you can watch it here every saturday evening at 8:00 and midnight. next jared burkholder talks about the differences between pacifist groups during the american revolution. he argues the application of pacifist principles were far from uniform during that time. for example, even members of peace churches stoke exhibited to t -- still contributed to the war effort. the class was about one hour. prof. burkholder: good afternoon. our topic is religious pacifists and the american revolution. often 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 church were arrested by local county official, they were brought to easton which was the county seat in northampton county, in pennsylvania. they were paraded through the streets, tied together with ropes around their necks 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 would be informed. these are not officials that are forcing the parliamentary acts that they were upset about these were simply members of the small religious sect that really were not very friendly at all. so, the experience, attests to the fact that support for the revolution was anything but uniform. we have 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 people's 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 war fought to secure personal liberties, at times these same liberties were denied at least to some degree to certain groups or people. i will come back to them later in the lecture, but let me provide a few points for our outline today so you get a sense of where we are going. i will introduce, who are these pacifist in pennsylvania? and how did they respond to the violent context of colonial america? we've talked about the seven years war before the french and indian war and these episodes of violence on the american frontier and that will set the stage for talking about the crisis of the revolution and it

was a crisis, you will remember, for these pacifist communities and finally i will wrap up with some comments about the significance and legacy of this topic. so, who are these pacifist that we find in pennsylvania? 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. they were uniform category of individuals. they were not necessarily all on the same page. it came to often time they are called the cluster groups called

the peace churches. others were not committed to those in a rigid way. so, many would make of the german population we have talked about stopped like anabaptist groups stop this'll go back to some of them, anyway.

the amish are another anabaptist group that are committed to nonviolence. then, the moravians, the members of the groups that were arrested in easton that i mentioned. they have various streams within their origins in germany, both in german-speaking areas lutheran protestantism, in the

area of moray via which is part of the czech republic. so, they would be exhibiting sample as well. then other smaller groups, which called a brother in. and an array of other small groups. this issue of violence, the ethical dilemma of violence, some say that has in with the christian traditions from the very beginning, from the earliest conditions they are living under the roman empire. they have grappled with the issue and what is the relationship between the christian community and the civil and secular state. is it justified.

as the years go by and attrition tradition, most of the major branches and denominations with christianity do embrace military service. usually this was justified when the context if a military conflict, if a war needs a certain criteria of justice, then it could be a just war. therefore, it it is perfectly legitimate. they are committing to contribute to that war. of course, as you know, whether it is a just war that meets those criteria, they are subjective.

there on the outside. these are called into question of this notion of whether or not there could the adjust war. many those groups within the tradition of these churches in the tradition of pacifism. in the trouble with mylan a couple of points. one would be simply christian teachings are found in the bible and the words of jesus, for example, you will find things like jesus saying turn the other cheek. pacifists are taking these passages very literally. members of the peace churches have been concerned about issues of loyalty. in their perspective, christians would be loyal to god alone.

so, many members of the east churches also had a difficult time ethically swearing and both of allegiance, which was required often for secular rulers. for being treated as citizens, one needed to swear their allegiance. how did this relate with one's loyalty to god stop a lot of times because members of these peace churches, because they emphasize that transcendent loyalty to god, they really desire, they really attempted completely neutral on the civil strife. finally, they have been hesitant to become very and politics. there is involvement in the military efforts within those

governments. there is implicit involvement. all of that to say, there is an issue that has a long heritage and history. i will say for many of the peace churches edition's, particularly anabaptists, they find that they were involved in the political crisis in pennsylvania. i will come back to this point at the end. given all of their hesitations about wars and violence and government and the military, they still were very active.

they were engage with local officials and candidates, they are running for office. we find mennonite pastor's recommending certain candidate through members of the churches. they were very engaged in the political process. many of them actually held office as well. they were not completely disengaged. let me move on in our outline which is what i'm calling the violent context of colonial america. this is a topic that we have discussed in our class before so this would be a bit of a review. the frontier was a very violent place. those among the peace churches were on the frontier for several reasons. sometimes they were simply

living there, perhaps on the family farm. they are thinking about people living on the frontier. other times, groups within the peace churches are living on the frontier because they are operating mission areas. they were very active in efforts to try to christianize and to convert native americans on the frontier. they were there for that reason. central pennsylvania was in fact the western frontier at the time and it was the scene for 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.

