Shrewsbury Friends Struggle to Stay Out of War

Of all of America’s religious denominations, none were rocked as profoundly by the American Revolution as the Quakers (Friends). The majority of Quakers were pacifists and therefore at odds with a new government that required militia service. A prior article discussed the drive of the Shrewsbury Quakers to abolish slaveholding among Quakers, but the challenge of maintaining their pacifism amidst civil war would prove a more fundamental problem.

Most of Monmouth County’s Quakers lived along its Atlantic shoreline and in its western township of Upper Freehold. The Upper Freehold Quakers attended a sub-meeting at Arneytown that rolled into a meeting in nearby Burlington County; those in Stafford Township attended a sub-meeting at Barnegat that rolled into the meeting at Little Egg Harbor. The Atlantic shore Quakers north of Barnegat attended a meeting at Shrewsbury, which included a sub-meeting at Manasquan. Fortunately, the minutes of the Shrewsbury monthly meetings and annual meeting have survived; they offer exceptional information on the activities of the meeting and its members.

Grievances Grow among the Shrewsbury Quakers

Not every Quaker was against the Revolution (Nathanael Greene, for example, was the most important American general of the war besides George Washington, was born and raised a Quaker). However, it appears that the majority of Shrewsbury Quakers were disaffected by the Revolution. They lived on the military frontier line that separated Continental- and British-controlled areas. A member of the Shrewsbury meeting, Benjamin White, recalled the difficulty of living on military frontier line and the imposition of quartering Continental troops:

We were so near the lines that in the fore part of the night we had the British and Refugees, in the morning the American troops. My brother was called a King's Man or Refugee and myself a rebel or friend of the Jersey troops. Col [Benjamin] Ford and Maj [Henry] Lee came. We had to find quarters for the Army. The dwellings for some distance around were occupied by soldiers. We gave up our kitchens and cellars.

White’s store at Tinton Falls was sacked during a Loyalist raid, but a more frequent source of Quaker grievance with the New Jersey government was its mandatory militia service. For strict Quakers, even paying fines for non-attendance was tantamount to supporting warfare. As early as February 1776, the pacifism of the Shrewsbury Quakers put them at odds with their local government. At that time, the township committee (acting as proto-government) unanimously warned the meeting to “forebear to pass censure on any person or persons... for acting in conformity in their military stations.” A year later, George Washington complained to Governor William Livingston about "the Quakers and disaffected persons are doing all in their power to counteract our Militia Law."

The Shrewsbury meeting compiled reports on Quaker suffering due to the war. An August 1777 report concluded that £207 in fines had been levied against them "chiefly for support of the war & fines for refusal of military service.” Fines were enforced by seizing the goods of Quaker families. A 1779 report totaled up £1040 in fines (and this is before militia delinquency fines spiked in 1780). Equally concerning, “diverse friends were imprisoned, some were discharged, one of which qualified [took Loyalty oath], three continued confined upwards of three months, were fined by the court (though not yet levied) & their persons discharged from imprisonment."

Over the course of the war, 31 members of the Shrewsbury meeting were disciplined for participating in the war. This was about one third of the 98 members disciplined during the war. In total, 78 men and 20 women were disciplined for a variety of offenses including marrying outside the faith, drinking alcohol, not attending church, and refusing to free slaves.

Summary information on the 31 disciplined men is in the appendix of this article. Offenses related to participating in the war included serving in the militia and otherwise bearing arms, but also included less direct means of participation such as hiring a militia substitute and paying fines militia delinquency. Men were even disciplined for paying money for the return of property that was confiscated as a punishment for militia service. The Shrewsbury Friends did not distinguish between Whig and Loyalist when meting out discipline—members were disowned for supporting either side.

Examples of Shrewsbury Quakers Disciplined for Participating in the War

In September 1776, John Parker was reported at the Shrewsbury Meeting for “bearing arms.” The meeting sent Joel Borden to counsel him. Parker apologized, but his apology was rejected for “not being so full” and Parker committed a new offense by paying a fine for militia delinquency. Parker offered a second apology in December 1776, which was accepted. In June 1777, the meeting reported that "Parker doth acknowledge that he did hire a man to serve in his place for one month, but does not pretend to justify his conduct and seems disposed to make satisfaction.” In December 1777, Parker apologized for paying militia delinquency fines and hiring a militia substitute. Despite his many transgressions, Parker remained in the meeting. (A second John Parker was also disciplined.)

