Cspan. Next, Grace College professor Jared Burkholder talks about the differences between pacifist groups during the American Revolution. This class is about an hour. Well, good afternoon. Its nice of you all to come to class today on this cold day. But as ive mentioned in a previous class, our topic for today is religious pacifists and the American Revolution. So often we think about the American Revolution we think about military action so perhaps a topic on pacifists or those who refuse to take military action is an interesting angle. But let me begin by telling you about an incident that took place in april of 1778. This is the spring just after valley forge. 12 members of the Moravian Church were arrested by a local county official. They were brought to easton which was the county seat in North Hampton county in pennsylvania. They were paraded through the streets, tied together with ropes around their next like common criminals. We might be wondering what was their crime . Essentially their crime was the fact that their religious convictions prohibited them from joining the cause of independence and from pledging their loyalty to the new state of pennsylvania that was being formed. They were thrown into the county jail. And its interesting to me because these were not trade officials in the british government. These were not tax collectors. These were not british officials who are enforcing the parliamentary acts that colonists were upset about. These were simply members of the small religious sect that really were not very threatening at all. So the experience of these moravians attest to the fact that support for the revolution was anything but uniform. And weve mentioned this before in this class in other contexts. It was not uniform and there were lots of different and diverse opinions and perspectives that were forming peoples opinions about the American Revolution and whether or not it was justified and whether or not it was a good and right course of action. This episode also allows us to see one of the ironies of the revolution and that is the notion that within a war fought to secure personal liberties, at times, these same liberties were denied at least to some degree to certain groups or peoples. Ill come back to these moravians later in the lecture. Let me provide a few points for our outline today so you get a sense for where were going. Im going to introduce, who are these pacifists in pennsylvania . And how did they respond to the violent context of colonial america . We talked about the seven years war before, the french and indian war and these episodes of violence on the american frontier. And then that will set the stage for talking about the crisis of the revolution and it was a crisis for members of these c pacifist communities. And then finally ill wrap up with some comments about the significance and legacy of this topic. So, who are these pacifists that we find in pennsylvania . Some of these you will be familiar with. Quakers, for example, they are one of the more common groups that had pacifist convictions. Of course, william penn is a significant figure for the founding of pennsylvania and he himself was a quaker. And we know that quakers were at the center of pennsylvania government in the colonial era. I would like to say, however, that its sort of a misnomer to talk about pacifists as if they were a uniform category of individuals. Because they werent necessarily all on the same page when it came to what it meant to pursue peace and what it meant to have pacifist convictions. There were various groups, and oftentimes these groups are called sort of a cluster of groups called the peace churches. The peace churches. Some of them we can think of this, perhaps, on a spectrum. Some of them were very consistent, almost rigid in their application of their pacifist principles, their nonviolent ethical principles. Other groups werent as committed to those principles and would make allowances for uju other exceptions. So we have a Diverse Group of pacifists in pennsylvania and not all of them are very and completely strict in their application. But beyond the quakers we would have other pacifist groups within this peace church tradition. Many of these would be ethnic germans, many of these would make up the german population that weve talked about within the context of colonial pennsylvania, groups like anabaptist groups, many of whom go back to the mennonites. And the amish of course would be another anabaptist group that would be committed to a nonviolent christian ethic. And the moravians. The members of this group that were arrested in easton that i mentioned before. They have various streams within their origins in germany, both in speaking areas, lutheran piotism. And moravians would be a good champ as well. An array of other small groups. And so this issue of violence, the earth call dilemma of violence is something that has been with the christian tradition from the very beginning, from the earliest christians as theyre living under the roman empire, for example, they have had to grapple with the issue of what is what is the relationship between the Christian Community and the civil or secular state. Is it justified for christians to participate in the military and to participate in violence . As the years go by within the christian tradition, most of the major branches and denominations within christianity do embrace military service and they do embrace the application of violence. And usually this is justified within the context of whats often called justwar