice and error to be truth, and people who are inclined to seek their own or their nation's advantage at the expense of others. A certain amount of this sort of thing may be absorbed and tolerated, but is there not a point beyond which it cannot be absorbed without destroying the very essentials of unity, truth, and justice? Friends would cast doubt on several assumptions underlying these questions, (i) It is highly unlikely that "all respect, generosity, and patience" will have been exhausted. It will be recalled that power is a condition, a state of being, not a commodity. Just as the power of gravity is always equal to the task of attracting two bodies to each other in a vacuum, so, too, is moral power with its characteristics of respect, generosity, and patience equal to any task in individual or social relationships if barriers are not left in the way. Power is a function of a particular relationship and, if fully utilized, is equal to the demands of that relationship. (2) Friends would caution against a belief that any one nation, or group of nations, ever represents absolute truth and justice and its opponents only varying degrees of untruth and injustice. And (3) it is a basic article of Quaker faith that the forces of disunity, untruth, and injustice will not and cannot ultimately prevail. Unity, truth, and justice are written into the laws of the universe. The basic answer then to the question of what to do in the face of forces which would destroy the very essentials of unity, truth, and justice is the continued practice of unity, with unity's inherent truth and justice. Such a policy calls for the utmost concentration on discovering what the requirements of unity, peace and justice may be in a particular situation. It means, too, a firm "no" to all that is finally seen to be of the forces of disunity, first as between individuals and God, and secondly as among individuals and groups of individuals, including those groups called states and nations. No consideration of policy should assume priority over those things that come to be seen as necessary to unity, to integrity. The price demanded in terms of

ON POWER (ll)

IO5

lives lost and property damaged may be no less than in war, and with no greater promise of particular success than war can offer. However, such lives and property will be lost under conditions that favour an increased realization of unity, truth, and justice and, ultimately, the greatest possible development and respect for the individual personality. Does this mean that moral and spiritual power can not assure the survival of the nation which determines to rely on it? It cannot; but no approach can. The military cannot guarantee that it can keep the forces of evil in subjection. Actually, for nations as for individuals, the only certainty is that survival is a delusion. The only real question concerns the time and circumstances of passing. Friends feel that it is important to develop a carelessness about survival. Individuals are said to sense an ultimate security and power in the act of giving life in the service of what is felt to be of ultimate value. So, too, may a nation, or even the system of nations, make their greatest contribution in voluntarily giving their lives in the cause of unity, truth, and justice. Individuals and nations may thus find their reason for being, their fulfilment, in the manner of their death. The North American states fulfilled themselves in the act of giving up their sovereign existence to union in 1789 and have seen their darkest days in their search for separate existence in 1861. VI

In brief, then, foreign policy for Friends has as its object the fullest possible development of the unique worth there is in every personality. It has as its method the practice of this belief in the unique worth of every personality. The power behind this policy is moral power, an expression of the essential force in the universe, characterized by respect for all individuals and all governments, generosity, patience, a disavowal of security as the primary end of policy, and a disavowal of coercion as the means. Too, true policy starts from within, individually and nationally. As the individual's security does not rest in wealth, position, knowledge, skill, or physical power, neither does a nation's. An individual's sense of security and power comes unsought, is indirectly derived from a sense of unity, or integration and harmony within, which in turn derives from the living of a life that has found as its centre the nurture and development of the Spirit within, a nurture and development most notably furthered and stimulated to expression

IO6

QUAKER WAYS IN FOREIGN POLICY

through periods of private and public worship and meditation. That nation is the most powerful and secure which provides a framework within which its citizenry can most fully realize this individual sense of security and power, which is never to be sought or realized in ways inconsistent with the realization of a similar state of power and security by peoples of other nationalities. This is, of course, an ideal; but to Friends it is the most relevant and realistic ideal. Thus, rather than speak of "power" and "security" in international relations, Friends are inclined to speak of civil rights and equality of opportunity at home, and of trade, aid, and understanding abroad: all evidences of a growing consciousness of and respect for the worth of the individual personality, wherever it may live and whatever allegiances it may currently own. It is at these points that the acts of government, in the eyes of Friends, can make the greatest difference with respect to security, power— and peace.

PART III QUAKERISM AND FOREIGN POLICY— THE DEVELOPMENT OF A RELATIONSHIP

This page intentionally left blank

CHAPTER

SEVEN

Winningo the Right to Differ

(1647-91)

THE PRINCIPLES AND PATTERNS of the Quaker approach to foreign policy will take on more meaning if attention is directed toward the development of these principles and patterns over the three hundred years of Quaker history. It has been necessary to use a broad brush in outlining the development of Friends' relationship to foreign policy; a more definitive study would be a volume in itself. It is hoped that this condensation will bring the pattern of development into sharper focus. Though there must always be an element of the arbitrary when history is divided into periods, the present theme has been divided into six periods for convenience in discussion. These periods mark differences in emphasis in the Quaker relationship to foreign policy. The factors emphasized in one period, however, can usually be found in others, if not so prominently, and in most cases the specific dates chosen to mark the opening and termination of a period have no necessary significance. The first generation of Quakers, those living in the period bounded by the beginning of George Fox's ministry and his death, were revolutionaries. Their emphasis was on developing and maintaining a vigour and clarity of belief within their own ranks, increasing the number of adherents to "the cause," and opposing unceasingly those elements in society making difficult the acceptance and practice of their beliefs. They were developing, stating, and attempting to live according to their principles, and struggling for a recognition of their right to do so.1 Though under such conditions action is apt to be focused on the emergencies of the immediate situation, revolutionaries are also under J For the general history of this period see Braithwaite, Beginnings of Quakerism and The Second Period of Quakerism; Rufus Jones, Quakerism in the American Colonies, and Hirst, The Quakers in Peace and War, pp. 15-152.

HO

QUAKER WAYS IN FOREIGN POLICY

pressure to universalize their beliefs. Friends were no exception. It was in their effort to universalize their beliefs, to carry their way of life abroad, that Friends first came in touch with international affairs. Within an amazingly brief period after Fox's following developed into a cohesive movement in 1652, Friends were reporting from the corners of the then accessible world. Three years after the Society had taken form, and in spite of pirates, witch-hunts, inquisitions, and incredible travel conditions, Friends were in France, the Netherlands, and Barbados, and were being expelled by the theocracy in Massachusetts.2 Within five years they were in Turkey and the Levant, and getting as far as Jerusalem, after brushes with the Inquisition in Italy. The next year Mary Fisher was walking cross-country from Constantinople to Adrianople for an amicable interview with the Sultan Mohammed IV.3 The message that Friends carried on their travels was much the same as that which George Fox was sending in the form of epistles to the various rulers of the earth, including one "To the Turk," and others to the kings of France and Spain, the emperors of Austria, China, and Russia, and "the Pope in Rome," and, finally, one to "All the Nations under the Whole Heavens." In these letters Fox stated the principles which he was clear that these rulers should heed. In the picturesque style of that day the salutations gave the burden of the message. The following, for instance, was the salutation to the Pope: Friend, Read this over, . . . how that thy field is a field of blood, and how that thou art naked . . . for the Spiritual Weapons, and the Armour of God, . . . for yet Thee, nor any of they company durst venture a Meeting in the field with them that have Spiritual Weapons Therefore, having not the Spiritual Weapons, nor the Armour of God, ye have set up your inquisitions, your racks, your tortures, your prisons, your banishments, and this sheweth that you have no rule nor Government by the Power of God: Therefore, read this over that you may see what you are got up into . . . and how you have kilTd, mangled, Martyred, and tortured, which is not the work of a true Christian, but to love his enemies.4

Similar messages were carried to the rulers of England, as when Fox told Cromwell: O Oliver, hadst thou been faithful and thundered down deceit, the Hollander had 2 Rufus Jones, Quakerism in the American Colonies, pp. 26, 36-41; Braithwaite, Beginnings of Quakerism, pp. 401-12. For the executions in Massachusetts see also Best, Rebel Saints, pp. 215-57. 3 Braithwaite, Beginnings of Quakerism, pp. 401-4; Best, Rebel Saints, pp. 100-16. 4 George Fox, Gospel Truth Demonstrated in a Collection of Doctrinal Books Given Forth by that Faithful Minister of Jesus Christ, George Fox: Containing Principles Essential to Christianity and Salvation. Held among the People Called Quakers (London, 1706), pp. 201-2.

WINNING THE RIGHT TO DIFFER

III

been thy subject and thy tributary, Germany had given up to have done thy will, and the Spaniard had quivered like a dry leaf wanting the virtue of God, the King of France should have bowed his neck under thee, the Pope should have withered as in winter, the Turk in all his fatness should have smoked, thou shouldst not have stood trifling about small things, but minded the work of the Lord... .5

Two of the major themes running through Friends' concern with international policy thus have their origins in Quakerism's earliest period: first, a direct personal responsibility for affairs beyond the borders of their own country; secondly, the conviction that relations between nations both could and should become more Christian, as should the lives and relationships df individuals. Indeed, it was held that only through the Christianizing of individual lives would the nations and international relations become more Christian. Friends were convinced that the "inward Christ" that they had experienced both could and should be the central force in the thought and action of all men, particularly those in positions of authority, as they were held to have a special responsibility to show forth this way of life. The Quaker belief that the relationships and policies of governments can be Christianized was at the root of Friends' early colonization efforts in the New World. History records the story of this colonization in America, the story of Quakerism in Pennsylvania and New Jersey being prominent features of United States history. The story of Quakerism in North Carolina and the earlier settlements in Barbados and Rhode Island are less well known.6 It is sufficient for present purposes to note that these efforts were seen as experiments in freedom, toleration, and the organization of political institutions according to Christian principles, and were distinguished by a revolutionary practice of toleration for all religious beliefs, treatment of the Indians as responsible human beings, who were even admitted to jury service for a while, and a determined effort to establish amicable relations between whites and Indians through the processes of negotiation and arbitration rather than arms. Penn's treaty with the Indians is famous.7 The frustrated efforts of Friends in Rhode Island to avert the Indian conflict which came to be known as King Philip's War is no less 6

Devonshire House Collection, parchment-bound book in Portfolio 9, p. 79. Quoted in both Braithwaite, Beginnings of Quakerism, p. 440, and Graham, Faith of a Quaker, p. 356. 8 See Rufus Jones, Quakerism in the American Colonies. 7 See Kelsey, Friends and the Indians, as the standard work in this field. Note, too, Voltaire's Letters on the Quakers, pp. 23-4, where Voltaire says of Penn's treaty with the Indians, "This is the only treaty between these peoples and the Christians which has not been sworn to and which has not been broken." From the first of Voltaire's Lettres sur les Anglais, ou Lettres philosophises.

112

QUAKER WAYS IN FOREIGN POLICY

worthy of note,8 as was the more successful effort of Caleb Pusey to forestall the massacre of a band of friendly Indians concerning whom malicious rumours had been spread9. Pusey volunteered to investigate the rumours in person if others would accompany him on an unarmed visit to the Indians. The Indians were found in their wigwams rather than on the war-path and were indignant that their peacefulness had been questioned. Since they were a dissenting minority, and an active one as a result of their revolutionary zeal, it was not uncommon during this period for Friends to be accused of supporting one or another of the political factions in opposition to the reigning political and clerical powers in England.10 As the court intrigues of the time were international in scope, these civil wars involved foreign relations and eventually issued in the deposition of the Francophile and Catholic Stuarts in favour of the Dutch, Protestant, Francophobe, William of Orange. In the course of this political turmoil the churchly powers of the Anglican confession accused Friends of being covert Papists, the men of the Commonwealth accused them of being Monarchists, and the later Stuarts persecuted them for their suspect non-conformity.11 It was on the occasion of the Fifth Monarchy uprising in 1660 that Fox and Richard Hubberthorne formulated one of the earliest of the Society's statements with respect to the use of armed coercion: Our principle is and our practices have always been to seek peace and ensue it; to follow after righteousness and the knowledge of God, seeking the good and welfare and doing that which tends to the peace of all. We know that wars and fightings proceed from the lusts of men . . . out of which lusts the Lord hath redeemed us and so out of the occasion of wars. . . . All bloody principles we as to our own particular do utterly deny, with all outward wars and strifes and fightings with outward weapons for any end or under any pretense whatsoever; and this is our testimony to the whole world That 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 moves us in 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.12 8 Hirst, The Quakers in War and Peace, pp. 331-4. 9 Ibid., 367-8.

10 See, passim, Braithwaite, Beginnings of Quakerism, and The Second Period of Quakerism, Besse, A Collection of Sufferings. "Ibid. "Quoted in Braithwaite, Second Period of Quakerism, pp. 12 f. This was the first statement that constituted something more than a personal document. There were some earlier statements by Fox.

WINNING THE RIGHT TO DIFFER

113

Supplementing this general statement of principle, in 1685 an Epistle from Goerge Fox to all Friends indicates the specific action that individual Friends were being encouraged to take: "And now, dear friends and brethren, whatsoever bustlings and trouble, or tumults or outrages, quarrels and strife, should arise or be in the world, keep out of them all, and concern not yourself with them; but keep in the word's power and peaceable truth, this is over-all and over-all such things, in which power you seek the peace and good of all men."13 For individual Friends this advice meant considerable personal insecurity as well as disapprobation. Strangely enough, this disapprobation had one of its earliest expressions in the expulsion of Friends from the Cromwellian army.14 Cromwell's officers recognized a contradiction between Quaker beliefs and soldiering rather more quickly than did some of the Quakers themselves, many of whom embraced Quakerism while serving in the Roundhead army. The plight of impressed seamen who joined the Quaker movement was particularly difficult as was the plight of Friends who resisted efforts at impressment. The experiences of such men as Thomas Lurting and Richard Sellers rival the most vivid yarns of adventure, and include pirates, shipwreck or near shipwreck, brutal beatings, quarter-deck court martials, and narrow escapes from more impromptu hangings on the yard-arms.15 Sometimes a Friend's resistance to armed service would take the form of refusing to eat "the King's food" unless allowed to pay for it. The captain of the vessel on which Thomas Lurting was placed told Friend Lurting, "I cannot sell the King's victuals"; to which Lurting replied, "Nor can I do the King's work, therefore I cannot eat the King's victuals."16 On another occasion this same Friend was confronted with a problem which has vexed Friends throughout their history: the question of drawing the line between permitted endeavours and those endeavours too much involved in war efforts. On this occasion Lurting was unloading grain from a merchant vessel and was seen by a passing impressing officer as a likely candidate for the King's navy. Lurting was about to be pressed into service without further ceremony when the 13

Epistlesfrom the Yearly Meeting of Friends held in London, 1681 to 1857, I, 25. Hirst, Quakers in Peace and War, pp. 49-56. 15 Best, Rebel Saints, pp. 74-99; Besse, A Collection of Sufferings, pp. 112-19. "Best, Rebel Saints, p. 85. See Besse, A Collection of Sufferings, pp. 112-19, for similar accounts concerning Richard Sellers. 14

114

QUAKER WAYS IN FOREIGN POLICY

officer's aide suggested that this person was a Quaker and would, therefore, doubtless be more trouble to the navy than he would be worth. The officer, however, would not give up so easily. He charged Lurting: "Thou art no Quaker; for here thou bringest corn and of it is made bread, and by the strength of that bread we kill the Dutch; and therefore no Quaker. Or art thou as accessory to their death as we? Answer me?" Lurting replied: "I am a man that can feed my enemies, and well may I you, who pretend to be my friends."17 Thus as early as 1663, only fifteen years after Fox began his ministry and ten years after the date usually given for the founding of the Quaker movement, it was general knowledge that Friends were likely to refuse service in the fleet and the army; at this early date too Friends were confronted with the troublesome problem of deciding the point at which war service begins. This opposition to assuming the "postures of war," as Fox called them,18 was never formally adopted by Friends. It simply appeared on the scene, a natural outgrowth of their principles, as one individual Friend after another came to the conclusion that military measures did not fit into the pattern of life required by an awareness of "the Light within." No one was "testified against" for serving in the army or fleet in this period, a withdrawal from such service being seen as the natural consequence of a growth and maturing of the spiritual life. This "wear-your-sword-as-long-as-you-can"19 attitude applied to men who held public responsibility as well as to private citizens, as was made clear by Robert Barclay, the seventeenthcentury Friend who was most responsible for a systematic formulation and exposition of Friends' beliefs: As to what relates to the present magistrates of the Christian world, albeit we deny them not altogether the name of Christians, because of the public confession they make of Christ's name, yet we may boldly affirm, they are far from the perfection of the Christian religion; because in the state in which they are ... they have not come to the pure dispensation of the gospel. And, therefore, while they are in that condition, we shall not say that war, undertaken upon just occasion, is altogether harmful to them So the present confessors of the Christian name, who are yet in the mixture, and not in the patient suffering spirit, are not yet fitted for this form of Christianity, and therefore cannot be undefending themselves until they attain that perfection. But "William Sewell, The History of the Rise, Increase and Progress of the Children of God Called Quakers, I, 442. 18 George Fox, Journal, p. 187. 19 Hull, William Penn, p. 308.

