Pacificism, (5); Civil Disobedience, Conscientious Objector; War Resistance (6)
PACIFICISM; CIVIL DISOBEDIENCE; CONSCIENTIOUS OBJECTOR; WAR RESISTANCE
13. The World Task of Pacifism (by Abraham John Muste; 1941)
About the Author— A. J. Muste, was born in 1885 and died in 1967. He was a Dutch Reformed minister for 5 years, and a Congregational minister for 3; [he left both churches because of a conflict of conscience, the latter church because of his pacifist views]. In the early 1920s, A.J. became director of the Brookwood Labor College in Katonah, New York, which taught the theory and practice of labor militancy. He also served as chairman of the new Fellowship of Reconciliation. He was deeply involved in labor strikes and politics. He devoted his life to causes that stem from a religious faith—peace action, racial equality, political & economic justice. Throughout his life, A. J. devoted himself to non-violent social justice and change. He wrote 3 other pamphlets.
A World is Breaking up—Many say that what is going on now is not a war but a revolution. Profound and sweeping changes are coming while we pacifists still approach our tasks with a narrow and provincial vision, on a petty scale. I believe that the pacifist movement alone can qualify as the "receiver" for the bankrupt western world. The western order of life is breaking up spiritually, culturally, economically, and politically. The Renaissance and the Reformation sought liberation of the human spirit, in particular from the Church. As a result, man was set at the center of the universe; God was put out of the picture. Man whose spirit was to have been freed at last from ancient restraint and superstition has not for centuries found himself less free than he is today: a cog in the industrial machine; a pawn of the fascist state; a tool of the Communist Party.
[When men set themselves at the center of the universe & the pinnacle of existence], then they can't respect & trust themselves or one another. We have the material means for producing the good life in abundance; we fail or refuse to devise ways for distributing these goods in equitable fashion. The State is the only agency that can regulate production, so everywhere we get increasing state economic intervention [in the form of unsold, wasted products]. Rivalries between nations become intense; they devote increasing capital & energy to unproductive war expenditures, which further contracts useful production of essential goods. Not a single country has broken away from this circle. A wartime "communism" rations the few essential goods remaining and prepares for war [using the instruments of] dictatorship and totalitarianism; [that includes the United States].
War Can't Halt Disintegration—War is itself an extreme expression of our disintegration, of meeting difficulties with increasingly brutal strife. Neither the poverty, exhaustion, disillusionment & humiliation of de-feat, nor the nationalistic exultation & the moral let-down of victory contribute to the healing of the nations. War can only serve to accelerate fearfully the process of impoverishment & breaking up. The best chance to stop disintegration is an early peace. It is only conceivable if nations recognize that war offered no way out of any real problem and if they addressed the economic and cultural roots of war. Unfortunately, the chances that events will take this turn are not bright. An appalling situation will exist at its close, regardless of victory or stalemate.
Men Turn to Opponents of War—The masses in the defeated countries revolted against those who had been in command during the war. They turned to the Communists and Social Democrats who had been opposed to the war. Even in victor states, Socialists, Communists, Labor and varying degrees of pacifists were given the trust of the people and positions of responsibility. They rejected those prophecized positive results falsely, and turned to those who foresaw the actual results and were brave and honest enough to speak out.
The revulsion against the war-makers will be as great in the victorious countries as in the others. It seems unlikely that the regimes in control during the war will survive its end. People will be unsure how to deal with the vastly different conditions that will exist at the same war's end. The Communists and Socialists rejected imperialist wars but accepted violence and war on behalf of the working class. I doubt anyone preaching about civil war and Utopia right after this war will be regarded as a savior and liberator.
The movement to which we might turn to in hope must: have renounced war and violence [before and during the war]; have renounced dictatorship and promoted cooperation; be a profoundly religious movement. They need to believe that new people can be created. They will need a newfaith that transforms and saves them, gives them eternal resources to live for. Only the Christianity of Jesus can build such a movement.
Non-Violence and Social Change/ The Future of Pacifist Relief Work—Should the religious pacifist movement think of itself as a mass movement for achieving social change by nonviolence? [Either we accept the responsibility of promoting love, non-violence, & community as] the basis of all human association, or we ought to stop saying it. Those of us with Jewish-Christian prophetic roots can't evade the call to pray & work for the realization of God's Kingdom on earth. We cannot keep saying "We suffer with you; but if you resort to violence we shall have to stand aside." We pacifists must show that evil can be overcome by non-violence.
Perhaps during and certainly after the war, there will be a vastly increased need and demand for pacifist relief and reconstruction work. How separate can relief and reconstruction be under the conditions that will prevail in Europe and elsewhere? [Our philosophy includes both in a concrete example of a new way of life.] We can admit that we have only been playing at building life on truth and love or humbly to undertake leadership the new world as did William Penn.
Are we Adequate—Is it possible that the religious pacifist forces can measure up to the challenge? The western world may break up as did the Roman Empire; small groups of pacifists might serve as islands of safety, sanity and faith. We might get the chance to provide leadership in building a new order if we undergo the severe physical, intellectual, and spiritual disciplines necessary to meet the situation. For most people, turning to those who are calling for change would mean to admit inadequacy and accepting blame. We are a lot stronger now than a score of years ago, in numbers and in intellectual comprehension and spiritual development. [When we note the positive developments in the vocation of conscientious objectors and the widespread interest in the American Friends Service Committee, we need not despair.
There are several experts who have long known that the old order was thwarting them in the exercise of their abilities. They have no objections to working for the forces of the new day. Let men come out from under the delusion that war is a possible solution for social problems, and we shall be surprised at the resources in ordinary people and in intellectual leaders that will be released for the building of a new world. The Gandhi movement in India is giving the world an example of the use of nonviolence on a mass scale. We may hope that western people will be impressed by this oriental example and that cooperation between eastern and western nonviolence movements may come to have a decisive influence on world events.
The Gandhi Movement—The fundamental characteristics of the Gandhi movement must also be part of the growing pacifist movement in the United States. It is a religious movement. Pacifism is not a tool for occasional use. It is a way of life. The program of personal training and discipline is an indispensable part of the movement. It is an economic and social movement. I am not convinced that it is necessary to go back to a pre-machine economy of spinning. It has 3 elements essential to an adequate non-violence movement.
It must clarify its thinking as to the kind of economic order to strive for. It must experiment with schemes for a more decentralized human cooperative way of living. The basic philosophy of economic life must be expressed and acted out now and not "some day." Workers are hungry and cold now; they cannot wait for a revolution to do something about it. Communists saw that if the new system does not represent the majority stance of the people, it has to be set up by first violence and then regimentation. The Russian experience reminds us that violence and coercion are self-defeating and regimentation leads to degraded human beings.
Those who have entered into the spirit of community will be driven to seek to give expression to their inner spirit in economic relationships. Manual work has important effects on the individual spirit. Corporate manual activity is a powerful agent for unifying pacifist groups within and also with other manual workers. Gandhi's movement is a political movement. A western non-violence movement must make effective contacts with oppressed and minority groups and help them develop a non-violent technique.
Pacifist Strategy in War Time—During war some pacifists incline toward an activist and militant stance; others incline toward a more quietist pacifism. The latter would concentrate on works of mercy and reconstruction, rather than direct opposition. We need to identify ourselves with the needs and suffering of our fellow citizens and worshippers. We cannot try to sabotage the activities of our fellow-citizens who feel called to fight. We seek to wean others from the desire to make war, not to interfere with their war efforts. It is not disloyalty to country, but obedience to a higher law and sovereign "not of this world." The negative act of refusal must be balanced with the positive acts of cooperative living and brotherly service.
The movement as a whole shouldn't become quietist & non-political. That might be an isolationist or escapist attitude. There will always be concrete issues on which we must speak or risk be traitors to the truth. The fact that one may not be able to speak out without suffering for it, would not be sufficient to excuse silence. Periodically the question of war aims or peace terms will or should be raised. The masses will have confidence in us and turn to our leadership after the war to the extent we have given practical demonstrations of love, of our ability to build and organize and courage to speak the truth when it is unpleasant and dangerous to do so.
The multitudes said of early Quakers "With this man who refuses to buy immunity, we shall ... compromise, give him special exemptions & a peculiar confidence." George Fox said: "Lose not this great favor which God hath given unto you, but that ye may answer [God's witness] in every man which witnesseth to your faithfulness." We aren't all called to witness the same way. Some are led to a militant way, while others follow a quieter way. The former's motive must be love; the latter's motive must not be fear or avoiding difficulties. [However we do it], we should be deeply & unreservedly committed to that life "which taketh away the occasion of all war."
Our task is always the positive one of witnessing to that life & of practicing it. To what extent can we compromise with existing economic & political institutions, adapt ourselves to the world's demands? If we do the compromising, there will be no end until our power is gone. If the state is adapting itself to the demands of the spirit, then our "yeast" will not have lost its power and the lump will be transformed into wholesome bread.
The Problem of Alternative Service—One well-respected conscientious objector said: "Either you accept conscription, & do what the government forces you to do, or you refuse to be ordered & ... the government [has] to leave you alone or put you in jail." [If alternative service results from] intellectual blurring of the conscription issue & voluntary service, or from making it easier for the government or less difficult & unpleasant for ourselves, then there would be no difference of principle between alternative service & any war service. I don't believe we are confined to the choices of conscription, alternative service that caters too much to the war machine, or going to jail. It has always been my conviction that non-registrants who forced the government to change radically or send them to jail, rendered a great service to the pacifism cause, democracy & prophetic religion.
Fidelity to conscience at cost to the individual in the face of general opposition & disapproval still has the power to win the respect of men who have "that of God" in them. Every one has in one's conduct a line beyond which one won't go no matter how absurd it may seem to others to draw the line at that point. If such people take this course as a result of mature reflection & an unreserved commitment to the leading of the Spirit, I believe they will do a great service. It is impossible to exaggerate the importance of war-resistance. The nations will not face their real problems, so long as they think resort to an armament boom and war constitutes a "way out." To say that not participating in war, a tumor on the body politic, is "merely negative," is like saying removal of a cancerous tumor of the physical body is "merely negative."
There is a sense in which war resistance is incidental in the pacifist way of life. Pacifism is a life of love & non-violence; it is to break out of the Self's hard shell; to know deeply the unity of all in God; to express love at every moment, in every relationship. This is the love which binds man, maid, & family together. This must al-ways find expression even where we must stand against the majority. We have all the time got to be insisting on our right to "alternative service." Even in jail, we should have to devise ways of rendering "alternative service."
The individual pacifist is confronted with the needs of resisting human customs & institutions & also creatively serving one's fellows. The movement must deal vigorously & imaginatively with the "alternative service" problem." Constructive pacifist service must be civilian service under private auspices & control, not a civilian department of the government. Projects must grow out of & must express religious pacifism's spirit. [In an age of regimentation] for war, no greater service can be rendered than keeping alive volunteerism's spirit. Projects must represent a sacrifice offered to our fellows, a self-denial & suffering, a sacrifice on behalf of principles and faith.
"Alternative service" cannot be government financed or controlled and still be a genuine pacifist alternative. We couldn't cooperate with such a program without greatly weakening and obscuring our witness. If we are willing to pay for the work-camp opportunities, we can hold before men the vision of the world-task of pacifism. Work-camps may make a great contribution to the world task [of building a life of love and nonviolence].
5. Pacifist Program: In Time of War; Threatened War; or Fascism (by Richard B. Gregg; 1939)
About the Author—Born in 1891, Richard B. Gregg was a Harvard trained lawyer who practiced law for 3 years before going to work with trade unions. He assisted with arbitration for the railroad workers’ union following WWI. Laid off in the 1920's, he read about the work of Mohandas Gandhi, & went on a 4-year journey through India where he studied nonviolence. He wrote The Economics of Khaddar, & The Power of Nonviolence (1934). His work described nonviolence as a method for changing the character of the world. In 1935-36, he served as the acting director of Pendle Hill. His work was used by many civil rights and other social activists.
I. 2 ASSUMPTIONS & A DEFINITION OF PACIFISM—Pacifism must be an effort to create by non-violent methods a new & better civilization, not just postponing war. We must build a new order that embodies more respect for personality, justice, tolerance, freedom, & love. War is an important & necessary institution of our present civilization, not an illness, maladjustment, or temporary, personal [& political] mistake of a few leaders. The only way to end it is to change, non-violently & deeply, the motives, functions & structures of civilization. We can't eliminate all conflicts, but we can reduce them & settle them non-violently. Miracles can be accomplished by singleness of purpose and devotion.
Every great human movement was begun often when the clouds were dark, by a very small group of people, just as hormones produce great changes in bodies. We can't abolish war, an essential feature of our system, unless we alter the system's nature. Deep changes must begin now, before war comes, in order to get a better civilization later, whether war comes or not. International diplomatic agreements don't alter civilizations. They are are too superficial & fragile to meet the need. It would take at least 3 generations to remake a civilization. The word "pacifist" is an inadequate description [of the task; economic & social forces are also part of the process]. What ought a pacifist do in a country where war or fascism is imminent?
II. PROGRAM FOR THE PACIFIST: 1.Pledge Not to Fight or Help War—Absolute Pacifists, 18 years or over, men and women, ought to sign a pledge not to support or take part in any war and file it with an appropriate organization. It is an affirmation of free will and a commitment to new relationships and new efforts. Industrial conscription will be needed for military applications, and would include women.
Governments of the US, Great Britain, France, Germany, Japan, & many other countries signed a pledge in the Briand-Kellog Pact of Paris "that the settlement ... of all disputes ... shall never be sought except by pacific means." Each signatory government asked by implication all of its citizens to uphold it; asked each citizen to refuse to go to war. (The Supreme Court ruled on the claims of conscientious objectors that the State is supreme over conscience, but lawyers doubt its legal soundness & pacifists doubt its moral or spiritual validity). The Pact allows for self-defense. Unless the signatory governments repudiate the Pact, it is at least a solemn aspiration, to be heartily supported by citizens.
None of the nations disarmed after signing the Pact, and the US and Great Britain protested against the unilateral violation of treaties. If governments have failed in regard to that Pact, there is all the more reason for the individual pacifist to keep his pledge. Some object that no one should promise certain things without knowing the circumstances at the time of fulfillment. Promises are commonly made that are partly blind.
Just before going to war, governments suppress facts & use distorted propaganda [to whip up passions]. Lack of facts & powerful influences don't allow for sound judgment to support or not support the war. Those objecting to advance pledges against war think that certain wars are justifiable, & can be fought for noble causes. They overlook that in modern wars the alleged reason for fighting is rarely the real one. I believe that modern weapons & methods, expensive, destructive, & indiscriminate, have ended the possibility of war saving or promoting anything of value; fascism begins when war is declared. Those who support wars if they considered them morally defensible invite the government to frame the story so that war "this time" looks wholly justifiable.
Sometimes people refuse to sign a pledge against war because they are unwilling to face the issue. [Author offers the example of the "Statement by members of the Broadway Tabernacle Church of NY City"]. It isn't a pledge. It states: "I can't reconcile the way of Christ with the practice of war ... I believe those who hold this con-viction in time of war to be right ... & desire ... that I shall be among those who keep to this belief." The statement invites comment. A pair of young pacifists call on an older member of the church, seeking their insight & asking if they would be willing to sign the statement. A large part of this church is now convinced pacifists. A pledge not to go to war or support war isn't merely a future promise; it is a present choice of a way of life, & be-gins with a firm decision. It needs to be made in advance of war. Carrying it out is harder & still more necessary.
2. If War Comes, Fulfill the Pledge—In war, the 1st negative duty of the absolute pacifist is to refuse to join the military, or serve in it if conscripted. One should be willing to endure insult & punishment upon one's refusal, even death. Our lives are held together by the loyalty of our forebears & contemporaries to the [qualities of] truth, human unity, nonviolence, & love. If we give our suffering or our lives for those things, we are simply paying a debt that we owe. These qualities outlast any individual or nation. They are more important than I am.
The ultimate insecurity is division, disunity. Unity is the greatest security, & is immensely important to live for or die for. "Safety lies neither in my possession or yours; it lies forever between us. If either of us seeks it for themself both of us must miss it ... Could we but restrain the childish desire to snatch it for ourselves, we should experience security that comes of mutual trust." In the view of the principle of increasing complexity in evolution, taking a risk for ideals, [not fearing the other] affirms human unity or harmony of relationships, making possible a closer and more complex integration.
It seems too great a risk only when we forget the imponderables which are pressing toward a higher, subtler, closer, more inclusive organization. It is richer in resources because inclusive of more forces, more adaptable and more enduring. The giving up of a smaller original self is the 1st necessary step toward the creation of a richer and more permanent self. [Believing in the insignificance of our efforts] overlooks the historical instances of righting great wrongs. The fact that the government is so set against conscientious objectors (COs) proves their refusal isn't futile. An immediate refusal would be tried publicy; a postponed refusal would be tried secretly. Women should refuse to do nursing under military or semi-military orders or to work in munitions plants.
If munition workers become pacifists, or if an unemployed pacifist is threatened with losing benefits if they don't work in munitions, what should they do? If one has no family responsibilities, one's decision depends on conviction, courage, & resourcefulness. If one does have responsibilities, the spouse's attitude will matter. They may risk finding other work or private charity. One forced for family reasons to work in munitions should do as much humanitarian services as possible. To the extent that one expresses love & unity with humankind, one reduces the poison of one's compromise & is generating in one's self courage & power for further advance & ultimate refusal to serve war.
3. Work for the New Order Before War Begins & After—As soon as the pacifist takes the pledge against war, he must begin active work to build a better world. If one waits until war comes & then refuses to take part, one leaves to the government the initiative in deciding one's role. The government will give one merely a choice between evils. One needs to make a pledge, choose a task & get to work on one's chosen role in cultivating a new civilization, so that it is already a reality if & when war comes. If the pacifist hopes to do constructive "alternative service during military war, one should begin now, for a type of economic war is already upon us.
There are many social and economic programs of change that a pacifist can espouse and work for. Such work strengthens intangible but enduring forces, like: respect for personality; sympathy; generosity; mutual trust; unity; and love. These intangibles are a necessary part of the foundation of a better world. Choose the work you feel is most valuable, and devote yourself to it. Work with the poor and unemployed will help heal the deep divisions in society. I urge work other than political propaganda, work that can go on if war comes and the government puts a stop to political efforts for justice and peace. If one wishes to work for democracy, one should do so now, before wartime domestic dictatorship reduces our present degree of democracy to zero.
4.-5. Prepare Individually & in Groups/ Refuse to Cooperate with War Preparations or Government "Alternative Service"—The peacemaker should engage in specific individual & group training of thought, sentiment & spirit, for the creation of a warless civilization. One should try in advance to make one's self immune to war hysteria & hate. One should study the history & economic condition of potential adversarial nations, & try to see how those nations see the acts of one's own government. One should realize how one benefits from actions & attitudes leading toward war, & avoid indignation about the acts of other nations. Before war comes pacifists should organize dependable methods by which they can keep in contact with each other, share information, securely publicity for trials of conscientious objectors, & various kinds of support for them and the family of those sent to jail. How shall pacifists support themselves in time of war? Pacifists will need to learn some other skill than that by which they are now living; it had best be a manual skill.