theory. So that if a military conflict, if a war meets certain criteria of justice, then it could be considered a justwar. And therefore its perfectly legitimate and in fact its the christians duty in submitting to the Civil Authority to contribute to that war and military effort. Now of course, as you know, whether or not something is a justwar and meets those criteria is a little bit relative and a bit subjective. And so theres always been groups on the outside, minority traditions that have called into question this notion of whether or not there could actually be a justwar. And many of these groups fall within the tradition of these peace churches in the tradition of pacifism. And the trouble they have with violence stems from a couple of points which i should point out. One would be christian teachings found in the bible in the words of jesus, for example if we go to the sermon on the mount we find things like jesus saying turn the other cheek and resist not evil so pacifists are taking these passages very literally. Members of the peace churches have also been concerned about issues of loyalty and allegiance. In their perspective christians should be loyal to god alone and so many times members of the peace churches also had a difficult time ethically swearing an oath of allegiance which was required often for secular rulers and secular kings for being treated as citizens, one needed to swear their allegiance. How did this relate with one allegiance. How did this relate with ones loyalty to god. A lot of times, members of the peace churches, because they emphasized that transcendent loyalty to god, they really desired and really attempted to remain completely neutral in areas of the civil strife. And we see that in 18th century pennsylvania as well. Some peace churches have become hesitant to become involved in politics. Because involvement in politics, is by implication involvement in the military efforts within those governments, so there is implicit involvement. So all that to say this is a, an issue that has a long history. It doesnt just emerge out of a vacuum in the 18th century. I will say, however, for many of the peace Church Traditions, particularly anti want ibaptist find out they were involved in pennsylvania prior to the revolution. Ill come back to this point at the end of the but given all their hesitations about wars, violence and governments and the military, they still were very active in politics. They were, they were voting. They were engaged with local officials and candidates running for office. We find mennonite pastors for example recommending certain candidates to members of their churches. They were very engaged in the political process. Many of them actually held office as well. So they werent completely disengaged, despite their sense of wariness about the conflicts of government. Let me move on to our third point in the outline, which is what im calling the violent context of colonial america. This is a topic that weve discussed in our class before. So this will be a bit of a review. The frontier was a very violent place. Those among the peace churches were on frontier for several reasons. Sometimes they were simply living there, perhaps with their family. Perhaps on a family farm and they were settlers like we typically think of People Living on the frontier. Other times groups within the peace churches are living on the frontier because theyre occupying mission stations. So the moravians are a good example of a church that was very active in efforts to try to christianize and to convert native americans on the frontier. And so they were there for that reason. Central pennsylvania was in fact the western frontier at the time. And it was the scene for horrendous violence. During the seven years war, the french and indian war, colonists are attacking native people, sometimes indiscriminately. Native americans, who are aligned with the french are often attacking colonists and settlers indiscriminately. And we have lots of very violent accounts and just like any military situation, any war, this is a time in which refugees are produced and people are fleeing the scene. And those refugees are fleeing further east and landing in moravian towns, towns within the peace church tradition. Many were quote halfnaked and starving. This was a very trying time for people on the frontier. Also i should mention by this time the pennsylvania government is divided as well. We know that quakers were at the center of Colonial Government. They in fact were not always on the same page. By this time, pennsylvania, the Colonial Government has been around for a long time. There are divisions and parties within the assembly. The governor is not always on the same page with the quakers in the assembly. One of the real sticky points, one of the real controversies as you can imagine is over whether or not pennsylvania should raise a militia. We have all of this bloodshed on the frontier, we need to raise a militia. In order to protect our citizens on the frontier. This was brought before the Assembly Several times. In 1775, a militia bill was passed in pennsylvania and a militia was raised. Here is more evidence that, evidence that this is contested, this is debated. Theres political wrangling and in addition to the moral and ethical wrangling over the violence on the frontier. Moravians, mennonites and others attempted to live out and demonstrate neutrality. This was their ideal. This was even, this was a virtue to some degree. Remember our loyalty transcends civil strife and