WINNING THE RIGHT TO DIFFER

115

for such whom Christ has brought hither, it is not lawful to defend themselves by arms, but they ought over all to trust the Lord.2 °

Barclay, and Friends generally, felt a responsibility to urge and assist the magistrates to this greater perfection. Barclay himself forwarded a personal letter with a copy of his Apology for the True Christian Divinity to each of the ambassadors gathered to conclude the Peace of Nimeguen in i6y8.21 In summary, then, Friends were clear, in this earliest period of their history, that their way of life had implications for international relations and they had a lively sense of responsibility for the improvement of foreign policy. They attempted to achieve this improvement both by precept, in the numerous deputations and epistles sent to public officials, and by example, in the experiments made possible by the more fluid conditions existing in the New World. Improvement in relations between and among nations would come, Friends believed, as soon as the nations became more Christian. Nations would become more Christian as individuals, particularly individuals in high authority, became more Christian. The "Christianization" would result in the removal of the "occasions for wars," understood by Friends of this era to be rooted in lust, as individuals and nations grew to place their reliance on spiritual weapons rather than carnal. Friends anticipated the possibility of bringing this Christianizing process to fruition at an early moment and were eager to hasten that moment's arrival. Their interest in international affairs was not, however, a central or isolated concern. It developed as a necessary corollary to a way of life centred on the experience of the Inward Light. The position Barclay gives his discussion of international relations in his Apology is instructive. He places it at the very end of the work under the miscellaneous heading "Of Salutations and Recreations."22 20

Barclay, Works, Mather ed. pp. 83 f. See M. Christabel Cadbury, Robert Barclay: His Life and Work, pp. 109-17. Robert Barclay, Truth Triumphant, II, 557-68. The previously cited, and more readily available Mather edition has been altered editorially at this point. 21

22

CHAPTER EIGHT

The Protection and Enjoyment of Their Differences (1691-177^) TWO EVENTS of crucial importance in the history of Quakerism took place within two years of each other. The Act of Toleration was passed in 1689; George Fox died in 1691. These events help to mark the end of the period when Friends could be characterized by their revolutionary fervour and enthusiasm.1 Friends were now "tolerated," along with other Nonconformist groups, and Friends' efforts were directed toward proving that they deserved this toleration, that they were good citizens in spite of their peculiar ways. The tenor of the new era finds a particularly clear expression in the Epistle of London Yearly Meeting of 1705, which noted, in part: "And since the Lord's good providence has so far blessed Friends as to give them favor with government; it is desired that Friends would continue, with all humility, to walk worthy of that mercy; and improve the same, by a gentle and peaceable conversation towards all men, in their respective places of abode."2 Not only, however, were Friends' revolutionary zeal and enthusiasm dampened. The zeal of the reaction was at hand. Much had been gained and there could be no equivocation towards those who, by their excesses or their carelessness, would put these gains in jeopardy. The power of the Elders of Friends Meetings increased, and in 1737 membership lists were drawn up to define clearly the limits of privilege and responsibility.3 The practice of disownment came into increasing use. The emphasis shifted from the positive to the negative, from the growth and nurture of new values to the protection of values already won. There was a corresponding change in Friends' attitude toward 1 For the general temper and tempo of this period, see Braithwaite, Second Period of Quakerism especially chapters v, vi, vn, xvi. ^Epistlesfrom London, I. 112. Braithwaite, Second Period of Quakerism, p. 459.

PROTECTION AND ENJOYMENT OF DIFFERENCES

117

public policy, domestic and foreign. The unity of their outlook broke down as life was divided precisely and completely into those things which were acceptable and those which were not. Except in the American colonies, where special conditions were thought to exist, participation in governmental affairs was looked on with misgiving and Friends were cautioned against involvement.4 The Christianizing of public policy seemed an increasingly remote possibility and Friends were loath to see their members become too much involved in the compromises and deals surrounding the development and execution of public policy. Epistles and deputations to men "in high places" in government continued to be dispatched, but these expressions were less frequent and tended to be routine statements of positions which were becoming traditional. Friends now felt that they could be of the greatest usefulness by keeping their own testimonies inviolate and providing an example for the world to follow.5 They hoped to influence the course of political events by preserving in their Society a way of life which governments might later be encouraged to emulate. The first generation revolutionary's effort to universalize his beliefs immediately had been replaced by the second generation's effort to realize those beliefs in a limited area, from which they might later, and more slowly, attain wider acceptance. Missionary zeal and precept were replaced by the less disturbing and more "respectable" effort to provide in the life of the Society a pristine example for the rest of the world. The emphasis on proving to themselves and to government that they merited the toleration and acceptance that had been granted to them meant that Friends could no longer leave it to the individual's developing awareness of spiritual values to determine when it was time to begin practising a higher form of behaviour. The respect and toleration granted Friends might be threatened by any tardiness, or undue haste, in this area. Disownment was, of course, the lot of those who failed to keep time with the Elder's baton. These basic changes in outlook had a profound influence on Friends' attitude toward foreign policy and Friends' relationship to such policy. The changes were, however, in terms of strategy, tactics and method; *Ibid., p. 604. Rufus Jones, Quakerism in the American Colonies, pp. 461-62; Epistles from London, I, 66-7; Tolles, Meeting House and Counting House, p. 226. 5 See Braithwaite, Second Period of Quakerism, pp. 177-211, 597-624, and especially 602 and 619, for an exposition of this philosophy.

Il8

QUAKER WAYS IN FOREIGN POLICY

their fundamental views did not change. Indeed, they tended to become crystallized. Friends continued to believe that international problems were composed of difficulties which were essentially religious in nature and that these difficulties could be resolved only when the life and power which Friends had experienced, which was seen as freeing men from lust for power and possessions, governed the affairs of nations. War could have no place in the lives of men who had had this experience. It was in the American colonies, and particularly in Pennsylvania, that the Quaker approach came the closest to immediate political relevance. Though Philadelphia Yearly Meeting did not enter politics as a Meeting, members of the Meeting and certain political allies were directly involved in politics, and came to be known as the "Quaker Party."6 This alliance was the predominant influence in the Pennsylvania legislature during most of this period, placing Friends in a position which required them to develop policy to meet the necessities of immediate "real life" situations. Much of this policy was worked out in informal caucuses assembled in Quaker Meeting Houses before and after the regular Meetings for Worship and Meetings for Business. It was also subject to review by Monthly, Quarterly, and Yearly Meetings in so far as it was reflected in the life and activities of the individual Friends involved in its formulation and execution.7 The Quaker Indian policy is particularly revealing for the purposes of this study because Indian policy not only approximated foreign policy, it actually involved foreign policy as the French and the English attempted to make allies or benevolent neutrals of the Indian nations. The Quaker Indian policy was simple in conception.8 The Indians were to be viewed as human beings to whom friendship and justice were due and from whom friendship and justice could be anticipated in return. The policy was one of respect for the Indian, of convincing him of the colonists' good intentions and harmlessness toward him, and of seeing to it that the colonists' intentions were, in fact, both harmless and well-intentioned. The mere presence of armed forces and munitions would indicate distrust of or, worse, a hostile attitude toward the Indians. It followed that the colony was not to support an army, and 6

Isaac Sharpless, A Quaker Experiment in Government, I, 265; II, 7. Sharpless, A Quaker Experiment in Government, I, 32. Kelsey, Friends and the Indians, chapters ra and iv, pp. 38-88; Rufus Jones, Quakerism in the American Colonies, p. 469. 7

8

PROTECTION AND ENJOYMENT OF DIFFERENCES

Up

that fair treaties were to be negotiated with the Indians, and honoured. A single illustration will indicate the Quaker approach.9 After William Penn's withdrawal from Pennsylvania politics early in the eighteenth century, Friends gradually lost influence in the executive branch of the colonial government, but continued for a considerable time as the dominant force in the legislature. A series of acts that were not under the control of the legislature resulted in the gradual alienation of the Indians. Abetted by the French, their resentment of the British was released by the defeat of Braddock in 1755. The Governor of Pennsylvania and his Council replied to the uprising by offering bounties for the scalps of Indians, men or women. Friends then resigned from the legislature and refused to pay the war taxes that were levied. As an alternative to supporting the payment of bounties on scalps, Friends organized "The Friendly Association for gaining and preserving Peace with the Indians by Pacific Measures." To this Association Friends contributed amounts considerably in excess of the war taxes to which they would have been liable. Representatives of the Association began their work by meeting with the Indians of eastern Pennsylvania, Indians belonging to tribes having an accumulation of grievances against the colonists, but not yet involved in overt hostility. Friends brought the Indians presents and urged them toward a peaceful settlement of their differences with the colonists. The Indians agreed to negotiate on condition that the Quakers be present. Though the colonial authorities were not pleased with this condition, they too agreed to negotiate and a series of conferences were held at Easton, Pennsylvania, from 1756 to 1758. In the course of these conferences Friends continued to encourage the Indians to peaceful settlement and the colonists to make reasonable restitution for the Indians' grievances. A treaty was finally concluded, cemented by presents purchased from the funds of the Friendly Association. Subsequently a similar settlement was reached with the Indians of western Pennsylvania. In the course of the latter negotiations the Pennsylvania legislature borrowed funds from the Friendly Association with which to purchase the presents that were a traditional part of the ceremony of making treaties with the Indians. The pattern of peaceful settlement just described was not different 9 Ibid., pp. 503-4; Kelsey, Friends and the Indians, pp. 67-8; Samuel Parrish, Some Chapters in the History of the Friendly Association for Regaining and Preserving Peace with the Indians by Pacific Measures.

I2O

QUAKER WAYS IN FOREIGN POLICY

in its essentials from that advocated and followed during the earlier days of Quakerism. There were, however, some important variations. War now came to be seen as a positive evil, a sin, not to be tolerated even during an interim period of growth. The anti-war position became an item of dogma, not the definition of an ideal. A Friend was to have no part in war and was not even to talk about war unnecessarily, on penalty of disownment. As the Epistle from London Yearly Meeting for 1758 stated: And, dear Friends, as it hath pleased the Almighty to reveal unto mankind his Son Jesus Christ, the peaceable Savior, let it be our steady concern to demonstrate to the world that we are his followers, by bringing forth the fruits of the Spirit, "love, joy, peace, long-suffering, gentleness, faith, meekness and temperance." ... And that we are called out of wars and fightings, so let them be as seldom as possible the subjects of your conversations: but let a holy care rest upon us, to abide in that power which gives dominion over the hopes and fears that arise from the concerns of an unstable world, and tend, as they are admitted to the mind, to lessen its trust on that rock which is immovable.10

It could have been anticipated that Friends would find it difficult to sustain, at one and the same time, their belief in the necessity of staying clear of war and their desire to co-operate with their government, justifying the toleration that had been granted to them. Further, it could also have been anticipated that it would be during wars that this problem would be the most acute. One point at which these contradictory efforts came into conflict was Friends' scruple against observing official rejoicings and official mournings arising from the victories or defeats of the nation's armed forces.11 It was usual at this period for the King to proclaim the closing of all shops and the lighting of candles at night to celebrate military victories, and to proclaim the closing of shops and the adoption of mourning when the national arms had suffered defeat. Friends did not feel that they should express the faith in fightings with "carnal weapons" implied by these ceremonies. As a result, Friends suffered considerable property damage to their homes and business establishments, as well as to their persons, for refusing to observe these officially ordained occasions. Sometimes these sufferings followed from direct governmental orders, but more often it seems to have been a matter of stoning and rioting inspired by commercial rivalries or by an emotionally 10 Epistlesfrom London, I, 307. "Jones, The Later Periods of Quakerism, 1,158 f.; Hirst, Quakers in War and Peace, p. 196.

PROTECTION AND ENJOYMENT OF DIFFERENCES

121

aroused and indignant public. The pressure to conform must have been sufficient to cause some Friends to yield, for a "broadside" on the subject was issued by London Yearly Meeting in 1760, containing a summary of its contents in the title: "Tender Advice and Caution to Friends, respecting their putting out Lights on those called Rejoicing Nights, and not opening their shops on days appointed by human Authority for publick Fasts, Feasts and Thanksgivings."12 A second expression of the dilemma posed by their pro-government and anti-war positions was to be found in the tension which existed between the Quaker colonists and the Home Office in London. The London officials and their representatives in the colonies were not as confident of Quaker methods as were the Quakers themselves.13 Friends temporized for a while, searching for a solution to the dilemma as London's demands became more insistent and the Scotch-Irish frontiersmen in western Pennsylvania added their weight to the forces urging the legislature to pass military appropriations.14 At one point the Quaker legislature resorted to the expediency of voting an appropriation for "grain" for the "King's use," knowing full well that the grain would be gun powder.15 Such a lack of clarity, however, could not long satisfy anyone and, with the advice and encouragement of British Friends and stimulated by the Governor's proclamation of bounties for Indian scalps, a large enough group of Friends withdrew from the legislature in 1765 to break the Quaker majority for all time.16 Though Friends, even as individuals, did not participate directly in governmental affairs during this period, except in the American colonies, they had extensive commercial and financial activities which brought them into intimate touch with international affairs. Indeed, the unofficial contacts among Quaker merchants throughout the world provided a network of economic and political intelligence that has been described as being more effective than the existing official channels. Governments not infrequently made use of this unofficial channel to accomplish official business.17 12

Seen in the files of Friends Historical Library at Swarthmore College, Swarthmore, Penn. Rufus Jones, Quakerism in the American Colonies, pp. 490-3; Sharpless, A Quaker Experiment in Government, I, 183-223. u lbid., 507-8, 558. 16 Ibid., 487-94. I6 lbid., 491-4. 17 Ann Gary, "Political and Economic Relations of English and American Quakers (1750-1785)," passim. See in the Quaker Collection, Haverford College, Haverford, Penn. 13

122

QUAKER WAYS IN FOREIGN POLICY

The behaviour of these commercial Friends was the centre of much concern in Friends' Meetings. The first of these problems was the matter of Quaker shipmasters and armed ships, as it was routine practice in this period to arm merchant ships for protection against pirates. The London Yearly Meeting Epistle for 1693 issued one of the earlier cautions with respect to the owning and operating of armed ships: A complaint being made about some shipmasters (who profess the truth and are esteemed Quakers) carrying guns in their ships, supposing thereby to defend and secure themselves and their ships, contrary to their former principle and practice, and to the endangering of their own and others' lives thereby; also giving occasion of more severe hardships and suffering to be inflicted on such Friends as are passed into ships of war, who, for conscience sake, cannot fight, nor destroy men's lives, it is therefore recommended to the Monthly and Quarterly Meetings whereof such shipmasters belong, to deal with them in God's wisdom and tender love, to stir them up and awaken their consciences, that they may seriously consider how they injure their own souls in so doing, and what occasion they give to make truth and Friends suffer by their declension, and acting contrary thereto, through disobedience and unbelief; placing their security in that which is altogether insecure and dangerous; which we are really sorry for, and sincerely desire their recovery and safety from destruction, that their faith and confidence may be in the arm and power of God.18

Such offences later became the occasion for disownment.19 The practice of going to sea as privateers, or under "letters of marque and reprisal"20 was also a disciplinary matter. This official piracy was an accepted mode of procedure among the European Powers of the eighteenth century, but not for Friends. London Yearly Meeting had the matter under consideration in 1757 and the Epistle for that year makes Friends' position clear: It having been weightily under the consideration of this meeting to discourage all under our profession from that great inconsistency of being concerned in privateers, letters of marque, or ships armed in a warlike manner, we think it necessary earnestly to recommend to all Quarterly and Monthly Meetings, to keep a watchful eye over their members in this important branch of our Christian testimony; and where any l

*Epistlesfrom London, I, 72; Braithwaite, Second Period of Quakerism, p. 617. Hirst, Quakers in War and Peace, pp. 226 ff. This account would indicate that the first actual disownments took place in 1781. 20 This phrase refers to the governmental practice, common in the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries, of commissioning private vessels to search out and seize any vessel flying the flag of a foreign country against whose private citizens there were unsatisfied grievances held by the citizens of the government granting the commission. Vessels thus seized were brought into port and sold, along with any cargo carried at the time of the seizure, and the proceeds used to satisfy the claims of the injured party. The government took a portion of the proceeds of the sale in return for granting the "letter of marque and reprisal " under which the goods were seized. 19

PROTECTION AND ENJOYMENT OF DIFFERENCES

123

inclination toward such practices appears, that timely admonition and suitable counsel be given in the spirit of love and meekness.21

There could be no doubt that the firm sanction of disownment lay behind these velvet phrases. A third concern laid on the Quaker merchant in international commerce was the caution that he keep himself free of dealing in goods that had been imported illegally, a common and lucrative practice in the freebooting days of the eighteenth century. The London Yearly Meeting Epistle for 1719 dealt with this matter, as did subsequent Epistles: As our testimony hath ever been, and still is, against defrauding the king of any of his customs, duties or excises, buying goods reasonably suspected to be run, exporting of wool or any other goods prohibited by law, or doing any other thing whatsoever to the injury of the King's revenues, or of the common good or to the hurt of the fair trader; so if any person or persons under our name and profession, shall be known to be guilty of these, or any other such crimes and offences, we do earnestly advise the respective Monthly Meetings to which such offenders belong, that they severally reprehend and testify against such offender, and their unwarrantable, clandestine, and unlawful actions; and admonish them to make restitution for the wrong done to the government, and to the holy truth professed by us.22

A final matter in which seagoing Friends came under their Meeting's discipline was the question of the slave trade. Though the Society was clear on its position with respect to the slave trade, there were individual Friends who had found it difficult to keep themselves completely free of the practice, usually as part owners of vessels over which such Friends did not have complete control. In 1727 and again in 1758 this matter was of sufficient importance to result in a Yearly Meeting minute being recorded on the subject. In 1761, "having reason to apprehend that divers under our name are concerned in this unchristian traffic,"23 London Yearly Meeting decided that offenders in this regard should in future be disowned. It should be observed that Friends as a Society did not withdraw completely from international affairs during this period, in spite of the Society's official quietism. London Yearly Meeting took an interest in the treaty negotiations at Aix-la-Chapelle in 1748, for instance, though this interest expressed itself primarily in the preparation of copies of 21 Epistksfrom London, I, 303. "Ibid., I, 303. ^London Yearly Meeting during 250 Years (London, The Society of Friends, 1919), pp. 44-5.