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. those refugees are fleeing further east and landing in moravian towns, towns within the peace church traditions. many of them, according to one account, were half naked and starving. this is a very trying time for people on the frontier. i should mention that by this time the pennsylvania government is divided as well. the quakers were at the center of colonial government. but they were not always on the same page. by this time, pennsylvania, the colonial government has been around for a long time.

by this time there are divisions and parties within the assembly. the governor is not always on the same page with the quakers in the assembly and one of the real sticking points, one of the real controversies as you can imagine is whether or not pennsylvania should raise a militia. many thought it was obvious. 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 before the assembly. in 1775, a militia bill was passed. there is political

wrangling over the violence on the frontier. moravians and others attempted to live out and demonstrate neutrality. this was a virtue to some degree. our loyalty transcends civil strife. so, they worked for their neutrality. they were involved in alleviating suffering. you can see this as kind of an alternative way of contributing to the situation and helping out with the situation, even with conscientious objectors today or throughout american history. there has always in alternative forms of service that have been available to them. this was not something that was formally set up. many of these churches were

supplying supplies, blankets wagons, food, and in some cases supplying arms even. and so in a sense they were still contributing to the efforts, to the situation. they were trying to remain neutral. they were contributing efforts to alleviate suffering. at times, this attempt to maintain neutrality proved fatal. this will be the case in 1755, the same year the pennsylvania assembly finally accepted a plan to create a militia. 11 christian indians and missionaries were massacred at the mission in pennsylvania.

this is on the frontier. it was a scene of violence. it is important for the topic because it really shook the moravian community its core. particularly because moravian leaders among them believes that bethlehem, which is pictured here in the 18th century and which was their main religious site. they believe the attack was perpetrated by indians who were loyal to the french and and for someone attempting to be neutral, you can kind of understand this, they will automatically be under suspicion. if you are not for me, you're not declaring that you are with me, that perhaps you are aligned with the enemy.

a lot of times in reality, the attempts to remain neutral just didn't work out very well. this causes the massacre. they are thinking to himself that bethlehem just might be next. what is he to do? he is a leader, this is a town where he has had a lot of refugees have fled the frontier. they come as a safe haven. they come to bethlehem for safety, what is he supposed to do? there were individuals that faced similar situations that might prepare. also, during this time, 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 son are left watching the scene and his son grabs their muskets, grab their weapons in order to fight back against these hostile indians and to protect their sisters and their mothers. the father pushed down their muskets and do not allow them to fire on their native americans. in this case, this is a very rigid application of pacifist principles that might be hard for us to understand. how is it that these individuals would not even fight back to protect their loved ones?

again, this was, to many pacifist traditions, this is a demonstration of their commitment and convictions commitment to the principles. this was also the case with a family during the years of the revolution. they are attacked on the frontier and they would not fight back to protect themselves. is this the path that we see them taking with regards to protecting these innocent people or not protecting them? in fact, it is not. they actually takes measures, he builds palisades around bethlehem and nazareth and neighboring towns. he builds blockhouses, he stockpiles weapons. and he stations armed guards.

he is attempted to protect the people perhaps with the use of violence. this will compromise their convictions. benjamin franklin, when he heard what was being carried out, his reaction was similar. he said, maybe they're fairweather pacifist. it is easy to be nonresistant in peace time but then when you are threatened, then your principles go out the window. perhaps, he was right. but franklin was familiar the moravians, he was familiar with bethlehem and for him it was evidence that these were sort of

a sham. i would like to give them the benefit of the doubt and if we read the accounts and we go back to the sources, we actually discover what he was thinking we actually see that he was very much concerned with simply providing self-defense and preventative measures. so he is thinking to himself i don't want to inflict violence on even our enemies. i don't want our people to have to do this as well. he counsels these guards to shoot only to wound any enemies that might attack. he is also thinking that by building up this protection, it is actually deterring an attack that hostile indians will not

attack if they see these measures that they have implemented. in fact, this is the case. the attack on bethlehem never came. perhaps the approach was then vindicated. although we don't know how it would have played out. you can imagine that in a situation like that, things can get out of hand very quickly. some of those might have been compromised. we just don't know. he was thinking, i have these innocent people in the town i need to protect. that concern trumps any convictions that he had about fighting back or using violence in the protection against one's enemies. we see there were different approaches in the colonial

context to the frontier. sometimes there was rigid applications, sometimes there were allowances made for self-defense. let me turn now to the revolution. a bit of background in place. issues of violence and warfare did not just began with the revolution. and so with this sort of foundation in place, we can move on. in the revolution here, during this time, pacifist christians were not primarily facing the dangers of front tier violence. they were not primarily faced whether they used violence to defend themselves. instead, they needed to determine whether or not of their religious convictions were compatible with armed revolution.

