USA > Virginia > Exiles in Virginia : with observations on the conduct of the Society of Friends during the revolutionary war ; comprising the official papers of the government relating to that period. 1777-1778 > Part 3
Note: The text from this book was generated using artificial intelligence so there may be some errors. The full pages can be found on Archive.org (link on the Part 1 page).
Part 1 | Part 2 | Part 3 | Part 4 | Part 5 | Part 6 | Part 7 | Part 8 | Part 9 | Part 10 | Part 11 | Part 12 | Part 13 | Part 14 | Part 15 | Part 16 | Part 17 | Part 18 | Part 19 | Part 20 | Part 21 | Part 22
* See Miers Fisher's Notes.
-
33
INTRODUCTION.
But when the European Seven Years' War broke out between France and England, which existed from 1756 to 1763, and was carried on in America by the English for the conquest of Canada, the Indians on the frontier became influenced by the French into hostile measures, and as auxiliaries they invaded Western Pennsylvania, and fought the battle near Pittsburg, at the defeat of General Braddock, on the 9th of July, 1755.
This was the first instance of hostile conduct on the part of the Indians, and in Gordon's History of Pennsylvania, p. 325, he writes, " The Indians remained very inimical for some time, till the return of the Shawnese and Delawares to a pacific disposition. This was greatly promoted by the conduct of the principal Quakers. Israel Pemberton and several others had invited some friendly Indians to their tables, and awakened their earnest wishes for peace. This conference was held by permission of the governor (Robert Hunter Morris). But by the advice of his council, the subject was left entirely to the management of the Friends."
The Colony of Pennsylvania had thus continued to realize the best expectations which could have been formed for it. The inhabitants, guided by good examples, were industrious ; the land productive, the laws equal, religious rights were enjoyed by all, and a representative government in the hands of the people.
The foreign or international concerns of the country were in the hands of the British government, and but little influenced the administration of the Colony. By the treaty of 1763, made with France, that nation ceded to the English all the Canada country, in favour of their retaining which, at the peace, Doctor Franklin took a very active and efficient interest, and addressed to the ministry his celebrated Canada pamphlet. This country became thus united to the English colonies, and the toleration of religion was not only introduced there, but ex- tended through the valley of the Mississippi, and was eventually secured through all western North America.
3
34
INTRODUCTION.
The Society of Friends had never engaged in any national controversies of religion or politics, for their views of the injunc- tions of the Christian religion, and of its conservative character, were paramount to every other consideration. They had a belief that the dispensation of this religion was sufficiently opened to mankind to be of practical application, so that when differences occurred, they could and ought to be settled upon the catholic principles it enjoined.
When, therefore, after the British nation had become the unrivalled possessors of nearly all the continent of North America, and the measures of that government tended to pass laws restrictive upon the colonies, which created differences proceeding to retaliation and independent rule, a state of difficulty ensued, requiring the Society of Friends to sustain its peaceable principles by an injunction upon its members to with- draw from all warlike measures.
It ought not to be considered unreasonable that the Friends, after having under their own peaceful laws and discipline pro- vided for all the exigencies of the state, both "for the savage and the sage," should have declined to take any part in a contest among their own brethren, waging a warfare to an extent they could not estimate, and certainly not control.
And was it just or reasonable that the Friends, who had established and conducted the government for nearly a century under the principles of peace, should on a change of power in the province, be proscribed and treated as aliens and enemies to their country, because they could not join in hostile measures when these were expedient only according to the judgment of others ? And would it not have been consistent with the rights of mankind, so well known as the purpose of the Revolution, that the motives and conduct of the Friends should have been clearly ascertained, that as a conscientious people they should have been accordingly protected, and allowed to remain quietly at their homes, without molestation ?
Just as these considerations are claimed to be, the follow- ing narrative will show what little regard was paid to the
35
INTRODUCTION.
Friends in Philadelphia, for their considerate and equitable conduct to others ! ! 1157691
During the second year of the war of the American Revo- lution, the English army was brought round by sea from New York into Chesapeake Bay ; they were landed near the head of the bay on the 22d of August, and after the battle of Brandy- wine on the 11th of September, 1777, they passed through the State of Pennsylvania, to take possession of the city of Philadelphia.