124

QUAKER WAYS IN FOREIGN POLICY

Barclay's Apology for presentation to the ambassadors.24 These copies of Barclay's exposition of the principles of Quakerism were presented in person by a Dutch Friend appointed to this service by British Friends, and were accompanied by a letter urging the plenipotentiaries to let their proceedings be guided by Christian principles. It is notable, too, that Friends became more active in programmes of international relief work in this period. However, they were still primarily concerned with situations in which Friends were among the principal sufferers or potential sufferers, though relief was granted to non-Friends as well as Friends. Help to Friends and others captured by the forces of the piratic states of the Barbary Coast25 and to those in distress as a result of the revolutionary outbursts in Ireland provide the principal examples of this early international relief work,26 which essentially was an extension of the relief granted to Friends and others labouring under domestic sufferings. Finally, this is the period when two individual Friends, William Penn and John Sellers, developed and published plans for the creation of an international organization to keep the peace.27 These plans, however, were not officially sponsored by Friends. Thus in the period from 1689 to 1775, there was little change in Friends' conception of what did or what should characterize international relations. Their message to governments was essentially the same as that of the first period, though less robustly expressed: namely, "Lay aside your lusts and become more Christ-like." But there was a marked change in Friends' attitude toward their own role with respect 24

Hirst, Quakers in Peace and War, p. 191; see supra, pp. 114 f. Hirst, Quakers in Peace and War, pp. 78-80; Samuel Tuke, Account of Slavery of Friends in the Barbary States (London, 1848); Tolles, Meeting House and Counting House, pp. 71-2. Tolles also notes that Friends gave relief to at least one alien group: the Acadians who had been forcibly removed from Nova Scotia in 1755. 28 Hirst, Quakers in Peace and War, pp. 102-8. 27 Fry, John Sellers, pp. 89-103, gives the Bellers proposals. See Penn, The Peace of Europe, for Perm's proposals. Perm's plan was issued in 1693 and Beller's in 1710. Both were viewed by their authors as practical proposals to stop the blood-letting that afflicted Europe during the wars of Louis XIV. They envisaged the inclusion of Russia and Turkey in their schemes and provided for a system of justice with police action for the enforcement of decisions. Bellers outlined a system of representation based on the division of Europe into a hundred equal cantons, each of which would be represented in the congress and be responsible for raising an equal proportion of soldiers or naval or financial equivalent. Concerning the admission of the Russians and Turks, Bellers said: "The Muscovites are Christians and the Mahometans are men, and have the same faculties and reason as other men. They want only the same opportunities and applications of their understandings to be the same men. But to beat their brains out to put sense into them is a great mistake and would leave Europe too much in a state of war." (p. 103) 26

PROTECTION AND ENJOYMENT OF DIFFERENCES

125

to international affairs. They no longer saw this role as that of active participation, as a Society. The Society came to have as little direct contact with international politics as was feasible. The Society now saw its role more exclusively as that of an example of the life and spirit which should inform all human relationships, international included. This was thought possible only if Friends remained detached from the compromises involved in the contemporary political scene. Friends maintained a quiet and inoffensive opposition to war and those warlike practices which they disapproved. They still maintained that governments could be Christianized, but this possibility seemed so remote that immediate efforts in that direction appeared irrelevant, except in America. On the whole, the difficulties of the world were felt to be rooted in sin, and no distinction was made between the sin and the sinner. Both were vigorously disowned. In the international scene, war was of the Devil and to be disowned, along with any Friends who were not careful to keep themselves free of involvement. Friends were to emphasize the creation of an example in their individual lives and in the life of the Society which would lead all people into a way of life in which slave trade, piracy, smuggling, war, and violence could have no part.

CHAPTER

NINE

An Uneasiness That Somethingo More is Needed (177^-18^0) THERE WAS no radical change in Friends' outlook toward international relations in the years following 1775. Extant international policy was seen as characterized too much by man's lust, greed, and sin, and the solution to lie in eventual Christianization. The emphasis was still on keeping the Society and individual Friends free of the taint of the world's commotions in the hope that Friends could lead lives which would become a pattern and an inspiration to the rest of the world. In 1804 Friends were still being cautioned against making war the subject of their conversation,1 and in 1813 there was a plea for Friends to "keep out of even the spirit of contest, and strive for the attainment of a dependence upon Him whose kingdom is not of this world."2 The conception of war as being of the Devil continued, as did disownment for involvement in efforts related to war. The slave trade and piracy were continuing points of opposition, though the emphasis was shifting toward public policy in these matters as distinguished from the previous period's interest in private practice.3 There were, however, the stirrings of new development. This period saw the first open challenge to the Society's dogmatic position of nonparticipation in war. The War of the American Revolution was the occasion for this development. A group of Friends in Philadelphia broke away from the established Yearly Meeting, forming a group known as the Free Quakers, or Fighting Quakers, a group which supported the Revolutionary War with enthusiasm, as the larger body of Quakerism did not.4 Epistles from London, II, 123. *Ibid., p. 164. 3 Drake, Quakerism and Slavery in America, pp. 100-32. 4 For an account of this group by one of its own members, see Charles Wetherill, History of the Religious Society of Friends called by some The Free Quakers in the City of Philadelphia (Philadelphia, 1894). For Quakerism and the War of the American Revolution, see Jones, Quakerism in the American Colonies, pp. 556-80.

SOMETHING MORE IS NEEDED

127

There were the stirrings of another difference. Friends began to doubt both the wisdom and the morality of remaining aloof from foreign policy as they had in the preceding period. One of the earlier signs of this difference can be seen in the London Yearly Meeting Epistle written in 1776, with the revolutionary developments in America very much on Friends' minds: "It is worthy of the serious consideration of all, whether the calamities now deeply affectirig this great empire may not have been permitted by Divine Providence in displeasure on account of the accumulated transgressions of his people: let all, therefore, honestly and strictly inquire, how far they have individually contributed thereto."5 Here is an important shift in emphasis as Friends begin to wonder if their pristine aloofness from the world's sin was either very aloof or very pristine. At first this new emphasis seems to have led to a quickening of Friends' awareness of and opposition to things which contributed to war efforts. The issue of paying taxes when a proportion of those taxes went for the support of wars now became acute, for example. The Journal of the American Friend, Job Scott, indicates this sensitizing process with respect to taxes when he notes under date of 1779: "At our Yearly Meeting this year . . . the subject of Friends paying taxes for war, came under solid consideration. Friends were unanimous, that the testimony of Truth, and of our Society, was so clearly against our paying such taxes as were wholly for war; and many solid Friends manifested a lively testimony against paying such in mixture; which testimony appeared evidently to me to be on substantial grounds."6 A second area in which Friends were increasing their vigilance was the matter of participation in business which, while not directly connected with the military and naval services, profited from the operation of these services. Friends were inclined to push back further and make more firm the line between those business enterprises permitted to Friends and those prohibited because they were too closely connected with the "military way." They thus became uneasy about the fact that some of their number were gaining considerable wealth from the sale of clothing, food, and other items to the army. London Yearly Meeting issued a strong caution in the matter in 1798: We desire afresh to press on all members, the necessity of a peaceful and innocent demeanor amongst men; and especially, let all be careful not to seek or accept profit ^Epistlesfrom London, II, 29. Job Scott, Journal, p. 105.

6

128

QUAKER WAYS IN FOREIGN POLICY

by any concern in the preparations so extensively making for war; for how reproachfully inconsistent it would be to refuse an active compliance with warlike measures; and, at the same time, not to hesitate to enrich ourselves by the commerce and other circumstances dependent upon war.7

This new emphasis expressed itself positively, too, and not only in terms of things which Friends were not to do. Friends had early been responsive to the suffering caused by war and revolution and had contributed generously to the relief of such suffering. With the opening of the siege of Boston in 1775 Friends again undertook to provide money and supplies to ameliorate the sufferings of civilians in war areas.8 Friends in Philadelphia took the initiative in this effort, though important sums were contributed by other Yearly Meetings. British Friends were particularly generous in their contributions—an interesting commentary on the informality of warfare in this period! The funds for Boston were sent to New England Friends and distributed by them, Friends and non-Friends receiving the same consideration. However, while on a larger scale and involving "world Quakerism," this programme was not essentially different from that carried on in Ireland nearly a hundred years before. The relief effort on behalf of the Greeks who underwent extreme privation in the course of their struggle for freedom from Turkish domination did add a new element. The relief effort was not large, but it appears to have been the first in an area where Friends were not among the sufferers and the first to receive important financial support from non-Friends. The Greek effort was rather incidental and existed more or less on the fringes of London Yearly Meeting, being largely the personal concern of William Allen, a Friend of considerable influence in the Meeting. It was important, however, as a harbinger of the more extensive programmes undertaken in later periods.9 From 1817 to 1832 another British Friend, Daniel Wheeler, was engaged in a personal service which was in many ways the precursor of much relief, reconstruction, and development work undertaken by the 7

'Epistles from London, II, 103, and quoted again in the Epistle for 1804, II, 123. Henry J. Cadbury, Quaker Relief during the Siege of Boston. 9 William Allen, Life of William Allen, II, 60-3, 103 fF. This gives an account of the origins of the effort. Relief to the Acadian expellees from Nova Scotia about 1755 provides an earlier example of relief work among a group in which there were probably no Friends. The Acadian effort, however, was primarily the individual mission of Anthony Benezet, a Friend of French Huguenot background, who was unstinting in his efforts on behalf of Acadians who came into the Philadelphia area. 8

SOMETHING MORE IS NEEDED

Society as a whole.10 Czar Alexander I, visiting England in 1814, was impressed by English methods of farming and, in particular, by the farm of a Friend he chanced to visit. When in 1817 he determined to go forward with the reclamation of certain marsh lands in the neighbourhood of St. Petersburg, he asked his ambassador in London to find a manager for the work, expressing his preference for a Friend. News of the opportunity was circulated in the Society. Daniel Wheeler was encouraged to consider the offer, and after a preliminary trip in 1817 he moved his family and assistants, a party of twenty Friends in all, to Russia the following year. In this work Wheeler was responsible for the drainage of approximately six thousand acres of marsh land, nearly half of which was brought under cultivation as a demonstration in improved agricultural methods. A model village, "model/' that is, for that time and place, was built on the site, each householder being allotted a plot of ground for his own use. Wheeler was not successful in his efforts to improve the disturbing conditions he found among the soldiers who were assigned the heavy work of digging the drainage canals and ditches on the project, nor did his suggestions for making the model village an experiment in civic freedom meet with approval in court circles. Wheeler's wife and daughter died in Russia and were buried in a plot of ground designated by the Czar to be, in perpetuity, a burial ground in Russia for the Society of Friends.11 It is quite impossible to estimate the political effect of a project of this nature. It is clear, however, that the memory of Wheeler's project influenced the Czar in his cordial welcome to the Quaker delegation that visited St. Petersburg on the eve of the Crimean War12 and in efforts later in the century to relieve the plight of various religious minorities in Russia.13 Friends are convinced that service analogous to the type undertaken by Wheeler, "carrying the cup of cold water," as one Friend phrased it,14 is a prerequisite to anything helpful on the political level. 10

Daniel Wheeler, Memoirs, 49-245. See also Rufus Jones, Later Period of Quakerism, II, 877-9; and Anna Brinton, Toward Undiscovered Ends: Friends and Russia for Three Hundred Years (Wallingford, Penn., 1951), pp. 12-16. 11 Gilbert McMaster, "Quaker Memorials in Russia," The American Friend, XXXVII, no. 3 (February 3, 1949), 38. This records a visit to the memorials in 1930 and surmises that they were destroyed during the siege of Leningrad in 1943-4. 12 13 Infra, pp. 177 fF. Infra, p. 144. 14 This is a phrase which Clarence E. Pickett, Honorary Secretary of the American Friends Service Committee, has used on several occasions.

130

QUAKER WAYS IN FOREIGN POLICY

In still other ways individual Friends were leading the Society to assume a more active role in international affairs. Joseph Pease now became the first Friend to hold a seat in the House of Commons.15 John Bright followed soon afterward.16 William Allen17 and Lucretia Mott,18 among others, were active in bringing Friends into association with non-Friends who had similar interests in the field of peace and slavery. Such "acting in the mixture" was a disownable offence throughout this period and these Friends, Lucretia Mott in particular,19 ran a grave risk of being disciplined by their Meetings. There was, too, a renewed interest in carrying the Quaker message to the corners of the world, in contrast to the previous period's careful husbanding of "the Seed" in their own lives. Thus, when Daniel Wheeler laid down his work in Russia, he travelled to Samoa and other islands in the South Seas to revitalize Friends' evangelical tradition.20 There was a series of such individuals travelling under individual concern, but with the approval of their Yearly Meetings, and some, as in the case of Daniel Wheeler, financed by their Meetings. Though these visits were of a religious nature primarily, they often dealt with the political application of religious insights and principles. Joseph John Gurney's visits are a good example of this. J. J. Gurney, a British Friend of considerable standing both within the Society of Friends and in financial circles, travelled extensively in the United States and the West Indies from 1837 to i84o.21 He visited President Van Buren on two occasions, a number of cabinet members, and key members of Congress, including John Quincy Adams, Calhoun, Clay, and Webster. He also addressed a Sunday morning worship service in the chambers of the House of Representatives. This meeting was attended by the President, members of the cabinet and the Supreme Court, and members of Congress "and their ladies." The 15

Rufus Jones, Later Periods of Quakerism, II, 789. While Pease was the first Quaker to sit as a member of Parliament, he was not the first to be elected. Friend John Archdale, after he returned to England from a notably successful term as Governor of North Carolina, was elected to Parliament from Chipping Wycomb in 1698. He presented himself at the bar of the House but was not allowed to take his seat when he was refused the privilege of affirmation rather than taking an oath of allegiance to Crown and country. For additional accounts of this matter see The Journal of the Friends Historical Society, VIII, no. i (Third Month, 1911), 5. 16 George M. Trevelyan, The Life of John Bright (London, 1913), pp. no ff. 17 William Allen, Life, I, 143; Rufus Jones, Later Periods of Quakerism, II, 723 f; London Yearly Meeting Minutes, 1906, p. 161. See also A. C. F. Beales, The History of Peace, pp. 46, 49, 51. 18 Lloyd C. M. Hare, The Greatest American Woman: Lucretia Mott, pp. 166-74. 19Ibid

20

Daniel Wheeler, Memoirs, pp. 233 flf. J. J. Gurney, Life of Joseph John Gurney, II, 92-240.

21

SOMETHING MORE IS NEEDED

IJI

worship service provided an opportunity for a more general plea on behalf of closer adherence to the principles of Christian living. When speaking privately with the President, cabinet members and congressmen Gurney was concerned with "the African slave trade and the claims of the native Indian tribes." After his interview with Henry Clay, Gurney noted that Clay "expressed fine feelings and good principles on the subject of slavery, as well as that of the wrongs of the Aborigines. But he complained bitterly of the abolition movement, and was evidently, like other slave holders, under the influence of some very strong prejudices."After his first interview with Van Buren, Gurney's Journal recorded the President's concern for national honour: It was my endeavor to impress on the mind of the President, the vast importance of the cordial cooperation of America with the European powers, in the suppression of the slave trade, on the perfectly reasonable principle of a mutual right to search, a principle which surely ought not to offend the pride of any nation. But the Americans are a community of kings, evey man is his own ruler, and they shrink from the very notion of indignity. Thus I fear that they are but too likely to persist in sacrificing the interests of humanity, to what is falsely regarded as national honor.22

Friends' increasing sense of responsibility for the state of international affairs now led to more direct efforts at peace-making. Friends were no longer satisfied that it was sufficient for them to be peaceable themselves: . . . though we are not apprehensive of more symptoms of deficiency than in former years, we feel disposed afresh to encourage Friends to be prompt in undertaking and prudent in executing the blessed office of peace-maker. We believe the patient endeavors of faithful Friends will be generally crowned with success, in proportion as their own minds are seeking Jesus for assistance in performing an office on which he has pronounced his blessing.23

Though Friends' Meetings, as such, were not yet prepared to undertake peace-making missions, several individual Friends did and, in doing so, both reverted to practices of the first generation of Friends, who were accustomed to hold converse with "the mighty ones," and presaged the peace missions later dispatched to Germany, Russia, and elsewhere.24 Among these early individual Quaker practitioners of international relations were David Barclay, John Fothergill, William Allen, and Stephen Grellet.25 z

*Ibid., pp. 117-20.

J8

^Epistles from London, II, 157.

2

*Infra, pp. 137 ff.

