[responsivevoice_button]
Religion offered many American revolutionaries moral approval of their opposition to British rule. However, not all religious sects or religious believers supported the Revolutionary War. Many looked at Romans 13:1-7 as we did yesterday and saw a very clear teaching that they should submit to the governing authorities.
The leaders of the American Revolution used religion in different ways to support the war effort. Religious ministers served as military chaplains and some even took up arms, leading Continental troops in battle. George Washington, commander-in-chief of the Continental Army, saw chaplains as critical to the war effort and asked Congress that they be offered salaries generous enough to attract “men of abilities” to the job. Moreover, he expected his soldiers to attend Sunday worship services whenever possible; it was important, he wrote, “to implore the blessings of heaven upon the means used of our safety and defense.” He further believed that it would improve his men’s morale, as well as reduce “profane cursing, swearing, and drunkenness.”
In addition to employing chaplains for itself and the armed forces, the Continental Congress declared official days for fasting and thanksgiving throughout the war. Some members of the Congress were guided by “covenant theology,” a Reformation doctrine that held that God bound himself in an agreement that stipulated that a nation would be prosperous or afflicted, depending on their general obedience or disobedience to God.
Anglican Loyalists
Not all colonists supported independence from England, and religion was a reason for disagreement. Yesterday, we explored how many revolutionary Americans believed that obedience to God required revolution against the King of England. However, historians estimate that up to 20 percent of the American population remained “loyalists” who supported the King. Many loyalists were Anglicans; that is, members of the Church of England.
During the Revolutionary War, the Anglican clergy in America found themselves in a precarious position. Anglican ministers were bound by oath to support the King, the official head of the Anglican Church, but this was the very king against whom Americans were rising up in rebellion. The Revolution, not surprisingly, divided and deeply damaged the Church of England in America. Many clergymen returned to England, leaving their denominations with little or no leadership.
New leadership, moreover, could not be quickly found. Since there was no bishop in America, ordination required travel to England. It also required the ordained to swear an oath of allegiance to the English Crown, which few Americans at the time were willing to do. After the Revolution, the Church of England was forced to find new ways to maintain its institutions and its new leaders. Those who remained part of the Church gathered for a general convention in 1785, at which time a new name was adopted—the Protestant Episcopal Church (known today as simply the Episcopal Church).
Quakers & Pacifism
Quakers (more formally known as The Society of Friends or Religious Society of Friends) faced a different problem than the Anglicans. As early as 1660, Quakers had publicly declared pacifism as part of their way of life and, accordingly, most Quakers refused to take up arms in the Revolutionary War.
This led some Americans to be suspicious of the Quakers despite the fact that they had long been a fixture in Colonial America (Quakers began to immigrate to the American colonies in the 1660s, settling particularly in New Jersey and Pennsylvania. By the early 18th century, Quaker meetings were being held in every colony except Connecticut and South Carolina). Americans who believed that they were fighting and sacrificing their own lives for freedom reacted differently to the Quakers’ refusal to take up arms. Some acknowledged and accepted the Quakers’ belief as an authentic religious practice; others saw Quakers as failing to fulfill their duties to the cause of American freedom.
George Washington dealt with the Quakers in a charitable but sometimes stern manner. At times, he sought to accommodate the Quakers’ refusal to bear arms. When the war shifted to Pennsylvania in early 1777, for example, he wrote:
It is absolutely necessary, that every Person able to bear arm (except such as are conscientiously scrupulous against it in every case), should give their personal Service, and whenever a part of the Militia is required only, either to join the Army or find a Man in their place.
Washington did not mention the Quakers by name, but it is fair to assume that he anticipated their religious objection to military service and sought to exempt them. Later in that same year, he sent home several Virginia Quakers who had been drafted into the militia. At other times, however, Washington acted harshly toward the Quakers, especially those in Pennsylvania whose neutrality was interpreted by many to be pro-British. In May 1777, he wrote:
“I have been informed by Colo. Forman, that the Quakers and disaffected are doing all in their power to counteract your late Militia Law; but I hope, if your Officers are active and Spirited, that they will defeat their evil intentions and bring their Men into the Field.”
During the British occupation of Philadelphia, Washington’s ire peaked. When giving orders to impress supplies from the countryside, Washington twice commanded his officers to “take care, that the unfriendly Quakers and others notoriously disaffected to the cause of American liberty do not escape your Vigilance.”
In March 1778, Washington went so far as to order his officers to prevent Quakers from entering Philadelphia so they could not attend their religious services. He explained why calling their meeting “an intercourse that we should, by all means, endeavor to interrupt, as the plans settled at these meetings are of the most pernicious tendency.”
Assignment:
Read the Letter from the Annual Meeting of the Quakers in 1789, addressed to President George Washington. How do you think Washington responded to this letter? How would you respond? Put your responses in the comments below.
P. S. I’ll put the link to Washington’s actual response in the comments, but don’t cheat and read his before you respond.
Washington’s Response: Remember No Peeking! https://teachingamericanhistory.org/library/document/letter-to-the-annual-meeting-of-quakers/
The response was unexpected. I thought it would be long and boring. Instead, it was short and simple and easy to understand what George Washington wanted to say.
I found it interesting that Washington was not happy about the Quakers and didn’t say anything harsh about them.
I think he responded pretty good he was saying that every citizen should get treated the same I guess I would respond the same way maybe
i feel like washington would respond nicely to that. i probably would have said thats fine.
i feel like washington would respond kindly to that.
i would reply just sbout the same.
I think he would’ve too.
I think Washington would have responded kindly to the letter.
I could hardly get passed all the “thees” and “thous” and “thy” but I think Washington would have responded kindly. I would have. Its a very nice letter.
I feel like Washington would directly answer him but not in a mean way just straight to the point and I think I would do the same
The Quakers were respectful in their letter. I feel like Washington would have appreciated that and responded genuinely.
i think washington would answer nicely to the letter
I think Washington would have responded to the letter nicely. After all, he did help create the Declaration and it does say that a person may have any religion that he wants or no religion.
yeah nice
I thought Washington would respond like that. I might have too.