Monday, February 23, 2015

The 1688 Germantown Quaker Meeting Minute Against Slavery: The Earliest English Language Abolitionist Document in America


It is significant that the earliest known document against slavery in English, in North America was written by people who spoke very little English.   They were Germans who had originally been Mennonites but who converted to Quakerism, that accounts for some of the obscurity of the document but which might, also account for why those people and not people whose native language was English have the honor of having been the first.  Though, I will point out, the writing of Bartolomeo de las Casas and the various encyclicals and theologians I've mentioned in this series of posts were far earlier.   The English abolitionists, though there are those who seem to think they are the only ones who matter, came relatively late to the cause.   

Garret henderich, derick up de graeff, Francis daniell Pastorius, and Abraham up Den graef.
A Minute Against Slavery, Addressed to Germantown Monthly Meeting, 1688.
This is to ye Monthly Meeting held at Richard Worrell's.

These are the reasons why we are against the traffick of men-body, as foloweth. Is there any that would be done or handled at this manner? viz., to be sold or made a slave for all the time of his life? How fearful and faint-hearted are many on sea, when they see a strange vessel, - being afraid it should be a Turk, and they should be taken, and sold for slaves into Turkey. Now what is this better done, as Turks doe? Yea, rather it is worse for them, which say they are Christians; for we hear that yemost part of such negers are brought hither against their will and consent,and that many of them are stolen. Now, tho they are black, we can not conceive there is more liberty to have them slaves, as it is to have other white ones. There is a saying that we shall doe to all men like as we will be done ourselves; making no difference of what generation, descent or colour they are. And those who steal or robb men, and those who buy or purchase them, are they not all alike? Here is liberty of conscience wch is right and reasonable; here ought to be liberty of ye body, except of evil-doers,wch is an other case. But to bring men hither, or to rob and sell them against their will, we stand against. In Europe there are many oppressed for conscience sake; and here there are those oppressed wh are of a black colour. And we who know than men must not comitt adultery, - some do committ adultery, in separating wives from their husbands and giving them to others; and some sell the children of these poor creatures to other men. Ah! doe consider will this thing, you who doe it, if you would be done at this manner? And if it is done according to Christianity? You surpass Holland and Germany in this thing. This makes an ill report in all those countries of Europe, where they hear of, that ye Quakers doe here handel men as they handel there ye cattle. And for that reason some have no mind or inclination to come hither. And who shall maintain this your cause, or pleid for it. Truly we can not do so, except you shall inform us better hereof, viz., that Christians have liberty to practise these things. Pray, what thing in the world can be done worse towards us, than if men should rob or steal us away, and sell us for slaves to strange countries; separating husbands from their wives and children. Being now that this is not done in the manner we would be done at therefore we contradict and are against this traffic of men-body. And we who profess that is is not lawful to steal, must, likewise, avoid to purchase such things as are stolen, but rather help to stop this robbing and stealing if possible. And such men ought to be delivered out of ye hands of ye robbers,and set free as well as in Europe. Then is Pennsylvania to have a good report, instead it hath now a bad one for this sake in other countries. Especially whereas ye Europeans are desirous to know in what manner ye Quakers doe rule in their province; - and most of them doe look upon us with an envious eye. But if this is done well, what shall we say is done evil?

If once these slaves (wch they say are so wicked and stubbern men) should join themselves, - fight for their freedom, - and handel their masters and mastrisses as they did handel them before; will these masters and mastrisses take the sword at hand and warr against these poor slaves, licke, we are able to believe, some will not refuse to doe; or have these negers not as much right to fight for their freedom, as you have to keep them slaves?

Now consider will this thing, if it is good or bad? And in case you find it to be good to handle these blacks at that manner, we desire and require you hereby lovingly, that you may inform us herein, which at this time never was done, viz., that Christians have such a liberty to do so. To the end we shall be be satisfied in this point, and satisfie likewise our good friends and acquaintances in our natif country, to whose it is a terror, or fairful thing, that men should be handeld so in Pennsylvania.

This is from our meeting at Germantown, held ye18 of the 2 month, 1688, to be delivered to the Monthly Meeting at Richard Worrell's.

Garret henderichderick up de graeff
Francis daniell Pastorius
Abraham up Den graef. 

Though the various meetings the document was sent to didn't do much to address it, much to the disappointment of the authors, its place in the eventual decision by Quakers to forbid slavery is probably more significant than we can know about.  The act, itself, is worth noting, as the arguments it used are, clearly based on the moral reciprocity of the commandments, to do unto others as you would have done unto you and to love your neighbor as yourself.   Also significant is the prediction that holding black people in slavery would eventually lead to significant bloodshed, of the violence of slavery leading to violence.  Something that so many of the racists then and now can't conceive of happening, something that still blights and confuses Americans in dealing with "the other" in other places as well as here.

3 comments:

  1. I've been doing some reading into ethics, a topic much more complex than idiots like Harris and Dawkins imagine. The very idea that all ethics must be based in religion, or that ethics are possible without religion, is so sophomoric and idiotic it isn't even funny. The idea of ethics, period: of what is "ethical" and why, and who it applies to, and how, and what burden it does or doesn't place on this supposedly subject to it, are the questions of ethics. The presumption that ethics exists as a thing produced either by religious belief or materialist belief is not even on the board.

    I start there because of your final paragraph, but I came here to thank you for this information. I've decided valid information is a rare thing on the Internet; at least valid information one can converse about. I can find information on various websites; but comments are another matter. Just this morning a commenter at Salon, in response to a post by a Biblical scholar, declared that the scriptures of the Bible were written in a time when both "intelligence" and "literacy" (the exact words used) were "illegal."

    How do you respond to ignorance that profound?

    So, when I read about ethics and think about ethics, and then think the argument extant in the world is such a puerile and stupid and ignorant one, I begin to think longingly of the Ivory Tower....

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I think we're in the TV - infotainment dark ages, why people with access to so much information, nevertheless, leave it unused. I have said, before, that I think Aldous Huxley got it more right than Orwell did and that the colors of our dark age would be technicolor, not the coal smog of 1940s London.

      I have been looking at a number of online collections of magazines from the period before TV induced rot took over and it's amazing how different it was from what prevails now. I think that had a lot to do with how change was made in the 1960s and why we can't get started in the age of free speech-free press absolutism, today. I think the 1930s to the early post-war period was an island of exceptionalism, though not a golden age. A period when both morals and ideas mattered to the intellectual class.

      Delete
  2. One might say that this document shifted the proverbial Overton Window, which helped push Friends in more places (since our Meetings are independent and varied), which led to their petitions in Congress (in its various forms), which created a bit of space for more abolitionist noise in Government.

    Which, naturally, pissed off slavers, which eventually made them take their balls and go home when Lincoln was elected (because agitators). So you can clearly blame Quakers--and by extension, all religion--for the Civil War.

    QED

    ReplyDelete