In April 1777, Jacob Woolcott was brought before the Shrewsbury meeting and issued an apology:

I hereby acknowledge that I did once ride in company with some military men who was on the business of taking prisoners & collecting arms, for which conduct I am really sorry, and do fully condemn the same.

A year later, in June 1778, Woolcott again ran afoul of the meeting. It was reported: "Jacob Woolcott paid a sum of money for a man to go into military service, and since that matter has come against him for playing cards." Yet again, in August 1778, he was reported for "leaving his home for military service." Woolcott was given the opportunity to apologize, but apparently declined to do so. In January 1779, he was disowned by the Shrewsbury Friends. He went on to serve as a Lieutenant in the state troops.

John Lawrence (son of William) went down the same path as Woolcott. In January 1779, he came before the Shrewsbury meeting: "I consented that a man should purchase my property when taken for a fine for not going into military service." In March 1780, Lawrence was again reported for "fighting formally and has bore arms in a hostile way, has left his habitation and gone where he cannot easily be treated." In March 1780, Lawrence was disowned by the Shrewsbury Meeting.

In December 1779, and again in January 1780, the Shrewsbury Friends moved against three Pine Robbers who had previously been members of the meeting. In December, it was reported that:

John Worthly and Joseph Hulletts have left us, and been concerned in bearing arms in a hostile manner, and as such practice is directly contrary to our principles & our profession, we think that for the reputation of our Society to disown them from being members.

Another Pine Robber, Reap Brindley, was reported to the meeting in January 1780: "Richard [Reap] Brinley has bore arms & continues to do so, is profane in conversation and frequents places of deviation." Obadiah Tilton was sent to counsel him. In May, Tilton reported that his counseling had “no effect” on Brindley. Reap Brindley was disowned.

In July 1781, the Shrewsbury Friends moved against three members concurrently. At a prior meeting, it was reported that James Tucker "has taken up arms, and [is] frequent in using vulgar and corrupt language." In July, it was reported that Tucker was still “bearing arms”; he was disowned. At the same time, Wiliam Corlies was disowned for bearing arms. However, a third member of the meeting, Richard Lawrence apologized to the meeting: "I am sensible that I have done wrong in traveling without a certificate, in bearing arms in the militia, and in committing fornication with a woman who is now my wife." He was permitted to remain in the meeting.

Shrewsbury Friends Struggle to Comply with New Jersey Law

In addition to disciplining individuals for not turning out for militia service. The Shrewsbury and Rahway Friends Meetings tracked the fines accrued by members. The first such report was compiled in July 1777; at the time, Friends had incurred L416 in fines "chiefly for not bearing arms & paying taxes for supporting a war against the Government." The report also noted that three members had been jailed.

In January 1780, a committee of Edmund Williams, Robert Hartshorne and William Smith considered petitioning the New Jersey Assembly with respect to accumulating militia fines. The committee concluded:

We do not at present find any matter wherein we can apprehend we can be useful - the laws, we think, is not so vigorously executed as heretofore, therefore [it is] our opinion that an application to those in power will not be of any good purpose.

In October, a new committee comprised of Benjamin Woolcott, Jonathan White, William Tilton and George Parker reported that, "they have drew up a remonstrance against the oppressive conduct of those in power & presented it to the Assembly, who informed the Committee that the principal law discussed in their remonstrance expired at the close of the last session of the Assembly." The petition is noted in the minutes of the New Jersey Assembly, which recorded on November 8:

Setting forth that the militia bill now in force, more especially that passed sixteenth day of June last, proves very grievous in the manner they have been executed against some of the persons belonging to the meeting, and praying relief.

Loyalty oaths posed another problem for Quakers, whose religious principles made the act of taking an oath impermissible. So, the New Jersey government permitted Quakers to take an affirmation instead of an oath. Affirmations commonly included qualifying language such as "as far as consistent with my religious principles.” By 1778, all New Jersians were required to take an oath or affirmation to the New Jersey government; those who had not taken a Loyalty oath or affirmation (or signed the Continental Association before that) were barred from voting and officeholding.