those in the these churches felt the same frustrations as others did living in the colony. they were under the same parliamentary acts and parliamentary policies that colonists interpreted as oppressive. they certainly were among those who supported reconciliation with britain and advocated patience with regards to the growing conflict. of course, as tensions escalated after the skirmishes in the boston area in 1775, they began forming organized resistance and movement. if you remember in the discussions we have had 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 inspection, these local officials, local patriot leader. some of the radical, some of the moderate, these are carrying out at a foundational level the movement for independence and carrying out the american revolution. that are promoting the cause they are rallying troops. they are rallying the troops necessary. so, in theory, those in the peace church tradition again attempted to remain neutral. however, in reality, that neutrality was really difficult for them to find.

for leaders of the moravian church such as john, he was the leading bishop, the leading figure this is to support the british. this disdain for revoluationtion pushed some moravians to be loyalists to the british. they were overjoyed when the british forces took new york city. this is where his church was and he called washington's forces that had previously occupied the

city for a short time as usurpers and he, in his writing, in his diaries, and in his letter, very clear that the english were the rightful authorities. he petitioned letters to what he called the king's peace. when the battle was over, he sent congratulatory letters to the british governor. you have a case where we have a moravian minister who was clearly a loyalist and even in the case of john, who might 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, which is somewhat interesting given the fact that we have been calling them pacifists. this is evidence of the fact

that this was not nearly as uniform as many of the leaders of these churches wanted it to be. no matter how resolved the leaders of the peace churches were, there were always young men that could not resist the call to arms. to take another example also from the moravians -- john oakley, a long-term member of the church who grew up in england and came to america, he functioned as a justice of the peace. he joined the patriot cause as a moravian and became a leader in a local committee and was in charge of raising arms and supplies from the moravians themselves. if you can imagine how divided this community was and how much tension there was between this minister in new york and john

oakley, who was very enthusiastic about the patriot cause. regardless of their individual positions, they were also increasingly being brought into the fray. there was some unavoidable involvement. primarily because these moravian towns were commandeered by george washington and the continental army. the buildings in their town, even though they were religious buildings, sacred buildings, they were used as military hospitals. if you can imagine these religious buildings now being filled with these bloodied continental soldiers. so, they were required to nurse these soldiers, supply them. so, 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 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 the real difficulty came as patriot leaders and committees of safety began to put increasing pressure on them to enlist in the cause at an individual level. one historian compares these patriot committees and the committee members to a military

police force. yet, the committees were unsure about what to do with members of these pacifist traditions. they had expectations, legislation that specified what was required and the supplies that were needed to be raised within these local communities and counties. yet, these individuals many times would simply refuse to enlist. the most common means of dealing with this would require what is called non-associators to pay a penalty or tax. this is a common way this was dealt with. it had precedent going all the way back to the 16th century. if you had religious

convictions, 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 the religious convictions? were you being penalized for those convictions or were you simply contributing to the effort in an alternative form? again, it is a matter of perspective. as long as the amount was not overbearing, it was mutually beneficial. wartime governments always need cash. a way to get more cash and a way out of military service for someone who had convictions against it. but, it really was only effective if the amount was not overbearing. and, this is one of the problems in a colonial context because

the amounts really did become overbearing for many people and the amount was incrementally increased over time. that many members of the peace churches did not have the means to pay this tax. many of them were being taxed double what was normal. difficulties were heightened further when pennsylvania passed a test act in 1777. several colonies had these acts. maryland, virginia, north carolina, for example, in addition to pennsylvania. these acts required that all adult males over the age of 18 publicly swear their loyalty to the state of pennsylvania, in this case.