The famous case of George Logan has not been included here. Logan was not a member of the Society of Friends at the time of his trip to France in 1798. He went solely as an individual, though this effort was quite in the Quaker tradition and modern Friends are not as inclined to

QUAKER WAYS IN FOREIGN POLICY

Barclay and Fothergill negotiated with Franklin in an effort to work out a settlement that would avoid war in ijj6.2Q Allen visited the Czar, and other men of affairs, on religious missions that frequently had political overtones at such points as the discussion of prisons, slavery, and religious freedom.27 Grellet, of French noble birth but an American citizen, accompanied Allen on some of his visits and undertook others alone.28 Allen also went to the Congress of Verona in i82229 where he was granted the use of the Duke of Wellington's diplomatic pouch for correspondence, accepted a nominal appointment as Wellington's courier to facilitate his work, and proceeded to interview the Emperor of Austria-Hungary, the Czar of Russia, the chief French delegate, Montmorency, and Metternich, Nesselrode, Esterhazy, and other dignitaries, on behalf of his concern that the slave trade be abolished. Allen was convinced that this abomination could be abolished only by declaring it piracy so that its practitioners would be placed beyond the protection of national laws. These concerns pursued by Barclay, Fothergill, Grellet, and Allen were primarily personal concerns. However, they invariably carried minutes of unity from their local Friends' Meetings. Such minutes were issued only after careful consideration, with discussion frequently extending over several sessions of a Meeting. But it was not only individual Friends who were being stirred up to a new interest in international peace-making. It was during this period that Friends made what appears to have been the Society's first specific recommendation concerning the way peace might be won in a particular situation. It was in the course of the Oregon boundary dispute between the United States and England that Friends wrote in the London Epistle for 1846: Since we last met, much solicitude has been felt with reference to the threatened hostilities between this country and the United States of America. We cherish the fervent hope that so dreadful a calamity will, through the ruling mercy of the Almighty, be averted. Our testimony against all wars and fightings is a truly Christian testimony. We rejoice in the belief that a correct appreciation of the peaceable principles of the gospel of Christ is spreading in our own and in other lands. We hail, "disown" him as were those of the eighteenth century. A definitive biography of Logan was published in 1953 by Fredrick B. Tolles, Librarian of Friends Historical Library, Swarthmore College. 26 Hingston Fox, Dr. John Fothergill and His Friends, pp. 342-65, and Appendix A, pp. 393-408. "William Allen, Life , I, 351-2. 28 Ibid., I, 268 f£ and 351-2; Stephen Grellet, Memoirs of the Life and Gospel Labors of Stephen Grellet, pp. 357 ff. 29

William Allen, Life, II, 40 £

SOMETHING MORE IS NEEDED

13 j

as a symptom of this enlightened view, many instances of later years, in which disputes between nations have been settled by arbitration, and not by recourse to the antiChristian practice of war. May a sense of the wisdom and true policy of arbitration increase, until it shall become the ultimate rule for the determination of such differences. And O! that all nations that take on themselves the name of Christ, may be brought, by the light of his Spirit, to see that in having recourse to arms to settle disputes, and in gratifying the lust of conquest and power, they give occasion for his holy name to be blasphemed by Mahomatans and Pagans.30

In contrast to the previous period's negative emphasis on opposition to war and the lusts on which war was said to be based, and its general statements concerning the necessity for Christianizing international relations, arbitration appears now as a specific and positive recommendation made by Friends, as a Society, for the resolution of international conflict. In brief, the period between 1775 and 1850 was a period of reawakened international activity on the part of the Society of Friends. This reawakening was most marked in certain individual cases, but the Society as a whole was also stirring. Without changing their views on the essential nature of international relations and the barriers to the improvement of those relations, Friends' conception of their role in bringing about an improvement did change. They began to feel it inadequate merely to provide an isolated example of the spirit which should characterize international affairs. Perhaps the schisms in their own Society during this period raised doubts in their minds about their ability to provide such a shining example of peace and unity. In any case, they began to doubt the adequacy of the previous period's negative emphasis on opposition to war and man's sin. These were real enough, but there was now a more positive emphasis. There was occasion for the renewal of Friends' international relief efforts, and these efforts were extended to an area where no Friends were involved in the suffering. Tentative moves were made in the direction of cooperation with non-Friends and a Friends' Meeting made the Society's first specific proposal for the settlement of a specific international problem when arbitration was urged as the proper approach to the Oregon boundary dispute. 30

Epistksfrom London, II, 333.

CHAPTER TEN

From the General to the Particular (18^0-1914) THE YEARS from 1850 until the outbreak of World War I may be characterized briefly as years during which Friends' interest and involvement in the international scene became more inclusive. Matters which were but concerns of individual Friends in the previous period now became concerns of the Society as a whole, policy recommendations became more specific and positive as the period progressed, and standing committees were established for the first time to assist in the implementation of Friends' international programmes.1 These developments reflected basic changes in the outlook of the Society; they marked a clear break with the Society's quietism of the eighteenth and early nineteenth centuries and a return to the basic position the Society had vacated with the advent of "toleration" in the last decades of the seventeenth century. The Society recommitted itself to involvement in and responsibility for public affairs, domestic and international. There was a marked resurgence of the evangelical stream in its tradition, which had gone undergound following the revolutionary period in the Society's history. Missionary programmes were undertaken and Friends became less exclusive, seeing themselves again as a movement rather than a sect guarding a gossamer tradition, and the practice of disownment was resorted to less frequently. The passing of quietism was expressed in terms of both greater breadth and greater volume of involvement in international affairs: Friends went further afield and dug more deeply into international x For developments in this period see especially London and Philadelphia Yearly Meeting Minutes and reports of Opium, Peace, Arbitration, and other Yearly Meeting committees established at this time. See also Rufus Jones, Later Periods of Quakerism, II. 713 f; Hirst, Quakers in Peace and War, pp. 243-306, 481 ff.; Stephen Hobhouse, Joseph Sturge: His Life and Work, seriatim; and the following periodicals; from Britain, The Friend, The Friends Quarterly, and the British Friend; from the U.S.A., The Friend and The Friends Intelligencer.

FROM THE GENERAL TO THE PARTICULAR

135

problems. Deputations from Meetings were again sent abroad to discuss Friends' concerns with those in high government office. Indicative of the change was London Yearly Meeting's "Plea on behalf of liberty of conscience . . ."2 which was adopted in 1856 and carried over Europe by two deputations, one to the countries of northern Europe and another to those of the south. No less than nine heads of state were interviewed. In Berlin alone the northern deputation distributed more than thirteen hundred copies of the plea, primarily to legislators, judges, lawyers, professors, and civil servants. The circulation of the appeal in Berlin was accompanied by efforts to relieve the situation of those who were in prison or under other sufferings as a result of a refusal, based on religious beliefs, to acquiesce in compulsory military training or service. Similar efforts were made in Norway, Russia, Serbia, Italy, France, and Spain. In Britain itself, Friends, and John Bright in particular, were active in opposing those forces bent on bringing England into the American Civil War on the side of the South. Twenty-five years earlier it would have appeared most unseemly for individual Friends, to say nothing of Yearly Meetings, to have allowed themselves to be caught up in such "creaturely activity" and to be found among those not "quiet in the land." The departure from quietism also resulted in Friends' becoming more positive in their outlook. Quietism had involved an emphasis on the guardianship of an established tradition. A positive programme would have involved ventures outside the protected precincts of the Society, with the resulting danger that Friends' traditions might be tainted and diluted by mingling with "the world's people." But Friends now felt that they had to run the risks involved in saying "yes" as well as "no." Occasions were found for the issuing of commendatory memorials: to the Czar on the freeing of his serfs in 1861, to the King of England on his efforts to moderate the anti-Russian tone of the British press in 1904, and to all concerned for the successful use of the Hague procedures for the settlement of the Dogger Bank incident in the North Sea in 1905. A more positive emphasis is also evident in Friends' increasingly vigorous advocacy of arbitration. Arbitration and other forms of third-party settlement became a constant refrain in Friends' statements on foreign policy in this period: mediation was urged in the disputes which issued in the Crimean War, and congratulations were sent to 2

London Yearly Meeting Minutes, 1857, PP- 54 #"•

136

QUAKER WAYS IN FOREIGN POLICY

President Grant and the British government on the occasion of the successful arbitration of the Alabama claims case which arose out of the American Civil War. President Theodore Roosevelt was congratulated on his mediation of a settlement in the Russo-Japanese War, arbitration was urged in connection with the Spanish-American War, and Friends on both sides of the Atlantic were among the primary moving forces behind the effort to enact a treaty of general arbitration between the United States and Great Britain.3 The positive emphasis of the new era also led Friends to concern themselves with more specific causes of war than the 'lusts of men," the cause identified in previous Quaker analyses. Slavery, the opium traffic, and an increasing reliance on "carnal weapons" were opposed now, not only because they were themselves evil, but also because they were seen as causes of wars. The fundamental cause of war, however, was still seen to lie, in the words of a later era, "in the hearts and minds of men"—individual men. Friends, therefore, now made a concerted effort to reach the minds of men, providing informational materials for the development of a better understanding of international issues. These educational efforts were directed towards the general public, not only the members of the Society of Friends, and were intended to reach the "man in the street," as well as the foreign policy elite, thus reflecting the nineteenth-century tendency to broaden the base and to democratize the process of foreign policy formation. These new educational programmes used a variety of techniques in pursuit of their purposes, including the publication of study-programme outlines, the setting up of bureaus to help organizations schedule speakers on international themes, and the sponsorship of oratorical and poster contests featuring international issues as their subject matter. There were more scholarly efforts, too, including the encouragement given Joshua Rowntree4 to write his Imperial Drug Trade and William I. Hull 3 London Yearly Meeting Minutes, 1893, P- 545 #"*•» J894, pp. 115 ff; Philadelphia Yearly Meeting (Race Street) Minutes, 1897, p. 22. In this connection it is of interest to note that during this period a Friend, Albert D. Smiley of New York, sponsored a series of conferences on arbitration. These conferences brought together an imposing array of national leaders in the field of international law and international affairs. Included were such names as James Brown Scott, William Howard Taft, John Bassett Moore, Charles W. Eliot, Edwin M. Borchard, Edward A. Filene, and William Jennings Bryan. There was always a group of Friends present, too. The proceedings of these conferences were published annually by the conferences from 1895 to 1916 under the title Lake Mohonk Arbitration Conference. The arbitration series was but one of three such series sponsored by Smiley. The others were on Negro affairs and Indian affairs. 4 Joshua Rowntree, The Imperial Drug Trade (London, 1905), published with the support of London Yearly Meeting. See also London Yearly Meeting Minutes, 1905, pp. 61, 179.

FROM THE GENERAL TO THE PARTICULAR

137

to publish his studies of disarmament and the two Hague Conferences.5 Certainly Friends' most spectacular effort to influence international affairs during this period was the mission to St. Petersburg in January and February i854,6 the first of the official Quaker embassies attempting to avert war.7 This mission was dispatched to Czar Nicholas in an effort to avert the impending Crimean War. Along with Friends' efforts to inject reason into the highly charged atmosphere of England at the time, it was decided that a direct appeal to the Autocrat of the Russians might do more than anything else to avert the war that seemed to Friends so unnecessary, and yet so likely. Indeed, war had already broken out between Russia and Turkey. While Friends were not optimistic about the results of such a mission, they felt it important to make the effort. A memorial was drawn up and a deputation of three men appointed to carry it to the Czar. On their arrival in St. Petersburg the deputation was received in cordial interviews by the Foreign Minister, Nesselrode, and the Czar, and on two occasions by the Empress. The political issues at stake were not discussed either in the memorial or verbally by the delegates. As the memorial stated, "It is not our business, nor do we presume to offer any opinion upon the question now at issue between the Imperial Government of Russia and any other country." They did consider it their business, however, again in the words of the memorial, to implore "Divine Providence . . . so to influence thy heart and to direct thy councils at this momentous crisis, that thou mayest practically exhibit to the nations... the efficacy of the Gospel of Christ, and the universal application of His command, 'Love your enemies; bless them that curse you; do good to them that hate 5

William I. Hull, The Two Hague Conferences (Boston, 1907). Hirst, Quakers in Peace andWar, pp. 256-9; Hobhouse, Joseph Sturge, pp. 139-58. 7 See Hobhouse, Joseph Sturge, pp. 131-8, and Hirst, Quakers in Peace and War, pp. 255-6, for an account of the effort to bring the Schleswig-Holstein dispute to arbitration. This effort, however, was made by individuals in response to a sudden opportunity which developed in the course of the International Peace Congress at Frankfort on the Main, Germany, in 1850. It was not an official effort of the Society, and one of the three members of the mission, Elihu Burritt, was not a Friend, though he worked closely with Friends for years. The other members of the mission were Friends Joseph Sturge and Frederick Wheeler. Sturge, the spokesman for the mission, noted in a letter to his family, "I feel little expectation of any benefit from the attempt, except a conviction that we have done what we can to prevent the continuance of the war. I hope we shall do no harm." (Hobhouse, Joseph Sturge, p. 135.) They made remarkable progress for a while, however, and it looked as though they might succeed. Chevalier Bunsen, the Prussian Ambassador in London, told Cobden that he had a stronger hope of a satisfactory settlement of the war from the embassy of the "three Quakers" (sic) than from all that had been done by the professional diplomats of Europe. Cobden later wrote Sturge, "If Russia, England and France, or either of them, had interfered with the sincere and disinterested and single-minded aim which actuated you and your Friends, peace would have been secured in a week" (ibid, p. 138). 6

138

QUAKER WAYS IN FOREIGN POLICY

you; and pray for them that despitefully use you and persecute you' "8 At the end of the interview with the Czar the delegates assured him "with much feeling, that although we should probably never see him again on this side of eternity, we wished him to know that there were those in England who desired his temporal and spiritual welfare as sincerely as his own subjects,—then the Emperor shook hands with us very cordially, and, with eyes moistened with emotion, turned hastily away . . . saying, 'My wife also wishes to see you/ " 9 This mission, as history records, had no visible effect on the events of the next few years. The Crimean War broke out in full fury within six weeks after the Quaker embassy returned to England and Friends were the object of considerable journalistic and popular invective, The Times calling the whole effort "mischievous."10 Though it did not stop the war, Friends were not inclined to think the whole effort futile, nor had they any apprehensions about the correctness of the undertaking. As the biographer of the delegation's spokesman observed, "humanity does not progress to greater perfection merely or chiefly by achieved success, but rather by moral effort put forth and repeated again and again in the midst of apparent failure."11 Friends had had little expectation that the mission to the Czar would be "successful," in terms of forestalling that particular war. It was thought necessary, nevertheless, to make the effort simply because it was still possible, and might at least result in the creation of relationships which would make the conflict less destructive and lay the groundwork for a future in which the "occasions for war" would be less likely. Yet, within six months after the Crimean War, The Times and public opinion generally in Britain had reversed itself and the government responsible for the war was thrown out of office. It may not be going too far to suggest that Friends share with their fellow Quaker, John Bright, George Trevelyan's evaluation of the effectiveness of Bright's opposition to British entry into the Crimean War. Trevelyan concludes: To attack the justice and wisdom of a popular war while it is still in progress requires more courage than any other act in a political society that has outgrown the assassin's dagger and the executioner's block. . . . Bright and Cobden, by speaking out so that 8

Hobhouse, Joseph Sturge, p. 146. lbid., pp. 144-5, and note on p. 146 quoting a Russian observer to the same effect. 10 Hirst, Quakers in Peace and War, pp. 256-9; Hobhouse, Joseph Sturget pp. 147-9, u Hobhouse, Joseph Sturge, p. 149. g

FROM THE GENERAL TO THE PARTICULAR

139

they were heard against the Crimean War, while it was yet in progress, were believed when it was over Had it not been for the lesson which Bright began to teach under the circumstances so unpleasant to himself, it is not improbable that we should have fought for Austria against France in 1859, or for the slave-owners against the North in 1861, or for Denmark against Germany in 1864, or again for Turkey against Russia in 1878. And if we had entered into any one of these wars, or into the Franco-German War of 1870, very little more would have been heard of the famous "Victorian Prosperity".12

Experience with the St. Petersburg mission did not encourage Friends to undertake similar efforts prior to the subsequent wars of the period here under review, though they appointed deputations to attend most of the big international congresses and peace conferences of the period, such as the Congress of Paris which terminated the Crimean War in 1856 and the Brussels Conference in 1890, convened to discuss the slavery question and other problems arising out of the new empires in Africa.13 Friends were vigorous in their continuing efforts to deal with such problems as slavery, the oppression of religious and national groups, and the European armament race, all factors behind the outbreak of the late nineteenth- and early twentieth-century wars. As Friends' proposals in the field of foreign policy became more positive, they also became more specific. The period opened with Friends' distributing memorials on such questions as freedom of conscience, slavery, and the duties of a Christian people and nation "toward those less civilized and enlightened."14 When the period closed, one Friends' Meeting had just drawn up a suggested agenda for the Third Hague Conference, scheduled for 1914 but cancelled by the outbreak of World War I.15 Friends' general opposition to reliance on "carnal weapons" developed into concrete disarmament proposals,16 12

George Trevelyan, The Life of John Bright, p. 217 f. See the following for examples of Friends' representation at international conferences in the late nineteenth century: The Peace of Paris, 1856—Hobhouse, Joseph Sturge, pp. 154-7, and Hirst p. 260; The Congress of Berlin, 1878—London Yearly Meeting Minutes, 1879, pp. 57-61. The Brussels Anti-Slavery Congress, 1890—London Yearly Meeting Minutes, 1890, p. 79, and 1891, pp. 82-4; The First Hague Conference, 1899—London Yearly Meeting Minutes, 1899, pp. 10, 17 and Bellows, Letters and Memoirs, pp. 301-3. 14 "The Plea on Behalf of Liberty of Conscience," London Yearly Meeting Minutes, 1856, printed in full in the Minutes for 1857, PP- 54 *£; "An Address on the Duties of Christian and Civilized Nations, toward those less Civilized and Enlightened," ibid, 1858, pp. 16-20; "Memorial on the Opium Traffic," 1859, ibid., pp. 54-6. 1 Philadelphia Yearly Meeting (Race Street) Minutes, 1912, p. 116. 16 London Yearly Meeting Minutes, for 1889, pp. 78-9, contain what appears to be the first specific Yearly Meeting statement on disarmament, though Monthly Meetings and smaller groups of Friends had made such statements previously. The statement was presented in Parlia13

140

QUAKER WAYS IN FOREIGN POLICY

disarmament thus joining arbitration to form the twin pillars of Friends' foreign policy proposals. General preachments concerning the brotherhood of man were spelled out in increasing detail, and opposition to war was no longer confined to war itself, but extended also to the "hostile postures" which Friends saw as the prelude and incitement to war. In 1896, for example, American Friends memorialized Congress and President Cleveland commending the effort to persuade Great Britain and Venezuela to accept mediation in their boundary dispute, but expressing the belief that threats were not the way to accomplish such an end.17 The increasingly specific character of Friends' proposals had one particularly interesting result: differences in national background became more obvious. It was to be expected that Friends in the United States would be concerned with the same problems as other people in the United States, though the individual approach to these problems might be quite different. Similarly, British Friends were concerned with the same problems that were absorbing the interest and energies of their compatriots. The latter part of the nineteenth century was a period of great overseas expansion for England, and of internal adjustment and development for the United States. Thus it is not surprising that there was a greater amount of international activity among Friends of the London Yearly Meeting than there was among Friends of the Philadelphia Yearly Meetings, which were among the more internationally minded of the Yearly Meetings in America. The problems of the Negro and the Indian were near at hand and of immediate concern to American Friends. British Friends had no such absorbing problems at home, but they did have the problems arising out of the administration and expansion of empire. British Friends were concerned that Britain discharge properly her duties towards those for whose development and advancement she had assumed responsibility, and were also concerned that she not increase her army and fleet in order to acquire additional responsibilities of the same order. They were concerned too to improve the lot of the Asian Indian and the African Negro within the existing framework of empire, just as American Friends were concerned to improve the lot ment by Friend Joseph Pease. It is notable that this statement followed closely on the heels of the establishment of the Peace Committee in the London Yearly Meeting. The Peace Committee was appointed June 8, 1888. See Minutes for 1889, pp. 76 f. Philadelphia Yearly Meeting (Arch Street) Minutes, 1896, pp. 12-14.