politics on earth. So they worked for their neutrality, they were also involved in alleviating suffering. We could also see this as kind of an alternative way of contributing to the situation. Helping out with the situation. Even with Conscientious Objectors today. Or throughout american history. Theres always been important forms of service that have been available to them. This was not something that was formally set up. But many of the peace churches were supplying supplies, food, wagons, blankets and in some cases supplying arms. So in a sense they were still contributing to the effort. Still contributing to the situation. They were trying to remain neutral. They were contributing in efforts to alleviate suffering. At times this attempt to maintain neutrality proved fatal. And this, this would be the case in 1755, the same year the Pennsylvania Assembly finally accepted the plan to create a militia, 11 christian indians and missionaries were massacred at the more avian mission in pennsylvania in 1755. It was on the frontier, a scene of horrendous violence. It really shook the Moravian Community to its core. Particularly because moravian leaders among them August Spangenberg believed that bethlehem, which was their main religious site and settlement, they believed bethlehem would be next or quite possibly could be next. So the attack at ganadahooten was perpetrated by indians loyal to the french. And for someone, if someone is attempting to be neutral, you can sort of understand this. They will automatically be under suspicion. If youre not for me, if youre not declaring that youre with me, then perhaps youre aligned with the enemy. A lot of times in the reality, the attempts to remain neutral didnt work out very well. Because they were cast with suspicion. By both sides essentially. So this is what causes the massacre in ganadahooten. So spangenberg is thinking to himself that bethlehem might be next. So what is he to do . Hes the leader of this community. This is a town where a lot of refugees have fled the frontier and theyve come to bethlehem for as a safe haven. Theyve come to bethlehem for safety. What is he supposed to do . There were other individuals who faced similar situations, that we might compare we might look to as reference. During this time period we have an amish family on the frontier. Their family farm is attacked by native americans in much the same way and the women are carried off. And the father and his sons are left watching the scene. And his sons the sons grab their muskets, grab their weapons in order to fight back against these hostile indians, and to protect their sisters and their mother. And in fact the father, physically pushes down their weapons. Pushes down their muskets, does not allow them to fire on the native americans. In this case, this is a very rigid application of pacifist principles that may be hard for us to understand. How is it that these individuals would not fight back to protect their loved ones. Many pacifist traditions, this is a demonstration of their commitment and conviction, their commitment to these principles. This was also the case with a family of dunkers or brethren during the years of the revolution. Theyre on the frontier. Very similar situation. Theyre attacked on the frontier, they also are not fight back. They would not fight back to protect themselves. Is this the path that we see spangenberg taking with regard to protecting these innocent people or not protecting them . In fact its not. So spangenberg actually takes measures, he builds palisades around bethlehem and nazareth, a neighboring moravian town. He builds block houses, he stockpiles weapons and he stationed armed guards around the town outskirts. Around the town boundaries. In this way he is actively attempting to protect the people perhaps with the use of violence. Some look at this some historians and others have looked at this and say this is a compromise of their convictions, right . In fact Benjamin Franklin at the time when he heard about what spangenberg was care are iing out at bethlehem, his reaction was very similar. He said yes, okay. Maybe theyre fairweather pacifists, right . Its easy to be nonresistant in peace time. Then when youre threatened then your principles go out the window. And perhaps franklin was familiar with the moravians, he was familiar with bethlehem and for him this was evidence that these convictions were sort of a sham. I would like to give spangenberg and moravians, the benefit of the doubt. If we read spangenbergs account and we go back to the sources, we actually discover what he was thinking. And what he was strategizing and we actually see that he was very much concerned with simply providing selfdefense and preventive measures. So hes thinking to himself, i dont want to inflict violence on even our enemies. I dont want our people to have to do this as well. He counsels these guards to shoot only to wound. And enemies that might attack. Hes also thinking by building this this protection, its deterring an attack that hostile indians wont attack if they see these measures that they have implemented. The attack on bethlehem never came. And perhaps spangenbergs approach was then vindicated. Although we dont know how it actually would have played out. Can you imagine in a situation like that things could get out of hand very quickly. And perhaps some of those convictions may have been compromised. We just dont know. But spangenberg was thinking i have these innocent people in the town, i need to protect. And that concern trumped