and to the cause of independence. this was not to be coerced, but if you did not take the test then you would essentially have your rights as a citizen stripped away -- your right to vote, your right to the legal process, exchanging property. it was something that carried with it penalties if you refused to pledge loyalty to the independence movement and the state of pennsylvania. with the test acts, neutrality was no longer an option for many of these folks. the legislation gave even more impetus for the harsh treatments of pacifists along with increased fines and taxes that i mentioned. local officials became

increasingly coercive when individuals could not pay, their properties and possessions were auctioned off. they were 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 took the test. in some cases, there were even instances of rogue vigilantism that even resulted in death. 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. 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. they have 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. that certainly was there. we mentioned the way trying to remain neutral raises the suspicion level of people around you because you are not willing to come onto my side. you must be then loyal to the other side. what is pretty fascinating is if we look at the relationships and divisions within these societies and communities and towns, we can see that, in fact, some of these local administrators local committee members who are

very harsh to pacifists, they actually had pre-existing problems with their neighbors. and, what historians have been arguing is it was not just they were suspected of being loyalists, but in fact, they already did not like some of these individuals. they might be greedy, they might have had a personal vendetta. in fact, when they were given some power during the revolutionary years, they were able to use that power, they were able to use the 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. he was notoriously hard on these moravians. he led them through the streets

and locked them up. this is just one example of his harsh treatment. he was actually raised a moravian. he was raised in a boarding school. he had a falling out with the moravians and left the community on bad terms. we don't know exactly, but it makes one wonder if some of the harshness is resulting more from almost a personal vendetta he had against the moravians as much as a concern to locate and weed out loyalists. so, some interesting interesting discussions going on among historians on these issues. i will also say eventually the abusive measures stemming from the test act and other

legislation, in 1778, they were modified. all of the harshness that was being applied was really at the local level. leaders at the state level convention level, they were very much willing to give pacifists room. they were willing to let pacifists have an exception to fighting within the revolution. 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 given out. well, much of what i have discussed so far has taken place in towns and local politics -- i want to move back to the frontier again.

we still have the frontier during this period. it has moved back further west a little to another moravian town in ohio, which ironically was also named -- 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. this is a good example of what moravians would interpret as martyrdom. an example where, again, 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 ohio. i bring this up as well because among pacifist tradition, there is a long history and tradition of martyrdom and suffering. so, this is a cover page of "martyr's mirror." a long book of martyr stories throughout church history which includes the martyrdom of many pacifists. this is a long-held tradition among pacifist churches and individuals. the idea that you would die for your religious convictions was not uncommon. and was something that inspired and demonstrated one's

convictions and loyalty to their religious faith. let me move on to the last point for this afternoon -- the significance and legacy of the topic. just some comments. 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 have mixed assessments. if we look at moravians, maybe you can guess this already because of our discussion, but the moravians have a high number of individuals who did enlist. by the end of this period, probably because of the harsh measures they were under, most moravians did take the test or were induced to join the

american revolution or at least 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 find these harsh measures were not very effective. so, those among these churches who did join the revolution, did so very early. the harsh measures really did not have much effect on them because they already made that decision. those that experienced the harsh measures remained resolved in their convictions. the question of effectiveness depends on which group of pacifists you are looking at. there were lasting changes effects in regards to this

episode in american history in a way these peace churches were treated during the revolutionary years. one of the lasting effects would be the reversal of participation in government among anabaptist groups. i mentioned before that prior to the revolution, anabaptists, mennonites and others -- even though they had scruples of 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, they became more politically isolated into the 19th century and we have a reversal of that so that most anabaptists become very reticent of being involved in politics.

they sort of felt burned, you could say. another lasting effect would be among the moravian churches in bethlehem. the moravian, the main 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, these fines and taxes that were levied on non-associators, these were met by the church. it was so detrimental trying to pay all these fines and taxes that the church was essentially liquidated and they had to resort to a private ownership system. it had a lasting effect both among anabaptists and the moravians.

one of the most interesting questions, i think, is the way in which this topic raises issues of religious freedom. so, in my mind, these events have an interesting irony. i alluded to this earlier on in the lecture, but we tend to think of the revolution as a 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. yet, in numerous cases, that cause required coercion and inducement. you know that the boycotts non-exportation, many times had to be coerced. people had to be coerced into complying with the expectations of these local committee members.