The House of Congress was then in session at Philadelphia, -the Legislature of Pennsylvania,-and the Supreme Executive Council, consisting of twelve members with its president, esta- blished by the State Constitution of 28th September, 1776,-and there also sat the Committee of Safety, which held its private assemblages as an acting committee, whose doings and minutes were assumed by the Supreme Executive Council.
Congress, by a resolve of 25th August, 1777, recommended as follows: "That the executive officers of the states of Pennsylvania and Delaware, be requested to cause all persons, within the respective States, notoriously disaffected, forthwith to be disarmed and secured, until such time as they may be released without injury to the common cause.
" That it be recommended to the Supreme Executive Council of the State of Pennsylvania, to cause diligent search to be made in the houses of all the inhabitants of the city of Phila- delphia, who have not manifested their attachment to the American cause, for firearms, swords, bayonets, &c."
These resolutions, from their construction, could scarcely have been intended for the Society of Friends.
But under the general recommendation of these resolutions, the Supreme Executive Council considered it within their license to arrest several of the most respectable inhabitants of Philadel- phia, chiefly of the Society of Friends, to represent them to be amenable to the charges contained in it, and because they would not consent to be subjected to such a deprivation of their liberty as was unworthy of respectable citizens, and men of unim-
36
INTRODUCTION.
peachable character, and as they would not assent to join in with the measures of the Revolution, the Council declared the Friends to be notoriously disaffected to the cause of American freedom. Their case was then reported to a Congress unac- quainted with their principles, and with their personal character.
Nearly at the same time, as appears on the minutes of Con- gress of 28th August, 1777, there had been transmitted to it a letter from General Sullivan, dated at Hanover, near Newark, New Jersey, on the 25th August, enclosing a paper said to have been found among baggage taken at Staten Island.
This paper professed to contain information from a yearly meeting of Friends, said to be held on the 19th of August, at Spanktown, a place scarcely known even as an inferior part of Rahway, which was a remote town on the east side of New Jersey.
Owing to the ignorance of Congress respecting the Society of Friends, this production became thus imposed upon them. It stated under its date of 25th August, that General Howe had landed at the head of Chesapeake Bay, and it contained various desultory information of a very inconsistent character, which Congress, under date of 31st August, directed to be published,-a copy of which is given in this volume, and it is yet to be found at the Philadelphia Library, in No. 2533 of the Pennsylvania Register, dated 10th September, 1777, and also in No. 304 of Dunlap's Pennsylvania Packet, of Tuesday, 9th September, 1777. In both of these it is certified to be published by Order of Congress, by Charles Thomson, Secretary.
By the charge of authorship of such a production upon the Society of Friends, it was intended still farther to injure their character in the estimation of Congress, to lead to an inference that their religious meetings were connected with political pur- poses, and to create prejudices against them among the people ; but a full exculpation of the Society from any shadow of its authorship is to be found in the contradictory statements of dates in the paper itself, as well as in its general tenor and
37
INTRODUCTION.
character ; and this is fully set forth in the course of the fol- lowing Journal and Memoirs. In these it will be seen-
In the first place, that no meeting of the Society had ever been held at the designated place-selected as if in derision of the Society, " Spanktown"-the places of holding their yearly meetings being always at the most respectable towns or cities through the country, and advertised in the annual publications.
In the second place, that the letter professed to contain in- formation from the eastern part of New Jersey, and to be brought by way of Staten Island under date of 19th August, respecting the landing of the British army at the head of the Chesapeake Bay, which did not take place till the 22d August. The intelligence of this, however, had reached Philadelphia on the 23d, and must have been known to Congress, because it is stated on their minutes on the 25th August, and thence there was issued the publication made by their order on the 31st August.