FROM THE GENERAL TO THE PARTICULAR

141

of the American Indian within the framework of the reservation system. American Friends had been the first organized religious group anywhere to oppose the system of slavery, but they relaxed after the Civil War and concentrated on improving the lot of the American Negro within the system of segregation.18 It was not until the SpanishAmerican War that American Friends came to grips with the problem of imperialism in the sense that British Friends knew it, and even then the question was one of acquiring empire, not what to do about empire already acquired. This difference in background made it possible for American Friends to take a clear-cut position in opposition to all empire, in contrast to British Friends' opposition to a larger empire, with a faithful exercise of paternal responsibilities towards existing empire. British Friends did not yet oppose empire and colonialism as such. These differences in outlook are clearly defined in the attitude of British Friends towards India and that of American Friends towards Cuba. The Friends Intelligencer (Philadelphia), for instance, in an editorial on the Cuban situation under the heading "Self Government," spoke of an effort "to make it appear that other people are 'unfit for freedom,' as incapable of self-government. These averments are on their face spurious. . . . Lincoln said, no man was ever created good enough to own another, and it may be added . . . 'no nation is good enough to own another.' In this as in every other question where vital principles are involved, we are bound to stand fast on the rock of truth."19 The London Yearly Meeting, on the other hand, in its appeal to the Marquis of Salisbury, the British Prime Minister, when the Boer War broke out, recognized "the many difficulties which have beset the Queen's Government and which still tend to hinder a satisfactory settlement; but they recall with gratitude the successful effort of the Marquis of Salisbury and his colleagues to secure the blessings of peace on former occasions, when the obstacles have seemed no less formidable; and they desire to strengthen their hand in a like course, believing that by patience, wisdom and tact, they may be equally successful in the present emergency."20 And in 1909 an article in The Friend (London), under the title "Fifty Years Rule in India," 18

Rufus Jones, Later Periods of Quakerism, II, 609-17. The Friends Intelligencer, LVI, no. 6 (Second Month n, 1899), 18. London Yearly Meeting Minutes, 1900, p. 170. It is noted that this statement was printed in The Times (London) and elsewhere. l9

20

142

QUAKER WAYS IN FOREIGN POLICY

concluded: "The task which we have undertaken of dealing with 232,000,000 of people is one of the most tremendous that any European Government has ever undertaken. England is honestly shouldering that responsibility with credit to her rulers."21 Thus, though their underlying purposes continued to be the same, differences emerged when Friends with different national backgrounds began to concern themselves with the specifics of international affairs. The same fundamental principles were being worked out in differing contexts. Their national environment made it easier for British Friends to move faster in their opposition to slavery and the national environment within which American Friends moved made it easier for them to move faster in their opposition to colonialism. The relief of suffering caused by international and internecine conflict was a positive emphasis that was not entirely new to Friends, but a new factor now came to the fore. Quaker relief in the latter half of the nineteenth cenutry came to be undertaken, not only because of the benefits such work bestows on the immediate giver and receiver, but also because it was now seen as a channel through which reconciling influences might be released to help reduce international tensions. Following the Crimean War British Friends were particularly interested to relieve the suffering of the Finns who had been made destitute by indiscriminate bombardment by the British fleet during the war.22 It was the Finnish relief programme, and that undertaken following the Franco-Prussian War,23 that Friends clearly embarked on the type of relief effort that has since become so intimately identified with Quakerism. Both the Finnish and the Franco-Prussian programmes marked new departures in that they were the first major relief efforts in areas where Friends were not among the suffering population and in which non-Quaker financial support played an important role.24 The 21 "Fifty Years Rule in India," The Friend (London), LXVII, no. 53 (Twelfth Month 24, 1909), 864-5. 22 Hobhouse, Joseph Sturge, pp. 158-61; Hirst, Quakers in War and Peace, pp. 255, 261-2. 23 William K. Session, They Chose the Star: Quaker Work in France, 1870-1875. 24 See William Allen, Life, II, 60-3 and 103 ff., and supra, p. 128, for the earlier Greek relief programme. It hovered around London Yearly Meeting's "Meetings for Sufferings," but a perusal of its minutes for 1822 and 1823, the years when this programme was the most active, finds no mention of it. Allen's Life notes that he and a group of Friends convened following the session of the Meeting for Sufferings on January 3,1823. The Minutes of the Meeting for Suffering for that date indicate that Allen and several other Friends were to convene immediately after the Meeting to draw up a statement on slavery to be presented to the Government. This was done, as subsequent minutes indicate.

FROM THE GENERAL TO THE PARTICULAR

143

Finnish programme was also the first in which non-Quaker personnel played an important role. The latter, however, may not have been so much a matter of change in policy as a necessity arising from the fact that there was no local Quaker population in Finland. Non-Friends, perforce, were made responsible for the distribution of the assistance sent. It was not until the Franco-Prussian War that Friends dispatched administrative personnel along with their supplies.25 This reflected Friends' growing concern that relief programmes be a vehicle for international reconciliation as well as for meeting material needs. When personnel accompanied the material assistance there was a greater opportunity to live out a philosophy of reconciliation among people caught at points of tension and conflict. Following the termination of the Franco-Prussian War programme, the relief activities of Friends took them into an almost unbroken series of places of suffering: 1876-8, Bulgaria and Bosnia; 1878-80, Mennonite relief in Russia; 1881, Irish relief; 1891-3, Russian famine relief; 1891-3, Armenian relief; 1895-1905, the most active period of Doukhobor relief, the Doukhobors being assisted to migrate from Russia to Canada; 1899-1908, Boer War relief programme at its height, although it continued until the 1930*5; 1900, famine relief in India; 1905, relief in Macedonia; 1908-9, Russian famine relief again; 1910, Armenian relief again. It was inevitable that the changes in the Society's outlook and its greatly expanded interest and activity in international affairs should be expressed by changes in organizational structure and relationships. First, there were changes in Friends' relationships to external organizations. The "breakthrough" from quietism meant an increasing willingness on the part of Friends to mix with others in common endeavours. This trend has been noted in embryo in the preceding period in the activities of individual Friends, but Friends' Meetings, as such, were now ready to support co-operation with non-Friends to further such causes as disarmament, arbitration, and the abolition of the slave trade. Friends supported, for instance, and indeed seconded one of their own members to serve as the Secretary of the Bern Peace Bureau. Friends have always preferred to avoid specialization in their activities. There was thus a reluctance to set up special committees to assume responsibility for Friends' continuing interest in international affairs. 26

See Sessions, They Chose the Star, seriatim, for the story of this operation

144

QUAKER WAYS IN FOREIGN POLICY

Concessions were made, however, and ad hoc committees were appointed to carry out Meetings concerns on particular issues, but these committees were to be "laid down" when their particular tasks were completed. As international concerns multiplied, so did the number of ad hoc committees. Problems of co-ordination developed and time became a factor with the increasing number of separate committee reports to be heard by parent Meetings. The next step was the appointment of standing committees. London Yearly Meeting's Committee on the Opium Traffic was the first such continuing committee, though the fiction of periodic reappointment was maintained until its work was absorbed by other committees after World War I.26 The appointment of Friends Foreign Mission Association by London Yearly Meeting in 1867 was a further step, as this Association was considered to be continuing and did not require appointment from year to year.27 A still more significant step, for the purposes of the present study, was taken by London Yearly Meeting in 1888 when it appointed a standing Peace Committee.28 Similar action was taken by Philadelphia in i892.29 The question arises whether, as Friends' recommendations became more positive and more specific, could they point to more positive and more specific results. Cause and effect relationships are always difficult to establish, but there are special problems in this case. Friends' activities during the period consisted largely of carrying appeals to the public and to public officials. Sometimes the policies Friends favoured were followed, more often they were not, as in the case of the appeals throughout most of this period for a cessation of spending and reliance on armaments, and the appeals at the end of the century to avoid war in South Africa and Cuba. Even when Friends' suggestions were followed, can one say with any certainty that their advocacy had any influence on the decision? What, for instance, was the weight of Quaker influence in keeping England on the side-lines during the American Civil War? We know 26

See London Yearly Meeting Minutes, 1859, pp. 54 £F. See also Minutes as late as 1927, p. 147. Henry T. Hodgkin, Friends beyond the Seas, pp. 137 f£ London Yearly Meeting Minutes, 1889, pp. 76 f. 29 See Philadelphia Yearly Meeting (Race Street) Minutes, 1893, p. 87. Philadelphia Yearly Meeting (Arch Street) did not establish an official Peace Committee of the Meeting until 1916 (see Minutes for 1916, pp. 8-10, 61-4). The members of Arch Street Meeting channelled their international interests through the unofficial Peace Association of Friends in Philadelphia and Vicinity, founded in 1891. 27 2

FROM THE GENERAL TO THE PARTICULAR

145

that London Yearly Meeting passed a memorial opposing British involvement, that British and American Friends were in close contact on the matter, that Friends in Parliament, notably John Bright, were united in their opposition to British entry, and that a prominent British Friend was in direct contact with President Lincoln. But was the result significantly different from what it would have been had Friends remained silent? Similarly, what effect did the corporate and individual efforts of Friends have in modifying opium policy in India and China? Friends had been officially active in this area for over sixty years when the Opium Committee reported in 1914 that: "The year 1913 has been the most momentous one in the history of the anti-opium movement for, on May yth, the welcome news was announced in the House of Commons that no more opium would be exported from India to China."30 But were Friends merely recording what would have happened whether or not they had championed the cause? Arbitration is another case in point. Friends had a long-standing interest in arbitral procedures. They introduced arbitration proposals in early meetings of the London Peace Society and the International Peace Congress. British and American Friends combined efforts in an unsuccessful attempt to get an Anglo-American arbitration treaty passed in 1887. As early as 1873 Friends officially were urging the specific establishment of a "Permanent Court of Arbitration," petitioning the Queen to have her ministers enter into correspondence with other nations for this purpose. These efforts paralleled a remarkable increase in the use of arbitral procedures during the years between 1850 and 1914, 32 international disputes having been settled by arbitration between 1794 and 1856 and 140 between 1856 and 1899, followed by the signing of over 197 separate treaties of general arbitration between 1899 and I9I4.31 One non-Quaker historian of the peace and arbitration movements feels that Friends played a pioneering role in these developments; Friends themselves would think his terms excessive: "The shining example throughout the world was the Society of Friends, which had been the core of the early Peace Societies, and to whose credit stood the mission to the Czar before the Crimean War." Apart from the part played by British and American Friends in the 30

London Yearly Meeting Minutes, 1914, p. 218. Hobhouse, Joseph Sturge, p. 157.

31

146

QUAKER WAYS IN FOREIGN POLICY

agitation for an Anglo-American Arbitration Treaty in 1887 "there was no organized peace effort yet in any [other] Church."32 From this it would appear that, as they emerged from the quietism of the eighteenth and early nineteenth centuries Friends did have a more direct influence on foreign policy. How much is difficult to estimate. In no case were they able to carry their point of view with a government previously committed to a contrary policy, nor could they influence policy in a direction contrary to that adhered to by public opinion. Their greatest impact would seem to have been (i) as a spokesman for existing but inarticulate public opinion, (2) as a point around which inchoate public opinion could take form over a period of time, and (3) as the node around which a new public opinion might develop. By themselves Friends were never immediately effective in giving a new direction to foreign policy. We are coming to the close of this discussion of the late nineteenth century and nothing yet has been said about Friends and the rise of nationalism, perhaps the most striking political movement of the period. This is no oversight. While Friends generally showed a spontaneous sense of sympathy for people who were struggling to free themselves from the yoke of a foreign power, as in the case of the Cubans and the Balkan Slavs, Friends did not speak directly on the specific issue of nationalism. They could not be enthusiastic about the glorification of the state and nation involved in fervid nationalism. Nationalism seemed too much like idolatry and was contrary to Friends' belief that man's basic loyalties should not be attached to any particular piece of real estate or set of political institutions. They were particularly opposed to expressions of nationalism which took the form of increasing military and naval establishments and military displays of the sort arranged for the celebration of Queen Victoria's Diamond Jubilee in 1897 or, on the American side of the Atlantic, the Jamestown Exhibition of 1907. Nor could Friends be more approving of violence and bloodshed in the name of nationalism than on behalf of other goals. They were equally opposed to such forceful measures when used to gain independence from a colonial power, to create national unity where none existed before, as in the case of Bismarkian Germany, or to maintain a unity which was being threatened, as in the Boer War. There was another factor in Friends' attitudes towards nationalistic .

82

A. C. F. Beales, The History of Peace, p. 186.

FROM THE GENERAL TO THE PARTICULAR

147

movements, illustrated most clearly in British Friends' views of Irish nationalism. The Society as such did not take a position on the political issues involved in Irish freedom, except to deplore the rioting and bloodshed and to give what aid they could to relieve the resultant suffering. Underlying Friends' efforts to get the antagonists to settle their differences peaceably was an implied preference for remedial measures which would keep the United Kingdom intact. Their characteristic preference for unity seemed to come to the fore as they endeavoured to strengthen the forces of unity in preference to those of self-determination. The judgment of the British Quaker historian Margaret Hirst concerning Friend John Bright's position is probably a fair judgment of British Friends' position as a whole: What I think is clear in all ... Bright's utterances on the Irish question in these last years... [is] that he did not fully understand or sympathize with the Irish Nationalist feeling. To him, Ireland was a part of the United Kingdom to be treated with as much fairness and liberality as Great Britain, and to have all possible grievances removed, but it was not a country of separate race, language and culture.33

It should be noted that British Friends' preference for unity over selfdetermination in the Irish question was quite comparable to the position which American Friends had taken a hundred years earlier when the issue of their own self-determination had been at stake. American Friends, too, had preferred unity and reform and opposed a selfdetermination purchased at the price of violence. Thus, Friends' position with respect to nationalism appears to have been a derived, not a particular one. It was derived from their basic view that man's ultimate loyalty was not to political institutions of any kind, that neither violence nor oppression were ever to be condoned, and that the forces of unity tend to be of the Spirit and should be supported, while those of disunion are evil and ought to be opposed. In summary, the period from 1850 to 1914 was one in which Friends' international activities became increasingly positive, specific, extensive. The prevention of war by disarmament and arbitration came to be more important than the denunciation of war. Patterns of co-operation developed between Friends and non-Friends who had similar interests and the Society began to organize itself to expedite its interests in the field of international relations and policy. As the conflagration of 1914 approached, Friends could not ignore 33

Margaret Hirst, John Bright: A Study (London, 1945), p. 37.

148

QUAKER WAYS IN FOREIGN POLICY

the signs, despite remaining flickers of hope that war might be avoided. The Peace Committee of London Yearly Meeting reported in 1913: "With regard to international relations we wish we could think there was an all-around improvement. While the governments of Europe consider it necessary to make Europe more and more of an "armed camp", it is through the education of the peoples that we must mainly work for the development of that true spirit of brotherhood by which alone will come the reign of universal peace." The Committee noted Norman AngelTs studies of armaments and the economics of war and peace and the contributions these studies made, but went on: "we would remind members of our Society that, as a religious body, we take our stand on deeper ground . . . the conviction that all war is contrary to the spirit and teaching of the Gospel of Jesus Christ."34 The report concluded with a chart indicating the intensity of the arms race, which was viewed with profound alarm. 34

London Yearly Meeting Minutes, 1913, pp. 101-4.

CHAPTER ELEVEN

From Sins to Problems

(1914-4$) THERE WERE no sharp breaks in Friends' attitudes in the period beginning with World War I. Trends which had made their appearance by the late nineteenth century continued. They developed, however, at a quicker pace and brought Friends to new positions with respect to foreign policy.1 The first marked change was in Friends' views concerning the nature of international relations. Though, in the late nineteenth and early twentieth centuries, Friends had begun to move away from a negative, moralistic view, there was yet a strong admixture of negativism during World War I. Note the following, for instance, from the Epistle of one of the Philadelphia Yearly Meetings in 1917, written a few weeks after the United States entered the war: The storm which burst upon Europe nearly three years ago has leaped the Atlantic, and already we feel the strain and stress. Of all who formerly condemned the method of violence and hate in dealing with international problems, few indeed have been able to stand against the propaganda of the war-makers. . . . Our testimony against all wars and fightings... is sustained by the long role of injustice and misery, recorded in the life-blood of the helpless of all ages. War has been the support of tyranny, the bulwark of despotism, the means for the stifling of democracy . . . it has been the cloak for brutal excesses, unbridled passions, for unchecked cruelties.2

Eventually this negative attitude towards war slipped further and further into the background. Condemnation of "war-makers" was x For data on this period see Minutes of London and Philadelphia Yearly Meetings, Minutes of the Executive Board and the Peace and Foreign Service Sections of the American Friends Service Committee, and the proceedings of the two world conferences of the Society of Friends, that in London in 1920 and that in Swarthmore, Penn., in 1937. See also the following books: Hirst, The Quakers in Peace and War, chapter XVHI; Rufus M. Jones, A Service of Love in War Time; Mary Hoxie Jones, Swords into Plowshares; and Clarence E. Pickett, For More than Bread. Two unpublished manuscripts based on doctoral research are also helpful: John v. G. Forbes, "Relief and Government," and William D. S. Witte, "Quaker Pacifism in the United States, 1919-1942. Philadelphia Yearly Meeting (Race Street) Minutes, 1917, pp. 67 f.