there would be other cases, not just in regards to this topic. and, we know 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 ideal of liberty was not applied equally across the board for all groups -- blacks, africans were still enslaved. women were still disenfranchised from the political sphere. this is an interesting question to think about whether the revolution was revolutionary. from the -- with regard to religious freedom and how the notion of liberty was applied to these pacifist groups -- we see pacifists essentially taking on these pacifist groups -- we see

the language of liberty in order to make the case for them to be allowed to refrain from taking the test or for fighting in the revolution. these are groups that are on the outside. the language of liberty in order they are minority groups in the 18th century. they continue to be minority groups. they often are the ones who are most aware of these tensions with regard to religious liberty and religious freedom. he realized this irony in the situation in the 18th century. we look at his letters. he wrote many letters to colonial authorities. he attempted to make the case through arguing about religious liberty. and using enlightenment figures like john locke. he argues that prior to declaring independence, the

moravians had more liberty. they 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 being threatened and stripped away. it is a very interesting argument. as i mentioned, john looks to john locke and he says, "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 by another, each individual then becomes a free and independent agent with the right to choose what form of government he would accept.

as long as he refuses consent to the new constitution, the latter could have no power over him." i'm not an expert on john locke. i don't know necessarily if he is reading and using locke philosophy accurately, but locke is a tremendous proponent of natural law and rights. he zeroed in on it and uses it for his own purposes. i love that irony. he says since the colonies declared their independence "i have not become free and independent." so, he contended to colonial leaders that "the glorious liberty of pennsylvania was what enticed the moravians there in the first place.

they came in full trust and confidence that they and their children would enjoy here the liberty of conscience without restraint." so, even at this very foundational time in our nation's 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? if so, how do we decide? i really like this because i think in many respects these are tensions we continue to see play out in our relationships, the relationship between minority groups and mainstream religious groups in american society and history. all right, that is my discussion of pacifists during the american revolution. i will open it up and see if you are bold enough to ask questions

or provide any comments today. yes? >> do you know how high in the ranks any pacifists got? prof. burkholder: the question is how high any pacifists got in the continental army. not very high. there were one or two who were officers. by that time, i don't know if you could 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 their tradition? are they no longer considered that? the churches had to figure out how to deal with members who had

gone off to war and fight. were they to be disciplined, excommunicated? they had to ask those 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 was fought, there were a lot less pacifists who were rising in the ranks. that is the best answer i can give you. other questions or comments? >> what did it look like outside in the other colonies? prof. burkholder: there were populations of pacifists in other colonies as well. virginia, for example, had a number of pacifists. moravians had another settlement in north carolina. it was not just in pennsylvania.

from what i can tell, their experiences were quite similar. they were going through the same sort of ethical discussions and dilemmas among them and they were experiencing some of the same tensions, hostilities and harsh treatment. it was very similar in other places. >> was there any account of moravian indians joining forces with the british or the continental army, considering their own convictions on pacifism? prof. burkholder: that is a good question. i'm not sure if i know the answer to that. that would be a great thing for you to look up. [laughter] prof. burkholder: sorry. yes? >> since grace college has a

tradition of the anabaptist -- during this time, many of the early brothers were commended and supported with supplies and helping the injured, etc. we were in that tradition. prof. burkholder: that is true. i think that is an important point. good comment. other comments or questions? >> speaking of those that elected to pay the tax instead of fighting, did they have any reservations about the money they were giving? do you think they were content to not be personally involved? prof. burkholder: that is a good question. again, lots of good questions. i think they probably would have hesitated about where that money was going. you know. it does not necessarily mean they did not believe it was ok to do that.

lots of times our ethical decisions we make, we make them hesitantly. i can imagine these individuals were perhaps choosing the lesser of two evils. perhaps knew this was not the best choice they had, but in recognizing the choices that were available to them, this was something they could at least decide to do. they would have known even the supplies that was being given, they would have known these were going to the war effort. other people were using the supplies in violent ways, even if they themselves were not. i think they would have been well aware of the irony and probably contributed to their sense of these decisions they

had to make. drake? >> [indiscernible] prof. burkholder: the question is if they tried to distance themselves from the conflict did other people not consider them americans?