It would appear almost useless to add to this statement any remarks respecting such a publication, and of the impropriety and unkindness of thus intending to injure the standing of a large and respectable portion of fellow-citizens in the opinion of an uninformed, and therefore undiscriminating public. But, if owing to a want of time or the agitating military movements in the country, the Supreme Executive Council, who were then appointed to be the guardians of the rights of the people, had not prevented the application made by the persons so charged to have a hearing in a court of justice, these misrepresentations would have been made obvious ; the Friends would then have been placed in public estimation in that state of innocence and inoffensive character which their accusers were compelled to accede to them, after these attempts to criminate them and to debar them of their constitutional rights had failed.
The persons arrested, to the number of twenty, form the subject of this volume, and were part of a larger list. They were taken into custody by military force at their homes or usual places of business ; many of them could not obtain any
38
INTRODUCTION.
knowledge of the cause of their arrest, or of any one to whom they were amenable, and they could only hope to avail them- selves of the intervention of some civil authority.
The Executive Council being formed of residents of the City and County of Philadelphia, had a better knowledge of the Society of Friends, and of their individual characters, than the members of Congress, assembled from the various parts of the country, and ought to have protected them. But instead of this, they caused these arrests of their fellow-citizens to be made with unrelenting severity, and from the first to the fourth day of September, 1777, the party was taken into confinement in the Masons' Lodge in Philadelphia.
On the minutes of Congress of 3d September, 1777, it ap- pears that a letter was received by them from George Bryan, Vice-President of the Supreme Executive Council, dated 2d September, stating that arrests had been made of persons ini- mical to the American States, and desiring the advice of Con- gress particularly whether Augusta and Winchester, in Vir- ginia, would not be proper places at which to secure the prisoners.
Appalled by the cruelty of such a novel proposition, the per- sons arrested immediately represented the injustice of such treatment to the Supreme Executive Council and to Congress ; and their remonstrances were accompanied, under a very feel- ing consideration of their case, by an address to the President and Supreme Executive Council of Pennsylvania, signed by most of the other members of the Society in and near Phila- delphia-a copy of which is given in the Journal. In this me- morial they state " that these persons were denied the just and reasonable right of being heard, and since ordered to be re- moved to a distant part of Virginia : a proceeding which not only affects the persons immediately concerned, but is an alarming violation of the civil and religious rights of the com- munity, which we conceive no plea of necessity can justify."
Congress must have been aware that it was becoming a case of very unjust suffering, for they passed their resolution of 6th September, 1777, as follows :
39
INTRODUCTION.
" That it be recommended to the Supreme Executive Council of the State of Pennsylvania, to hear what the said remon- strants can allege to remove the suspicions of their being dis- affected or dangerous to the United States."
But the Supreme Executive Council on the same day refer- ring to the above,
" Resolved, That the President do write to Congress to let them know that the Council has not time to attend to that busi- ness in the present alarming crisis, and that they were, agreea- bly to the recommendation of Congress, at the moment the Resolve was brought into Council, disposing of every thing for the departure of the prisoners."
By reference to the preceding minutes of Congress, it ap- pears evident that the Supreme Executive Council had been directed only to arrest and secure persons adjudged to be no- toriously disaffected to the cause of America ; to take from them firearms, swords, bayonets, &c., and to obtain and secure political papers. And it further appears, that even after the Council had informed Congress of the arrests they had made, and proposed on the 2d day of September to send the parties to banishment into Virginia, that Congress recommended to the Council on the 6th September, to " hear what the remon- strants can allege in their defence."
Had this been permitted, the persons arrested would have been found innocent of any notorious disaffection to the cause of America, or of having used any influence in regard to the existing contest. After their houses had been searched, there were found no instruments of offence or of defence even for personal security, much less firearms, swords, or bayonets, and although their desks were broken open in their absence, no papers of a political character could be found-because they never had corresponded with any one relatively to the Revolution, or to controversial politics.
The act of sending from their homes and families peaceable citizens against whom no imputation could be sustained ; whose positions in business were permanent ; whose attention was in-
40
INTRODUCTION.
dispensable to the immediate necessities of their families ; and whose principles and conduct were a full security to the public peace,-was against the established assurances of society, and an act of violence and oppression.