I5O

QUAKER WAYS IN FOREIGN POLICY

replaced by a sense of sorrow, regret, and disappointment that the nations and peoples of the world had not been able to solve the problem of war. Contrast the Epistle just quoted with the same Yearly Meeting's first Epistle after the United States entered World War II as an active belligerent: Since we sent you our last Epistle a year ago, the day of our own travail, which even then seemed imminent, has come upon us. Our country, too, has been drawn into the ever-widening maelstrom of war. We write you today with saddened hearts as we look out over a world of men seeking freedom and increasingly bound. That aspirations so noble and so divine should have been frustrated by the employment of means that could but result in defeat and disillusionment is the greatest tragedy of our time. For the more men, in their ignorance and blindness, have struggled with carnal weapons to be free, the tighter have been drawn the chains—chains forged and riveted through long years of selfishness and irresponsibility during which men and nations alike had forgotten to do justice, to love mercy and to walk humbly with their God.3

This new attitude can be seen not only in Friends' views of war and public officials who are responsible for the conduct of war, but also in their treatment of those within their own membership who associated themselves with war efforts. In contrast to previous periods, no Friend was disowned in this period for being "too much in a military way."4 The individual was encouraged to determine for himself, in the light of the Spirit within, where his or her particular vocation lay in this matter. As in the opening period of Quaker history, the "wearing of the sword" was again seen as a necessary and moral position for those who had not yet attained a state of spirit in which war would become both unnecessary and impossible. Thus, the abolition of war again became a problem in maturation rather than the occasion for exegesis. The conception of war as a state to be outgrown came into clear focus during the 1930'$ when constitutional amendments were proposed in the United States to outlaw war or to make it virtually impossible to wage war. It is most unlikely that Friends previously would have missed this opportunity to flay a favourite devil, but now they z

lbid., 1942, p. 21. Hirst, Quakers in Peace and War, pp. 504-5. This trend was evident with respect to disownments for all reasons. Note the following total disownments in London Yearly Meeting, taken from the Minutes for selected years: 1862. ..45 1870 29 1876 ii 1885. .12 1910. 4 2 1863. ..36 1871 24 1877 *3 1890. . 6 1911. 20 l8 1864. ..50 1873 ?8 6 1895. . 8 1912. .. 4 1868. ..21 1874 26 1879 19 1900. . 7 1913. .. 6 J J 1869. ..31 1875 7 88o 16 1905. . 8 1914. .. 2 4

FROM SINS TO PROBLEMS

151

hesitated. There was much weighty opposition in the Society to these amendments and Friends were not able to take a united stand with respect to them. The basis of this opposition is significant and was expressed in the following terms in the minutes of the American Friends Service Committee: As Friends we are, of course, in sympathy with the ultimate aim of the amendment which is to abolish war. Some have felt that to refuse to support the amendment would be false to our historic position. We are agreed that if and when the vast majority of the citizens of the United States become convinced that it is wrong for them to take part in war it will be possible and desirable for our country to disarm totally and rely on the moral force of a world opinion for its defense. We are also agreed that until that time comes the adoption of such a policy would be neither desirable nor possible. The question at issue, therefore, is whether agitation for the Frazier Amendment is helpful in educating public opinion as to the folly and moral wrong of war. We recognize that this is a debatable question. We believe, however, that the typically Christian and only effective way of dealing with great moral problems such as war is to change the individual attitude through education and an appeal to conscience and the "inner Light" rather than to enforce right conduct on unconvinced masses. . . . There are few instincts more indelible in human nature than that of self-defense. To attempt to deprive a man of the right of armed self-defense before he has been convinced of its evil and futility rouses in him the fiercest and most elemental antagonism.6

Though there was this tendency to see war as a problem in development and maturation, it should not be assumed that Friends were any less clear that war was both morally wrong and wrong policy. War itself was a problem and not a solution to any of the other problems of international relations. Friends were very clear on this point and they reiterated their position on the occasion of the occurrence of each of the wars of the period: World War I, the revolutionary and counterrevolutionary wars in Russia, the wars between China and Japan and between Italy and Ethiopia, the civil war in Spain, and World War II.6 Nor were Friends content with issuing statements of opposition to war. Though many Friends associated themselves with war efforts, particularly during World War II, and the Society expressed its sympathy for the sincerity of these Friends, war was never condoned and a major portion of Friends' efforts during the period was directed towards gaining more adequate recognition of the rights of conscience in 6

A.F.S.C. Minutes, Peace Section, October 29, 1931. For a fuller discussion of specific positions taken on these and other points mentioned in the next few pages see infra, pp. 163 flf. 6

152

QUAKER WAYS IN FOREIGN POLICY

declining to render military service. In World War I a number of Friends died in prison as a direct result of treatment received when they refused to bear arms. It was at this time that the American Friends Service Committee was organized to provide an opportunity for service that would be an alternative to both prison and military conscription. Friends War Victims Relief Committee and Friends Ambulance Unit performed a similar function in England. The situation was better during World War II, but many Friends spent years in prison, and in "alternative service" which was often but little better than prison. i The fact that Friends tended increasingly to see the difficulties of international relations in terms of problems rather than sins resulted in changes in the character of Friends' position with respect to foreign policy. If a person is concerned about a sin, the inclination is to remain aloof from it, but if a person is concerned about a problem the tendency is to become involved in it. Thus it is not surprising, with Friends' new emphasis on international relations as a series of problems, that they became more involved in international affairs as the period progressed. This involvement expressed itself in a variety of ways. One of the clearest expressions was the increased extent of Friends' activities in the field of international relations and policy. In previous periods their interests and activities in this area had tended to be ad hoc: certain aspects of international relations—war, disarmament, arbitration, or the opium traffic—captured their attention, and appeals to alleviate suffering and injustice in particular areas caught their ear. There was an element of the sporadic and the dilletantish in these efforts, particularly before the establishment of the first standing Yearly Meeting committees dealing with international relations. Friends now developed a more inclusive and comprehensive interest in international affairs. A system of "watching committees" was inaugurated in London and elsewhere to keep Friends informed of developments in Germany, India, and the Far East that might escape their attention.7 Attention was 7

See London Yearly Meeting Minutes: Indian Affairs Committee appointed, 1931, p. 106; Far East Watching Committee appointed, 1932, pp. 36 ff.; League of Nations Watching Committee reports, 1924, p. 62. There were regular subcommittees established in connection with relief operations in various areas and these also served the purpose of Watching Committees. There were regular reports from the committees on Russia, Austria, Germany, Poland and elsewhere. See infra, pp. 163 fT. for a presentation of views of these committees as they reacted to the problems and events of the period.

FROM SINS TO PROBLEMS

153

given and pronouncements made with respect to each problem area as its importance waxed and waned: there were the crises in Mexico and the Caribbean area during World War I; the revolutionary and counter-revolutionary situations in Russia; French "occupation policy" in the Ruhr following World War I; the Polish Corridor and other questions arising out of the Versailles settlement; the race problem in South Africa; the imprisonment of Indian leaders; Ethiopia; SinoJapanese tensions; Spain; and the central problems provided by the two world wars, the rise of the Axis powers, and the League of Nations. The minutes of Friends' Meetings during this period, as never before, provide a running commentary on the diplomatic history of the times. Friends became more involved, however, not only because their interests were more extensive, but also because they began to associate more closely with the people and governmental agencies having direct responsibility for the formulation and execution of foreign policy. The enhanced prestige of Friends, gained through their relief work during and following World War I, was in no small way responsible for making these closer associations possible.8 Having established the sincerity df their interest in international affairs and having acquired a background of first-hand experience through their relief operations, Friends were heard with greater attention and respect. In 1931, for instance, two members of Parliament told British Friend Carl Heath that the Quakers were the only people who could conceivably inject a different and more creative spirit in the effort to find a solution to the problem of the Polish-Ukrainian minorities in Eastern Europe.9 Apparently Friends' foreign experience was thought to give them a competence in certain domestic situations as well, as evidenced by the request that they serve to relieve tensions arising out of labourmanagement disputes and undertake a relief programme among destitute miners in West Virginia.10 Friends established "Quaker embassies," or Quaker centres in London, Paris, Geneva, Calcutta, Shanghai, Tokyo, and other strategic points.11 8

See Pickett, For More than Bread, pp. 416 f. See A.F.S.C., Foreign Service Section Minutes, October 21, 1931. See also, infra, p. 166, for somewhat similar experience with congressmen in the United States, and supra, p. 82, for comments of Eleanor Roosevelt. 10 See Pickett, For More than Bread, pp. 3-40; Jones, Swords into Plowshares, pp. 212-83; and A.F.S.C., Minutes of Executive Board, May 28, 1931, and subsequent. ll Supra, pp. 53 ff. for discussion of the establishment of and the philosophy behind this programme. 9

154

QUAKER WAYS IN FOREIGN POLICY

These centres were staffed by personnel under full-time appointment, and programmes were developed in the different centres emphasizing the reduction of particular international hostilities that were acute in various locations. There was, for instance, the Franco-German tension in Europe and the Sino-Japanese tension in Asia. The centres provided a channel through which informal, unofficial exchange of ideas might take place, and where officials could meet each other as individuals under conditions that would offer better opportunities for a free and imaginative exploration of possible solutions to problems than could be provided by official surroundings or official social functions. Besides serving as a meeting ground, the centres provided a point from which the staff could sometimes take action when official personages were not free to act.12 Friends acted in this manner from their Berlin Centre in 1938-9 following the infamous Day of Broken Glass, when Friends attempted to work out a scheme by which German policy could be altered to allow the victims of this persecution to emigrate.13 Similar efforts had been made from the Geneva Centre in 1932-3 in an effort to work through Chinese and Japanese representatives there to find a means of relieving the Far Eastern crisis.14 In addition to these established centres, Friends also initiated a system of "ambassadors at large." The Peace Section of the American Friends Service Committee suggested the need for a "Quaker ambassador at large" in Europe, and one in the Far East. The functions of such an ambassador were described in connection with the discussion of the appointment of a Far Eastern ambassador. He would feel his way into the life of the country, visit the influential people in Tokyo and other large cities, visit some of the rural sections and come into touch with their problems and try to understand the life and struggle of that country; and, then, go on and have a somewhat similar experience in China. Our hope was that if we found the right person, he might go on a brief visit and then get under it as a kind of life concern, making at least several trips, getting all the light possible on the oriental situation and its spiritual problems.15

The European ambassador was described as a person who would spend some time with people in power in England, Paris, Berlin, Geneva 12

For further data on these efforts, see infra, pp. 169 £F. See reports of the Rufus Jones, Robert Yarnall, and George Walton mission to Germany in December 1938 and January 1939 in the A.F.S.C. archives at Haverford College. Popular accounts of this mission also appeared in Friends' periodicals in the United States in January 1939. See The American Friend, XXVII, no. 2 (First Month 19, 1939), 22; The Friends Intelligencer, XCVI, no. 2 (First Month 14, 1939), 19. 14 See report of Friends Service Council, London Yearly Meeting Minutes, 1933, pp. 29 if. 15 A.F.S.C. Foreign Service Section Minutes, May 25, 1933. 13

FROM SINS TO PROBLEMS

155

and elsewhere, to become friendly with those people ... in order that he might lend whatever spiritual strength and courage he might have, and that he might interpret something to the people of those various countries. . . . The thought is that it might involve sending someone who could spend eight or ten years in Europe.16

Friends moved slowly with these plans, however, waiting until the right people could be made available for such crucial assignments. Though two short-term ambassadors were sent abroad, the war intervened and it was not until the post-1945 period that this project came to fruition in slightly different form.17 A final aspect of Friends' greater involvement in the problems of international relations was that they moved increasingly close to a position of assuming responsibility for the actual administration of government policy in certain limited areas. During President Grant's administration Friends in the United States had undertaken to administer portions of the government's Indian programme.18 The experience with the Indian programme had not been a particularly happy one and there had been no inclination to repeat the experience. A return to this kind of activity set in during World War I, however, as Friends worked closely with such quasi-governmental agencies as the American Relief Administration and the Red Cross. With the advent of conscription in the United States, in 1940, Friends, along with the Mennonites and the Church of the Brethren, accepted responsibility for administering camps to which the Selective Service System assigned draftees who asked for and were granted the right to perform civilian rather than military service.19 Perhaps sins can be condemned periodically as they occur. Problems require more continuous attention. Friends now became organized for a continuous effort to cope with the problems of international relations. By the early 1920'$ most of the Monthly Meetings of Friends, as well as the Yearly Meetings, had their standing committees on international I6

lbid.t March 1933, also A.F.S.C. Peace Section Minutes under date of March 21, 1933. See infra, p. 182 £F.

17 18

Kelsey, Friends and the Indians, pp. 166-85.

19

Friends were responsible for financing and for the internal administration of the camps and units under their supervision. Ultimate responsibility for the administration of the camps rested with officials in the Selective Service System, to whom reports were sent and whose representatives visited the camps and units periodically. See Sibley and Jacob, Conscience and Conscription, for a comprehensive account of this experience. See also Melvin Gingerich, Service for Peace (Akron, Penn., Mennonite Central Committee, 1949), for an account of the Mennonite part of this programme. For the experience from the point of view of the Church of the Brethren, see Leslie Eisan, Pathways of Peace: A History of the Civilian Public Service Program, Administered by the Brethren Service Committee (Elgin, III, Brethren Publishing House, 1948).

156

QUAKER WAYS IN FOREIGN POLICY

affairs. These committees made reports at the sessions of their respective Meetings, calling attention to new developments and carrying out Friends' concerns as they developed, not only in connection with international relief work, but also by organizing study groups and public meetings, formulating statements to be forwarded to public officials or to the press, and expediting the work of deputations charged with various international missions. The work of the Yearly Meeting committees charged with these responsibilities became so heavy that paid secretaries were appointed in several instances.20 In 1943 American Friends established the Friends Committee on National Legislation to provide a point of continuous contact with developments in Washington, D.C., for the purposes both of keeping Friends informed of those developments and of influencing the course of those developments in directions that Friends felt most conducive to peace. Perhaps the most dramatic evidence of the development of a more continuous interest in international affairs on the part of Friends was the growth of the American Friends Service Committee. The Service Committee was established in ipiy21 because Friends felt the need for an organization through which to channel constructive, reconciling efforts that would supplement the saying of "no" to military service. At its inception, the Service Committee was seen as a temporary agency, and the expectation was that it would be "laid down" after the emergency, as other Quaker service agencies had been previously. Indeed, time and again the question of disbanding the committee was considered. Rufus M.Jones, the Chairman of the Board of the Committee, put the question to the Board in 1924: For somewhat over seven years this Committee has been laboring to relieve human suffering, to open avenues of service for our Young Friends and to interpret Christ's way of life to the world today. . . . It is extremely important that we should make no mistake about our future course. We should not go on unless we are sure that we have a vital mission to perform nor unless we can appeal and act for the corporate membership of the Society of Friends. I do not want to see us go out and hunt for tasks to keep the machinery going; but if there are tasks lying clearly at our door—God-given tasks which we can do better than anyone else can—let us then once more say, "Yes, send us the work, and anoint us for it.../' 2 2 20

London Yearly Meeting appointed its first full-time salaried secretary for international affairs, called the Peace Secretary, in 1923. Philadelphia Yearly Meeting (Arch Street) appointed its first full-time Peace Secretary in 1916. See p. 185, n. 21

Supra, p. 152.

22

Minutes of the Board of the A.F.S.C., September 25,1924,

FROM SINS TO PROBLEMS

157

Whenever this question was raised, it was answered in the affirmative. There were new tasks which Friends felt it right to undertake and there was seldom a short-term project that did not give rise to some longerterm service. As one task was completed, it would leave behind what were felt to be continuing responsibilities, thus leading to new undertakings. By December 1945 the Service Committee Staff had, in twenty-eight years, grown into an organization with operations touching every continent, a half-dozen regional offices in the United States, salaried personnel of approximately 225 persons supported by a large corps of full-time and part-time volunteer workers and committee members, and an annual income of nearly four million dollars. The forces at work in British Quakerism were analogous, though they were not reflected so vividly in terms of committee structure.23 Continuous involvement in the problems of international relations was accompanied by greater initiative in the field of foreign policy. Friends no longer were content to sit in the stand overlooking the international arena, turning thumbs up or thumbs down on the passing scene. They now began to put forward their own suggestions and their own programmes. Rather than confine their efforts to approving the idea of disarmament and the calling of disarmament conferences as they occurred, for instance, Friends now took the initiative in urging the necessity of such a conference as the logical sequel to the BriandKellogg Pact. Friends also put forward their own plans for ameliorating the tense situation in the Far East in the early 193o's.24 A good example of this new emphasis may be seen in Friends' proposals for the negotiation of international differences. Previously, as in the Spanish-American and Boer wars, Friends had urged that differences be settled by negotiation or arbitration, but they did not venture to make definite proposals with respect to the basis for such negotiations. A change in emphasis is noted with the advent of World War I. In 1915, for instance, London Yearly Meeting appointed a 23 The reason for this difference lies at least partially in the fact that all British Quakerism is organized under one Yearly Meeting, while there are many Yearly Meetings in the United States. British Quakerism does not have the problem of co-ordinating Yearly Meetings and no need for a committee independent of the Yearly Meeting to carry out a co-ordinated programme in the field of international relations. The Yearly Meeting itself gives assignments concerned with international affairs to a variety of ad hoc and standing committees. It would be quite impossible to apportion accurately the expenditures of these various committees and the central office staff with respect to the degree their budgets support international and political as opposed to domestic and religious activities. 2 *Infra, pp. 170 fF.