about that he might have had about fighting back and using and applying violence in the protection against ones enemies. We see there were different approaches in the colonial context to the violence on the frontier. Sometimes there was rigid application. Sometimes there was allowances made for selfdefense. Let me turn now to, to the revolution with that bit of background in place. Issues of violence and warfare. Didnt just begin with the revolution. And so with this foundation in place we can move on. In in the revolution here during this time pacifist christians were not primarily facing the dangers of frontier violence. And they werent primarily faced with having to use violence to defend themselves. They needed to determine whether or not their religious convictions were compatible with armed revolution. Those in the peace churches felt the same frustrations as others did, living in the colonies. They were under the same parliamentary acts and parliamentary policies that the colonists interpreted as oppressive and they certainly were among those who supported reconciliation with britain and advocated patience with regard to the growing conflict. But of course as tensions escalated after the skirmishes in the boston area. In 1775, the colonies began forming organized resistance movements. If you remember in the discussions weve had in class before, this movement to facilitate independence and the revolution was really at the grassroots level. We find local committees, county committees, committees of safety, committees of correspondence. Committees of inspection, and these local officials, these local patriot leaders, some of them radical, some of them moderate. These are the ones that are essentially carrying out at a foundational level the movement for independence and carrying out the American Revolution. These are the ones that are promoting the cause, theyre rallying troops and theyre rallying the supplies necessary. So in theory, those in the peace Church Traditions again attempted to remain neutral. However in reality, that neutrality was really difficult for them to find. And there were really lots of divided loyalties. For leaders of the Moravian Church such as john edvine, by this time he was the leading bishop leading figure in the Moravian Church as spangenberg had been 20 years before. But for edvine, who was their commitment to submit to the rightful divinely ordained government meant that armed rebellion could never be justified. And this disdain for revolution pushed some moravians to support the british. They were essentially loyalists. For example, the moravian minister gustav shellkirk were overjoyed when the British Forces overtook and occupied new york city. This was where his church was. And he called washingtons forces that had previously occupied the city for a short time, as usurpers. And he, in his writing and his diaries and in his letters, its very clear that the english were the rightful authority, he petitioned letters to restore what he called quote, the kings peace. When the battle of new york city was over. He sent congratulatory letters to the british governor. So here we have a case where we have a moravian minister who was clearly a loyalist. He may not have been a strict loyalist, but he definitely supported the british right of authority. Others, however, joined the patriot cause. They were caught up in the enthusiasm and voluntarily enlisted even to fight. Somewhat interesting, given the fact weve been calling them pacifists. Its evidence of the fact that the application was not nearly as uniform as many of the leaders of these churches wanted it to be. So no matter how resolved the leaders of the peace churches were, there were always young men who couldnt resist the call to arms. To take another example, also from the moravians, john oakley, a longterm member of the church, he had grown up in england, had come to north america in 1740s, he functioned for a while as a justice of the peace. He actually joined the patriot cause, as a moravian. And became a leader in one of these local committees. And in fact was in charge of raising arms and supplies from the moravians themselves. So if you can imagine how divided this community was and how much tension there was between someone like this, minister in new york, who was clearly a loyalist, and john oakley, a fellow member of the church, who was they enthusiastic about the patriot cause. But regardless of their individual positions, they were also increasingly being brought into the fray. And there was some unavoidable involvement, primarily because these moravian towns were actually commandered by military hospitals. If you can imagine, these religious buildings now being filled with these bloodied and hardedged continental soldiers. So they were required to nurse these soldiers, they were required to supply them. This is a good example of the way that some involvement was really unavoidable. They could not get around this. And in fact, was a way for them to apply their principles of compassion. To people in need. Even if it meant implicitly helping out these soldiers and helping out the war machine within the American Revolution. On the american side. Although leaders of the peace churches were disturbed when their members signed up for armed rebellion or when they had their sacred buildings overrun with dirty soldiers, the real difficulty came as patriot leaders and patriot committees of safety began to put increasing pressure on them to enlist in the cause. At an individual level. One historian