Numerous European governments are introducing protection schemes for civilians in case of airborne bombing. Spain, Ethopia, and China have seen bombing from the air with terrible results. The schemes include "blackouts" of cities, underground shelters, some gas masks, moving the most vulnerable out of cities, and air raid wardens. In Great Britain it is widely believed that these measures are futile and that the reasons alleged for them are false. Barcelona was bombed in a silent attack beginning at 20,000 feet that was over before the warning sirens sounded. It is believed by many that the government means to frighten the citizenry enough to make them pliable and accepting of repressive measure proposed under the guise of safety. In time of war governments do not abide by their promises and assurances. The wording of laws is sometimes unduly broad and even ambiguous. Those at the top of government who plan broad policies are often far-sighted, sensitive, statesmenlike; those who execute the laws in detail are sometimes short-sighted, petty, domineering, and callous.
I would advocate that pacifists operate outside of government organization. They can operate 1st aid corps, feed, comfort, guide, reassure. They can carry out transport of food & supplies. Pacifists can organize various squads to help after air raids, feed such squads, & care for children. & of course prepare surgical bandages & dressings. Government threats & compulsion in such programs won't promote the kind of community that pacifists desire, so they will want to do it independently, relying on human kindness.
I believe that COs shouldn't accept ambulance work, nursing, or hospital work as "alternative service." The compassionate motive is used by the government to make wounded fit for further fighting. Hospitals & nursing help prolong the war. There will be no shortage of war-minded nurses, ambulance men, physicians, & hospital support. [I have no patience for cowardice in pacifists]. If a pacifist must suddenly to choose alternative service, let one insists on a job not subject to governmental control, serving civilians. Let one try to serve community or society rather than the state. [There is a long list of community services & industries] that will likely be under civilian control . If the government won't permit the pacifist to work free from its orders, then jail is likely. Relief work under strictly civilian or pacifist church direction may be regarded as consistent.
6. Pay Taxes—Should a pacifist refuse to pay taxes to the state at war? The State creates money and property rights, so the pacifist will have to "render unto Caesar the things that are Caesar's." Where all of society is engaged in a system of which war is an integral part, it is impossible for any individual wholly to free themselves from complicity. At what point will one make the wisest compromise? Since modern war is largely caused by the economic system, a thoroughgoing refusal to support war would have required pacifists to stop using that system long before they were fined or went to jail. If sincere pacifists were allowed to withhold payment of taxes paying for war, [there is no end to the number of groups that would have to be given the same privilege]. A democratic government exists to administer certain activities for the whole body of citizens; citizens may not interfere with its administration without penalty.
A refusal to pay taxes challenges the State; it will do battle with all its resources. Pacifists shouldn't refuse to pay taxes, at least until they have prepared themselves sufficiently to have a reasonable chance of success in such a struggle. Pacifists should continue to pay taxes until they have: a plan for a better State; a nonviolent way of winning power & making changes; transitional organizations up & running; skill & confidence in nonviolence; demonstrated executive capacity and responsibility; demonstrated effectiveness of nonviolence; increased social and political unity between groups; working devices supporting the most depressed part of the population through the stress of change. A pacifist may pay taxes under protest. Refusal to use the economic system would cut one off from society and cut down on one's usefulness. A pacifist taxpayer is not directly responsible for the use to which the State puts one's taxes. An individual is morally responsible for one's actions as a soldier.
7.-8. Refuse to Keep War Profits or to Buy War Bonds/ Perhaps Join in Patriotic Ceremonials—If war should bring profit to an industry in which a pacifist has an owner's interest in, he should turn those profits over to some program or person [furthering the formation of a new civilization]; one shall not manage a war industry, or buy government war bonds. The compulsion to pay taxes is part of the legal process. The compulsion to buy war bonds is that of public opinion. The pacifist shall only give to civilian organizations and causes as are designed and operated for civilian purposes.
How far should I as a pacifist join in with patriotic ceremonials? How do I interpret symbols like the flag? How will my neighbors interpret my symbolic actions? How shall I symbolize my real position? How can fine distinctions be expressed to the crowd? Symbols are almost entirely emotional in meaning. I would join ceremonials when I can't avoid it without being conspicuous. I want them to feel the unity & to realize that I feel it. If approached to do something specifically to support the war, on that point I will adhere to my choice of a different way. I think I should somehow symbolize the fact of unities being more important than differences in a way capable of being understood more widely and more emotionally than my silent service can be.
9.-11. Support Strikes Against War/ Aid the Struggle of Labor/ Refuse to Demonstrate with Communists or Fascists—If a union should decide to go on strike against the war or against making munitions & the case were clear of other defects, I would give the union moral support, & perhaps more. So far as possible the pacifist will try, by nonviolent means, to alter our present social & economic systems, & replace it with some-thing better. As best one can, the pacifist will try to persuade labor unions to see that nonviolent resistance is realistic, & is a much more effective method of struggle than violence. The pacifist should be informed, & publish the truth about general labor conditions. If labor is committed to nonviolence, pacifists should take care of any wounded in strike actions. So far as picketing, it doesn't do for outsiders to join just out of emotional sympathy.
Communists are aware that violence is likely to be used by the employer group, and are willing to use it in self- defense. Pacifists involved with Communists in a demonstration that turn violent will be seen like hypocrites. I doubt whether pacifists can afford to take part in public demonstrations with Communists; the same refusal applies to Fascists. Because violence is totalitarian, [a pacifist must oppose it] without compromise.
12. Behave Wisely if Imprisoned—Pacifists in jail are political prisoners. A political prisoner hasn't, like the ordinary criminal, disobeyed the law for selfish reasons, but for ethical principles. Pacifists in jail should work hard at assigned tasks, provided those tasks are regular prison work & not for military use. They should be respectful, open, above-board, & not deceitful. They are entitled to refuse orders clearly intended to humiliate them or to insult or violate their beliefs. Any work compromising a COs position should be refused by the CO.
In certain cases lacking organization, the prisoners can perhaps help the authorities develop work consistent with their position & good for morale. Pacifists may protest against cruel treatment or conditions, 1st through proper channels, then through refusal to work. Hunger strikes shouldn't be used unless the matter is of the gravest importance. Reading & writing are important activities, as is meditation, as a way of making contact with inner reality. Perhaps the cruelty of prison officials is a symptom of the evils of civilization & not all their fault.
13.-14. Plan Peace Negotiations/ Be Chary of Condemnation always, and of Mass Protests after War Begins—A time will come in every war, when the losses are large, that a preparations for a truce or peace would be feasible. Then pacifists ought to propose and help effectuate peace terms which will not lead to another war. At all times—before, during and after any war—pacifists should refrain from moral condemnation of any members of the government, use constructive criticism, stop arguing or using propaganda against war, urge constructive reforms, and lay more emphasis on action than on discussion of war.
It is important for every pacifist to be very sure of one's motives & the relations between one's motives, purposes & conduct. Before war comes & after it is over, all pacifists will do their utmost in all forms of communication to persuade people that the pacifist position is right and practical. During war pacifists should desists from all adverse or public protests against war or government's war actions. Talk about the truth, practicalness, common sense and beauty of the pacifists' methods rather than criticize war. During war, pacifists should throw almost all their energy into quiet work that is creative of a better social order. When it is clear there is war, the pacifist should make it clear to those who support his pledge, as well as a wide range of authorities who might not, that one is a pacifist, but will make no protests. For the most part, one should keep silent and work.
III. ARGUMENT AGAINST PROTESTS AND CONDEMNATION: 1.-2. Motives for Protests/ Argument on Motives of Inner Consistency—It is natural to wish to satisfy one's self-respect or conscience, to repudiate a great wrong or the appearance of consenting to it. A pacifist too old or unfit to fight may feel the only thing one can do is to make verbal protest. There is moral indignation, the [true] honor of nations, making war difficult, removing causes of war, and serving human unity. Are verbal protest and condemnation the surest methods in opposing war? There are other more creative motives for opposition: converting others to pacifism; message to the next generation; displaying non-violent resistance; a chance to make a better peace.
If I condemn evil, one implication is that evil would harm me. If I condemn an evil person, I imply that I am free of evil. I must always try to be gentle and respectful of personality, even though I may feel severely about the wrong. To the extent that we have accepted the comforts and privileges of our civilization, we are responsible for its evil results. Jesus is cited as an example of speaking condemnation. Jesus spoke it only in very limited circumstances, and on other occasions avoided condemnation. People protest and condemn when they discover that their very enjoyable means have very unpleasant results. We seek a scapegoat: government; arms makers.
Since our real job is to build a new civilization, let us use our energy for that purpose, in its constructive aspect. Verbal condemnations of war may may be properly made only by those who declined the benefits of our civilization and who have refused the "perks" of our present economic warfare. They must also have a life of simplicity and tireless service to humankind. We may not pick and choose from Jesus' teachings, which are an integral whole; it can't permanently work unless taken and used as a whole.
The failure to share a high standard of living more equitably among all is wrong; it is mainly due to moral inadequacy. If we pacifists assert that war, a part of our inheritance, is wrong, then we should discard comforts that cause us to cling to the processes that surely cause war. Clear vision & a single purpose are necessary to win a great following or a very quiet conscience. Because of the momentum of past habits, we can't successfully halt at the brink of disaster & stand still. To turn aside requires abandonment of some accustomed modes of living.
Refusal to support military activities, and speaking in favor of liberty and social reform, will subject pacifists to ridicule, scorn, hatred, rough treatment, imprisonment and loss of property. The effort for building a new civilization cannot be fixed, rigid and uniform, no matter what the development in the world may be. Changes in strategy may denote cowardice, but usually they are evidence of sound and flexible strategy. Pacifists need not be upset by the taunts of their opponents, if they themselves realize the nature of the struggle, have a clear plan, and are prepared to persist. One's simplicity of living and service for others, whether, before or during war, promote unity and generate love and trust. The wider and stronger and longer-standing the love, the less the fear. One's silent work can at least repair some of the damage & help to prevent another war; protest does not. Unless pacifists prove themselves to be as brave and self-sacrificing as volunteer soldiers are, militarism will prevail.
Relatively few CO's have realized the implications and real requirements of the pacifists position—namely the necessity for changing civilization completely. If we grapple with the problem as it really is, we may begin to make those earlier sacrifices bear fruit. Our conscience ought to have caused us, before war began, to change our habits and begin work for that different order. Since action speaks louder than words and is usually less ambiguous, silent right action is the best way fully to satisfy the conscience. [In this world of grays], conditions are often partly right, with wrongness so closely intermixed that for swift decision they can't be separated. The best action is the one with the greatest amount of rightness in it, as in working before the war to build a better civilization, or beginning the same work after it started and showing restraint in talking against war. An adequate and effective refusal must be aimed at the system in the form of action to make a better one. The most effective mode of expressing the truth is putting the truth we know into action.
What we are seeking is wider, deeper, & more complex than non-war. The pacifist wants to avoid the romanticism & histrionics of repeated verbal refusals, & the opportunism & expediency of converting large numbers of people to a new way of life. [Put in terms of biblical passages], I refer to ones emphasizing deeds over words. Jesus didn't condemn soldiers, or war, or even the imperial Roman equivalent of modern dictatorship & oppression which lay all around. Perhaps he confined his words & deeds to that which would cure the underlying disease, if put into wide practice. His silence before Pilate & silent accepting of crucifixion are the most potent argument for silent action by his followers. Many kinds of useful work are open to those too old to be conscripted. They may be more effective than younger pacifists because less liable to interference by war-minded people.
3. Argument on Motives of Civic Obligation—Many pacifists believe that by speaking out their faith in time of war they help liberty. If one restrains verbal expression of opinion temporarily out of respect for one's opponents, and yet acts silently in accordance with one's opinion, liberty of thought is maintained. If a pacifist publicly analyzed the concept of democracy and included civil liberties among its values, the government would make trouble for itself if it arrested someone for that. Liberty is in abeyance during modern war because of fear and hate, and the need for swift action and autocracy. I believe that liberty will gradually return, and that wise conduct by pacifists will hasten the day. Also, working people who value truth and literacy in their work, will value truth also in social, economic and political realms, [which will make it hard for dictators to operate].
Freedom's price is eternal efforts to create mutual trust among people by respecting personality, trusting in truth's power, practicing unity, kindness, & love. Freedom has declined because we have failed to practice ideals. Humans are the only creatures in whom discriminatory action is initiated in the fore-brain, where thinking happens. Humans are compelled to seek truth & to search for laws by which one's environment operates. Human freedoms are a result of human physiological make-up. This basis of freedom antedates any political system.
Pacifists must be scrupulous not to let their protests for freedom infringe upon the freedom of others. One sure reason why we can & must accord respect to every person is this physiological capacity & impulse to seek truth. It is evidence for the validity of the belief that everyone has a Divine spark within. A voluntary & partial silence on 1 or 2 topics for the period of the war wouldn't injure democracy. If free discussion, non-violence & respect for personality are used to achieve democracy, we will have more & better democracy than we have at present. Protest is part of the democratic process before the war. During the war, the processes looking toward formation of a new public opinion after the war must operate more deeply than the realm of verbal criticism. Democracy's essence lies not in majority rule, but in the give & take of ideas which results in a recorded majority & minority. Majority opinion deserves respect & most of the time should be obeyed. It is humanly plastic and sensitive to the truth. These qualities [and humanity's conscience] exists and no wise person will disregard them.
[Moral Indignation]—I believe that in modern life moral indignation has become dangerous. Through mass communication, sentiments are far more easily & rapidly stimulated, mobilized, & guided, than formerly. Pacifists can be & have been swept up in mass indignation and end up aiding the prosecution of the war with moral fervor. I grant that moral indignation is better than indifference or cowardice. The energy of indignation is good; its direction is mistaken. Much of moral indignation is "projection," finding a scapegoat. It is attributing to other people conflicts or failings that really are within our own selves, or for which we are responsible. "Projection" often exists between nations. News distortion keeps us from realizing the wrong-doing of our own government. In our indignation toward Germany and Japan, we forget the 19 month blockade of Germany by the British Navy after the war, without significant protest from the US, that starved over 2,000,000 women and children. The injustices against the Germans in those post-war years made the Germans practically neurotic.
We forget that our forefathers seized by force over half of the land of our present 48 States from Indians or Mexicans & that the Louisiana Purchase was buying violently stolen goods. The truth is that every government has been deceitful & unjust & has violated treaties & promises, and all people are at fault. An indignant pacifist denies the unity of humankind. "... Forgive those who trespass against us" may have been aimed at mass indignation against the wrongs committed by Rome. [Mass indignation is used by Communists, Fascists, & Nazis] to infiltrate organizations. The capacity of prelates, priests, & ministers for righteous indignation is a great asset to the state. All people enjoy power & want to keep it; meanwhile, it blunts the imagination & sympathies of those who exercise it for any length of time. We must alter unjust systems & people, but without indignation or anger.
The Germans and many others exalt the State as a person with moral qualities, but it is a mistake. The State includes only certain of their qualities, certain of their powers, and these it uses to create an organization and thereby produce conditions in which people dwell. We must be scrupulously responsible about our position. We must realize that within the framework of their assumption and ideas, high-ranking government officials are sincere and devoted. We must grant them all their virtues.
4. Argument on Motives of Persuasions—Until without violence we can persuade militarists to change, we must tolerate people who are true to their beliefs, even when those beliefs are different from ours. Militarists believe in the efficacy of violence in the last resort. They must therefore be expected to go to war; for them it is either fighting or cowardice. If pacifists believe that one should love his opponents, & if respect for the personality of one's opponents is part of love, then pacifists may not, in wartime, make such a demand of militarists.
Modern war will thrust its crime before all on a vaster scale & more forcefully than in previous wars. In the beginning the militarist will under-emphasize its evil. His mistake will be revealed to him only by experience. What is mistaken is the militarist's premises and assumptions. We must go deeper than logic. The pacifist's silent action stimulates the imagination of the militarists and other spectators in favor of the belief implied by it. It thus helps to win them eventually [through working on the militarists' sentiments]. The right sort of deeds can slowly shift the controversy to a higher level where it can be resolved. Silence concedes to others both freedom and responsibility. To that concession, people respond favorably.
Modern methods of treating criminals are successful only to the extent such methods show respect for personality. The same would hold true in relation to militarists. In the cases of both militarists & criminals moral law prevails, & eventually both suffer for their mistakes. We can prevent both crime & war only by abolishing their causes, which are not the people engaged in crime or war. The war idealists & their virtues of courage, devotion, self-control, self-sacrifice claim our respect in their own right. The forces of the State, industry, & finance are in control, with tremendous war hysteria & hate; crime has different conditions. Some pacifists call for the restraining of militarists as one would restrain children or the insane. Childish thinking and mistaken adult thinking are not the same. And insanity can be cured only when we respect the personality of the insane person.
A pacifist may try to influence the small number of neutral or doubting citizens there are in the midst of frightened people. The pacifist had best discuss a positive program and be respectful of government officials, rather than discuss war and condemn the government. Doing this will strongly persuade thoughtful people to join the pacifists. In my judgment, quiet, constructive action for a program of human betterment would seem to the sensitive minds of young people more significant than being arrested for a critical speech. Some pacifists have suppressed desires to fight, or morbid tendencies. This possible temptation should be carefully pondered by all pacifists. We must steer the difficult course between cowardice and self-glorification. Conciliation may be wisely postponed until the horror and fatigue of war begin to raise doubts among the nation's leaders.
IV.-V. AN APPLICATION OF THE PRINCIPLE OF SILENCE/ PACIFIST PROGRAM UNDER FASCISM—While war is going on, the pacifist ought not to persuade soldiers or sailors to become pacifists & break their oaths to the government, following what was said earlier about silence & respecting someone's promise. If before war were declared, soldiers or sailors should voluntarily join an audience, the pacifist should carry on as planned. If someone in the military sought an explanation of the pacifist position, the pacifist should be sure the person is sincere and morally troubled before helping his questioner.
There are reasons for thinking that fascism in this and most countries is more likely to come than a world war. Centralization, communication, and transport improvements, along with a decline in world economy, may be creating centralization and totalitarian control in all countries. Many people are feeling insecure in this climate, and are willing to yield up civil and political liberties in return for promises of security.
Bombing from the air not only endangers statesmen, but makes probable the destruction of industrial equipment of a nation, making it impossible to supply the military, or profit from the newly won market after the war. Shrewd leaders will avoid war. Control of powerful societal forces may be possible only through fascism and some civil wars in Europe and the US. What shall a pacifist do about the likelihood of fascism? Since fascism involves so much conflict and violence, the pacifists program should be practically the same as what I have described in case of war, with: simplicity of living; silent, nonviolent work toward a better civilization; taking a pledge against war; maintaining contact and mutual aid with one another. Deep religious conviction will be needed in order to refrain from bitterness and keep up morale in the face of prolonged violent repression. The more support the poor get from non-government sources, the less support they will give to a dictator.
We are all partly responsible for our corporate failures to live up to our democratic ideals. We may have to give up large amounts of liberty of action and speech to take care of the largest number of people. To resist the creep of personal and bureaucratic tyranny nonviolently and suffer punishment will a part of the price we pay for past errors. We can have joy and deep satisfaction in our work in building better ways of human association. Gandhi spent more time in constructive organization and propaganda than on non-cooperation and civil disobedience. Silence combined with constructive work is often the wisest policy.