The Shrewsbury and Rahway Friends Meeting also considered the difficulties associated with Friends crossing enemy lines into New York and returning in Loyalist parties that robbed and plundered. On October, 1781, the combined meetings recorded:

As there is a number of young people belonging to the Friends, removed from the verge of this meeting to New York, Long Island & Staten Island, some of whom have been privately returned back & committed acts inconsistent with our peaceable principles & thereby occasioned public scandal on our society, it is desired that Friends should consider whether such persons ought not to be publicly testified against.

The outcome of their deliberations is unknown, but the willingness of devout Quakers to testify against former members linked to Loyalist raiding may show a desire to move closer to the New Jersey government toward war’s end. As the war wound down in July 1782, the Shrewsbury Friends finally agreed to pay taxes that supported the military. The Freeman's Journal (of Philadelphia) reported:

We hear from Shrewsbury in New Jersey that the society of Friends, who are very numerous in those parts, have lately had a meeting to consider and provide against the ruinous tendency of being distrained on for taxes, as they have been these six years past. They are now consented to pay voluntarily to collectors, as other subjects of that State do.

The Letters of the Hartshorne Brothers

Letters sent to Richard Hartshorne (living on Rumson Neck) from Loyalist brothers, William and Lawrence, give insight into the views of a prominent Quaker family. In a March 20, 1778, William Hartshorne, in New York, wrote Richard Hartshorne to complain about his private letters being opened:

The freedom that has been taken with the private letters of friends, however inoffensive they may be, has deterred me from attempting to convey one to you, but I can no longer refrain from endeavoring to have the satisfaction of hearing from you… At the same time, I seriously declare that I mean not to say one word that may do injury or give offense to any people on Earth.

William Hartshorne further worried that he might suffer when his letter was read:

The probability of this letter falling into the hands of people who may put meaning to words different from what I write – thought to convey, makes me very careful of what I say and not so particular in mentioning my own affairs as I wish to be.

William Hartshorne wrote Richard Hartshorne again on September 19, 1778. This time he cautiously expressed hope of visiting the family. He also discussed affairs in New York and on Sandy Hook: “There has passed some compliments of a cordial sort between the commanding officer at S.H. & shore. I think there would not be much difficulty in procuring permission for being at home a day or two.” He also discussed a debate in New York about withdrawing from Sandy Hook (which would make contact between Loyalists in New York and disaffected in Monmouth County much more difficult): “Have found out that a great Revolution in politicks has been brought about in many little principalities in this neighborhood – from western to eastern – that poor S.H. must be given up.”

In March and April 1779, Thomas Meadows (probably an alias used by Lawrence Hartshorne) wrote to R.H. (Richard Hartshorne) about the risk of sending letters to Shrewsbury. He also lampooned the Continental government and Colonel David Forman of Manalapan, a vigorous enemy of the disaffected:

As there is considerable risqué in conveying letters, you will not hear from me in that way so often, however, I will sometimes attempt it and, in spite of all the lawmakers and lawgivers from Congresses down to Black David [David Forman], [I] will never call writing my brother corresponding with the Enemy. I think we may write to each other in a way that would not bring either of us into any disagreeable scrape even if they should unluckily fall into the hands of those heroes who, as volunteers, are sworn out to guard & protect or, in other words, to break open & plunder the dwellings of their neighbors.

He also wrote of the anguish felt by brothers unable to visit family living across enemy lines:

My brother would sometimes in a little boat visit his native shore and perhaps steal home to bless his aged parents with the sight of their son, but, of late, guards very frequently patrol the place of landing, so that my brother cannot without danger of being shot from behind the bushes and other skulking places where the guards often conceal themselves… Is it treason to warn him of this danger? His parents are in terror when they hear of his coming and although they long for nothing so much as to see him, could it be done without distressing his life?

Lawrence Hartshorne also insulted unnamed Whig leaders: “I always make it a point to adhere to the spirit of the law immutable and to disregard the vile twistings of knaves & idiots.” As for Richard Hartshorne, he was the Monmouth militia paymaster through much of the war, but his warm contacts with New York Loyalists were discovered and he eventually became a Loyalist refugee himself.