compares these patriot committee, and the Committee Members to essentially a military police force. Yet the committees were unsure about what to do about members of these pacifist traditions. They had expectations, they had legislation. That specified what was required. And the supplies that were needed to be raised. Within these local communities and local counties. These individuals many times would simply refuse to enlist. The most common means of dealing with this was to require what was called nonassociators to pay a penalty or a tax. Whether it was a penalty or a tax depends on your point of view. This is a common way that this was dealt with actually had precedent going back to the 16th century. If you had religious convictions against military service in europe, in some cases some tolerant areas in europe, you could pay a tax instead of military service. Was this a penalty, a penalty that was given because of your religious convictions . Were you being penalized for those convictions . Or were you simply contributing to the effort in an alternative form . Well that sort of again its a matter of perspective. But as long as the amount was not overbearing, it was mutually beneficial. Wartime governments always need cash. So this was a way to get more cash. This was a way out of military service. For someone who had convictions against him. But it really was only effective if the amount wasnt overbearing. This is one of the problems, in the colonial context, because the amount really did become overbearing for many people. And the amount was incrementally increased over time. So that many members of the peace churches did not have the means to pay this tax. Many of them were being taxed double what a normal ordinary colonial citizen would have been taxed. Difficulties were heightened further when pennsylvania crafted and passed the test act, in 1777. Several colonies had test acts. Maryland, virginia, North Carolina for example in addition to pennsylvania. And these acts required that all adult males, over the age of 18 publicly swear their loyalty to in this case the state of pennsylvania, the commonwealth of pennsylvania. And to the cause of independence. Now this was not tobaccoersed. But if you didnt quoteunquote take the test, you would essentially have your rights as citizen stripped away. Your right to vote, your right to the legal process, your right to inheritance and to exchange property. So it was something that carried with it penalties. If you refused to to ascent to your loyalty. To the independence movement. And to the state of pennsylvania. So with the test act in other words, neutrality was no longer an option for many of these folks, the legislation gave more impetus for the harsh treatment of pacifists. Along with increased fines and taxes that i mentioned before. Local officials became increasingly coercive when individuals couldnt pay. Their property and possessions were confiscated and auctioned off for example. They were thus stripped of their livelihood. As my example from the beginning of the lecture described, they were sometimes even paraded through the streets and thrown into jail unless they quote took the test. In some cases there were even instances of rogue vigilantiism that even resulted in death. So this was a very difficult time for pacifists living during the American Revolution. Sort of in different ways, it was difficult in different ways than earlier times. Say during the french and indian war. But still they were put in a very difficult situation. An interesting point is the way historians have been interpreting this and looking at this in recent years. And theyve traditionally, this has been the focus has been on the suspicions that pacifists created that people suspected them of being loyalists. They suspected them of helping out the enemy cause. And that certainly was there. They mentioned that in a way that trying to remain neutral raises the suspicion level of people around you, youre not willing to come on to my side. You must be then loyal to the other side. Whats fascinate something that if we look at the relationships and the divisions within the societies and communities and towns, we can see that if fact, some of these local Committee Members who are being very harsh to pacifists, they actually had preexisting problems with their neighbors. And what historians have been arguing is it wasnt just that they were suspected of being loyalists. But in fact, they already didnt like some of these individuals. They might be greedy. They might have had a personal vendetta. And in fact now what they were given some power, during the revolution years, they were able to use that power, they were able to use this legislation to actually carry out their act on their animosity towards their neighbor. An interesting example of this might be a guy by the name of john wetzel. Now wetzel was notoriously hard on moravians. And he is actually the one that arrested these 12 moravians and led them to the street and locked them up. This is one example of his harsh treatment of the moravians. In fact wetzel had been raised a moravian. He had been raised in a moravian boarding school we dont know all of the details. He had a falling out with the moravians and left the community on bad terms. We dont know exactly, but it makes one wonder if some of the harshness is resulting more from almost a personal veterndetta h had against the moravians as much as a concern to locate and weed out loyalists in their midst. Interesting discussions going on among historians on these