VI. LIVE OUT YOUR PRINCIPLES—This program isn't proposed as a minimum compromise or adaptation to the social environment. It is proposed as part of a way of altering social environment in accordance with the enduring principles & law of our beings. Our living out of our principles will create other pacifists to continue the work. This program is a retreat only from our mistakes. Unless there is a change of habits towards social justice, we shall certainly have our liberties repressed whether war comes or not. Don't postpone your preparation; face the issues. Where do you stand [in bringing a new world]? What do you want? How are you going to get it? Ahead of you lies a most exciting & important task for the whole world. It is the new frontier.
15. War is the Enemy (by A. J. Muste; 1942)
About the Author—A. J. Muste, was born in 1885 & died in 1967. He was a Dutch Reformed minister for 5 years, & a Congregational minister for 3; [he left both churches because of a conflict of conscience, the latter church because of his pacifist views]. In the early 1920s, A.J. became director of the Brookwood Labor College in Katonah, New York, which taught the theory & practice of labor militancy. He was also chairman of the new Fellowship of Reconciliation. He was deeply involved in labor strikes and politics. He devoted his life to causes that stem from a religious faith—peace action, racial equality, political & economic justice. Through- out his life, A. J. devoted himself to non-violent social justice & change. He also wrote PHPs, #13, 64, 124.
1. The Way of Non-Violence—It is a prerequisite of fruitful thought & discussion in such a crisis as the present [war] that we should think of each other, pacifist & non-pacifist, as fellow-searchers for truth, not as adversaries. Diverse positions contain something valid, a fidelity to the truth. Recognizing this is a way of seeking at-one-ment, which isn't appeasement. Avoiding clearly defined issues & differences doesn't make for reconciliation. It is never built on a lie or half-truth. Healing coolness & balm comes into any situation the moment nobody is pretending or holding anything back; the poison is sucked out of difficult situations. We owe it to our neighbor to bear faithful witness to the truth as we see it, holding nothing back, in nought equivocating or being subtly snobbish, & not trying to beat our truth into their brains with arguments. There is no greater honor one can pay another, no greater service one can render, than to share with them such truth as has been vouchsafed to one.
That pacifists should be not mere talkers, but practical friends and helpers, cannot be too often or too emphatically stated. We have no desire to obstruct our fellow-citizens in the performance of what they see as their patriotic duty. "There is a time for silence." We must not press impatiently for immediate results like the child who sows seeds one day and digs them up the next to see if they are sprouting. We must be content to let it make its own way in the minds and hearts of others.
The idea that in wartime there should be no preaching of our philosophy and gospel, and that this would somehow make for reconciliation, seems to me unsound. Suspending religious pacifist analysis of war will mean that what pacifists regard as false and dangerous ideas are presented, but no criticism and no alternatives. If the majority someday agrees with us, will they not ask: "Why did you keep still while we were engaged in sense-less slaughter? Why should we have any special confidence in you who took pains to keep your counsel until everybody agreed with you? The time to witness against tragic, self-righteous distortion of the truth is when it is most widely proclaimed and believed. What all need finally is to be able to believe in themselves, in truth, in an inexorable moral order, in the God of Love. [Those faithful to] the Word of God and Truth [to the end of their lives], have always been the great reconcilers.
The reconciliation which must take place in our own minds and spirits is promoted when we try to think through each problem with our fellows with the innocence, freshness, childlikeness, and humility which Jesus taught. We must seek to divest ourselves of any notion that our knowledge is sufficient and final; of prejudices and inappropriate emotions. Our unwillingness to be reconciled to the truth, which is a manifestation of God, is one of the fundamental causes of division in life, of the divided self, the divided human family. When we think of our insights as having finality, as something to be possessed and defended, we set up a wall against God who is the Source of Light and whom we can receive only if we become infinitely receptive like little children.
Dr. Trigant Burrow speaks of a "subtle attitude of secret self-propitiation" ... a delusive sense of personal approbation" in people & in social groups as a most pernicious danger to society. The self that thus tries to justify itself and which sees itself standing over against others, rather than being limited & sustained by them in the at-tempt to apprehend truth, necessarily sees the world, any problem, in a partial, distorted sense, not as a whole & objectively. It can't function with its whole, undivided attention. This self has only a "specialized, restrictive use of its part-brain." "One needs to encompass this [world] problem of ones own making with the whole of oneself."
Now in the degree that we have divested ourselves of inner resistance to the truth and have developed a readiness to receive it from whatever source, we are also enabled to "speak the truth in love." We can hope that our fellows may see and come to welcome the light we have. There is no reconciliation through the medium of any partial love, but only through a love that is prepared to pay the final price. Until individuals and nations are prepared to sacrifice as much in practicing reconciliation and non-violence as they sacrifice in the pursuit of war, we can't reasonably expect an end of wars. What as yet uncalculated sacrifice in prayer, giving, witnessing, renunciation of war are we called to, so that in us the world's enmity may be slain?
2. The Non-Pacifist Position—We know what it means to resort to modern, planetary war. We recognize that we share a large responsibility for things having come to their present pass. We can't believe that anything except decisive defeat in war can stop inhuman, brutal dictatorships. We believe we can fight without bitterness and hate. If we win, we shall make a wiser, more Christian use of our victory than we made the last time.
It is a dangerous delusion to think that if the United Nations win, we shall make a much better use of our opportunity than we did the last time. The US has followed a course similar to that of 1914-17. We aim at a decisive victory that will give us a much greater relative superiority than the last time. And, having reached that point with fatal precision, a miracle will happen. [The momentum and direction nations have pursued in this century thus far will suddenly change]. We shall get off this road & strike boldly out in another direction. What reason have we to believe that after following the same foolish and disastrous behaviors, we shall suddenly change and follow new, wise, and successful ones?
There is increasing concentration of power in the executive, regimentation of the population, and gearing of all energies to war purposes; it is these developments that are decisive. After the war, [there is likely to be a] catastrophic spiritual let-down. If writing the peace and policing the situation proved too much after the last war, what reason to expect a different result now? This time, [in terms of disarming], our statesmen frankly say that we do not think in terms of no more war following the present, that we must disarm "the aggressors" even more completely than before, while we remain "suitably protected." It seems to us to require a grave or a great simplicity to suppose that this can spell aught but disaster for us and humankind.
A word about the contention that war can be waged without hate & bitterness. Expressions calculated to stir up hate & contempt aren't absent from Mr. Churchill's references to the Germans. No apologies are being offered for the indiscriminate bombing of women and children. Hatred for the Japanese has been fairly general in the US in recent weeks. If people do all that is required in modern war, without being aware of any hate and anger, then we are faced with a grave psychological and moral problem. A complete splitting of personality has taken place. There is no relationship between what one feels and what one does. A columnist urged that we need not grow hysterical with hate and that it might become a military necessity to blot out whole Japanese cities from the air. [In this state], there will be no limit to the deeds we may perform, the havoc that may be wrought. And what will be the personal & social reactions as the divorce between inner state & outward act becomes more complete—& when one returns to reality & contemplates with unveiled eyes what one has done [in war]?
People of goodwill choose war because it seems the only way to prevent a diabolical, demonic tyranny over all, the only chance to build a decent world. We try to calculate the consequences of our decisions & actions in complex social situations. But we are human & fallible & can see only a short distance ahead & calculate only a few of the consequences of our decisions, & these imperfectly. I may not be fully aware of the consequences of my refusal to support the US government in war. Neither can non-pacifists calculate the forces released over which they have no control. Aldous Huxley writes: "It is by no means impossible to foresee, in the light of past historical experience, the sort of consequences that are likely ... to follow certain sorts of acts ... The consequences ... [of] large-scale war, violent revolution, unrestrained tyranny & persecution are likely to be bad."
In a real sense conscience, the Inner Light, is the only guide among the complexities of life. The only thing we can know is that evil cannot produce good, violence can produce only violence, and love is forever the only power that can conquer evil. I started in the last war as a Christian pacifist. As a result largely of experiences in the labor and radical movement, I abandoned my religion and my pacifism, & became a Marxist-Leninist.
The pacifists of the last war, although ill-informed & unsophisticated, somehow sensed what the war was really about, sensed what would come after war. I was more experienced, but still I drifted into complete opportunism which brought outward confusion & inner disintegration. If one moves away from the center & the law that evil can be overcome only by dynamic, sacrificial good, one may know & see vastly more, but it will be out of focus, blurred. I became convinced that in spite of all the brains, the vast energies, the titanic sacrifices, the effort to establish democracy by dictatorship, brotherhood by terrorism & espionage, fullness of life by war & violence, left you with dictatorship, terrorism & strife. 3,000,000 or more peasants were destroyed in forcible collectivization of Soviet agriculture. The Soviet press reveals that the upper 11% or 12% of the population receives approximately half the national income. Demoralization & defeat overtook modern revolutionary movements in other important centers. In the 1920s & 30s people were nearly unanimous in pointing out that WWI had miserably failed to accomplish the good it was supposed to bring. Many college professors are troubled about their students "souls", because the students still believe what other professors told them about war a few years ago.
3. A Pacifist Proposal—It is inevitable that reasonable and conscientious people should feel a concern for the problem of a "just and durable peace. Unless one can believe in such a goal, war, wholesale slaughter, be-comes utterly irrational and completely immoral, "the sum of all evils." We have stated our disbelief that we can strike out in an entirely new direction after following the same old fatal path. The only thing religious pacifists can say to our country now is: "Stop the war, put up your sword before it is too late. There is no hope in a peace dictated by 'totalitarian' powers; nor in a peace dictated by 'democratic' powers. Try the Way of Reconciliation."
The US should negotiate immediately with all nations, & should: share responsibility for building world government; invest billions otherwise devoted to war, in a plan for rehabilitating Europe & Asia; not try to fasten war-guilt on any nation or group of nations; Work with all people toward building the good life which resources & modern technology makes possible. Subject nations of India, Philippines, Puerto Rico, Denmark, Norway, France, Belgium, Holland, & other subject people, must be given an opportunity to determine their own destiny. World government should administer the affairs of those not ready for self-government. All people should be assured of equitable access to resources & markets; immigration & emigration should be internationally con-trolled; establish equal opportunity in the US in housing, land use, health and education; repudiate racism and call on others to do the same; immediate and drastic reduction of armaments.
In power politics, [nationalism, & materialism], this seems like a fantastic proposal. [Telling the Germans "The world has no choice except a crushing, decisive victory" [echoes] Hitler & keeps them fighting behind him, & has them believing that the alternative to a victory behind Hitler is "something worse than Versailles." Our military "success" in separating the German people from the Kaiser gave us Hitler in place of the Kaiser.
Our proposal for a dynamic peace [process] at this time is dismissed by non-pacifists as "unrealistic." But unless a spirit of humility and repentance, a high spiritual [rebirth], imaginativeness and courage animate the victorious peoples; unless the German and Japanese people feel they can trust us and are freed from fear and resentment, there can be no good peace after this greatest and most destructive of all wars. If we don't wait with proposals for a creative peace until the spiritual energies of this generation are utterly exhausted, we may yet find salvation. There is a possibility that to such dynamic peace action by the US now as we have proposed, there would be a tremendous, spontaneous response [from other nations], which simply could not be ignored. Why should so many Christians be so sure that the way of Reconciliation would not work?
[The recent successes in Asia] have the Axis Powers & Japan in particular feeling that world-domination is in their grasp, & nothing except crushing military defeat can keep them from attaining that prize. [If the full, desperate strengths of all concerned] are to be thrown into this war before it ends, it must result in a stalemate of exhaustion or a "victory" of one group of embittered people over a group of despairing people [in the midst of] a devastated planet. This isn't a goal for which human beings can rationally fight. Now when they feel that the stigma of inferiority has been somewhat removed & that they could negotiate as equals, the Japanese & German people may be more willing & able to discuss a just peace than before. It is reasonable to suppose that multitudes in these & other lands are aware of the incalculable costs of continuing. Working together with other peoples at utilizing the earth's resources to build the good life for all, offers them more than Hitler & the Japanese militarists, even if victorious, can bring them. We will gain more than a victory of the United Nations can bring us.
4. If the Way of Reconciliation is Rejected?—Howard Brinton reminds us that our pacifism is not primarily that of objectors to wars or of peace propagandists. Support for pacifism rests finally upon "arguments based on the direct insight of the soul into the nature of Truth and Goodness, revealed through Divine Light and Life. [Through this revelation], a certain way of life is intuitively recognized as good and with this way war is seen to be incongruous. We are sustained by the historical evidence that the "little fellowships of the holy imagination which keep alive in men sensitivity to moral issues" and faith in the Eternal Love, may indeed be more effective than surface appearances indicate. Isaac Penington wrote: "Whoever desires to see God's Peaceable Kingdom brought forth in the general must cherish it in the particular."
The trouble with the world today is precisely that men have come to believe that "the only means which work are the material and the only goal attainable is also material. The physical world is mastered through physical force. Developing a consciousness of the reality of spiritual things and generating moral power is the supreme need of such a world. [This might be done through] small groups of men and women, who renounce outward things, strip down to bare essentials, and give themselves to the task of "purifying the springs of history which are within ourselves," to "that secret labor by which those of a little faith raise, first of all in themselves, the level of humankind's spiritual energy." Though we be driven still further "out of this world," into seeming futility, confined to very simple living in small cooperative groups and giving ourselves to silence, meditation, prayer, discipline of the mind and spirit, we shall hold to the Way.
"Fear not, little flock. It is your Father's good pleasure to give unto you the kingdom. And lo, I am with you always, even unto the end of the age. For God has not given us a spirit of fearfulness, but of power and love and discipline" [Lk. 12:32; Mt 28:20b; II Timothy 1:7].
http://www.pendlehill.org/product-category/pamphlets
56. Toward Pacifism: [Convincement & Commitment of a Young European] (by Gunnar Sundberg; 1950) [About the Author]—Gunnar Sundberg (1922-after 1998 (?)) was the son of a pacifist. He joined the Swedish workcamp movement during World War 2 (WWII). He became Clerk of FWCC’s re-named ‘European & Near East’ Section (1971). This pamphlet describes the development of his own pacifism during and after WWII. His article, Divine Humility (1998) will be included as an appendix.]
This pamphlet should be looked upon as a plea for pacifism. I don't think pacifism is on the way out; apparently some people do. To those people these pages should be an attempt to stop pacifism on its way out, and have it turn back again to live among us.—G.S.
Preface—My paper will be from the convinced pacifist's point of view. The narrative is personal & [in the order] of my development. It must seem presumptuous for a [neutral Swede to write this], rather than one who experienced the difficulties of the pacifist position. The most startling experience I had involving pacifism, was as part of a young Friends' seminar in Philadelphia. [There they asked the question]: [How] is pacifism on the way out? To European peace workers it would be a hard blow to see Friends give up, or question their renowned testimony against war. I had a European approach to pacifism, & I knew the ethical motives for pacifism. Perhaps I could give American Young Friends some additional points of view, and strengthen them in their pacifism.
[Introduction]—I hadn't left school when WWII started. I attended the Viggbyholmsskolan co-ed boarding-school, which father founded near Stockholm. [With] political persecutions, many boarding-schools in sheltered countries were meeting-places for young people of various countries. Our class was proud about contact with Mahatmas Gandhi & our [sister] Hindu School. Some of us joined the International Friendship League. We got visits from foreign students. I saw advantages to military training & refusing to submit to it; I was in favor of national defense. Except for the state church, birthright membership in other organizations was uncommon.
My parents had joined the Society of Friends by the time I left school. Religion was no concern of mine & religious pacifism was far from me. Quakers & the few pacifists I knew seemed to be odd & unusual. Father knew that faith & personal commitments such as pacifism must have time to grow from within; [father] lived his faith. [I received military training when I was 20; [I still remember lessons about twisting the bayonet in bayonet drills]. I led an attack drill on a small coastal town. I got carried away with the fighting during the drill & was completely out of my mind. I hadn't noticed being hit & bleeding above the eye. What on earth had been going on inside of me [in the midst of a "mock" fighting frenzy]? Why had my emotions been frightfully stirred? What did I have inside of me? What a thin layer there is between man & beast, an instinct, something dark & horrifying. I feel my present conscious pacifism may be weak, compared with the unconscious instincts.
FROM BEWILDERMENT TO DETERMINATION—After military service and during the war, I joined the Swedish work camp movement; the Friendship League was no longer enough. The world would expect Sweden to take upon ourselves a large part of post-war reconstruction. Many young people trained themselves during the last war years to be able to work in Europe, as soon as the arms were laid down; Funds were raised. For some years there was a strong movement for international relief that faded away too soon.
The 1946 work camp in Finland opened my eyes to the pacifist brotherhood in the cause of peace. It was as if a curtain had been lifted, revealing a whole new world. The world was full of human beings just as seeking [of peace] as myself. I realized how old & how manifold is the cause of peace. I realized how broad the scope was of related areas of human activities governing human relations, from forms of government, to economics, to religion, to social reforms. I said over & over, that I could never feel so close to non-pacifist Swedes as I would feel to pacifist Hindus or Chinese. [The 1st 4 pacifist principles I will look at represent the common sense level].
[1] Atomic Warfare; [2] Nobody Considers themselves Aggressive; [3]; Diplomatic Instability [4] Nation-State—We must all change our minds & adapt our standards & practices to the new world which [nuclear] science has discovered. We must realize what is invested in the old military system. If new standards are introduced [1,000's will be displaced]. In earlier wars, soldiers had gone out to meet the enemy & defend their country. Guided missiles have done away with what was left of romantic, sentimental feelings. Soldiers on the front lines may be comparatively well off, when we consider the fate of big cities with their women & children.
Aggressive wars have been rejected completely, but wars of defense are still praised. If we pacifists can prove to the soldier that he can never be sure whether his war is aggressive or defensive, eventually he may be less willing to jump to the conclusion his government expects him to adopt. Defense is impossible with atomic bombs. You can only send them, not stop them. Our government will not inform us about the character of our wars. Nor shall we be able to find out the truth for ourselves. We had better make our own stand, once & forever.
If we agree to fight and to kill, we would like to see a sensible principle for the selection of who we are defending ourselves against. How can we see the point of fighting a country which was our ally & friend 10 years ago? Governments & public opinion egg each other on, time & again, to define a fresh enemy. The policy of "Let us fight nobody who attacks us," is extremely difficult for a government to stick to, even though it allows for non-violent resistance. Early 1940, The British sent a note to the Swedish government demanding that the export of iron ore to Germany be stopped. If necessary, the British would take the necessary steps to have it stopped. They mined the waters west of Norway and British troops left from England the day before Germany invaded Norway and Denmark. [With the new information], we might even picture England and Germany as lions, leaping for the same piece of juicy meat.
The majority of the Swedes felt that they belonged to the Western allies. But neutrality plus ideological sympathy is just as inconsistent as pacifism plus ideological sympathy. If we had given up our principle, we might have helped the British fight the Germans; [in so doing], the neutrality platform would have been lost. We would then have been used as tools by the great powers. To [react] according to the moves of someone else, [rather than act according to the strict requirements of peace] is not the way to build peace. [This is why] pacifists make a definite stand and refuse to be tossed about by arbitrary public opinion and helpless governments.
Borderlines are artificial & arbitrary. What huge amounts of emotion & sentiment are invested on either side. Wars are easier to start if leaders have a nation-state sentiment to build on. Family, community, home town, your home's countryside trigger a strong affection naturally. The next natural unit is the whole world. Everything in between is more or less fictitious. How is nationalism the inexplicable anachronism of our time? A nation's economy shouldn't mould its people's minds; the reverse should be true. We can insist that our fellow citizen are not so enormously better than our neighbors across the border. The similarities are greater than the differences.