Thus arrested, they were conducted away without previous notice ;- without conference with their accusers ;- held in custody without specific allegation ;- committed without a trial ;- to be punished without a hearing ;- and then to be banished for an indefinite time, without reference to any degree of supposed offence.
The recommendations of Congress respecting the military precautions of the war were made general, but the executive authorities were charged with the just application of them. As the Supreme Executive Council had taken the responsibility of this, Congress considered the persons arrested to be prisoners of the State of Pennsylvania; and as such subjected to the orders of the Supreme Executive Council, and the destination it had allotted them.
As the recommendation of Congress of the 6th September, to give the prisoners a hearing, was refused by the Supreme Exe- cutive Council, the next minute made by Congress was as follows :
" In Congress, 8 September, 1777.
" Resolved, That it would be improper for Congress to enter into a hearing of the remonstrants or other prisoners in the Masons' Lodge, they being inhabitants of Pennsylvania; and therefore, as the Council declines giving them a hearing for the reasons assigned in their letter to Congress, that it be recom- mended to said Council to order the immediate departure of such of the said prisoners as yet refuse to swear or affirm alle- giance to the State of Pennsylvania, to Staunton, in Virginia."
The remonstrances made to Congress, and to the Supreme Executive Council, being unavailing, the parties arrested were ordered to depart for Virginia, on the 11th September, 1777,
.
41
INTRODUCTION.
when as their last resource they applied under the laws of Pennsylvania to be brought before the Judicial Court by writs of habeas corpus.
The departure of the prisoners was committed to the care of Colonel Jacob Morgan of Bucks County, and they were guarded by six of the Light Horse, commanded by Alexander Nesbitt and Samuel Caldwell, who were to obey the despatches from the Board of War, of which General Horatio Gates was Pre- sident, directed to the Lieutenants of the counties through which the prisoners were to pass.
The writs of habeas corpus on being presented to the Chief Justice, were marked by him, " Allowed by Thomas M'Kean," and they were served on the officers who had the prisoners in custody, when they had been taken on their journey as far as Reading, Pennsylvania, on the 14th day of September, but the officers refused to obey them.
It appears by the Journal of the Supreme Executive Council of the 16th of September, that. Alexander Nesbitt, one of the officers, had previously obtained information about the writs, and made a report of them ; when the Pennsylvania Legislature, at the instance of the Supreme Executive Council, passed a law on the 16th of September, 1777, to suspend the habeas corpus act ; and although it was an " ex post facto" law as it related to their case, the Supreme Executive Council on that day ordered the same to be carried into effect.
The Congress must have been utterly regardless of the com- plaint made so lately by themselves against the arbitrary con- duct of the British Parliament, when they disregarded this appeal made to themselves for humanity and justice. The fol- lowing is an extract from one of their addresses to the people of Great Britain, and is dated on the 21st October, 1774.
" We hold it essential to English liberty, that no man be con- demned unheard, or punished for supposed offences without having an opportunity of making his defence."*
* See Hubley, p. 95.
42
INTRODUCTION.
Disregarding, however, all remonstrances, these citizens, without the semblance of justice or law, were sent into banish- ment.
The party consisted of twenty persons, of whom seventeen were members of the Society of Friends. They were ordered first to Staunton, then a frontier town in the western settle- ments of Virginia, but afterwards to be detained at Winchester, where they were kept in partial confinement nearly eight months, without provision being made for their support. For the only reference to this, was by a resolution of the Supreme Executive Council of Pennsylvania, dated 8th April, 1778, as follows :
" Ordered, That the whole expenses of arresting and confining the prisoners sent to Virginia, the expenses of their journey, and all other incidental charges, be paid by the said prisoners."
During the stay of the exiles at Winchester, nearly all of them suffered greatly from circumstances unavoidable in their situation,-from anxiety, separation from their families, left un- protected in Philadelphia, then a besieged city liable at any time to be starved out or taken by assault ; while from sick- ness and exposure during the winter season, in accommoda- tions entirely unsuitable for them, two of their number departed this life in the month of March, 1778.
