Vermont Quakers faced death as conscientious objectors during Civil War thus Lincoln Faced a Dilemma

Belle Montgomery

2nd Lieutenant
Joined
Oct 25, 2017
Location
44022
Civil-War-draft.jpg

Quakers often refused to be drafted into the U.S. Army during the Civil War. Library of Congress

Abraham Lincoln faced a dilemma, thanks to a trio of Vermonters. The president was trying to put down an insurrection and reunite the country, but he wanted to do so while protecting religious freedom. The Vermonters were making it hard for him to do both.

In 1863, the Vermonters — Peter Dakin of Ferrisburgh, Lindley M. Macomber of Grand Isle, and Cyrus Pringle of Charlotte — found themselves at the heart of a potentially deadly battle with the Army over whether they could be forced, against their religious beliefs, to serve. As Quakers, they had dedicated themselves to pacifism, so they argued they could not maintain their faith and take up arms. Refusing to fight might have been more dangerous for the men than enlisting — the Army was threatening them with court-martials that could lead to imprisonment and possible execution.


Friends and relatives prodded the men to find a graceful way out. But they steadfastly refused to do anything that aided the war effort. Why not simply pay the $300 commutation fee, to buy their way out of serving, they were asked. But the men said the government would use that money to fight the war. They even rejected others’ offers to pay the fee for them.

PringleHeadshot.jpg

Cyrus Pringle was part of a group of three Vermont Quakers who refused to fight in the Civil War. Wikimedia Commons

“We confess a higher duty than that to country; and, asking no military protection of our Government and grateful for none, deny any obligation to support so unlawful a system,” explained Pringle in his journal. Much of what we know about the drama comes to us from a journal Pringle kept, which was published 50 years later, in 1913, in The Atlantic Monthly, and again as a book in 1918, during World War I.

The military shipped the men out as prisoners, hoping they would eventually obey orders. “(A)s the town clock (in Rutland) tolled the hour of seven, we were driven amongst the flock that was going forth to the slaughter, down the street and into the cars for Brattleboro,” he wrote. “…At Brattleboro we were marched up to the camp; our knapsacks and persons searched; and any articles of citizen’s dress taken from us; and then shut up in a rough board building under a guard.”

They slept on boards and ate meals consisting of burnt bread, occasionally some aging meat, and peas. But they were only passing through Brattleboro. Within two days, they were...
Rest of Article: https://vtdigger.org/2020/08/09/the...-as-conscientious-objectors-during-civil-war/
 
Very interesting story. It seems that the military command jumped through a lot of hoops trying to convince these men to serve somehow, but their belief was stronger than any type of coercion. Makes me wonder when the United States finally accepted the concept of conscientious objector status as being valid grounds for forgoing military service.
 
Makes me wonder when the United States finally accepted the concept of conscientious objector status as being valid grounds for forgoing military service.

Apparently the Quakers were not the only religious group that struggled with this. This was the law in February of 1864:

"The Conscription Act of 1863 was amended in February of 1864. In the amendment provision was made by the Federal government that "members of religious denominations, who shall by oath or afirmation declare that they are conscientiously opposed to the bearing of arms," shall when drafted "be considered noncombatants." They might then be assigned to duty in hospitals, or to the care of freedmen; or they might avail themselves of the privilege of exemption granted to those who should pay $300.00.

So long as the general provision for the release of any drafted men from military service by the payment of $300.00 each was in force, no steps were taken by Seventh-day Adventists to obtain recognition as noncombatants. Our denomination was young and its membership relatively small and unknown. So, for more than a year, most of our men when drafted secured exemption by paying the $300.00.

But a bill signed July 4, 1864, revoked "the clause commonly known as the $300.00 exemption clause," except for those "conscientiously opposed to bearing arms." This action precipitated a crisis, for if Seventh-day Adventists were to secure the continued benefits of exemption, or were to secure noncombatant status should they respond to the draft, they must now publicly declare their position and attitude.


Prompt steps were taken to meet the issue. On August 3, there was laid before Austin Blair, Governor of Michigan, a declaration of principles, signed by the General Conference Committee, giving the reasons why Seventh-day Adventists "have not felt free to enlist into the service," and requesting the governor's endorsement of the claim that "as a people we come under the intent of the late action of Congress concerning those who are conscientiously opposed to bearing arms, and are entitled to the benefits of said laws.”