Perspective

The author’s prior research demonstrates that more than a dozen Monmouth County Quakers served in British forces and even more served in the New Jersey (Whig) militia and state troops. Dozens more likely committed acts that, if detected, would have triggered disapproval from the Quaker meeting. These include assisting armed parties and participating in robberies. The war substantially intruded into the everyday lives of Shrewsbury Quakers. For example, the Shrewsbury Friends celebrated seventeen marriages between 1773-7, but only three from 1778-1783. The number of “witnesses” at these weddings also dropped from an average of 42 before the war, to 32 during the war.

The pacifism of strict Quakers placed them squarely at odds with the laws of the State of New Jersey that mandated, among other things, militia service and fines for missing militia service. But in neighborhoods that were mostly ethnic-English, militia laws often went unenforced. This allowed many Quakers to ignore the law without penalty into the 1780s. Ultimately, the government of New Jersey made some concessions to Quaker principles and most Quakers evolved their principles to accommodate New Jersey law.

Historian Richard McMaster argued that the requirements of the Revolutionary governments (militia service, loyalty oaths, taxes) pushed devout Quakers toward disaffection. These Quakers did not necessarily support the British, but they could not support a Revolutionary government with policies directly opposed to their principles. McMaster termed these Quakers "passive Loyalists" (to distinguish them from “active Loyalists” participating in the British war effort). Neutrality was the position of these passive Loyalists, as nicely stated by the Yearly Meeting of the Maryland Quakers in 1778:

We believe it our indispensable duty to abstain from all wars and contests which have tendency to destroy the lives of men... we cannot, consistent with our religious principles, join with either of the contending parties, being thereby equally restrained from entering into solemn engagements of allegiance to either.

Related Historic Site: Shrewsbury Quaker Meeting House

Appendix: 

Shrewsbury Friends Disciplined for Participating in the War (see table 15)

Sources: New Jersey State Archives, Dept. of Defense, Revolutionary War, Numbered Manuscripts, #3792; Swarthmore College, Friends Historical Library, reel MR-PH 51; Judith M. Olsen, Lippincott, Five Generations of the Descendants of Richard and Abigail Lippincott (Woodbury, N.J.: Gloucester County Historical Society, 1982) pp. 159-61; Proceedings of the Committees of Freehold and Shrewsbury, Proceedings of the New Jersey Historical Society, First Series, 1846, p 195; George Washington to William Livingston in Carl Prince, Papers of William Livingston (New Brunswick: Rutgers University Press, 1987) vol. 1, pp. 331, 335. New Jersey State Archives, William Livingston Papers, reel 4, May 7, 1777; Swarthmore College, Friends Historical Library, reel: MR Ph 585, Shrewsbury Meeting; Freeman's Journal (Pennsylvania), July 12, 1782; Swarthmore College, Friends Historical Library, reel: MR Ph 585, Shrewsbury Meeting; Swarthmore College, Friends Historical Library, Reel MR-PH, 585, Shrewsbury Meeting; Letter, William Hartshorne at Edenton, NC, to his brother Richard Hartshorne in New York, March 20, 1778, b6, f1,  Hartshorne Family Papers, Monmouth County Historical Association; Letter, D. B. to Richard Hartshorne, September 19, 1778, b6, f1, Hartshorne Family Papers, Monmouth County Historical Association; Letter, “Thomas Meadows” to R. H. dated “13th of the 4th Moon 1779.  Possibly a pseudonym being used by Richard Hartshorne’s brother William, b6, f1, Hartshorne Family Papers, Monmouth County Historical Association; Anonymous letter, addressed to R. H., dated “20th of the 3rd Moon 1779.," b6, f1, Hartshorne Family Papers, Monmouth County Historical Association; The Library Company, New Jersey Votes of the Assembly, November 8, 1780, p 20-21; Information on the marriages of the Shrewsbury Friends is in John Stillwell, Historical and Genealogical Miscellany (Baltimore: Genealogical Publishing Co., 1970) v1, p 306-14; Richard McMaster, "The Peace Churches of the American Revolution", Fides et Historia, v9, Spring 1977, p 8, 20.

.