issues. I will say that eventually the abusive measures stemming from the test acts and other legislation in 1778, they were modified. All of the harshness that was being applied, that was being levied out was really at the local level. Leaders at the state level, leader at the convention level, they were very much willing to give pacifists room. They were willing to allow pacifists to have an exception to fighting within the revolution. And so when they began to hear about all of the ways in which these local officials were abusing this legislation, in 1778 they actually repealed some of it limited the punishment that could be meted out. Much of what ive discussed so far has taken place in towns, i want to move back to the frontier. We still have the frontier during this period. Its moved back a little bit, further west. To another moravian town in ohio, which ironically was also named ganadahooten. And in this town we find another massacre taking place. In which 95 moravian indians and missionaries are essentially executed. This time not by native americans, but by continental soldiers. So this is a good example of what moravians would interpret as martyrdom. An example where that quest to remain neutral brought one under suspicion. So much so that it could prove fatal. We have a 19th century rendition of the massacre in 1781. In ganadahooten, ohio. Theres a long tradition of martyrdom and suffering. This is a cover page of the martyrs mirror, a very long book, a thick book of many, many accounts of martyr stories throughout church history. Which includes the martyrdom of many pacifist figures. This is a longheld tradition among pacifist churches and individuals. And so the idea that you would die for your religious convictions, was not uncommon. And was something that in fact inspired and demonstrated ones convictions and ones loyalty to their religious faith. All right. Let me move on to our last point for this afternoon. The significance and legacy of this topic. Just some comments on this. One would be related to the question of effectiveness. Were these harsh measures effective in inducing members of the peace churches to sign up and enlist in the American Revolution . Well we sort of have mixed assessments. If we look at the moravians, and maybe you can guess this already, because of our discussion. The moravians have a high number of individuals who did enlist. And by the end of this period, probably because of the harsh measures that they were under, most moravians did take the test, or were induced to join in with the American Revolution. Or at least to pledge their loyalty to the cause. However if we look at mennonites or other communities, communities that had a more rigid application of these principles, we actually find that the harsh measures were not very effective. So those among these chush who is did join the revolution joined, did so very early. And so the harsh measures really knt have much effect on them, because they had already made that decision. Those who experienced the harsh measures remained for the most part, resolved in their convictions. The question of effectiveness kind of depends on which group of pacifists youre looking at. There were lasting changes, lasting effects with regard to this episode in american history. These peace churches were treated during the revolutionary years. One of those lasting effects would be the reversal of participation in government among annabaptist groups. Prior to the revolution ana baptists, mennonites and others, even though they had scruples about government in general, they still participated very much in the normal avenues of being engaged in politics. But because of their experience through the years of the American Revolution, in fact they became more politically isolated into the 19th century and we have in a sense, a reversal so that most ana baptists become very reticent about getting involved in politics. They sort of felt burned, i guess you could say. Another lasting effect would be among the Moravian Church in bethlehem, i dont think i mentioned it, but the moravian, the main moravian towns were communal establishments. There was no private ownership, everyone committed their wealth to the common treasury. So the church was responsible for providing for people who lived in bethlehem. So during the war years, the fines and taxes that were levied on nonassociators, these were met by the church. It was so, so detrimental in fact, trying to pay all of these fines and taxes that the churchs coffers were essentially liquidated and they had to resort to a private ownership system. It had lasting effects, both among ana baptists and the moravians. One of the most interesting questions i think is the way in which this topic raises issues of religious freedom. In my mind, these events prod us to the irony. I alluded to this early on in the lecture. We tend to think of the revolution as the product of ideals of Political Freedom and liberty. And that the revolution was fought to secure these ideals and indeed, in many cases it was. Wouldnt disagree with that, yet in numerous cases that cause required coercion and inducement. You know from this class that the boycotts nonimportation, nonexportation, many times had tobaccoersed, people needed tobaccoersed into complying with the expectations of these local Committee Members. So there would be other cases not just with regard to this topic. We know that the revolution was only partially revolutionary when it comes to social structures, when it comes to the experience of