From Humanistic to Christian Pacifism/ Accepting Society as it is; or Trying to Change it—At Hirvasvaara work camp in 1946, the searching and penetrating attitude of our souls, which grew in proportion to our friendship, helped to develop my religious faith. My own belief, confronted with other beliefs had to be clarified and articulated. In my new world of idealistic commitment, I saw my course, direction, and goal. There is some kind of Great Power, and if I am right in this, the Great Power will approve my new course. My pacifism was essentially humanistic, rationalistic, ethical and based on international sympathy. A year later I stop resisting explicitly Christian convictions within me. I joined the Christian pacifist organization, Fellowship of Reconciliation. I picture pacifism as a pyramid with a wide base. The base becomes narrower as it rises, the commitments more sharp and more exclusive. Moving beyond the common sense level, we require a certain degree of idealism and willingness to follow. [I hope the following sections will help young Christians decide to include pacifism as part of their faith]. Perhaps a more powerful ethical support of pacifism would be helpful.
How is our goal to educate good citizens for democracy as it exists at the present time? [In the democracy of the ideal Utopia], society would have to conform to our students, when they have grown up; not they to it. To look ahead, to get one's bearings in relation to the future, in relation to a better world, may seem unrealistic & naive. It is this effort that lies behind progress. People who refuse to accept contemporary society aren't always successful reformers. They may play an important role, as the bad conscience of an imperfect order.
To Kill the Evil-Doer isn't to Kill the Evil/ Double Standards/ Human Brotherhood—Individual soldiers must be convinced that the cause is just. Every war can be made out to be just, or a war of defense against evil. In a soldier's conscious mind, one is always certain one is fighting a just war, a war against evil. Evil isn't done away with by bullets, a bayonet sting, an atomic explosion, or the electric chair. Evil may infect victors after victory. Evil cannot be extinguished by wars. Evil must be overcome by good. To love our enemies.
Peace, education for internationalism, and creation become part of a person devoting themselves to peace. If one then accepts war, one must modify one's ideals. A double standard will split one's inner consistency and disrupt one's calm. A good life must be a consistent life, with one set of standards. I cannot permit myself to be turned around and work in the opposite direction.
Feeling, intuition, faith, all play their role in pacifism. A person who sees others as statistics or separate, quarrelsome creatures, as less than real people, has a long way to go before one is ready to become a pacifist. True internationalism and the average public opinion of our day seem to operate on different wavelengths. World citizens in the deepest sense of the word have a different [take] on contemporary history in which prejudices, moral "superiority, and selfishness appear to be corner stones of society.
A real international outlook is a matter of education. Far-off human beings are promoted from statistical figures to likeable brother, or at least to next-door neighbors. Various international organizations take on the responsibility of kindling and strengthening the feeling of human brotherhood all over the world. Faith in human brotherhood and loyalty to humankind touch the essentials of religion, and grow into an all-compelling conviction. Killing 1 human being would break that loyalty, and betray one's deepest faith.
Responsibility to Posterity—[Hunger is a basic reason people kill each other]. What are other reasons besides hunger for people to kill each other? The ideal of peace must be estimated in reference to the history of ages past and the distant future. Recent fighters took and still take the slogan "making the world safe for democracy" as their watchword on which to base their policies. The ideal of not killing must also be made safe for posterity. I could visualize a time when pacifism would be dead as Latin is dead.
A quick succession of wars may lead to the conclusions that either all humans are bad or all wars are useless. It seems to me that the time has come when the opposite set of values should have a chance to be tried, to overcome evil by good. The pacifist principle must be carried on in the hearts of a few living & breathing human beings, [even if it goes largely unused], passed on from generation to generation for centuries or a millennia. [I belong to those few. We have committed ourselves to a mission, [along with all who have lived and have made the commitment and all who shall live and make the commitment; we have have a responsibility to posterity.
That of God in Every Man/ Accepting the Cross—The Quaker "that of God in every one" doctrine is generally considered to be the basis for the Society of Friends' pacifism. It gives specific emphasis to Christianity, as interpreted by George Fox, & fellow Quakers. The step between the human brotherhood concept & the religious "that of God in every man" doctrine must be fairly easy to take. "God as supreme power to be revered & worshipped," mingled with my earlier international feeling, caused my pacifism to be identified with the "that of God in every man" doctrine. Quaker tolerance seems to result from that doctrine. The freedom to believe in [universal] brotherhood must be a great asset to those who want to move from ethical idealism to religious faith.
Religious pacifism based on acceptance of the Cross in its extreme form may appear more authoritarian. A pacifism founded just on authority of what is recorded in the Bible accepts limitations, like less universality than some other living religions, & a sense of hopelessness [that goes along with the authority]. The relationship of Man—Bible—God may be too focused on one's own particular relationship to God, rather than a brotherly relationship among men. The Bible-centered pacifists feel a certain assurance that they will be richly rewarded. A pacifist conviction based on "that of God in every one," is anchored better in human brotherhood, more international & universal. Pacifism must be an instrument for every human being's benefit, & for improving human relations. The danger of a pacifist isolationism exists. Under extreme duress, a religious loyalty might be of greater support to you than a human loyalty. I have 2 foundations for my pacifism; one human, & one religious.
FROM ONE-TIME COMMITMENT TO CONTINUOUS INVOLVEMENT—[I had a dream of American & Russian soldiers fighting on the plains of India]. Bodies were torn apart by stones and bayonets. A war correspondent reported everything that happened; I was only a spectator. Pacifism must beware of isolationism. Life should include a combination of pacifism and engagement in world affairs. How much of one's energy should pacifism take? [The vast majority of people] should not specialize in pacifism. They should just make the commitment, and then turn again to their individual, normal activities. If all pacifists were only pacifists, the whole movement would soon become impossible. One's normal activity should be as well integrated with the positive and constructive elements of one's pacifism as is possible, and at the same time earn one's living.
Lately, I have encountered the argument that a one-time commitment followed by normal activity is no longer enough. 2 British Quakers strongly emphasized that view at Pendle Hill in the US. The concrete prevention of impending war seemed to weigh much more heavily on them than abstract rejection of wars did. Today's system of total warfare called for a basic change in pacifist policy. In earlier days, [soldiers withdrawing from the armed forces would have a greater impact on the ability to fight wars]. Now, even if 99% of armed forces were withdrawn, a present-day "push-button" war could easily do many times as much damage as the last war. The threat of total war compels the pacifist to take the risk of continuous involvement on the highest level, the only level where total wars can be prevented. [Peace workers will have to get over their reluctance to go into politics, and find a difficult balance between their ideals and compromise].
What Would you do, if Somebody Broke into your House to Kill your Family? /How much Should we Refuse to do Because of our Pacifist Convictions?—I wanted to be very sure that it was right to join with-out having a complete command of one's instincts. If we should wait for that, we would have no pacifists at all. It is misleading to concentrate too much on the ultimate choice of killing or not killing a would-be murderer. Life has more to do with the factors that make such an ultimate choice impossible—or possible. George Fox said that one should live in a spirit that takes away the occasion of war. The ultimate choice [would result as a logical outcome of a constructive and positive attitude]. There will be choices in which both alternatives are utterly tragic, but life as a whole will not consist exclusively of such hopeless situations.
My brother holds that it's impossible to do anything at all in our day without helping the war machinery. How does one live as a pacifist in a world where it is impossible to do anything without helping war machinery? What responsibility does a pacifist have to inform those around him of his decision to not kill? How does one deal with others' expectations that one will resort to violence to defend one's self & those around one? A pacifist must tell people the decision not to kill has been made. Not telling may lead to betrayal of one's countrymen; that is also contrary to human brotherhood. Refusing to register seems to me to be more a testimony against government power than against killing other human beings. Refusing to register is probably more natural to Americans with their devotion to individualism. Europeans find American youth's refusal to register puzzling.
How can one be a Pacifist & yet not sanction evil in some form or other?—How is trying to stop an enemy intruder with friendliness cooperation with evil? The problem becomes even more difficult when it is carried over from the individual to nations. [The difficult of this] conflict is the main reason I have partly abandoned my reliance upon my own judgment, and have laid my unsolvable problems in the hands of God. When I stayed in Germany; the young Germans argued: "You criticize us for not having revolted against Hitler and not having put an end to that inhuman state of things ... We should have done it, but what about you? ... You knew what happened in Germany ... We saw what you did ... the Olympic games in 1936 with all the countries accepting Nazi Germany ... your diplomats still in Berlin ... your products being exported to our country. How could we revolt against Hitler, when you all sat back and did nothing?" How can the arguments of the young Germans be applied to the young people of Russia, [with their slave labor camps]? We must risk war, stop trade, break diplomatic relations, [broadcast] rejection and non-cooperation. We must show the Russian people what we feel, so that eventually they can act with our opinion as a standard of righteousness.
Involvement in world affairs is the only answer to the threat of total war. A pacifist isolationist may have little difficulty in remaining faithful to his ideals, but can he can do little to prevent a war. The more a person is willing & eager to involve one's self in world affairs & preventing wars, the more unsolvable he will find conflict between non-cooperation on an ethical level & cooperation on a basis of love. This cooperation on the individual level means we no longer hate a criminal, we hate his action. As a teacher, we love children, but strongly dislike their stealing, lying, and cheating. When conflict appears on the international level, it seems to me to be a superhuman task to find the right solution. It seems more important than anything else that our descendants shall see pacifism alive, that kind of pacifism that lies at the core of all religions. [I close with a legend]:
A sinful man travelled to Jerusalem seeking forgiveness. He had to light a torch from the holy flame of the Temple and travel all the way back to his native town with the fire still burning. He started home well-equipped, but was stripped of everything except the torch and an old donkey on the way home. During the nights he made big fires out of his flame, so that it would be sure to be burning when he awoke from sleep. He was cold and hungry and pitied. People thought he was out of his mind. The flame had become so dear to him, his only friend, the only thing that meant something to him. He cherished it and watched over it. The poor man safely reached his native town, with the flame still burning. How shall we succeed? How will humankind succeed?
[Summary Editor's Appendix]: Divine Humility Gunnar Sundberg (1998) The Quaker Universalist Reader: UNIVERSALISM AND SPIRITUALITY (Patricia A.Williams Ed.; 2007 Quaker Universalist Fellowship)
One of the problems that any Quaker must face in our days is what kind of picture we have of God. Maybe we have no picture at all. And if so, [How] is it better for us, all round, not to have any picture? How do we concentrate seriously on the energy-flow as a divine Spirit, and play down the ideas of the will of God and the love of God? But we—or at least our children—so far have found it necessary to have some idea about the origin of the love. Human beings need pictures.
It seems to me that for a few generations, at least, it is unrealistic to discard all images. They will turn up subconsciously, anyway. But what we can do—and what seems to fit the universalist thinking—is to diversify the image of God. It is impossible to go on imagining God as a fearful judge or as a majestic grandfather. But if we, as universalist Quakers, wish to emphasize our closeness to other religions, we should open our hearts for many different pictures of God. And I am confident that this is possible. In 1951 I acquired my copy of "The Eternal Smile" by the Swedish Nobel Prize winner Par Lagerkvist (Chatto and Windus, UK 1971) and since that year a very special image of God has been uppermost in my mind.
Here follows a summary of that cosmic saga where all the dead people of this planet have been sitting together in the darkness talking to one another. After a very long time, however, they make up their minds to visit God. [The saga is called]:
An Old Man Sawing Wood (by Par Lagerkvist)-- They went on & on; they didn't arrive. They went on
Apart from the peculiarities of God as Par Lagerkvist pictured him, and apart from the opening up to other religions of the stereotyped Christian God, it is important to show that the idea of humility can exist in a culture that for centuries continued to despise humility. If ever we shall be able to abandon the colonial attitude, it seems necessary to foster a different image of the divine. Thus, indirectly, universalism may help to put a stop to the global terrorism of unrestricted western economy. Also, to an old work-camper, it is inspiring to picture God as an individual who works with his hands rather than pointing a finger at that which should be done.
Civil Disobedience, Conscientious Objector & War Resistance (6)
118. Visible Witness: A Testimony for Radical Peace Action (by Wilmer J. Young; 1961)
About the Author—Wilmer Young, born in the Conservative Quaker community in Iowa, attended [Quaker schools throughout his education]. He taught 4 years at Friends Boarding School at Barnesville, Ohio, ending with 12 years at Westtown School in PA. From 1936-55, he, his wife M. B. Young, & their 3 children worked with white & Negro sharecroppers & tenant farmers in MS & SC. For 5 years, Young taught nonviolent methods of dealing with race, poverty, & war at PH. He is now working at Peace Action Center in Washington, D.C.
[Omaha Action: Path to Jail]—I was asked to explain how I found myself in jail on July 6, 1959, [since I had never been there before]. It came after years of travail of spirit. I had written to my 3 children that I was going to help protest missile site construction. [The protest project was called] Omaha Action. There was a public meeting, but in spite of advertising, only about 30 people were there, & ½ of them were from our group. Reporters stressed that very few Omaha people attended. The small Omaha Friends Meeting did what they could to help us throughout our stay. One part of our group walked from Lincoln 40 miles to the Mead Ordnance Base; another group was walking 30 miles from Omaha. I was errand boy [& quartermaster] for the Omaha contingent, and in charge of finding them places to sleep. One night when I could not find a place the owners would allow us to sleep in, we ended up on a railway right-of-way. The night at both camps passed with only minor disturbances. On the 3rd day, the groups converged and completed their march to the base, near the missile site.
The Mead Ordnance Base is 26 miles2. A shelter for 2 guards was set up after we came. At a group meeting, each person gave their decision as to what actions they would be taking. I surprised myself by saying I planned to offer civil disobedience. I was quite calm about it. and I never regretted it; it was completely new to me. Construction was in the early stages, and the crew was probably less than 100.
We were conscious that, in this situation, we were only protesting. We couldn't find a way to suggest that we had a positive program in mind, calling for the strengthening of the United Nations, making use of the World Court, & studying nonviolent resistance to evil & training for its use. We couldn't talk to the workers; leaflets were of limited effectiveness; & the local papers, churches, radio, & TV, were all closed to us. The only way we could see to get our message to the people was to dramatize our protest by getting arrested for illegal entry.
[Civil Disobedience, Courtroom, & Jail]—We had meeting for worship right before 3 of us went in. After the meeting A. J. Muste preached a pacifist sermon to the 50 or so onlookers. There were 30 Air Force officers & a Federal Marshall. The rest of us could be arrested for using Federal land without permission [but were not]. Muste & 2 others climbed over the gate, & were informed by the Air Force officers that the penalty for entering was 6 months in prison & a $500 fine. They gently but firmly led them out and shut the gate. The 3 again climbed over again, were arrested and taken to jail.
My date for action was July 6. My partner in the action & I wrote statements for our reasons for offering civil disobedience. Someone tried to stamp on my toes as I headed for the fence. When I turned around on the other side, they were lying on the ground; the rumor was that I had been violent & pushed him. My partner and I entered twice and were taken to a "tank" in the Omaha jail. There were only the 5 trespassers in the tank. The judge gave us 6 months & a $500 fine with sentence suspended & 1 year probation; one defendant said he could not accept probation. When arrested again he was sent to prison; we were warned there would be no leniency.
I decided that I could not accept probation; I wrote the Judge a letter. I said that my life ending in a war is of small moment. But I had children and grandchildren that deserved the same opportunity for life I had. I desired to make a maximum protest against the unnecessary descent of mankind into oblivion. I believed that this protest requires me to spend this time in prison. There come times when action is essential to break through the hard crust of inertia and custom. On July 21, I was arrested again at the Mead Base for violating probation. I was questioned by the Chief Probation Officer why we didn't do educational work instead of making people angry and excited. I told him the very fact that he knew nothing about the writing and lecturing on peace that had been going on for years was a clear indication that other methods were needed.
[Jail and Courtroom again]—My next 6 days with 34 other men in a "tank" designed for 32 was not as pleasant as the previous internment; a young man, Arthur Harvey, was with me. No one gathered round to hear our experience, looked us in the eye or greeted us unless we spoke 1st in this crowded, 2-story, 16 x 50 feet cell block. After 6 days & nights, a few showed signs of seeing some light on pacifism, & many had become friendly, but I saw more clearly than ever how deep is the hold of the military mind in our country. Getting letters was a tremendous help, but many received none, & I felt sympathy for them. The other men here were relatively young and were in for offences like forgery, robbery, sexual crimes and murder. The prison system is an arm of a larger system which protects the rich at the expense of the poor. There is a place for protesting the cruelties of prisons, but I was protesting against the missile base and trying to bear witness to a way of life that renounces war.
When I was called before the Judge, he asked questions he knew the answer to, & said he would continue me on probation, even though I had refused compliance with the terms of probation. At another vigil at the base, someone told me I would not be arrested. I would have to enter the Base a 3rd time to force the hand of the Judge, and go to prison. 3 of us decided to spend 10 days making our decisions. I sought advice from Paullina Meeting (IA), and my son, who had spent 3 years in Civilian Public Service and a year in Federal prison for refusing to register for the military draft. In the end I refrained, largely because of my wife's strong feeling against a repetition of the illegal action in the circumstances. I am inclined to feel that both Marj's decision and mine were right for ourselves. Her protest made far more impact than mine. It may be pure rationalization on my part to think that what little impact mine made wouldn't have increased much by actually serving 6 months in prison.
[Heart-searching and Making Decisions]—When we went to work in the South, from a good and happy position to a seemingly very precarious one, the decision was made only after several years of heart-searching, discussions with friends, and many prayers for light and guidance. One has to seek in the deepest spiritual levels that one knows for the answer, which may not come immediately, but rather as it did at Omaha, because the time for decision has come. [In light of the bomb dropping on Hiroshima, and Jesus saying] "They that take the sword shall perish by the sword," [I felt that in that method lies destruction]. If as a people, we did not recognize we had reached a dead end, we were going to perish.
I remember a quotation from a New Yorker story, a father speaking to a son going off to war: "I've wasted my life. I'm an old man and alone and my son has gone to war and all I did was pay rent and taxes ... I should have been out screaming on street corners. I should've grabbed people by their lapels in trains, in libraries, and in restaurants and yelled at them, "Love, understand, put down your guns, remember God ..." This is much the same as I felt at Abbeville, SC in 1945. Although a few saw [what I saw and felt what I felt] and worked at it, not enough did, and the mighty of the earth did not. They thought you have to fight fire with fire, and resist evil with more evil. So America, which might have led the way, led the way toward doom.
[Direct Action for Peace]—The people who believe that there are other, [nonviolent] ways of solving inter-national conflict have worked hard. How are we to get to the people, with an urgency that will shake them out of complacency, & with a poignancy that will pierce the wall of stereotyped ideas? It was in answer to this question that Direct Action for Peace began. [Beginning in 1957, early actions included] illegal entry to an atomic bomb testing area (Las Vegas), sailing into forbidden waters of nuclear bomb tests that were being carried out (Pacific Islands), and protesting the building of a missile base (Cheyenne); Omaha Action was in 1959.