158

QUAKER WAYS IN FOREIGN POLICY

committee to study the underlying causes of the war and to develop a statement of the principles which should underlie negotiations leading up to the peace settlement. The World Conference of Friends in London in 1920 addressed itself to the confused state of affairs in Eastern Europe at that time in the following words: ... [This conference] believes that among the essential conditions of a real settlement are: (1) The immediate cessation of the war between Russia and Poland, the abandonment of all support, whether direct or indirect, for the attacks on the Government of Russia, and the resumption of normal relations with that country. (2) The speedy reestablishment of the economic life of the nations of Central Europe, through an International Commission on which all the states concerned should be represented, as they were on the Danube Commission. The experience of our relief workers on the continent of Europe convinces us that this is a measure of extreme urgency. (3) The remodelling of the League of Nations and the inclusion therein at the earliest possible moment of Germany, Austria and Russia and any other nations, large or small, that wish to come in. The enclosed copy of a Memorial to the Council and Assembly of the League of Nations indicates the lines along which the Conference considers it necessary to make amendments. (4) The abolition of compulsory military training; and general disarmament among all the nations as essential for the removal of fear, the reestablishment of peaceful industry, and the reconstruction of the life of the world on the Christian basis of co-operation and good-will.25

This willingness to put forward suggestions concerning the substance as well as the process of negotiation continued into the World War II period with Friends in the United States publishing such pamphlets as Looking toward the Post-War World26 and those in England brochures like Making Peace.27 In the period between the two world wars the development of Friends' concerns in the field of international relations took the form of more specific propositions, and oppositions, in the field of foreign policy. Friends now not only opposed in general an increased reliance on military potential as a tool of foreign policy, but also opposed in particular the selling of munitions and the granting of financial credits to belligerents and even to a potential belligerent, in the case of 26 All Friends Conference, 1920, Official Report, pp. 164-5, "To the Governments of All Nations," and pp. 163-4, "Memorial to the Council and Assembly of the League of Nations." 26 Friends Conference on Peace and Reconstruction, 1942, Looking toward the Post-War World. wMaking Peace: A Statement for the Peace Committee of London Yearly Meeting of the Religious Society of Friends, September 1945.

FROM SINS TO PROBLEMS

159

American Friends' opposition to the sale of planes to Great Britain in 1936.28 Friends now not only were opposed to war, but also took a position with respect to civil defence programmes and certain specific methods of waging war, such as food blockades and saturation bombings. They now not only favoured the strengthening of the international community, but also spelled out the things which they felt would strengthen or weaken that community. Thus, they favoured the Briand-Kellogg Pact and other efforts to bolster the international legal order, and a free flow of persons, ideas, and commerce across national boundaries. They were, of course, firm advocates of the League of Nations. Conversely, they opposed policies of non-recognition, the Oriental Exclusion Act in the United States, extraterritorial privileges for the Western powers in China, and the slowness with which the reins of imperialism were loosened in India and the Philippines. Economic blockades, boycotts, and high tariffs were opposed, and such programmes as the Hull Reciprocal Trade Treaties were supported warmly. Not only were Friends taking more specific positions with respect to these international problems, they were also taking more specific action. Believing, for instance, that the existing news sources were not presenting news that would stimulate the development of international community, the American Friends Service Committee undertook to help finance one Friend in his concern to develop an international news service which would report the news in a manner that would emphasize the community-building aspects rather than the tensions in international relations.29 This was the "No Frontier News Service" founded by Devere Allen, which the A.F.S.C. subsidized initially to the extent of approximately $3,500 a year. It gradually became selfsupporting and eventually established itself on an independent, if modest, basis. Finally, when the solution to a problem is found, or is thought to have been found, demonstration projects are called for, pilot projects that will describe the solution to the problem and train people to its use. During this period Friends became very active in setting up pilot projects in international community. One of their particular concerns was work with international student "A.F.S.C., Peace Section Minutes, October 28, 1936. 29 /fciV/., July 21, 1933, and passim through 1937.

160

QUAKER WAYS IN FOREIGN POLICY

groups. The Friends' Centre in Berlin was an example of this interest. Feeling was intense between Polish and German students following the creation of the Polish Corridor by the Treaty of Versailles. Friends brought groups of Polish and German students together in the Berlin Centre's neutral atmosphere in an effort to begin the process of reconciliation by getting a few people on both sides of the issue to understand and appreciate the different points of view involved, in the hope that from such beginnings understanding might spread. Friends first experimented with international student seminars during World War II. The impetus for this programme came from an awareness of the educational possibilities inherent in the presence in American colleges and universities of a large number of students from other countries and cultures. These students would be returning to their respective countries, many of them to assume positions of leadership. If such students had a vital, first-hand experience of the possibilities and problems involved in living in an international community, they would be less subject to illusions, disillusionment, and cynicism in international affairs. Groups of from twenty-five to thirty of these students, representing from fifteen to twenty different nationalities, were brought together for a period of seven weeks under conditions in which they could live as a co-operative community, working and playing together, but primarily for the purpose of thinking about and studying the problems of peace and international tension. Perhaps the most remarkable of the demonstration and pilot projects of the period was the work camp programme. Quaker relief work in France following World War I was the inspiration for the development of these camps. The idea appears to have been originated by Pierre Ceresole, a Swiss who later joined the Society of Friends. Having observed the reconstruction work of the Friends' units in France during World War I, Ceresole felt that it would be a step towards peace if young people from many countries had an opportunity to know each other through the comradeship of shared, constructive, voluntary service. Eventually Ceresole founded the Service Civile Internationale, which, in turn, inspired the development of the American Friends Service Committee's work-camp programme in the United States, beginning in 1934. Though the first camps were confined to the United States, and were but faintly international in composition, camps were soon sponsored in Mexico, and later in Europe, North Africa, the

FROM SINS TO PROBLEMS

l6l

Middle East, and Asia. As a rule these camps consist of from fifteen to twenty-five young people who volunteer their services for a summer or longer. These young people, representing a variety of nationalities and races, work together on some constructive task involving manual labour or social service, such as the rebuilding or staffing of a playground. Projects have included the drainage of swamps, building houses for refugees, and the construction of community centres. Friends also intensified their efforts to provide a pilot project in international community within their own Society. Prior to 1914 there was no central point of reference for Friends' world-wide membership and activities. There was no established channel through which all Friends could work in expressing their principles in the field of foreign policy, or in any other aspect of the life of the Society. There had been a number of cases of ad hoc co-operation, and Friends in one country had not infrequently provided money or personnel to support some particularly challenging project being carried on by Friends in another country, but there had been no joint undertaking involving joint planning at all stages. The intra-Society contributions of personnel and money continued during both world wars, but joint projects also came to be undertaken. The first project approaching the latter conception was the relief programme in France as World War I came to a close, though British Friends had the work well under way before American Friends joined forces with them.30 More than once the French project seemed at the point of disintegration as differences in approach between British and American Friends proved difficult of accommodation under the strains of field operations. The problems of this initial effort did not, however, prevent Friends from undertaking an increasing number of joint projects as time went on. It has never seemed desirable to Friends to attempt to establish a single agency that would provide a channel for the concerted efforts of Quakerism. There has been some indication that, when London Yearly Meeting established the Friends Council for International Service in 1920, Friends in London thought that those in other countries might associate themselves with it to make it a world-wide effort. Though 30 Rufus M. Jones, A Service of Love in War Time, pp. 28 flf. For the story of Anglo-American frictions, see pp. 72 flf.

162

QUAKER WAYS IN FOREIGN POLICY

this did not materialize, and no subsequent effort was made to establish a centralized service agency. Friends were convinced of the desirability of closer co-operation and better understanding within the World Society of Friends. Thus, during World War I plans were laid for the first World Conference of Friends, which was held in London in 1920. Regional Friends' conferences followed periodically after the London meeting and a second World Conference was held near Philadelphia in 1937. It was at this second World Conference of Friends that Friends World Committee for Consultation was established as a permanent agency of co-ordination among the various Yearly Meetings of the Society. However, this Committee was without any legislative or executive authority and without responsibilities for programmes other than co-ordination of activities and communication among the various units of the Society. A second development of interest among Friends during the 1914-45 period was the growth of the feeling that Friends in various countries might become channels through which the point of view of one country might find its way into the understanding of other countries. Official channels and the impersonal news services were felt to be inadequate to do this task alone and, when used for propaganda purposes, were seen as a positive hindrance. Friends had long been aware of the possibilities their international connections offered in this regard. Friends in England had often pled the cause of colonists in America, and Friends throughout their history had taken advantage of the extensive international visitation within the Society to accomplish something of this same purpose. However, more self-conscious efforts in this direction were now undertaken. A notable example occurred in 1928. Friends in Great Britain and Friends in the United States were alarmed over the increasing tension and naval rivalry between their countries, and recognizing that they themselves were not seeing eye to eye on the issues involved, arranged an exchange of correspondence between the Executive Secretary of the American Friends Service Committee and men high in the counsels of British Friends. This correspondence was then used as a basis for further discussion. A second example was the message forwarded to Japanese Friends by American Friends in 1935 explaining American reaction to developments in Japanese foreign policy, and inviting Japanese Friends to comment.31 31

See infra, pp. 170 f£ for more detailed account.

FROM SINS TO PROBLEMS

163

Not only, however, were Friends attempting to develop a miniature international community within their own Society, they were also strengthening relationships between their Society and other groups having similar interests. This was true not only of relief work activities, but also of programmes more directly focused on foreign policy. Friends in the United States joined in the Emergency Peace Campaign of 1936-9 and, until they became apprehensive of certain aspects of the programme, the Keep America Out of War Congress. The wording of the minute directing withdrawal from the latter organization read as follows: "While in general we can cooperate with organizations whose fundamental purposes and methods of work are in accord with our ideals . . . we recommend that . . . the Keep America out of War Congress be requested to remove our name from their letterhead and printed literature, stating that we stand ready to cooperate with them at those points where we feel we are in harmony with their purpose and spirit."32 In Great Britain the Yearly Meeting Peace Committee worked closely with the National Peace Conference and the No More War Movement. These efforts constituted milestones in Friends' departure from their early nineteenth-century exclusiveness. They were building an increasing number of bridges, not only among the various units within their own Society, but also between their Society and other organizations and movements. ii It may be useful, in spite of a certain amount of duplication of material already discussed, to look at this period from another point of view, that of the diplomatic historian. Thus far attention has been focused on Quakerism and the evolution of Quaker attitudes towards international relations in the period, events being discussed primarily for their value in revealing the development of Quaker attitudes. Changing this vantage point for that of the diplomatic historian may help to put Quakerism in a broader context. 32 A.F.S.C., Peace Section Minutes, May 21, 1941. Friends had been for some time troubled by this question of co-operating with organizations that advocated specific policies similar to those which Friends advocated, but found their motives in different sources and used fundamentally different methods in their advocacy. In 1933 a week-end retreat was given over to a discussion of co-operation with the Communist Party. See infra, p. 174, and Minutes of the A.F.S.C. Peace Section Rancocas Retreat, October 21-2, 1933 (incorporated as an integral part of the Peace Section Minutes).

164

QUAKER WAYS IN FOREIGN POLICY

The central international problems of this period were war, both international and revolutionary, the rise of totalitarianisms of right and left, and the intensification of nationalism in the "non-Western" world. Reactions to these problems included efforts to develop international law and organization, various disarmament proposals, and isolationism; war was seen by most people as a solution to some problems in addition to being seen as a problem in itself. How did Friends react to the development of these problems and the various proposals advanced to meet them in the period which began with the opening of World War I? Friends deplored the war, thought it unnecessary and a mistake. They laid the blame for it at the door of fundamentally un-Christian policies by all concerned, particularly in the fields of economic, colonial, and armament policies. Friends in the United States were inclined to be more negative in their attitudes at first, but British Friends from the beginning saw their responsibility in more positive terms. As British Friends noted, though "the method offeree is no answer . . . we hold that the present moment is not one for criticism but for devoted service to our nation."33 In addition to the relief of suffering caused by the war, British and eventually American Friends came to see their greatest service in efforts to limit the extent of the war, to forestall the use of the more inhumane instruments of warfare, and to do everything possible to bring the war to a speedy, negotiated conclusion, terminating it with a peace that would make future wars less likely. More specifically, Friends in both Britain and the United States urged that the United States stay out of the war and that public and private groups take up quickly the task of formulating principles on the basis of which a more permanent peace might be established. Friends themselves initiated such studies within their own group, though they were increasingly fearful that the vindictive spirit in which the war came to be waged would make a creative peace all but impossible.34 They were particularly distressed by the addition of poison gas to the weapons of war and the use of the food blockade to bring Germany to her knees and to keep her there during the negotiations at the end of the war. Friends were also opposed to the French use of Senegalese troops in the 33 "Message of Goodwill to People of the British Empire," London Yearly Meeting Minutes, 1915, pp.317 £ *Hrid.

FROM SINS TO PROBLEMS

165

occupation of Germany at the end of the war, but hesitated to press the issue in this form because of the invidious racial comparisons implied. They chose, rather, to press the question of the behaviour of all occupation troops. The war was still in progress when revolution broke out in Russia. Initially, during the Kerensky regime, Friends were inclined to be sympathetic, without approving the violence involved. They had been doing relief work in Russia prior to the revolution, attempting to make life possible and more tolerable for refugees fleeing the battle areas in western Russia and providing medical services in areas where there were no doctors. When the revolution occurred, therefore, Friends were immediately acquainted with the suffering which the Russian people had undergone. In May 1917 London Friends delivered a note to the representatives of the Kerensky regime then in London, saying: "Our thoughts have turned with keen interest to the great events which have taken place in Russia. We desire to express our thankfulness that former methods of compulsion and repression are at an end, that those in prison or exile by reason of these methods have been set free, that liberty of conscience has been proclaimed, and that policies of military conquest and domination have been repudiated."35 Friends continued their work and interest in Russia after the Bolshevik Revolution, but there was less optimism in their attitude. The note came to be one of sympathy for a people "so tragically circumstanced."36 In thinking about the peace to be made at the end of the war, Friends placed their emphasis on resolving the problems of economic want and social and political injustice which they felt would lead to future wars if not resolved. They urged the necessity of freedom for the Philippines and, eventually, for India, the lowering if not the abolition of artificial restrictions on international trade, reduction of the gap between the world's poor and the world's wealthy, the abolition of extraterritorial privileges, and attention to the problems presented by the persisting traffic in opium and slaves. Friends were opposed to a peace based on a self-righteous effort to assess guilt and preserved by the threat of sanctions. Thus, they could not but be opposed to the treaty which finally emerged at Versailles. Friends developed their own plans for an international organization 35

London Yearly Meeting Minutes, 1917, p. 121. I&iU, 1918, p. 39 f.

36

166

QUAKER WAYS IN FOREIGN POLICY

in the course of their studies of the requirements of a lasting peace settlement. Their plans differed from those formulated at Versailles in that Friends made no provision for anything more coercive than moral sanctions. They considered military or even economic sanctions a retrograde step, international law previously having been based on unsanctioned agreements. People rather than states were to be represented, representation in the assembly was to be based on population, and votes in the assembly were to be individual and personal, not by national delegation. The development of a world court was also supported. Friends favoured disarmament in general and in particular. They favoured the disarmament of the Central Powers at the end of the war as a prelude to general disarmament and were sharply critical of the Allied Powers for not honouring their promise to disarm as a sequel to the disarmament imposed in the Treaty of Versailles. Friends' representatives were present to observe, report, and give what encouragement they could at the Washington Arms Conference in 1921 and at other disarmament conferences during the period. A corollary of their interest in disarmament was their opposition to increased armament. Congressmen Burton and Butler both indicated that they felt that it was the efforts of the Society of Friends which brought about a reduction in the administration's Big Navy Bill in 1928.37 Friends also supported the efforts of the Nye Committee in the United States as it attempted to eliminate the profit motive in the armament industry as a cause of war. They consistently opposed conscription. Friends advocated the inclusion of the defeated Central Powers in the peace conference and pressed for policies which would strengthen the defeated powers, particularly Germany, in order that a sense of insecurity and unjust treatment might not result in a revival of aggressive pressures. The views of Friends in Britain and the United States were succinctly stated in London Yearly Meeting's 1923 appeal "To Peoples and Rulers": The Society of Friends, brought into close human relations with the suffering people in our own and other countries, during and since the war, both victors and vanquished, feels impelled, as a religious community, to speak out against the present deplorable state of Europe. 37

A.F.S.C., Peace Section Minutes, May 23,1928.