many people. We know that the ideals of liberty werent applied equally across the board for all people groups, for blacks, africans were still enslaved, women were still disenfranchised from the political sphere. So this is an interesting question to think about whether the revolution was revolutionary. So with regard to religious freedom then and how the notion of liberty was applied to these pacifist groups from the early time we see pacifists like john edwine for example, essentially taking on the language of liberty in order to make the indication for them to be allowed to refrain from taking the test. Or for fighting in the revolution. These are groups on the outside. Theyre, theyre minority groups. In the 18th century. They continue to be minority groups. They often are the ones most aware of the tensions with regard to religious liberty and religious freedom. Edwine realized this irony in the 18th century. He wrote many letters to colonial authorities. Edwine in fact attempted to make the case through arguing about religious liberty. And in fact using enlightenment figures like john locke for example. He argues that prior to declaring independence, the moravians had more liberty, the moravians had liberty to build their settlements, to carry on their mission to live together, to live out their peaceful principles. But once independence was declared, their religious liberties had decreased and were actually being threatened and were stripped away. Its a very interesting argument. As i mentioned, edwine looks to john locke and he says quote i will remain quiet and evade the issue as long as i may. But if dragged into the open air by my hair, i will refer to mr. Locke. Who recommended that when one Political Administration was repudiated, and another replaced, replaced by another, each individual then becomes a free and independent agent with the right to choose what form of government he would accept. And that as long as he would refuse consent to the new constitution, the latter could have no power over him. Im not an expert on john locke, i dont know necessarily if edwine is reading and using lockian philosophy accurately. But of course locke is a tremendous proponent of natural law and natural rights. And edwine zeros in on that and use it is for his own purposes. So i love that irony. He says since the colonies had declared their independence, quote, i and the brethren have not become free and independent. So edwine contended to moravian leaders that this is why they came to the region in the first place. They came in full trust and confidence that they and their children, would enjoy here the liberty and of of conscience without restraint. So even at this very foundational time in our nations history, we find individuals wrestling with the question of religious freedom. What does religious freedom mean . How should religious freedom be limited . Should it be limited at certain times . And if so, how do we decide where those limits are . I really like this, because i think in many respects, these are tensions that we continue to see play out in our relationships, the relationship between minority groups and mainstream religious groups in American Society and in american history. So thats my discussion of pacifists during the American Revolution. I will open it up and see if you have, see if you are bold enough to ask questions or provide any comments today. How high in the ranks any pacifists got [ inaudible ] thats a good question. So the question is how high did any of these pacifists get within the continental army. Not very high. There were one or two who were officers, by that time i dont know if we can necessarily call them pacifists. They were essentially at one time had been among these peace churches. It is interesting to think, are they setting aside then their pacifist tradition. Are they no longer to be considered pacifists. The churches had to figure out how to deal with members that had gone off to war or gone off to fight. Were they to be disciplined, were they to be excommunicated. So they had to ask the same questions as well. I think there was more involvement early on, when it was more about expressing grievances to england. I think once the revolution is being fought, there were a lot less pacifists who were actually rising in the ranks. Thats the best answer i can give, i think. You talked about pacifists in pennsylvania. What did it look outside the other colonies . Good question. There were populations of pacifists in other colonies as well. Virginia for example, had quite a number of pacifists. Moravians had another settlement in North Carolina. So it wasnt just in pennsylvania. Thats a good point. From what i can tell, their experiences were quite similar. They were going through the same sorts of ethical discussions and dilemmas, among them. And they were experiencing some of the same tensions, hostilities and some of the same harsh treatment as well. So it was very similar in other places, too. . Was there any accounts of moravian indians joining forces for the british or the continental army. Considering their own convictions on pacifism and their conversion . Thats a good question, im not sure i know the answer to that. That would be a great thing to look up. Sorry. Since Grace Colleges tradition of the ana baptist and the brethren to recognize during this time many of the early brethren were commended for the way they didnt fight in the wars, but supported them. Through as you mentioned earlier. Supplies and helping the injured, et cetera. In that