General sympathy had become excited on account of so large a number of respectable citizens having been sent away from their homes under no specific accusation, and the case became one of public concernment as it respected the rights of society at large.
In consequence of this, the Supreme Executive Council of Pennsylvania had to yield to the sense of public feeling, and re- view their conduct, and to remand the prisoners from the cus- tody of Congress in order to have them brought back to the position from which they had been taken. And the following extract from the journals of Congress will show the immediate cause of the order given for their being returned to Pennsyl- vania.
43
INTRODUCTION.
" In Congress, Tuesday, 10 March, 1778.
" A letter was received from the Executive Council of Penn- sylvania, dated the 7th instant, in which it was stated-that the dangerous example which the longer continuance of the prisoners in banishment may afford on future occasions, has already given uneasiness to some good friends of the indepen- dence of these States ; and if Congress has no other reason for continuing them in Virginia than the Council is acquainted with, that such orders may be given as will put those people again under the direction and custody of the President and Council of this State."
The House of Congress acceded at once to the application of the Supreme Executive Council respecting the prisoners, and passed a resolution on the 16th March, directing the Board of War to deliver " the prisoners of the State of Pennsylvania" to the order of the Supreme Executive Council, that they might be returned to Pennsylvania.
Many of the members of Congress had previously had inter- views with Alexander White, Esquire, a gentleman of the highest respectability from the county of Fairfax, Virginia, to whose care the banished party had been committed by Colo- nel Joseph Holmes, the United States Commissary. Alexander White was afterwards a representative from the State of Vir- ginia to Congress. In those interviews the members of Con- gress frequently declared that " the prisoners ought to have been at their homes, for their banishment had answered no valuable purpose whatever."
The long stay of the prisoners at Winchester, it is true, was palliated at times by the sympathy and kindness shown them ; and from the effect produced by their exemplary conduct as gentlemen and citizens, their manners, education, and candour showed them to be persons entitled to respect, notwithstanding the prejudices and misrepresentations which had been excited against them.
On a fair exposition taking place respecting their peculiar
44
INTRODUCTION.
situation, they received the attention and esteem of the gentle- men residing at Winchester, and in the country around it; some of whom had previously visited them at their houses in Philadelphia.
The orders sent for their return to Pennsylvania, influenced by a more correct state of public feeling, contained expressions of personal respect even from the President and Supreme Exe- cutive Council which had sent them away.
By the order from Congress of 16th March, 1778, to the Board of War, the exiles were to be delivered to the order of the President and Supreme Executive Council of Pennsylvania, and then, by an order of this Council, they were to be brought to Lancaster, to be discharged there.
In the directions of 10th April, 1778, to Francis Y. Bailey and Captain James Lang, who were appointed to escort them, the orders were as follows :
" It is reported that several of those gentlemen are in a low state of health and unfit to travel. If you find this to be the case, they must be left where they are, for the present. Those of them who are in health you are to bring with you, treating them on the road with that polite attention and care, which is due from men who act from the purest motives, to gentlemen whose stations in life entitle them to respect, however they may differ in political sentiments from those in whose power they are."
The party was conducted on the way homeward to Lancas- ter, Pennsylvania, from which place it was requisite that a special permission should be given to them to return to their homes in Philadelphia,-all intercourse with that city being interdicted, owing to its being in possession of the British forces, General Howe having taken possession of it soon after the Battle of Brandywine, and held it for his winter quarters till the campaign of the ensuing year.
For the purpose of interceding in behalf of the Friends, four of the female relatives of the company had left their homes at Philadelphia to visit General Washington, to whom they had
45
INTRODUCTION.
previously addressed a memorial, at his headquarters at Val- ley Forge, where he treated them with great kindness.
Letters were written by General Washington on the 5th and 6th April, to Thomas Wharton, junior, President of the Su- preme Executive Council, and acting Governor of the State of Pennsylvania, for the desired permission-fac simile copies of which letters are given in this volume. One of them stated as follows :
Need help finding more records? Try our genealogical records directory which has more than 1 million sources to help you more easily locate the available records.