The Governor of Michigan readily granted this request.

Similar steps were taken in other states, as Wisconsin, Illinois, and Pennsylvania, with equally satisfactory replies from the governors. These endorsements, together with letters of recommendation from certain military officers, were carried to Washington, D. C., by Elder J. N. Andrews, who laid them before Provost Marshal James B. Fry.

https://whiteestate.org/about/issues1/ref-lib/add-docs/military/
 
Quakers were not a factor in Missouri before or during the Civil War, I could find any mention of them settling in Missouri before the war. During the war things would not have went well for them here. There was no neutral ground for anyone in Missouri during the war. It would be interesting to see if any Quakers lived here during the war. A few groups of Amish and Mennonites lived in Missouri before the war, and they had more than their share of problems with both Union and Confederate forces with the addition of the guerrillas groups.
 
It wasn't even just a Union issue either, when it came to coercing Quakers to "do their duty". There was obviously the Confederate efforts against the Quakers to force them to serve and you hear reports of them forcing them to be flag bearers and marching them into battle at the point of the bayonet. It was extremely difficult, especially in the South, to remain neutral even as a member of a pacifist religion.

But the only religion that seems to have been largley exempted from military service outside your small groups was the Mormon Church. But that was because, despite a rather sizable population (Utah Territory had a population of over 40,000 in 1860 and doubled to over 86,000 by 1870), Utah Territory was still technically under military occupation post-Utah War, an occupation that wouldn't end until after the end of the Civil War. Even offers from Brigham Young to raise troops to help protect the mail routes were only given the bare minimum of approval as the loyalties of the Church was still suspect by many in government.
 
In Maine, the Quakers went both ways in choosing between opposition to slavery and opposition to battle. There was the sad case of one Quaker who was pushed into battle with a rifle strapped to him; of course he didn't fare well--he was captured and died in Andersonville. In another nearby town, there was "The Fighting Quaker" for whom there was only one option. In my town, Quakers made up a substantial portion of local troops. After the war, they were accepted right back to the old life.
 
There were other religious organizations that did not fight: According to this article we have this family:

“The Studebakers were largely Dunkards—Christian pietists opposed to war—but the brothers were willing to furnish the Army with supply wagons, gun caissons and ambulances with rocker suspensions for patients’ comfort on uneven roads. By 1867 Studebaker had provided 6,000 vehicles to the Army, as well as carriages for President Abraham Lincoln and future presidents Ulysses S. Grant, Rutherford B. Hayes and Benjamin Harrison."

https://www.historynet.com/studebaker-wagon-the-studie-that-served-on-the-front-lines.htm

They did what they could do and did it very well.
 
Last edited:
In Maine, the Quakers went both ways in choosing between opposition to slavery and opposition to battle. There was the sad case of one Quaker who was pushed into battle with a rifle strapped to him; of course he didn't fare well--he was captured and died in Andersonville. In another nearby town, there was "The Fighting Quaker" for whom there was only one option. In my town, Quakers made up a substantial portion of local troops. After the war, they were accepted right back to the old life.

Yes, couldn't figure this out in our family? Revolutionary War, Quakers fought but remained Quakers post war. Found a meeting where that person was allowed back in. Same family, grandson left to fight but never came back. The Methodist he married may have something to do with that.

Seems to have varied quite a bit, which sect adhered to what?
 
Yes, couldn't figure this out in our family? Revolutionary War, Quakers fought but remained Quakers post war. Found a meeting where that person was allowed back in. Same family, grandson left to fight but never came back. The Methodist he married may have something to do with that.

Seems to have varied quite a bit, which sect adhered to what?
Caveat: I'm not good at Quaker history and genealogy.

There are only 2 types of Quakers that I know of (although certainly there are apt to be more): those with ministers and those without. Our town's Quakers have a minister--and they were out (to use a Scottish expression) in numbers. But "the Fighting Quaker" was from the other type.

I suspect that it came down to an individual choice. The Quakers were strongly anti-slavery and seem to have been able to excuse those who fought over the issue. Southern Quakers were largely pacifist--perhaps because it might be argued that fighting for the Confederacy might be construed as fighting to preserve slavery.
 
Back
Top