FROM SINS TO PROBLEMS

167

The world still gropes for the way of peace. The treaty of Versailles has failed to bring either peace or security to France, and the world. Its enforcement is riveting militarism more firmly upon Europe, destroying the will to peace, and intensifying the spirit of revenge. All the Conferences held under this influence have likewise failed. On financial, economic and political grounds the Treaty of Versailles has been arraigned. We however, are burdened chiefly by its fundamental immorality. The first consideration of the framers should have been to relieve the common suffering of peoples rather than to increase the power of the victor States. It was wrong to exclude the conquered from the Peace Conference, wrong to impute sole guilt and to extort an admission of that guilt by the weapon of starvation, and it was wrong to ignore the promise of better terms to a democratic Germany. The treaty is morally invalid because many of its provisions, unjust in themselves, are a breach of the terms on which the Central powers laid down their arms. We admit that our own country has made claims and secured advantages in violation of the terms of surrender, and we recognize that our call for revision necessarily implies a readiness to forego gains where justice demands renunciation. We believe that, as the facts are recognized, men of honour will feel bound to make a fresh start for the redemption of Europe. In order to achieve this end, we call for a new type of conference to revise the Treaty. Representing the common needs of common men rather than the political aims of statesmen, and fired with the desire to work loyally for the common good, its members must cooperate as equals, unfettered by the provisions of the Treaty, and free from the temper of domination.38

It was largely by way of responding to this appeal that a conference of Friends in Germany wrote in 1923: ... we offer our hearty thanks to the English Quakers for their new and courageous avowal of the spirit of peace and righteousness. We thank them especially for their struggle against the Treaty of Versailles, a treaty which has not only separated the nations, but has brought no peace or security either to France or to the world We are all groping after a way of peace. We confess that there has not yet sufficiently grown up in our people an inner determination, by means of entire truthfulness and moral earnestness, to strengthen the growth of confidence towards us in the matter of reparation of the damaged areas of France and Belgium. On the question of war-guilt we hold it neither honest nor right to combat "lies of guilt" with "lies of innocence". The situation of our nation is terrible. We are wandering in a dark valley, where the voice of hopelessness, of despair, and of revenge, are perpetually drowning the voices of reconciliation and reason. . . . It is our conviction that the will to provide just reparations will again open for us the way to the Belgian and French nations, a way at present blocked by grievous hate.39 38

London Yearly Meeting Minutes, 1923, Minute 69, pp. 332 f. Letter from Eisenach Conference, September 7, 1923, London Yearly Meeting Minutes, 1924. 39

l68

QUAKER WAYS IN FOREIGN POLICY

During the 1920*5 unrest in the non-Western areas of the world emerged as a major force in international affairs, an unrest that expressed itself in anticolonialism and a refusal of coloured peoples to accept policies which discriminated against them. Gandhi marched to the sea in India and made salt in defiance of colonial fiat and the colonial salt-making monopoly. The British Ambassador, Sir Lee Stack, was assassinated in Cairo. The Chinese rioted in Shanghai and the Japanese objected to the discriminatory immigration policies in the United States and Australia. In response to these events Friends congratulated the British government on negotiating a settlement of the Stack affair with the Egyptians. They opposed the Exclusion Acts. Among other expressions of this opposition, a pamphlet advocating the repeal of the Exclusion Act in the United States was prepared and distributed by the American Friends Service Committee.4 ° Friends came to sympathize deeply with Gandhi in both his objectives and his methods. Close personal contacts were established with him. The government in London was visited and memorialized in the interest of encouraging moderate policies in India, publications and public meetings were arranged in England to present the case for Indian freedom, and both Indian and British leaders were visited in India for the purpose of making suggestions "that would bring the government and the Congress leaders together on a programme of social reform as a first step toward political understanding."41 Friends deplored the dispatch of naval vessels to Shanghai to quell the riots there, observing, in 1927, that the presence of these units would "unite all China against the Western foreigners. Their withdrawal would allow friendly discussion to proceed."42 In 1933 London Yearly Meeting presented a memorial to the Prime Minister and the Colonial Secretary regarding the situation in Kenya: We have had before us the question of the treatment of native rights, particularly with reference to the Kenya Colony. We believe that our country has been guilty of a grave breach of faith with the natives in the matter of native territorial rights. This is a moral question of most far-reaching importance and we urge Friends to do all in their power to inform public opinion and we ask the Clerk to send this minute forward to Yearly Meeting and in a slightly modified form to the Prime Minister and the Colonial Secretary.43 40

A.F.S.C., Foreign Service Section Minutes, July 7, 1927. London Yearly Meeting Minutes, 1931, p. 106. See also the complete reports of the Indian Affairs Committee in the Yearly Meeting Minutes for the years 1931-4, 42 London Yearly Meeting Minutes, 1927, Minute 16. foW., 1933, p. 63. 41

FROM SINS TO PROBLEMS

169

With respect to South Africa, in 1927, the South Africa Committee drew the attention of London Yearly Meeting to "changes which the government of South Africa proposed to make in the status of the natives both in regard to the franchise and the conditions of holding land."44 The Meeting did not see clearly what action it could take, at that time, other than to send a message of encouragement to the small group of Friends in South Africa who were in direct contact with developments there and who were doing what they could for the native population in this plight. Nor did Friends at any time during this period see their way clear to do much more. They continued to be concerned about the situation, the Friends World Conference of 1957 appointing a delegation to visit South Africa, but found little that they could do other than to keep themselves informed, give what support the could to South African Friends, and express their concern from time to time through various media. Both psychological and geographical distance kept Friends from feeling a clear leading as to action in this area. While momentarily encouraged by the signing of the KelloggBriand Pact, Friends were discouraged by the failure to implement the Pact with effective disarmament policies, a reduction of the war debts, and reparations payments and economic policies which would increase the volume of world trade and strengthen the "have not" nations. The Smoot-Hawley Tariff in the United States, with its inordinate protectionist philosophy, along with the failure of the London Economic Conference of 1933, were particularly discouraging to Friends. By 1931 Friends were deeply distressed about Germany. Commenting on a report of the Quaker representative in Berlin, the Minutes of the American Friends Service Committee for March 31 noted: "... we must do more than we have done to try to get the attitude of America changed, openly and publicly [in order that the German people may know] that they are not working alone, that we are not content just to do a little charity, but that we are doing our utmost to try and secure more justice, to try and prevent a possible new war before it is too late."45 In February 1932, still a year before Hitler rose to power, the Quaker representative in Berlin wrote: I want Friends to be under the weight of a concern for prompt and effective handling of international affairs in which the United States in concerned, and which bear upon **Ibid., 1927, pp. 157 flf. 45 A.F.S.C., Foreign Service Section Minutes, March 27, 1931.

170

QUAKER WAYS IN FOREIGN POLICY

the welfare of Germany. . . . What the politicians are now doing with regard to reparations, armaments, trade agreements, customs duties and financial arrangements is influencing and will be influencing the lives of millions of people who are so near the breaking point that no one can refrain from urging the promptest action possible.46

Friends grew increasingly fearful that restrictive and patronizing policies would lead to disaster in the Far East. The years 1931 and 1932 were crucial. There was the "China Incident" in September 1931 and the report of the League of Nations' Lytton Commission in October of the same year. The report placed on Japan the responsibility for that incident, which she had used as her excuse for invading Manchuria. Friends were actively concerned about these developments and there was a series of conferences and correspondence among Friends in the United States, Europe, and the Far East which endeavoured to find ways of relieving the tension. A visiting mission was sent to the Far East and conferences were held with diplomats and politicians in Japan, Geneva, London, and Washington. In December 1932 Friends in the United States, London, and Geneva issued a statement on "Conciliation Versus Coercion in the Far East," a statement designed for wide circulation among the general public and in official circles. This statement, compressing much of the Quaker approach in relatively small compass, deserves extensive quotation: . . . We are conscious that we . . . must bear our share of responsibility for the worldwide history of injustice, exploitation and conflict that has brought misery to those of all lands. In common with increasing groups throughout the world, we believe that the time has come in the evolution of mankind when international difficulties, however grave, can be adjusted by conciliation and cooperation. Military action, boycotts, economic reprisals and other extreme forms of coercion between nations, threaten the very existence of modern civilization. We would constantly bear in mind that this civilization is founded upon an intricate and delicate adjustment of the interdependent life of all peoples. In the modern exchange of merchandise, of credit, of knowledge, of hopes and fears from one continent to another, the well-being of every people is inseparably linked with the common life of all. The deep suffering in body and soul which is now shared by millions of persons everywhere, is the product of the antagonisms that have interrupted this flow of cooperative enterprise. In rejecting the use offeree and coercion in dealing with these antagonisms we are not left without an effective alternative. We believe that the spirit of persuasion, conciliation and mutual understanding is the only power that is adequate for the solution of international conflicts. In reliance upon this power man allies himself with those spiritual forces that make this world a united family and give men courage to live through seeming disaster. We dare to believe that this spirit of goodwill is present in all men in every land. It is our conviction, born of intuition and **Ibid.t February 26, 1932.

FROM SINS TO PROBLEMS

IJI

confirmed by experience, that man is essentially a cooperative rather than a combative creature, and that the history of civilization is the record of the growth of everwidening circles of the spirit and method of cooperation. This process has resulted in our time in a world community, in which a growing sense of economic interdependence and spiritual unity has found expression through such political forms as the League of Nations, the Pact of Paris and the Nine-Power Treaty. In the present Sino-Japanese conflict, we believe, specifically, that the type of procedure envisaged in Article 19 of the Covenant of the League of Nations which made possible "the consideration of international conditions whose continuance might endanger the peace of the world," offers a way out. Utilizing the spirit and machinery of this article, which provides for conference, without coercive sanctions, representatives of all interested nations, including the United States, could join in a friendly discussion and settlement of the issues involved. In solemn realization of the gravity of the situation, we could join in spiritual fellowship with men and women in all countries who will lend their influence to such a method of solution. There is more at stake than the well-being of the peoples of the Far East. There is involved the peace of the world, the relief of vast human misery, the maintenance of cooperative agencies already achieved, and the fresh release of mutual confidence which alone can mend the torn fabric of our common life. We appeal particularly to those men in positions of power in all lands to make themselves the courageous instruments of this high endeavor.47

From 1928 to 1932 Friends had a Quaker President in the United States with whom to work. The American Friends Service Committee and other Friends' groups corresponded with and, in come cases, talked to President Hoover about foreign policy, as well as other matters. But though they had worked closely with him during the relief operations in Europe during and after the war, Friends generally did not feel that they had or would have a special entree with him as President, and had no expectation of a special opportunity to put their suggestions for foreign policy into practice. Wilbur Thomas, then Executive Secretary of the American Friends Service Committee, wrote: "I venture it as my opinion that Mr. Hoover will lean over backwards to demonstrate that he is not a Quaker pacifist."48 Friends, for their part found that there were a number of things to criticize in the foreign policy of the Hoover Administration: the use of United States troops in the Caribbean area, non-recognition of the Soviet Union, and the SmootHawley Tariff. They also found a number of things to commend: the war debt moratorium, Hoover's disarmament efforts, and, eventually, his withdrawal of United States troops from the Caribbean area. 47

A.F.S.C., General Meeting Minutes, December 22, 1932. Wilbur K. Thomas to Carl Heath and Harry T. Silcock, Secretaries of British Friends Service Council. Recorded in A.F.S.C., Peace Section Minutes, December 26, 1928, 48

172

QUAKER WAYS IN FOREIGN POLICY

Secretary of State Stimson's memoirs record his belief that it was Hoover's Quaker background and orientation that kept the President from agreeing to a more aggressive policy in the Far East. Stimson wrote that Hoover "was so much a man of peace that he did not like the notion of even unspoken threats of war. Sensitive to criticism from men who shared his Quaker convictions, he was frequently eager to make it perfectly clear that no economic or war-like measures would be taken by his administration against Japan."49 Actually, as measured by the number of visits with White House personnel recorded in the minutes of the American Friends Service Committee, it would appear that Friends had freer access to the White House during the Roosevelt Administration than they did during that of Hoover. This may, however, reflect Friends' increasing involvement in governmental affairs rather than a greater ease of access.50 The years between 1930 and 1939 marked a steady deterioration in international relations. It was the period of the spectacular rise of totalitarianism and economic dislocation. Foreign policies of the larger nations were largely reactions to these developments. Friends had no doubt that totalitarianism was contrary to their basic religious convictions. Friends in Japan wrote, in their epistle of 1933: The world is in trouble and sorrow because of economic crises, social unrest and international barriers. We are filled with grief and shame because Japan has thrown herself into this vortex and because daring and reckless men have come to believe that there is no other way to save the nation and society except by giving their lives in direct action. The responsibility ofjapanese Friends is the greater because from Ibaraki Prefecture, where most of our work is carried on, have come the Blood Covenant Bands, and this Prefecture seems to be the headquarters of those bands which appeal to direct action. To assist in transforming the high and daring spirit of these young men into the Spirit of Christ is the urgent need of the hour. . . . It is essential to demonstrate a way of life grounded in the actual situation which these young men face. . . . From this arises the importance of practical experiments in ways of Christian living. In international life, our first thoughts are of our nearest neighbors, China to the West and America to the East. Even though it is small as a grain of mustard seed, we desire to do something which will promote understanding and good will with these neighbor countries. But when we contempkte the seriousness of the problems, we grieve at our lack of power.51 49

Henry L. Stimson, On Active Service in Peace and War (New York, 1947), p. 245. See supra, pp. 152 flf. "London Yearly Meeting Minutes, 1933, p. 265. 60

FROM SINS TO PROBLEMS

173

In 1934 London Friends Service Council reported: This has been a momentous year in the history of Friends in Germany. . . . Earlier in the year a serious situation was created by the arrest on April 3rd and imprisonment for thirty-six hours of the English member of the Friends' Centre Secretariat, Corder Catchpool. The arrest was made on a personal denunciation and led not only to a close search of the Catchpools' home, but to many hours of crossexamination. These were anxious days... but it seems that the results may have been a real protection to Friends in Germany ever since. . . . Friends throughout Germany have been living under great strain. A number have lost their posts; a few have had to leave the country, while others have done so from a conviction that they could not conscientiously meet the demands of the new state. A most impressive event was the meeting of the Executive Committee [of Germany Yearly Meeting] at Frankfort on April 8th and pth, when thirty Friends met under the shadow of great uncertainty and danger. . . . Since then one Friend has been tried for high treason and released after five weeks imprisonment. Another had six weeks imprisonment. . . ,52

The same Committee reported in 1936: . . . there is a growing similarity between the problems faced by all countries. In both China and Germany, for instance, the rapid development of militarization makes the position of the Quaker . . . increasingly difficult. In Germany, and to a lesser extent in Austria also, the tightening of the hold of dictatorship, the atmosphere of fear and suspicion, and the increased ostracism of non-Aryans, intensify the difficulties with which Friends are faced. Echoes of the Italo-Abyssinian war are heard everywhere. The introduction of sanctions, for instance, has thrown a fresh shadow of uncertainty over Austria, already suffering so' greatly from economic pressure, whilst even an isolated corner of the world such as Pemba reports the effect of the war on a growing sense of African kinship.53

In the United States, Friends rejected the suggestion that they endeavour to return to the Soviet Union with a relief programme, noting that famine conditions existing at that time were created consciously by public policy and that Friends could not expect to do useful work under such conditions.54 But Friends were on the side of those who urged diplomatic recognition of the Soviet Union, opposing both the temporary withdrawal of recognition by the United Kingdom in 1927 and the continued non-recognition policy of the United States.55 In considering this question at one point the American Friends 6Z 83

Ibid., 1934, pp. 63 £

See supra, pp. 152 ff. M A.F.S.C., Foreign Service Section Minutes, November 23, 1933. 55 London Yearly Meeting Minutes, 1927, pp. 112 flf. and 275.

174

QUAKER WAYS IN FOREIGN POLICY

Service Committee recorded some interest on the part of President Hoover when he asked a delegation what they felt the attitude of church-going people would be were he to recognize the Soviet Union. He feared that they would oppose him because of the Soviet persecution of the churches.56 For their own part, Friends endeavoured to keep open channels of communication and service in the Soviet Union. The Quaker Centre in Moscow was finally closed in 1931, however, and no further work was possible until after World War II.57 The question of co-operating with local Communists also became acute at this time. In October 193358 the Peace Section of the American Friends Service Committee held a week-end retreat to discuss the question of co-operating with Communists when Communists happened to be supporting the same policies which Friends were advocating, if for different reasons. There was no consensus on the particular issue before the meeting, but Friends were clear that the dangers involved in such a situation were great and that Friends should be extremely chary of involvement in meetings or organizations which might fall under the control and be used for the parochial purposes of groups whose motives were fundamentally different from those of Friends. Friends were opposed not only to the totalitarianisms that were becoming increasingly powerful during the 1930*8, but also to much British and American policy devised to meet their rise. As would be anticipated, Friends opposed a reliance on force in this as in other situations. They were also opposed to American isolationism and to British and French mollification of the totalitarian regimes. They criticized policies of mollification as being both timid and tardy, timid because they did not go far enough and were not sufficiently thorough to meet such legitimate grievances as the Japanese Exclusion Act, excessive reparations payments by Germany, and an insistence that Germany abide by the disarmament provisions of the Treaty of Versailles while the rest of the world was increasing its armament 56

A.F.S.C., Foreign Service Section Minutes, March 27, 1931. I&iW., August 25, 1931, and London Yearly Meeting Minutes, 1932, pp. 36 f£ Between 1931 and 1945 the most significant service of Friends in Russia was that of Harry and Rebecca Timbres, American Friends, a medical doctor and a nurse, who arranged to work in the malarial control programme in the Soviet Union in 1936 and did so until Harry Timbres' death of typhus in 1937. For this story see Harry and Rebecca Timbres, We Didn't Ask Utopia, and Anna Brinton, Toward Undiscovered Ends (Wallingford, Penn., 1951), pp. 40 f. 58 A.F.S.C., Peace Section Minutes, October 21, 1933. 57

FROM SINS TO PROBLEMS

175

potential. Friends could be in accord with American isolationism only at the point of the isolationist's desire to exclude the United States from war. The isolationist's basic opposition to the assumption of international responsibility was in fundamental contradiction to Quaker internationalism. Friends could not even support all of the anti-war measures of the isolationists. Friends as a group did not, for example, support the Ludlow and Frazier amendments to the United States Constitution because they merely put road-blocks in the way of waging war and did nothing about the inclination to choose the military alternative.59 Nor were Friends in accord with the isolationists in the continuing support Friends gave to the League of Nations, participation in the International Court of Justice, lower tariffs, and the adjustment of war debts. Friends did make common cause with the isolationists, however, in support of the work of the Nye Munitions Investigating Committee, the Neutrality Acts of 1937 an