tradition. Thats true. I think thats an important, an important point. Good comment. Elected to pay the tax incentive. Do you think they had any reservations about money they were giving to a violent cause . Or do you think they were content to be not be personally involved in that . Thats a good question. Again you have lots of good questions. I think they probably would have hesitated about where that money was going. You know, it doesnt necessarily mean that they didnt believe that it was okay to do that. You know, lots of times our ethical decisions that we make we sort of make them hesitantly. So i can imagine that these individuals were perhaps choosing the lesser of two evils. Perhaps knew that this was not the best choice that they had, but in recognizing the choices that were available to them, that this was something that they could at least decide to do. They would have known even the supplies that the brethren were giving, they would have known that these were going for the war effort. So that other people were using these supplies in violent ways. Even if they themselves werent. I think they would have been well aware of the irony and probably contributed to the sense of angst about these decisions they had to make. Yeah, drake . People tried to distance themselves, is it possible that the people more deeply see them as the question is if they tried to distance themselves from the conflict, did other people not consider them americans . Yeah, well certainly, it kind of depends on maybe how we define what it means to be american. Especially at this time, its hard to know. I think the easiest thing for them to conclude would have been to see them as british sympathizers or loyalists. And as the american identity becomes more tangible, perhaps you know, people looking back on them and seeing them as unamerican in a sense. Even i think many times pacifists throughout american history, even today, those who dont support an enthusiastic war effort, many times are seen as unamerican. So i think thats a valid point. You know. You said they were facing a lot of pressure by the local communities to enlist or to take the test you said. Are there any instances where the moravians and members of the peace churches would flee to places like new york like we see the africans doing and the native americans, because they were trying to join the lesser of the two evils and where they thought they had the most liberty . Yeah. Would you think that would be the case and perhaps there was some instances of that. I dont, i dont know of any. Sort of like draft dodgers vietnam or something. I cant imagine that there werent some of those, that there werent instances of that. I dont have any concrete evidence of that thats not to say that it isnt out there. But there wouldnt be any cases that i would be familiar with. I think that would be a logical, logical question. Yeah, to assume. And then the second part. You mentioned earlier that the churches had to think of how theyre going to react when these who had grown up pacifists had come home. After the war. What are some of the instances you found . How were they treated . Yeah. I think it depends a bit, we kind of see a predictable division between more rigid pacifists like the mennonites for example, who had a very tough time welcoming them back into the community. And in some cases, didnt, i dont know a lot of the specifics. But for moravians it wasnt that big a deal. They didnt necessarily feel that tension as much. One of the tenets that i didnt mention within the moravian context, they placed a lot of weight on individual conscience and freedom. So even though that may not have been a choice that some would make, there was respect given to those who did make that, that choice. But i think that the sense of coming back into the community was more difficult for mennonites and ana baptists who in fact have a tradition of excommunication. Final question . Or comment. In regard to the church and the community. You mentioned that because a lot of them didnt really have a system of private ownership that any fine was paid by the church and you talk about how that brought the church down. Was the decision to pay those fines or to like go ahead and fight, was that made by the church . And the leaders in the church . Or was that more of like an individual decision to make . That is im not sure necessarily on those cases. My sense would be it was the churchs decision. That the church was going to do what they can to support the member who is were taking a stand against these coercive measures. And i would think that the treasury was set up within bethlehem that it was the churchs decision, rather than individuals. But i dont know for sure. Thats the just my hunch. Thanks for your attention, well call it a day. Well call it done for the day and ill see you back on monday. So take care. [ applause ] wow, thats unusual. How angry people are to learn whats happening or how flabbergasted to learn whats happening. Its not, i havent received any kind of mild, i read it and it was okay. Why are they angry . I think theyre angry about the fact that we have the president ial libraries that are created to house records and especially for the most recent ones, the records wont be open for 100 years. Instead were paying for celebration and legacy building. Sunday night at 8 00 p. M. Eastern. Well take into College Classrooms across the country with our original series, lectures in history. Up next to look at religion and its influence on the American Revolution. Well starth