[There is an unspoken agreement in the press to self-censor], especially educational, unremarkable material. Some of our group had come to Omaha intending to commit civil disobedience; I had not. To be arrested for trespassing, as I was at Omaha, is not something to do lightly. The reason given for making the instruments of war [at bases like Mead] has been to save lives. There seems no reason to suppose that this form of rescue will be more successful in the future than it has been. A minister suggested that the only thing we can do is pray for peace. I believe in prayer, but I believe God gave me my capabilities, so I might help God in God's purposes. If war comes, it will be a punishment for our sins: preparing for war; doing nothing to try to prevent it. The whole tenor of Jesus' teaching condemns war, though not explicitly. His denunciations of wrong-doing on the part of men were so profound, searching, specific and often-repeated that he was crucified for them. What impact had Jesus had on the great and powerful and influential of his day? Immediate success is not the only criterion.
[Fort Detrick Vigil/ Pentagon Vigil/ The Walk]—After Judge Robinson made it clear that I could go my own way, I often joined the Vigil at Fort Detrick, protesting against biological warfare research. Studies for disease prevention are also made at Fort Detrick; both are under army control. We advocated having the installation become a World Health Center under civilian control, solely for disease prevention research. This Vigil lasted for 21 months, & has been succeeded by the Peace Action Center in Washington; it was a spiritual experience. I came to see that many of those working at Fort Detrick, like me, were troubled about their lives, wishing they were more loving, could see more clearly what they ought to do. Others were convinced they were right, & puzzled that anyone should think the opposite. Others simply had good jobs & were raising their families comfortably. Why worry? Others were angry [at the interference of strangers in their lives; mind your own business].
The Pentagon Vigil organized by the Friends Coordinating Peace Committee in November 1960 gave a tremendous lift to the peace action movement. 1,000 Friends stood in the line during the 2-day Vigil. I hope that it is only the 1st of many such visible witnesses for their peace testimony on the part of the Society of Friends. A Walk for Peace began on December 1, 1960 from San Francisco across the US & Europe to Moscow. My part, aside from some speaking, was chiefly to give advance notice to the press & radio stations, find hospitality, & clean up afterward. The Walk got good coverage in most of the towns & medium-sized cities; the same can't be said for large cities. We were urging our government to take the initiative in disarmament. It was this radical approach, which is criticized by many pacifists as well as non-pacifists, that this group felt needed to be made now.
The Walk, was extremely interesting & sometimes exciting. Constantly in motion & in new places daily, we were often joined by other people who felt strongly about peace. Some walked with us for a few hours, or a few days. Occasionally one would stay for reasons that were difficult to determine. Sometimes such people were a handicap. Perhaps we ought to include training for [temporary or long-term outside joiners]. The core group of walkers was made up of clear-headed, dedicated, articulate people. It was an unusual form of public witness for peace, carried out with considerable imagination & courage, & with almost unbelievable energy.
It was also a prime opportunity for communication. Literally millions of people heard it mentioned on TV or radio. [Slightly fewer] heard broadcasts of interviews with the walkers. Several thousand attended expositions and discussions of our positive program. Some had never heard pacifism intelligently discussed, or had any idea that people exist who believe that the world could live without war; we pacifists have been talking among ourselves too long. More discipline within the group and more training in advance might have strengthened the witness by deleting certain irrelevant and contradictory features of it; we learn by experience. The appeal for disarmament and for the building of a world that renounces using war to settle disputes is a more difficult thing to get at than pleading directly for personal, civil rights. We need projects that are more clear cut, more understandable, and with more obvious meaning, than any we have yet had.
[Reaching the General Public/ Changing Public Opinion]—What is the process of arousing public opinion? of getting laws changed? We can print our pacifist ideas, but we don't reach the general public. We need ingenuity to get our message to the general public & to centers of policy-making. Friends of the 17th century simply refused to obey laws that forbade them to meet for worship as well as other laws; [they suffered for it] & they succeeded in changing laws. It is hard to make resistance to war as clear [as the issues they faced] & the resistance they offered. A refusal to serve is an invisible witness, & does little to communicate with others or convince them. We need to find powerful vetoes that are available to every person, & are visible, with meanings so clear that anyone can get their point.
In my lifetime, a small minority changed widespread opposition to WWI, beginning with "Preparedness Parades," & working on & through Congress. Conscription was made law with probably 90% of the people opposed. Suddenly, hardly anyone was against war. When women 1st asked for the vote, it was a tiny, extremely unpopular minority. The minority grew, & though they convinced many people, they couldn't convince enough politicians to vote for their proposals. Eventually they picketed at the White House, & they couldn't be ignored; they became visible. 2 groups, the National Party & the Women's Party, worked in their own ways toward the same end, the 1st using only conventional methods, like meeting with the President, & the 2nd using "action" methods, like being arrested for picketing the White House. In 1920 the 19th Amendment was ratified, giving women the vote. This was a struggle in which both the "dignified" & the "undignified" method played their part.
[Angering the Opposition/ Possible Risks ... Certain Disaster]—Pacifists are not likely to be the ones at the negotiating table. But there will not even be negotiations unless large numbers of common people make it clear that they want disarmament. I am often told [not to make the opposition angry]. When one is resisting an evil, one should do it without anger on one's own part. But one should not evade issues because people are touchy about them. There is no hope of getting justice for Negroes, or getting rid of war, without making some men angry. Occasional anger is part of our education. It is sometimes said that "direct actions for peace" do more harm than good. If those believing in such action could be shown that they cause the opposite of what we are working for, we would stop; we have not been shown.
The large demonstrations against the Polaris submarine base at Holy Loch in Scotland were inspired by a little project in New London, CT, called Polaris Action. When the Polaris submarines are launched, efforts are made to get on them by boat, or by swimming. One of these submarines is powerful enough to destroy millions of people. We are told in a Ford Foundation study that "The military élite is clearly in a position to assume actual political command over the U.S. striking forces." On one side there are obvious risks in restricting nuclear armaments. In a risk there is still hope. We pursue the hope; we work for a change in military policy. The risk is still there if we make the change, but unless we make it, we have the certainty of an arms race & of bombs going off.
[New Methods]—New methods seem to be called for. Gandhi used new methods with telling effect in Africa and India. The Norwegians and Danes used them under the Hitler's occupation; early Friends used them in England. Although many instances of their use are on record, most historians tell not about victories gained in peaceful ways, but about war. And the world comes to believe that war is necessary. The program that is being used to convince people that large numbers can survive a nuclear war seems more fiendish than just to let people be destroyed. Governor Meyner of NJ says: "What will they use for air? What will they use for water? What will they use for food? What will they use for people?" We must learn by doing. As we get new ideas for better witnesses, and develop them, the effect will grow. [Some can do the dramatic, physical actions], and almost any of us can stand in a quiet line and hold up a sign that gives the message, or hand out leaflets. There is some way for each of us to stand up and be counted for a world in which all can live as brothers [and sisters, children] of one Father.
[Excerpts from "for Wilmer Young" by J. H. McCandless]: "... You say I turn the key, imprisoning myself within these childless walls & fences without progeny. Let it be so.// Because I don't hope to climb/ those many fences more ... my arms will not support this weight of blood, guilt, hatred, passion men call world.// I was a climber once ... [Now] Atop your gate I saw my prison walls & turned the key. // & what that key unlocks we cannot know:/ prison or garden, man must make it so ... And I must climb to make my grandchild free."
64. Of Holy Disobedience (by A. J. Muste; 1952)
23. Clash by Night (by Wallace F. Hamilton; 1944)
PREFATORY NOTE—Clash by Night was written in response to an award offered by Pendle Hill Publications to members of the Civilian Public Service (CPS). Wallace Hamilton was a member of the CPS unit at MA General Hospital.
["What Else Can We Do" [Besides War]?]—[I am visiting the Navy Yard with a friend, now a Navy Lieutenant]. Rows of long warehouses and sheds stretched out into the distance. [Army vehicles lined the road, with tanks on flat cars]. Cranes lifted girders; the bright blue lights of welding torches lit up repair depots. He showed me the drydock, a vast open space that looked like a crater on the moon, with tiny figures, beetle-sized, working at the bottom. There was so much bigness, so much of everything; it made a [man feel tiny]. There were several more like this, 4 or 5 more on the Atlantic Coast, a couple on the West Coast, built to handle even British ships.
We drove to a long dock with 2 destroyers tied to either side. His was old, built in 1939, but still sleek, narrow, powerful, and compact. A welter of superstructure, catwalks, and cables seemed to fit miraculously into the simple-lined framework and form a solid working unity. There was more tangle and systematic confusion, more bigness within the ship. The Lieutenant's voice was dry and factual as he explained how to work the AA gun.
From the bridge we could see the whole panorama of the shipyard, the sheds, warehouses, cranes, other ships, locomotives—the valves, levers and gears of the whole monster machinery that I said was wrong, should be torn down and beaten into plowshares. After dinner, he took me aft to his "battle-station," an inhospitable-looking platform of grillwork, where the AA gunfire was controlled. [I offered him a cigarette, and with that the "tour" ended. We tried to start a "talk-of-home" conversation, but] as quickly as the conversation started, it died, leaving us standing at the platform railing looking out to the lights of other ships in silhouette.
We asked how each other was doing. His response was a shrug & "No complaints. Stupid. But what else can we do?" What answer did I have that wasn't a blind assertion of faith? Didn't he have a faith too, that some worthy peace would come of the sins of war? Beneath tolerance, beneath freedom, beneath friendship, [the little bits of common ground], there was civil war. "We are here ... Where ignorant armies clash by night." I belonged to the miniscule "we" of pacifism, & he to the mammoth "they" of war. Across the breastworks of faith our ignorance clashed. He said, "I hope you don't think that all this dressing up in uniforms & running around taking pot shots at people & [being shot at] is our idea of amusement ... we'd just as soon be doing something else" ... Maybe you guys have time ... to figure things out ... so it won't happen ... somebody's got to ..."
[The Struggle to End War]—No evidence need be put down here to prove that we are losing what little control they ever had over the war system. By conservative estimates at this war's end this war's dead will be 1/20 of the human race. The abolition of war has always been a case of "ought to." It is now becoming a case of "got to"; the moral imperative is becoming a social necessity. Worldwide, pacifists have held the conviction that no war can ever be just [or anything but a sin against God. This conviction gives them a functional part in the struggle to overcome war; pacifists must be taken into account. Pacifists must prepare for the next world armistice. Pacifists must have a clear idea of what they are opposing. Where are pacifists going? How are we getting there? How are we in danger of being sidetracked? Those pacifists, some of them young, who have experienced war as civilians carried on their lives in their home places. Perhaps this has made them less conscious than they should be of the monstrous human distortions of the world in which they live. A life responsible to its own aspirations and ideals is far more constructive and meaningful than a life uprooted and twisted by some external will. A vigorous and effective segment of the peace movement's leadership will come from those now serving in the armed forces. They will bring to the pacifist movement a strength and knowledge that will be needed.
[Conscientious Objectors (COs) as Segregated Beings]—A large part of postwar pacifist activity will be carried on by men who are now in jail on parole, or in the Civilian Public Service (CPS). External circumstances have forced them to explore byways of their beliefs that would normally have gone unexplored. COs have proven that they are stubborn. The peace movement can rely on those labeled "COs" to carry their activated beliefs into the postwar movement. Where are COs going? How are they getting there? How are they in danger of being sidetracked? From the time they are classified by their draft board until they are released from government control, COs are segregated beings.
Whether in prison or CPS camps, COs were physically segregated; camp segregation was not acute until the camps were opened in isolated areas. Physical segregation [was presented as] "Church and State alike seek to defend individual sovereignty, the right of conscience, and freedom of religion even in wartime ... [The camps] open new educational, social, and spiritual resources within the campers; it reveals them to their community and spreads the message of reconciling love." As time went on, however, restless discontent became stronger, and stronger. CPS men wanted to work with people; they wanted to help people. Prisoners wanted paroles back to the jobs for which they were best trained and fitted. Some elder pacifists knew that prolonged periods of forced segregation are not spiritually enlightening, and worked to change that.
CPS administrators attempted the nerve-racking feat of going the 2nd mile in 2 different directions, between an infringing government & a dynamic camp personnel; special service units were set up. Nearly half of the total personnel of CPS is working in special-service units or detached service, and some of these services are integrated into a nonpacifist communal life. CO's who have been back in society often realize that physical segregation is only part of the problem. [The problem is also perception, with being a CO as the primary identifier.]
[CO: In a Strange Community]—The drafted or paroled CO is in a strange community to which he has come to do a job; [he has no past, no identity with that community]. The CO is likely to find only limited rapport. The subject of war will be studiously & graciously avoided, or the subject quickly changed if it is brought up. The CO wants to talk about one's ideas about war, to test them against the ideas of others, find out why people support the war and how they feel about it. In the name of tolerance that gate of communication is closed.
He has been absent from the home community. Both CO & the community have gone through experiences the other hasn't shared; adjustments are necessary regardless beliefs. One's beliefs make these adjustments complicated to varying degrees. The home community seldom entirely rejects the CO; strange ideas about war have now become a social fact. There is a wealth of difference between any antiwar sentiment & refusal to take up arms. Perhaps the bitterest fact is that the CO has cut one's self off from one's own generation. Those who hold out as COs & who come in contact with familiar men in uniform are apt to find the deepest understanding anywhere outside of strictly pacifist circles. For all the latent soldiers and latent COs, the choice has been made and the paths have split. [The surrounding social environment, the orders given, the attitudes held will have an effect] and ideologies will draw apart. Thus, the CO finds [one's] self apart from one's work community, home community, and the experience of one's generation. Part of the COs current real-life drama is the willing suspension of belief. [Despite this, there is an inner monologue going on with society's support of the war].
[Helping the Segregated CO]—For the vast majority of young COs, being drafted is the 1st time they come into contact with government, nation, & society as a whole. The ideas gained from this 1st close contact with society are likely to be carried on through life. The taught ideas of early years will give way to experienced ideas of 1st contact. Those who help segregated COs should examine carefully the patterned reactions being set up. Understanding & help are needed, for segregation has given COs strange ideas. COs find that companionship amongst themselves, [even with their broad spectrum of ideas], has a great deal of meaning; there is "we-ness." Companionship with other pacifists is a source of strength. When the CO is finally segregated with other COs, one finds it a refreshing experience to have companionship with whose basic ideological tenets one can agree.
[Unification by Dynamic Division]—[CO congregations are not] likely to be quiet, loving, spiritual fellowships. They can disagree with fervor, [and tear one another's ideas to shreds. The reality of CPS camps has shaken the hopes of visiting COs with their cherished images of ideal CO communities]. They fail to realize that the gusty chaos they have seen is in itself a creative process, which might be called "Unification by Dynamic Division." Some groups of COs are unified by common doctrine. In those CPS camps administered by Friends, there is a great deal of unification necessary. Only some unification is possible, which among rugged and strongly opinionated individualists leads inevitably to a good deal of thrashing about. COs can make a camp meeting to discuss bedmaking sound like a crisis session of the prewar French Deputies. [What may seem like] irrelevancies may simply be Fundamentalist, Socialist, Anarchist, or Quaker variations on a single theme. Myriads of startling discoveries [about one's own beliefs] are made when COs congregate.
Cohesive human relations can be wrecked on the assumption of agreement where no agreement exists. The roads to peace are many and they are all directed to one temporal goal, but it is fruitless for a man to travel 2 or 3 different roads at once. COs have to work with each other not only as personification of various ideologies, but as people. The problems of communal life have to be met and some reasonably well-working arrangements has to be made somehow. In spite of differences, COs develop a sense of WE, a "consciousness of kind." [The current group of CPS men will not make the mistake of setting up another Civilian Public Service system.
[COs: WE and THEY]—The necessary counterpart of a sense of WE is a sense of THEY. If a sense of WE is the means of social change, THEY are the ends of social change. No CO is normal, rational and honest at all times, but as members of a movement, they do take some pains to be so in public. The sense of WE makes the group feel responsible for public relations, and those hurting the public image are likely to develop a sense of public relations if they had none before. COs begin to to think that there is some sort of invisible picket fence that separates one from the rest of the citizenry. A what-is-expected-of-one set of artificial reactions starts to develop. One guards oneself against close associations, because of the potential for a big rift that affects the whole group. Because of a lack of ease it is hard for one to have any real rapport with people, even old acquaintances. What makes war supporters fight?
Reconnoitering THEM is a good idea, but COs are often pre-occupied with some interesting controversy on the national scene. Another factor in the CO's mentality is repugnance for [the overwhelming abundance of support in public opinion for violent retribution]. By rejecting varying accounts of what is being written about the war, one is bound to miss some of the honest reporting that gets through censorship. Some of the suggestions in this writing are very relevant to pacifists. One will have difficulty in understanding THEIR thinking during the postwar era if one has little knowledge of THEIR bases of information. Reconnoitering requires effort, incurs friction & argument, & considerable strain on social relations. The hazy and distorted picture which the CO has of THEM is perhaps the greatest difficulty which one has to overcome to be an effective pacifist in the future.
[THEY Categories: Sympathizers, Citizenry, Janissaries]—Who are THEY as the segregated CO sees them? The 3 principal categories of THEY are: Sympathizers, Citizenry, and Janissaries. In a hitchhiking situation with a CO, a Sympathizer will ask questions and offer a cigarette; a Citizen will accept the right to their own ideas; a Janissary (avid war supporter) will throw the CO out of the car. Toward Sympathizers, the CO feels pleased that one has found agreement; the agreement has well-defined limits. The CO is acutely embarrassed to be called the "real hero of the war"; they have too much doubt, fear, and uncertainty to feel like one. The CO thought that a great many of those people were part of WE, not part of THEM. Their presence and their respect for COs gives one the feeling that perhaps one has not acted in vain. The CO faces a dilemma with the Citizenry. The roots of one's pacifist convictions are embedded in democratic soil. [The CO believes in democratic process and] the Citizenry as an active force, and generally a force for good. [There is not much enthusiasm for the war], but there is plenty of support. The CO concludes that the Citizenry has been sadly duped by the Janissaries.
[Janissaries: The Imperial Guard of War]—This group is the CO's special concern. They are the body of enlisted regulars serving under officers who see war as an expression of human nature. A nation armed to the teeth at all times will avoid unnecessary wars & win the necessary ones. Some Janissary officers are in the armed forces; war preparation is their chosen occupation. Other Jannisary officers are in the press, government, & industry. In peacetime the Jannisaries bide their time, advocates preparedness, & nurtures [the war side of "patriotism]." They feel a need to suppress those elements in society that would hinder the job [of brute force] victory.
The contact point of CO and Janissary is strained and sometimes ferocious and explosive. The CO is well aware of the Janissary's hostility. CPS men are denied foreign service and even respectable national service. The Citizenry may see reason in the CO's needs and desires, but in wartime the Janissary rules and must be served. The CO and the Janissary obstruct what the other considers to be their jobs: promote and advocate peace; promote military strength and overpowering victory, respectively. Since most COs contact society-as-a-whole only during a wartime experience, the CO bases his plans on his wartime conception of THEY. The CO is going to deal with THEM not as they ought to be, but as he thinks they are.
[Pacifist vs. Janissary: False Dichotomy]—COs tend to assume that Pacifists and Janissaries are 2 opposing dynamisms, with the Citizenry as a reactive being, its actions determined by the relative strengths of the 2 opposing dynamisms. America went into WWI on the crest of a Janissary wave; pacifists were mobbed, tarred and feathered. After the war, [Janissaries were seen] as "merchants of death." Because of world events and the Depression, the Janissaries gained strength again, and eventually the Citizenry belonged to the Janissary again. But the Janissaries fear that a wave of disillusionment will engulf the Citizenry when it begins to realize the full import of the war just fought. They act now to preserve the will to war in time of peace; [the Pacifists brace themselves to] oppose this intrusion. [Young COs in pacifist leadership roles] may evolve a program to eradicate the Janissaries as guardians of the nation's will to war. This concept of Pacifist and Janissary as a [cycle of] dynamisms playing on a passive Citizenry is a delusion, a sidetrack a fraud. Pacifist and Janissary is each the other, part of a single dynamism—the Citizenry.
[Understanding Who WE Are]—COs are going to have to consider the question of who we are, in order to better to understand who THEY are, and what relationship WE and THEY have to one another. Caxton Doggett writes: "If some Christians define wars with reference to something beyond the state and call them retribution, other Christians define revolutions with reference to something beyond the facts of war and state and call them reformations ... [The Pacifist's] special calling is to be agent and if need be a victim of divine reformation." Few COs will say they are agents of a divinely created Citizenry, which struggles toward God's will and Truth. The CO has experience with Sympathizers and Janissaries, but the longer one remains segregated the less one understands the vast majority of the Citizenry. Yet the CO was once both pacifist and Janissary, not because one was either, but because one was a Citizen.
In WWII, the CO became a specialized cell of the human race, the articulate personification of the human need for those affected by war for reformation. The CO finds it hard to understand how both CO and Janissary are agents of the Citizenry. Why do people think it is necessary to keep nurtured within themselves the will to war? Most pacifists believe that there is that of God in everyone, but ignore that there is also that of Satan. [This is illustrated in] the dealings of groups and groups, nations and nations, which are almost bereft of what someone in ordinary life would consider to be the most elemental human decencies.
[Citizenry: Need of & Doubts About War]—For transgression of the laws of commonweal there is retribution. For the transgression of Nazism, Americans made the only retribution they [believed was strong enough to] stem the tide of evil—war. As long as the Citizenry thinks it has need of the Janissary, the Janissary will continue to exist. Trying to stamp out the Janissary will be a hopeless task. While the Citizenry acknowledged the evil of Nazism, it was very dubious about the retribution, the war which the Janissary proposed. [Since Hitler was one result of the 1st World War], the Citizenry questioned what would next escape from Pandora's Box of War. As the Citizenry questioned one war, it questioned war as a method. By wondering what war proved besides brutality, death, destruction, the Citizenry has come to see that there is something basically and structurally wrong with war as a system, because wars become transgressions themselves. The maelstrom of war is a vortex of nothingness, [annihilation]. "Reformation" is an urgent necessity common to everyone touched by war.
[Sharing Knowledge of War's Evil]—In the COs segregation, one can't know how widely & how deeply one's knowledge of war's evil is shared. [From external behavior, one might conclude that few see war as a CO or Hemingway does]. Ernie Pyle writes: "The most vivid change [in troops after considerable fighting] was the casual & workshop manner in which they talk about killing. [I had been gone, so] it hadn't been necessary for me to make the change along with them ... It was only spasmodically that I seemed capable of realizing how real and how awful war was ... I could look on rows of fresh graves [or] ... mutilated bodies without flinching or feeling deeply ... [Only at night, after] thinking & thinking & thinking ... [did] the enormity of all those newly dead strike me like a living nightmare." In moments of retrospect, one truly & bitterly hates war, for its sacrifice & futility. So long as pacifists remain agents of reformation, they will keep on existing until that evil is reformed. The pacifist's job is to search for a possible & understandable answer to the simple question—What else can we do?
[COs Response to War's Evil]—By merely reiterating, reminding the Citizenry of war's evil and futility, the CO will make no contribution to reformation. The pacifist movement can expose the Janissaries' dirty work, done prior to and during the war. None of that is essentially reformative. It seems like THEY are giving hearty approval to the fighting. But the hearty approval doesn't exist. Few people can disagree with General Sherman's "War is Hell" analysis. The American CO is likely to consider oneself in civil opposition to the American Janissary. But the opposition WE face in THEY, the Janissary, is democratically controlled and has specific limitations, both self-imposed and externally imposed. The enemy THEY face has few moral controls and limitations.
The pacifist can lead a more comfortable existence if one can discount such details as "Mixed Transports," railroad cattle-cars carrying human beings, divided up into the useful & useless (disposable), further divided by roles of: hard labor; political prisoners; & forced prostitution; it is just another atrocity story. By ignoring the evil THEY confront, the CO can't appreciate the terrible dilemma THEY face. Let the CO try to figure out what to do about the creators & practitioners of Mixed Transports—besides using overwhelming, brute force & slaughtering them. Somebody's got to figure such things out. Another of the pacifist's jobs is to strive to create conditions that make dealing with evil & bringing reformation possible; the people will carry out the reformation.
[The COs' Lifelong Job]—The 1st step is to stop waging war one's self and be a conscientious objector. Becoming a CO is simply the imperfect social expression of primary allegiance to reformation. The Pacifist's special calling is to be an agent and if need be a victim of divine reformation. The important part of a pacifist is not the "won't power" [one is accused of exercising], but ones will power, ones vivid, decisive allegiance to reformation. The minimum objective of reformation is the eradication of the organized mass slaughter of groups of human beings by other groups of human beings. War includes neither [reasonable results nor betterment of humankind], and the more total war is, the less it resolves.
The only way to abolish war is to replace national sovereignty with an honest, workable world government, a federal government run by the consent and active participation of all the governments, with a bill of individual rights, power to tax, and its own police force. One government is the best expression of one humankind, one commonweal, one brotherhood, transcending cleavage, distinctions, and classifications. The hope of "One World" has been a hope shared by people the world over for a very long time. Only within the last century or so has the hope been considered even a remote possibility. Internationalists everywhere are saying, "Let's sit down together like reasonable people and organize." The only difficulty with doing that right now is that there do not seem to be enough reasonable people to sit down, organize and support the organization. How will the internationalist build an international organization after 2 world wars in a generation? How can a house of international goodwill be built on war-whipped sands of hatred, suspicion and greed?
Centrifugal Force (War) vs. Centripetal Force (Peacemaking)—[War is a supremely centrifugal, disintegrating force]. To counteract it there must be a centripetal, [a drawing inward, integrating] force. This joining-of-people-together, this essential condition of reformation must be worked for by many agents, especially in time of peace. Janissary agents do this good work, and then devote their energies to tearing down their own work—in time of war. [The propaganda changes from universal, international humanity in peacetime to valiant allies and evil foe in war. They respect centripetal force only in time of peace.
The American CO has developed, in varying degrees, a sense of WE and THEY, a sense of 2 forces that "clash by night." It is futile to attempt to suppress the Janissary, because the Citizenry will always turn to the Janissary when confronted with internationally intolerable evil. In time of peace the pacifist is usually indistinguishable from the ordinary internationalist and peace-lover. It is the pacifist's job to build in each country a determined body of people who will [resist the centrifugal (alienating, scattering) force of total war, and promote the centripetal (centering, gathering) force of international fellowship], by creating and keeping in contact with a core of reasonable folk who can [and will hold to that fellowship in peace and in war.] In war and in peace there will be progress, constant pressure toward the center point of union.
As the CO builds an organization and works in conjunction with other centripetal forces, there will come a day when the conditions of reformation will have been fulfilled. At that point all will be able to sit down, with knowledge and justice, and build a parliament of humankind, a federation of the world. Beyond that point all will know [peace as they have never known it before].
171. War Resistance in Historical Perspective (By Larry Gara; 1970) About the Author—Larry Gara is Professor of History & Government at Wilmington College, OH. He served a 3-year prison sentence for refusing to register for the draft during World War II, & was convicted of counseling a young man to not register. This pamphlet combines his interest in American history & personal concern as a war resister. The essay grew out of talks he gave as a recent T. Wistar Brown Fellow at Haverford.
[Introduction]—Historians have long emphasized the importance of wars in US history; war resistance has been virtually unmentioned. Even though violence & wars permeate much of our heritage, there is a solid tradition of anti-war activity. None of [our wars] have had the support of all Americans. The recent division of opinion over foreign policy has past parallels. [Even John Woolman in 1757 mentions] young men “tarrying abroad until it was over.” Such historical parallels can be pressed beyond their usefulness, yet they do point up the wide range of antiwar activity, both past and present. [5 types of anti-war activity will be mentioned here].
Religious Objection to War: The Quakers/Others—Religiously motivated pacifism has been an important ingredient in American history from colonial times, [especially from the Quakers]. Pennsylvania Quakers confronted difficult problems & had to make compromising decisions. During French & Indian war, several Friends decided to resign rather than continue to accept measures which they couldn’t in good conscience support.
The membership usually found itself divided on the position which individuals should take. John Woolman refused to pay war taxes; most did pay. [He found it hard to go against the majority], “but to do a thing contrary to my conscience appeared yet more dreadful.” [At the end of the Mexican War an Indiana congressman said], “[Quakers] being inconsistent wasn’t the least conspicuous [fraility] … even on the subject of war … [they weren't] as conscientious as they claim to be.” Aiding the enemy was a charge frequently leveled against Quakers. In recent years many Friends have served in the military organization without jeopardizing membership.
While the government has tried to avoid needless religious persecution by making legal provision for conscientious objection, there were Friends who could not accept the alternatives to military service available to them. One of those whose sufferings served as an inspiration for later war-objectors is Cyrus Pringle, a Vermont Quaker of the Civil War era (PH pamphlet #122). Pringle wrote: “I was very quiet in my mind as I lay there on the ground [soaked] with the rain of the previous day, exposed to the heat … suffering keenly … And if I dared the presumption, I should say that I caught a glimpse of heavenly pity… I was sad, that one endeavoring to follow our dear Master should be so generally regarded a despicable and stubborn culprit.” For the most part, Quaker pacifism was more moderate, finding expression in the lives of men working to heal the wounds of war and remove the causes of future wars [e.g. Rufus Jones, Henry J. Cadbury, David Richie, E. Raymond Wilson].
The 2 best known of the peace sects, other than the Friends, are the Mennonites and the Church of the Brethren. Mennonites believed that the state of grace they enjoyed forbade war for them. Most found them-selves exempt from military service. The Brethren had a tradition similar to Mennonites, though they mixed more with the world and were more divided on the stand each member should take. Very few of them became war resisters in the modern sense. Many Protestants outside the 3 historical Peace Churches also came to reject war on the basis of personal conscience. Catholic opposition to war has taken on new significance since the founding of the Catholic Worker Movement in 1933. Some of the more militant leaders of the war resistance movement are Catholic (e.g. David and Philip Berrigan, David Miller, and Cornell).
Selective Conscientious Objection—Some individuals limit their objection to a particular war rather than to all wars; they do not oppose war in the abstract. [They object to]: country’s justification for involvement; method of warfare; supporting the wrong side. The growing resistance to the Vietnam War has brought the selective conscientious objector to the public’s notice. Historically, those who supported the other side include: Tories in the American Revolution; southern sympathizers in the Civil War; pro-Germans in World Wars I and II.
The Mexican War was a conflict which seriously divided the American people. The best known selective conscientious objector of this war was Henry David Thoreau. His one night in Concord jail produced the famous essay on “Civil Disobedience,” which profoundly influenced such men as Tolstoy, Gandhi, and Martin Luther King. It was an impassioned plea for moral commitment in the face of injustice. More recently, Socialists, anarchists and members of the IWW opposed WWI as an imperialist war. Carl Haessler regarded himself “as a patriotic political objector, acting largely from public and social grounds.”
War Resistance as a Phase of Reform—Much of the anti-war thinking & activity in our national past has been associated with a version of another & better plan for society than the one which persisted in the US. The 1st peace movement coincided with such other reforms as the temperance, prison reform, handicapped education, and slavery opposition movements. War resistance was also a part of the history of those American utopian communities that tried to remake society by gathering people together and providing the world with an example of a better social structure. [Beginning with] the War of 1812, the Shakers declared their abstinence from violence, requested draft exemption (Civil War), and held a convention diminish the prospects of war (1905).
The Oneida & Hopedale communities also had strong anti-war overtones. These 3, along with other 19th century utopians had a working model for a warless society. The Socialists & members of the IWW who refused to fight in World War I were involved in reforming or basically changing their society. As supporters of the international working class they wouldn’t war against working class counterparts in other nations. [Ernest L. Meyer hoped for an increase in war objectors]. Meyer added that if the dream should prove idle, “Well then, in our defeat we have sacrificed no other lives. But the dream of the militarists? … Ah, what blood is on their heads.”
Opposition to Conscription—One of the reforms which war resisters have recently emphasized is the elimination of conscription from our national life. [Conscription was resisted by New England during the war of 1812]. Although the Civil War law was more an inducement to volunteering than a well-devised project for raising conscripts, reaction to it was swift and extreme, including draft riots in various cities.
It wasn’t until the 20th century that conscription became a big feature of American life, permanently it would seem, after World War II. Those who resisted the draft were perpetuating a tradition. In 1940, a peacetime conscription bill was passed; it offered alternative service. There were objectors who couldn’t accept alternative service; conscription itself had to be opposed. The Union Theologians stated: “We believe that by opposing Selective Service, we will be striking at the heart of totalitarianism as well as war …” Current opposition to the draft is a continuation of that war resistance phase which 1st assumed meaningful expression during the Civil War.
Toward a Resistance Movement/Current War Resistance—Draft refusal is part of the program young people call “The Movement." Since the early 19th century there have been organizations dedicated just to war’s abolition, although the members of such groups frequently were involved in other reform movements. [There were 3 disastrous wars after the Revolutionary War, up to & including] the War of 1812. It was shortly after these wars that 30 Americans organized the 1st peace society in New York. The American Peace Society was organized in 1828. William Ladd said: “We hope to… promote the practice … of submitting national differences to amicable discussion & arbitration … as becomes rational creatures, & not by physical force as is worthy of brute beasts.
William Ladd & the American Peace Society’s mild philosophy failed to attract those taking a stronger position against war. In 1838 William Lloyd Garrison, Henry C. Wright, & others formed the New England Non-Resistance Society. [They made an unequivocal statement against all aspects of war]. The growing impulse to-wards inward civil conflict, the reformers ambivalent attitude toward a war against slavery, & the Civil War itself seriously disrupted these early organizations.
In 1866 the Universal Peace Union appeared. Its scant 10,000 membership kept the peace idea [& disarmament] alive, & cooperated with a French peace society; the Union’s guiding spirit was Alfred Love. During or shortly after World War I appeared 3 organizations most active between the wars & still active today: Wo-men’s International League for Peace & Freedom; Fellowship of Reconciliation; & the War Resisters League. Since WWII new anti-war organizations include: Peacemakers; SANE; Students for a Democratic Society; Women Strike for Peace; Quaker Action Group; Student Peace Union. These are part of a long, American tradition.
Today’s young war resisters are living in an age which may well be characterized as the age of the balance of terror. Never before have people witnessed the stupidity and horror of war so vividly and with such dependable regularity, every evening at the dinner hour. Television has certainly added a new dimension to the anti-war movement. Youthful fervor, dedication & concern is often expressed in emotional reaction rather than reason. An increased number of older people are also alienated from our acquisitive, materialistic society and from the wars which it cannot seem to avoid. We could all, young and old, profit from a deeper understanding of the history of war resistance as a balance to, and perhaps a corrective for our tendency to emphasize war in our nation’s past. [Perhaps some day, peace movement leaders will be mentioned in textbooks alongside leaders of war].
286. War Taxes: Experiences of Philadelphia YM Quakers through the American Revolution (by Elaine J. Crauderueff; 1989)
A World is Breaking up—Many say that what is going on now is not a war but a revolution. Profound and sweeping changes are coming while we pacifists still approach our tasks with a narrow and provincial vision, on a petty scale. I believe that the pacifist movement alone can qualify as the "receiver" for the bankrupt western world. The western order of life is breaking up spiritually, culturally, economically, and politically. The Renaissance and the Reformation sought liberation of the human spirit, in particular from the Church. As a result, man was set at the center of the universe; God was put out of the picture. Man whose spirit was to have been freed at last from ancient restraint and superstition has not for centuries found himself less free than he is today: a cog in the industrial machine; a pawn of the fascist state; a tool of the Communist Party.
[When men set themselves at the center of the universe & the pinnacle of existence], then they can't respect & trust themselves or one another. We have the material means for producing the good life in abundance; we fail or refuse to devise ways for distributing these goods in equitable fashion. The State is the only agency that can regulate production, so everywhere we get increasing state economic intervention [in the form of unsold, wasted products]. Rivalries between nations become intense; they devote increasing capital & energy to unproductive war expenditures, which further contracts useful production of essential goods. Not a single country has broken away from this circle. A wartime "communism" rations the few essential goods remaining and prepares for war [using the instruments of] dictatorship and totalitarianism; [that includes the United States].
War Can't Halt Disintegration—War is itself an extreme expression of our disintegration, of meeting difficulties with increasingly brutal strife. Neither the poverty, exhaustion, disillusionment & humiliation of de-feat, nor the nationalistic exultation & the moral let-down of victory contribute to the healing of the nations. War can only serve to accelerate fearfully the process of impoverishment & breaking up. The best chance to stop disintegration is an early peace. It is only conceivable if nations recognize that war offered no way out of any real problem and if they addressed the economic and cultural roots of war. Unfortunately, the chances that events will take this turn are not bright. An appalling situation will exist at its close, regardless of victory or stalemate.
Men Turn to Opponents of War—The masses in the defeated countries revolted against those who had been in command during the war. They turned to the Communists and Social Democrats who had been opposed to the war. Even in victor states, Socialists, Communists, Labor and varying degrees of pacifists were given the trust of the people and positions of responsibility. They rejected those prophecized positive results falsely, and turned to those who foresaw the actual results and were brave and honest enough to speak out.
The revulsion against the war-makers will be as great in the victorious countries as in the others. It seems unlikely that the regimes in control during the war will survive its end. People will be unsure how to deal with the vastly different conditions that will exist at the same war's end. The Communists and Socialists rejected imperialist wars but accepted violence and war on behalf of the working class. I doubt anyone preaching about civil war and Utopia right after this war will be regarded as a savior and liberator.
The movement to which we might turn to in hope must: have renounced war and violence [before and during the war]; have renounced dictatorship and promoted cooperation; be a profoundly religious movement. They need to believe that new people can be created. They will need a newfaith that transforms and saves them, gives them eternal resources to live for. Only the Christianity of Jesus can build such a movement.
Non-Violence and Social Change/ The Future of Pacifist Relief Work—Should the religious pacifist movement think of itself as a mass movement for achieving social change by nonviolence? [Either we accept the responsibility of promoting love, non-violence, & community as] the basis of all human association, or we ought to stop saying it. Those of us with Jewish-Christian prophetic roots can't evade the call to pray & work for the realization of God's Kingdom on earth. We cannot keep saying "We suffer with you; but if you resort to violence we shall have to stand aside." We pacifists must show that evil can be overcome by non-violence.
Perhaps during and certainly after the war, there will be a vastly increased need and demand for pacifist relief and reconstruction work. How separate can relief and reconstruction be under the conditions that will prevail in Europe and elsewhere? [Our philosophy includes both in a concrete example of a new way of life.] We can admit that we have only been playing at building life on truth and love or humbly to undertake leadership the new world as did William Penn.
Are we Adequate—Is it possible that the religious pacifist forces can measure up to the challenge? The western world may break up as did the Roman Empire; small groups of pacifists might serve as islands of safety, sanity and faith. We might get the chance to provide leadership in building a new order if we undergo the severe physical, intellectual, and spiritual disciplines necessary to meet the situation. For most people, turning to those who are calling for change would mean to admit inadequacy and accepting blame. We are a lot stronger now than a score of years ago, in numbers and in intellectual comprehension and spiritual development. [When we note the positive developments in the vocation of conscientious objectors and the widespread interest in the American Friends Service Committee, we need not despair.
There are several experts who have long known that the old order was thwarting them in the exercise of their abilities. They have no objections to working for the forces of the new day. Let men come out from under the delusion that war is a possible solution for social problems, and we shall be surprised at the resources in ordinary people and in intellectual leaders that will be released for the building of a new world. The Gandhi movement in India is giving the world an example of the use of nonviolence on a mass scale. We may hope that western people will be impressed by this oriental example and that cooperation between eastern and western nonviolence movements may come to have a decisive influence on world events.
The Gandhi Movement—The fundamental characteristics of the Gandhi movement must also be part of the growing pacifist movement in the United States. It is a religious movement. Pacifism is not a tool for occasional use. It is a way of life. The program of personal training and discipline is an indispensable part of the movement. It is an economic and social movement. I am not convinced that it is necessary to go back to a pre-machine economy of spinning. It has 3 elements essential to an adequate non-violence movement.
It must clarify its thinking as to the kind of economic order to strive for. It must experiment with schemes for a more decentralized human cooperative way of living. The basic philosophy of economic life must be expressed and acted out now and not "some day." Workers are hungry and cold now; they cannot wait for a revolution to do something about it. Communists saw that if the new system does not represent the majority stance of the people, it has to be set up by first violence and then regimentation. The Russian experience reminds us that violence and coercion are self-defeating and regimentation leads to degraded human beings.
Those who have entered into the spirit of community will be driven to seek to give expression to their inner spirit in economic relationships. Manual work has important effects on the individual spirit. Corporate manual activity is a powerful agent for unifying pacifist groups within and also with other manual workers. Gandhi's movement is a political movement. A western non-violence movement must make effective contacts with oppressed and minority groups and help them develop a non-violent technique.
Pacifist Strategy in War Time—During war some pacifists incline toward an activist and militant stance; others incline toward a more quietist pacifism. The latter would concentrate on works of mercy and reconstruction, rather than direct opposition. We need to identify ourselves with the needs and suffering of our fellow citizens and worshippers. We cannot try to sabotage the activities of our fellow-citizens who feel called to fight. We seek to wean others from the desire to make war, not to interfere with their war efforts. It is not disloyalty to country, but obedience to a higher law and sovereign "not of this world." The negative act of refusal must be balanced with the positive acts of cooperative living and brotherly service.
The movement as a whole shouldn't become quietist & non-political. That might be an isolationist or escapist attitude. There will always be concrete issues on which we must speak or risk be traitors to the truth. The fact that one may not be able to speak out without suffering for it, would not be sufficient to excuse silence. Periodically the question of war aims or peace terms will or should be raised. The masses will have confidence in us and turn to our leadership after the war to the extent we have given practical demonstrations of love, of our ability to build and organize and courage to speak the truth when it is unpleasant and dangerous to do so.
The multitudes said of early Quakers "With this man who refuses to buy immunity, we shall ... compromise, give him special exemptions & a peculiar confidence." George Fox said: "Lose not this great favor which God hath given unto you, but that ye may answer [God's witness] in every man which witnesseth to your faithfulness." We aren't all called to witness the same way. Some are led to a militant way, while others follow a quieter way. The former's motive must be love; the latter's motive must not be fear or avoiding difficulties. [However we do it], we should be deeply & unreservedly committed to that life "which taketh away the occasion of all war."
Our task is always the positive one of witnessing to that life & of practicing it. To what extent can we compromise with existing economic & political institutions, adapt ourselves to the world's demands? If we do the compromising, there will be no end until our power is gone. If the state is adapting itself to the demands of the spirit, then our "yeast" will not have lost its power and the lump will be transformed into wholesome bread.
The Problem of Alternative Service—One well-respected conscientious objector said: "Either you accept conscription, & do what the government forces you to do, or you refuse to be ordered & ... the government [has] to leave you alone or put you in jail." [If alternative service results from] intellectual blurring of the conscription issue & voluntary service, or from making it easier for the government or less difficult & unpleasant for ourselves, then there would be no difference of principle between alternative service & any war service. I don't believe we are confined to the choices of conscription, alternative service that caters too much to the war machine, or going to jail. It has always been my conviction that non-registrants who forced the government to change radically or send them to jail, rendered a great service to the pacifism cause, democracy & prophetic religion.
Fidelity to conscience at cost to the individual in the face of general opposition & disapproval still has the power to win the respect of men who have "that of God" in them. Every one has in one's conduct a line beyond which one won't go no matter how absurd it may seem to others to draw the line at that point. If such people take this course as a result of mature reflection & an unreserved commitment to the leading of the Spirit, I believe they will do a great service. It is impossible to exaggerate the importance of war-resistance. The nations will not face their real problems, so long as they think resort to an armament boom and war constitutes a "way out." To say that not participating in war, a tumor on the body politic, is "merely negative," is like saying removal of a cancerous tumor of the physical body is "merely negative."
There is a sense in which war resistance is incidental in the pacifist way of life. Pacifism is a life of love & non-violence; it is to break out of the Self's hard shell; to know deeply the unity of all in God; to express love at every moment, in every relationship. This is the love which binds man, maid, & family together. This must al-ways find expression even where we must stand against the majority. We have all the time got to be insisting on our right to "alternative service." Even in jail, we should have to devise ways of rendering "alternative service."
The individual pacifist is confronted with the needs of resisting human customs & institutions & also creatively serving one's fellows. The movement must deal vigorously & imaginatively with the "alternative service" problem." Constructive pacifist service must be civilian service under private auspices & control, not a civilian department of the government. Projects must grow out of & must express religious pacifism's spirit. [In an age of regimentation] for war, no greater service can be rendered than keeping alive volunteerism's spirit. Projects must represent a sacrifice offered to our fellows, a self-denial & suffering, a sacrifice on behalf of principles and faith.
"Alternative service" cannot be government financed or controlled and still be a genuine pacifist alternative. We couldn't cooperate with such a program without greatly weakening and obscuring our witness. If we are willing to pay for the work-camp opportunities, we can hold before men the vision of the world-task of pacifism. Work-camps may make a great contribution to the world task [of building a life of love and nonviolence].
16. Peacemakers’ Dilemma: Plea for a Modus Vivendi in the Peace Movement (by Bertram Pickard; 1942)
About the Author—Bertram Pickard (1892-1973) belonged to a generation of Friends who helped to redefine the nature of Quaker international work from 1920-1940. In the aftermath of the 1st World War he played a big role in broadening the Quaker approach to peacemaking, encompassing conflict resolution through peaceful settlement of disputes & conflict prevention through institution-building internationally. He served as Secretary of the Friends Peace Committee, London YM (1921-1926) & Secretary of Friends Geneva Center (1926-1940).
Modus Vivendi—[A temporary [working] arrangement ... pending final agreement or resolution of conflict].
INTRODUCTORY—It is right that in so complex a matter as the elimination of war and the achievement of peace there should be strong differences of opinion and emphasis among peace workers and many peace organizations. It is right that there should be diversity and variety of approach. But there is something wrong when the Peace Movement is rent by strife within to a degree where leaders in different camps accuse each other of being "the greatest obstacle to peace." This happened in England and the US over different controversies. The debate is over the uses to which American coercive power should be put to. Sometimes a Peace Movement group throws its political weight in with that of nationalists, isolationists, or imperialists. That the Peace Movement everywhere has been so sharply divided on the question of force that a united political policy has been generally impossible, is a matter for regret and earnest inquiry.
Perhaps such political deadlock in the Peace Movement is inevitable; I don't think so. I am concerned to contribute to the clarification of the issues, & to the discovery of a modus vivendi between the different elements in the Peace Movement. I have over 20 years of 1st-hand knowledge of the Peace Movement in England, Switzerland (14 years at Geneva), and the US. There is a duty to bring our contributions to the common stock, and to venture even some thinking aloud, since by that means we may stimulate one another to seek and find new truth.
Two Kinds of Pacifism—"Pacifism" has a double meaning [and there are many different kinds of pacifism]. There are 2 very different kinds of pacifism. The definition given in the 1929 Concise Oxford Dictionary is surprising: "The doctrine that the abolition of war is both desirable and possible." It is not at all the meaning we usually give pacifism in England and America; this is more of a continental European meaning. In this paper, the word pacifism may be variously qualified as"absolute," "radical," "religious."
[The main term we will use is] "integral pacifism." It is defined negatively as the refusal to support actively, the organized slaughter of human beings, and positively, as a whole way of positive living which includes a belief in, and practice of, the use of spiritual weapons in meeting violence and evil. This integral way is inherently difficult, and pacifism is powerless to effect large-scale political policies, when true pacifists are few and far between. Pacifists are not passive. There is a type of pacifism which holds that human reason, if properly developed and released through education, can be trusted to generate cooperation rather than aggression. Howard Brinton writes: "Everyone has within [oneself] a potential Hitler as well as a potential St. Francis. [One] must accordingly rise to a higher level of life by a long, hard struggle involving severe self-discipline."
Pacifism: No Immediate Political Policy—Few of those who profess pacifism have submitted themselves to such a discipline. Howard Brinton asks, "How can [one] claim to overcome evil in others by non-violent methods before [one] overcomes the evil in [oneself]?" And effeminancy is no antidote to the violence and aggressiveness in men. Albert Edward Day wrote: "Pacifism can never be made a political strategy except in a nation of pacifists," i.e. not in any foreseeable future. After 70 years of success in large-scale political application of pacifism in William Penn's Holy Experiment, "the demands of the British government, the injustice inflicted on the Indians ... and the belligerency of Scotch-Irish settlers ... induced Quaker legislators to withdraw from politics in order not to compromise their peace policy."
Does Peace Depend Upon Pacifism?/ The Organization of Peace—So far as the elimination of the institution of war & the substitution of a system of law are concerned, the evidence suggests that humankind is steadily moving in that direction. There are signs that the suicidal character of total war is developing a biological fear of war which may well speed up the change in behavior as a means to race survival. We must be careful not to exaggerate this tendency, nor to expect mere fear of consequences to play a cardinal role. Internationalists pin their faith on the political organization of order in the world through a League of Nations, Federal Union, etc. Socialists argue that no peace is possible without radical social changes by agreement or by force [if necessary].
THE "COLLECTIVE SYSTEM"—The 3 basic problems in substituting law for war are: securing justice; applying [fair] force; promoting supra-national loyalty. What would absolutely just positions of [intra-national or international affairs look like]? Approximate justice is the best that can be attained. What would approximate justice look like? What relative influence should Germany, France, & England have, in justice, on continental Europe's affairs? In a dispute, [the options are] negotiation, arbitration, or fight. [If ABCD are involved in a balancing of power, with A & C allied against B & D, for non-pacifists] there is only 1 way out of a vicious circle. Whatever force exists should be used jointly by A,B,C,D, to restrain anyone guilty of illegal violence.
In any "Collective System" there must be agreement: not to resort to force to get desired ends; to accept approximate justice decided by a 3rd party; on machinery to effect impartial decisions; to accept changes in the status quo; on combining power to restrain illegal violence. Any "collective system" must aim to achieve a more or less stable political equilibrium by means of procedures for effecting peaceful change of the status quo & procedures for preventing or suppressing illegal violence. The peace plans put forward by 2 Quaker thinkers—William Penn & John Bellers—contain such provisions. [His Holy Experiment & his] "Plan for the Peace of Europe" [differ because the 1st] was legislated for pacifists & near-pacifists, whereas the 2nd was legislated for warring princes. His political sense suggested to him that a Europe composed of separate, warring sovereignties would never pass from anarchy to law and order except through a process of cooperation, including cooperation to "compel" compliance with the law. Pacifist critics generally accept the concept of international police power, but then feel dutybound to oppose steps designed to strengthen the cooperative and responsible use of power.
A"Collective" System: In Practice/ A Personal Experience—Some who are not necessarily opposed to the basic concept of "collective security" argued that, under current conditions, any application of "sanctions" might spell "collective insecurity." The question pacifists must face is whether there should have been more coercion or less, in the face of the "aggressions" which did take place. The only time coercion was to be used was when a state had refused all forms of peaceful settlement and was using armed force.
Up till 1924, I believed that somehow or other the League should dispense altogether with the coercive forces deemed to give security and defense to nations in their separate existence as single states. In 1924, I changed my opinion, when an attempt was made to advance on the 3 fronts of Arbitration, Security, and Disarmament. I believe that if the oil embargo had been applied and the Suez Canal closed, there would have been armed conflict with Italy and the Fascist regime would have been brought down. One cannot help feeling that such action would have strengthened the "collective" idea. While I could not oppose the closing of the canal, I also could not take up arms against Italy on behalf of law and order.
The issue, in the absence of widespread pacifism, was not between peace and war; it was between one kind of war which went on cruelly in Abyssina and Spain, and another kind of warfare waged by nations collectively on behalf of a victim of aggression. It seems to me that those whose conscience permits and obliges them to employ armed forces for national defense had much better use it for common rather than purely national ends. I think there will always be legitimate differences of opinion between pacifists as to which forms of coercion approximate police action and which do not, i.e. which can be used and which cannot.
PARENTHESIS ON POLICE ACTION—It is extremely unlikely that the problem of serious, deadly, destructive coercion can be avoided as an ever recurrent factor in an International Police Force and world government. The problem of the equalization of privilege as between the peoples of the world is a very great and knotty one. In the absence of coercive power, what would prevent a mass movement of the under-privileged toward "places in the sun?" It is obvious that an unjust distribution of this world's goods is preserved by the power of the State's police. Integral Pacifists too often enjoy the many privileges which flow from an unjust distribution of wealth, and leave to others the unpleasant policing tasks which prevent such conditions from degenerating into violence. We are only entitled to stand aside from this disagreeable and dangerous civic duty if we try to meet evil and violence by alternative methods which [take as much commitment] as the cruder methods and if we do not deny the existence of violence or postpone dealing with it.
If the problem of violence in [a nation's] social life is serious, how can it be imagined that control of international and interracial relations is, by some magic, easy? [Nationalistic] ferocity must be held in check if international relations are to pass from jungle anarchy to law. Privileged groups will set up institutions of self-government including the instruments of enforcing law and order. This will involve progressive substitution of the clumsy coercion of armed power, by those subtler [motivations] connected with livelihood and self-respect.
THE PACIFIST DILEMMA—It may be damaging to the cause pacifists have at heart if Friends insist upon opposing the lesser of 2 evils (collective coercion) at the grave risk of perpetuating the greater evil [of violent oppression]. [Opposing the lesser evil] involves the dilemmas of: withdrawal from political cooperation when political judgment indicates a necessary and non-pacifist action by the community; disavowal of sound political judgment to give an appearance of moral consistency; or abandonment of the personal pacifist position in order to implement the political judgment. These dilemmas cannot be escaped so long as pacifism fails to win the allegiance of the overwhelming majority of people.
The justifications for a pacifist to withhold cooperation are a matter of conscience and categorical imperative and includes the non-pacifist's awareness of the positive advantages that flow from the pacifist type of citizenship. Pacifism in the Anglo-American democracies is recognized by non-pacifist religious leaders as a vocation. Non-pacifists plead for pacifists and point to a qualitative importance in pacifism which the community cannot afford to dispense with. Dwight Bradley writes: Pacifism is a religious phenomenon with definite political and historical associations ... It introduces into history the factor of uncalculating goodwill with all its spiritual creativity and ethical vitality ... It is a sign of health that democracy protects pacifism and is increasingly sensitive to the pacifist's appeal ... while pursuing [its usual course]."
Pacifists & Political Programs/ Is there a Pacifist Framework?—[In spite of this support] we shouldn't assume we have a total program to offer. We have made perilous proposals with the best of intentions, of trying to dissuade the British government from sending reinforcements to Shanghai against Chinese Nationalist Forces. We may have supposed the fewer soldiers in Shanghai, the safer the settlement would be; that assumption wasn't borne out by facts. It seems self-evident that no pacifist policy is applicable to that situation, at that moment.
In the US, the American Friends Service Committee (AFSC) issued A Call to Friends of Good Will in June 1941. It suggested that "the remedy for aggressive war is not war, but dynamic peace; it also suggested 6 excellent principles* as necessary parts of a dynamic peace program. No hint is given as to the sort of contribution the US should make in the establishment of order, or how to check lawless violence before or after "universal disarmament." Presumably, the AFSC did not advocate using collective force. National forces should be reduced with all possible speed and some form of international police system developed [at the same time].
*1. It is a disadvantage for anyone to use military force for its own ends; reduction of armed forces is needed.
2. Acceptance of direct negotiations or peaceful 3rd party settlement of all disputes.
3. All peoples shall be free to develop their own culture and form of government.
4. Economic/ social policies that affect others must be subject to international consultation and authority.
5 Access to markets & materials, immigration & emigration should be controlled with concern for all nations.
6. All colonies must be administered by international authority, with the welfare and development of their
About the Author—Bertram Pickard (1892-1973) belonged to a generation of Friends who helped to redefine the nature of Quaker international work from 1920-1940. In the aftermath of the 1st World War he played a big role in broadening the Quaker approach to peacemaking, encompassing conflict resolution through peaceful settlement of disputes & conflict prevention through institution-building internationally. He served as Secretary of the Friends Peace Committee, London YM (1921-1926) & Secretary of Friends Geneva Center (1926-1940).
Modus Vivendi—[A temporary [working] arrangement ... pending final agreement or resolution of conflict].
INTRODUCTORY—It is right that in so complex a matter as the elimination of war and the achievement of peace there should be strong differences of opinion and emphasis among peace workers and many peace organizations. It is right that there should be diversity and variety of approach. But there is something wrong when the Peace Movement is rent by strife within to a degree where leaders in different camps accuse each other of being "the greatest obstacle to peace." This happened in England and the US over different controversies. The debate is over the uses to which American coercive power should be put to. Sometimes a Peace Movement group throws its political weight in with that of nationalists, isolationists, or imperialists. That the Peace Movement everywhere has been so sharply divided on the question of force that a united political policy has been generally impossible, is a matter for regret and earnest inquiry.
Perhaps such political deadlock in the Peace Movement is inevitable; I don't think so. I am concerned to contribute to the clarification of the issues, & to the discovery of a modus vivendi between the different elements in the Peace Movement. I have over 20 years of 1st-hand knowledge of the Peace Movement in England, Switzerland (14 years at Geneva), and the US. There is a duty to bring our contributions to the common stock, and to venture even some thinking aloud, since by that means we may stimulate one another to seek and find new truth.
Two Kinds of Pacifism—"Pacifism" has a double meaning [and there are many different kinds of pacifism]. There are 2 very different kinds of pacifism. The definition given in the 1929 Concise Oxford Dictionary is surprising: "The doctrine that the abolition of war is both desirable and possible." It is not at all the meaning we usually give pacifism in England and America; this is more of a continental European meaning. In this paper, the word pacifism may be variously qualified as"absolute," "radical," "religious."
[The main term we will use is] "integral pacifism." It is defined negatively as the refusal to support actively, the organized slaughter of human beings, and positively, as a whole way of positive living which includes a belief in, and practice of, the use of spiritual weapons in meeting violence and evil. This integral way is inherently difficult, and pacifism is powerless to effect large-scale political policies, when true pacifists are few and far between. Pacifists are not passive. There is a type of pacifism which holds that human reason, if properly developed and released through education, can be trusted to generate cooperation rather than aggression. Howard Brinton writes: "Everyone has within [oneself] a potential Hitler as well as a potential St. Francis. [One] must accordingly rise to a higher level of life by a long, hard struggle involving severe self-discipline."
Pacifism: No Immediate Political Policy—Few of those who profess pacifism have submitted themselves to such a discipline. Howard Brinton asks, "How can [one] claim to overcome evil in others by non-violent methods before [one] overcomes the evil in [oneself]?" And effeminancy is no antidote to the violence and aggressiveness in men. Albert Edward Day wrote: "Pacifism can never be made a political strategy except in a nation of pacifists," i.e. not in any foreseeable future. After 70 years of success in large-scale political application of pacifism in William Penn's Holy Experiment, "the demands of the British government, the injustice inflicted on the Indians ... and the belligerency of Scotch-Irish settlers ... induced Quaker legislators to withdraw from politics in order not to compromise their peace policy."
Does Peace Depend Upon Pacifism?/ The Organization of Peace—So far as the elimination of the institution of war & the substitution of a system of law are concerned, the evidence suggests that humankind is steadily moving in that direction. There are signs that the suicidal character of total war is developing a biological fear of war which may well speed up the change in behavior as a means to race survival. We must be careful not to exaggerate this tendency, nor to expect mere fear of consequences to play a cardinal role. Internationalists pin their faith on the political organization of order in the world through a League of Nations, Federal Union, etc. Socialists argue that no peace is possible without radical social changes by agreement or by force [if necessary].
THE "COLLECTIVE SYSTEM"—The 3 basic problems in substituting law for war are: securing justice; applying [fair] force; promoting supra-national loyalty. What would absolutely just positions of [intra-national or international affairs look like]? Approximate justice is the best that can be attained. What would approximate justice look like? What relative influence should Germany, France, & England have, in justice, on continental Europe's affairs? In a dispute, [the options are] negotiation, arbitration, or fight. [If ABCD are involved in a balancing of power, with A & C allied against B & D, for non-pacifists] there is only 1 way out of a vicious circle. Whatever force exists should be used jointly by A,B,C,D, to restrain anyone guilty of illegal violence.
In any "Collective System" there must be agreement: not to resort to force to get desired ends; to accept approximate justice decided by a 3rd party; on machinery to effect impartial decisions; to accept changes in the status quo; on combining power to restrain illegal violence. Any "collective system" must aim to achieve a more or less stable political equilibrium by means of procedures for effecting peaceful change of the status quo & procedures for preventing or suppressing illegal violence. The peace plans put forward by 2 Quaker thinkers—William Penn & John Bellers—contain such provisions. [His Holy Experiment & his] "Plan for the Peace of Europe" [differ because the 1st] was legislated for pacifists & near-pacifists, whereas the 2nd was legislated for warring princes. His political sense suggested to him that a Europe composed of separate, warring sovereignties would never pass from anarchy to law and order except through a process of cooperation, including cooperation to "compel" compliance with the law. Pacifist critics generally accept the concept of international police power, but then feel dutybound to oppose steps designed to strengthen the cooperative and responsible use of power.
A"Collective" System: In Practice/ A Personal Experience—Some who are not necessarily opposed to the basic concept of "collective security" argued that, under current conditions, any application of "sanctions" might spell "collective insecurity." The question pacifists must face is whether there should have been more coercion or less, in the face of the "aggressions" which did take place. The only time coercion was to be used was when a state had refused all forms of peaceful settlement and was using armed force.
Up till 1924, I believed that somehow or other the League should dispense altogether with the coercive forces deemed to give security and defense to nations in their separate existence as single states. In 1924, I changed my opinion, when an attempt was made to advance on the 3 fronts of Arbitration, Security, and Disarmament. I believe that if the oil embargo had been applied and the Suez Canal closed, there would have been armed conflict with Italy and the Fascist regime would have been brought down. One cannot help feeling that such action would have strengthened the "collective" idea. While I could not oppose the closing of the canal, I also could not take up arms against Italy on behalf of law and order.
The issue, in the absence of widespread pacifism, was not between peace and war; it was between one kind of war which went on cruelly in Abyssina and Spain, and another kind of warfare waged by nations collectively on behalf of a victim of aggression. It seems to me that those whose conscience permits and obliges them to employ armed forces for national defense had much better use it for common rather than purely national ends. I think there will always be legitimate differences of opinion between pacifists as to which forms of coercion approximate police action and which do not, i.e. which can be used and which cannot.
PARENTHESIS ON POLICE ACTION—It is extremely unlikely that the problem of serious, deadly, destructive coercion can be avoided as an ever recurrent factor in an International Police Force and world government. The problem of the equalization of privilege as between the peoples of the world is a very great and knotty one. In the absence of coercive power, what would prevent a mass movement of the under-privileged toward "places in the sun?" It is obvious that an unjust distribution of this world's goods is preserved by the power of the State's police. Integral Pacifists too often enjoy the many privileges which flow from an unjust distribution of wealth, and leave to others the unpleasant policing tasks which prevent such conditions from degenerating into violence. We are only entitled to stand aside from this disagreeable and dangerous civic duty if we try to meet evil and violence by alternative methods which [take as much commitment] as the cruder methods and if we do not deny the existence of violence or postpone dealing with it.
If the problem of violence in [a nation's] social life is serious, how can it be imagined that control of international and interracial relations is, by some magic, easy? [Nationalistic] ferocity must be held in check if international relations are to pass from jungle anarchy to law. Privileged groups will set up institutions of self-government including the instruments of enforcing law and order. This will involve progressive substitution of the clumsy coercion of armed power, by those subtler [motivations] connected with livelihood and self-respect.
THE PACIFIST DILEMMA—It may be damaging to the cause pacifists have at heart if Friends insist upon opposing the lesser of 2 evils (collective coercion) at the grave risk of perpetuating the greater evil [of violent oppression]. [Opposing the lesser evil] involves the dilemmas of: withdrawal from political cooperation when political judgment indicates a necessary and non-pacifist action by the community; disavowal of sound political judgment to give an appearance of moral consistency; or abandonment of the personal pacifist position in order to implement the political judgment. These dilemmas cannot be escaped so long as pacifism fails to win the allegiance of the overwhelming majority of people.
The justifications for a pacifist to withhold cooperation are a matter of conscience and categorical imperative and includes the non-pacifist's awareness of the positive advantages that flow from the pacifist type of citizenship. Pacifism in the Anglo-American democracies is recognized by non-pacifist religious leaders as a vocation. Non-pacifists plead for pacifists and point to a qualitative importance in pacifism which the community cannot afford to dispense with. Dwight Bradley writes: Pacifism is a religious phenomenon with definite political and historical associations ... It introduces into history the factor of uncalculating goodwill with all its spiritual creativity and ethical vitality ... It is a sign of health that democracy protects pacifism and is increasingly sensitive to the pacifist's appeal ... while pursuing [its usual course]."
Pacifists & Political Programs/ Is there a Pacifist Framework?—[In spite of this support] we shouldn't assume we have a total program to offer. We have made perilous proposals with the best of intentions, of trying to dissuade the British government from sending reinforcements to Shanghai against Chinese Nationalist Forces. We may have supposed the fewer soldiers in Shanghai, the safer the settlement would be; that assumption wasn't borne out by facts. It seems self-evident that no pacifist policy is applicable to that situation, at that moment.
In the US, the American Friends Service Committee (AFSC) issued A Call to Friends of Good Will in June 1941. It suggested that "the remedy for aggressive war is not war, but dynamic peace; it also suggested 6 excellent principles* as necessary parts of a dynamic peace program. No hint is given as to the sort of contribution the US should make in the establishment of order, or how to check lawless violence before or after "universal disarmament." Presumably, the AFSC did not advocate using collective force. National forces should be reduced with all possible speed and some form of international police system developed [at the same time].
*1. It is a disadvantage for anyone to use military force for its own ends; reduction of armed forces is needed.
2. Acceptance of direct negotiations or peaceful 3rd party settlement of all disputes.
3. All peoples shall be free to develop their own culture and form of government.
4. Economic/ social policies that affect others must be subject to international consultation and authority.
5 Access to markets & materials, immigration & emigration should be controlled with concern for all nations.
6. All colonies must be administered by international authority, with the welfare and development of their
government as the primary objective; all nations should have equitable access to the colony's resources & trade.
How are terrific disagreements in what constitutes justice to be dealt with [while national forces are being reduced and the international police system is in its early stage of development]? The Call fails to make clear the personal national cost of adopting Christian pacifism, namely the martyrdom of persons and nations. Also, the final triumph could only be far off and obscure. Integral Pacifists have no full political program for today and only injure our case and exasperate our non-pacifist friends if we are not frank enough to admit that under present conditions coercive force not only will but must be used in the creation and maintenance of order. Our position [of non-cooperation] will be better appreciated [if we are frank about that].
Any Integral Pacifist program for today must be qualitative, complementary, auxiliary, made with special reference to the immediate availability of integral pacifists acting within the existing framework of non-pacifist behavior. The truth that there's no framework of Integral Pacifism except in the sense of what "ought to be." "What is " provides the framework, whether we like it or not. It is very difficult to imagine a state of affairs where most people behave as they ought and the minority of sinners do not overstrain the spiritual resources of the majority.
Positive Role for Pacifists in Politics—The Integral Pacifist is greatly circumscribed in the part one plays by ones inability to take responsibility for current political policies & decisions. Any Christian pacifist (like George Lansbury) who could be both a strong personal pacifist & the holder of high government office [takes on] an extremely difficult position. [One such might eventually leave government] & concentrate on peacemaking as distinct from government, even regret having taken office. For our example, personal peace-making involved visiting heads of most of the major Powers. That type of influence should be neither exaggerated nor minimized. To have influence in British/ Indian relations, pacifists had to combine zeal for peace work, long and careful study of the situation, and cultivation of friendly relations with the chief actors in the drama.
At the time of the Versailles Treaty's signing, English Friends protested in An Appeal to Peoples and Rulers against the failure of the Allies to include President Wilson's 14 Points & ideas from other speeches. Because of their relative detachment from the bitterness and anger generated by the war, and because of the direct contacts they had established with Germany after the Armistice, Friends were perhaps better qualified than most to point to the serious consequences that would inevitably flow from the [harsh] peace terms. Friends Peace Committee in London issued a statement justifying the statements made in the Appeal. Both statements were well-received in Germany. They alleviated some of the bitterness still rankling in the minds of German Christians.
A DIGRESSION INTO GEO-PACIFISM—I once imagined that all pacifists were like English pacifists I knew and not like those eager, energetic converts to the Peace Movement who called universal coercion peace. It was a shock to discover that most Continental peace-workers, mostly "pacifists," were ardent League of Nations supporters, & of law having force behind it. [English "absolutists" were in no mood] for conference in the true sense of the word. When the Conference came to London, we "put across left wing" resolutions which did violence to Continental pacifist's convictions. Their emphasis upon law & order [& force] was conditioned by vulnerable land frontiers, invasions, struggles for national freedom, & fear of attack from predatory neighbors.
One learned that British liberal traditions, our freedom from conscription, flowed from the natural blessings of geography, & that Integral Pacifist ideas had taken root & flourished, not because we were better or more zealous for peace than Continentals, but mainly because conditions favored tolerance. England has ceased to be an island. In British societies old & new, opinions were divided on the force issue. Some saw "sanctions" as only another kind of war, & that to approve even tacitly in the sense of not opposing it, was to compromise pacifism. Others, by 1st-hand experience of Continental conditions or imagination, had understood the "inevitability of gradualness" in the political fight against violence, & chose not to stand in the way of progress. The 2nd view is still the minority one among British Integral Pacifists; it has steadily gained converts in the past 20 years, & is likely to gain them faster as a result of the experience of World War 2—how it came & the nature of it.
I journeyed to the US in 1935 and was tremendously impressed by the amount of water across 3,000 miles of ocean. I found in the Peace Movement over here some at least of the characteristics which were prevalent in England in 1919. Here there was a tendency, to minimize the Federal Army's potentially coercive role, while the role of force in the League was commonly exaggerated. There was also a growing internationalist movement de-spite the US' rejection of the League. [I imagined] William Penn saying, "I had 2 lessons to teach: the power of brotherly love ... and the need for warring princes to unite their sovereignties to compel obedience to a higher law ... in God's good time ... [they] will be learned."
SOCIAL OBJECTIVES & PEACE/ 2 Schools of Thought—I understand the enormous stress that is laid in the British Peace Movement upon the necessity of solving the poverty problem as part of abolishing war. The disastrous effects of unemployment & poverty upon peace are: in the absence of affluent consumers in industrial states, those governments will try by every device possible to secure markets, usually in fierce competition with other industrial states. This intervention to secure special rights is a major cause of international friction & war.
Masses of long-unemployed and disgruntled men are ready material for demagogues and would-be dictator to mold to their purposes. Hitler's persuading masses of people to support his ambitious plans for rearmament and war-risking expansion to get out of Germany's economic and social impasse was at least as important a factor as dislike of the Peace Treaty in favoring Hitler's rise to power.
Those who are evolutionists and who believe that a fairer distribution of product, & a more equitable sharing of the privileges of management and control, can be worked out peacefully; all concerned should help bring this about. This doctrine is really basic to the International Labor Organization. Communists and other revolutionary socialists assume, based on impressive evidence, that those with privileged positions will not yield control without a fight. They envisage a series of wars & revolutions that result in a planned, classless economy and society, a worldwide union of socialist republics, & a durable peace. Great controversy has raged between these 2 viewpoints, but they agree as to the importance of social change as a prerequisite of durable peace. There was a time when the conception of the "United Front," which included the International Peace Campaign and the Russian Trade Unionists, and excluded Fascists and Tories, was strong.
More Pacifist Dilemmas—Integral Pacifists have not allied themselves with Communist parties, but an increasing number of Integral Pacifists have become avowed socialists. Many pacifists became convinced that coercion would have to be used to keep "aggressors" in check, while others became convinced that the governing class would not yield power to any party which proposed radically to alter the ownership and organization of the means of production. The tendency is for some of the these pacifists to renounce pacifism, while others "identify" themselves with the underprivileged working class movements, with the intention of giving every kind of aid and comfort consistent with their pacifist convictions. The circle of Integral Pacifists associated with Leonhard Ragaz of Zurich, like the similar circles of the radical English Independent Labor Party, shared this 2nd attitude. Some radical pacifists abandoned pacifism and got into the Spanish Civil War.
What should be the pacifist attitude in the event of a Socialist government coming into power constitutionally and then being challenged by a unconstitutional counter-revolution? It happened in Russia after World War One. Those both Socialist and pacifist would [advocate] the use of every force at its disposal to defeat illegal violence. Integral Pacifists would probably divide, with a few going into the fight and the majority giving their sympathy to the effort to break the counter-revolution. Social strife goes on around us with unrelenting bitterness to the shame of our religion and our civilization, in which we are all implicated.
A DIGRESSION INTO PSYCHO-PACIFISM—In 1936, I read Carl Jung's "Psychological Types," which revealed with a sudden illumination one reason why pacifists find it so difficult to agree with one another. Jung demonstrated 2 major approaches to reality: "extraverted"; "introverted." I was struck by a curious common denominator in 2 papers on pacifism and public questions. One supported a collective international system; one supported revolutionary changes in the social system. Both groups were focusing attention upon definite and observable political and social data in the field of international strife in one paper and class strife in the other. Both concluded there is no hope of dealing with the worst kinds of violence except by coercion, because an insufficient number of people were won over to a pacifist way of thought and life. Rather than abandon their Quaker pacifism, both groups argued that Integral Pacifism should be faithfully upheld.
Tough & Tender-Minded—While Jung agrees with William James that there are 2 ways of seeing reality, his classification of "extraverted" & "introverted" gives a different content to opposed attitudes which James la-bels "tough" & "tender." Jung writes: "Introverts shape material out of their own unconscious ideas & thus come to experience. Extraverts let themselves be guided by material which contains unconsciously projected ideas, & thus reach ideas." Each type interprets the other's view of reality with a different & misunderstood psychic mechanism. Jung contends that, in addition to introverted or extraverted people, there are also predominately thinking, feeling, sensation & intuition types. Thinking is only part of reality's total view; feeling, sensation & intuition are equally valid operations of the psyche. Jung maintains that William James, with his extroverted thinking, [discounts] the introverted thought processes which proceeds from within outward but are no less valid for that.
Value of Difference—There are sharply divergent types of attitudes to reality. None of them has the whole truth but need [to be integrated with] the compensating contributions to truth of other types. Integral Pacifists need the compensatory emphasis of the attitudes & judgments of non-pacifists in the wider Peace Movement. It may be taken as axiom that no single position or emphasis contains the whole truth; truth is always many-sided.
MODUS VIVENDI AND THE WAR—A modus vivendi must be attempted for the sake of the cause both kinds of pacifism have at heart. I think attainment isn't impossible; it requires a superhuman effort of self-control & charity on both sides. Dr. Alfred Salter (a Friend) spoke in the House of Commons of "the great & terrible fallacy that ends justify means & said: "I pray God ... that some statesman may step in & secure control of events that the leaders of the people in all lands have apparently lost." This challenging appeal was in keeping with his whole nature & life. [We cannot claim a moral superiority with this attitude] & it also offers no sort of suggestion as to how the war at present can be brought to an end that is morally tolerable for professing Chris-tians and the wider group of pacifists. The choices we face are almost always between relative good or evil.
C. J. Cadoux recently wrote Christian Pacifism Reexamined, a survey of the pacifist case & particularly of the relations between Christian pacifists & non-pacifist Christians who are very concerned about international cooperation. In Cadoux's "principle of relative justification" of injurious coercion, "an action may be right & good as regards[: underlying motive; expected results; actual results] Ideally, those 3 should be identical, but in reality ... between them [the actual] distinctions carry ... certain important consequences." Those who employ injurious coercion effect some measure of positive good, even though their belief that it is compatible with Christian calling is mistaken, and they also bring about much evil. "The free and frank acceptance of [this principle helps very materially to clarify the pacifist's interpretation of history and the attitude to society around [one]."
Cadoux's principle crystallizes for me the conclusion I was trying to reach about the deep variations in conscience and judgment about means among people who were equally consecrated to certain great ends. I think it is along this line that a basis is emerging for the necessary modus vivendi. Even during the war, non-pacifist Christians, internationalists, and the Archbishops of Canterbury and York admit the validity of conscientious objection. The belief that Christian Pacifists have an important contribution to make is widespread in the Church. [Some believe that the call to fight must be] answered "yes" or "no." If the pacifists are right it is always a moral evil to fight, and equally if the pacifists are wrong, it is a moral evil to refuse to fight in the cause of justice when the call comes. Gandhi asserted that it is better to fight than do nothing. A. J. Muste writes: "Resistance to evil & oppression, even if it takes a violent form, is on a higher moral plane than cowardly or passive acquiescence." The Integral Pacifist, John Middleton Murry. writes: "The will to peace calls for a readiness to make great sacrifices; a reluctance to make war implies nothing of the kind, and may imply the very opposite."
John C. Bennett (Pacific School of Religion at Berkeley) and E. Raymond Wilson (American Friends Service Committee) put forward the views of non-pacifist Christian and Christian Pacifist, respectively. These 2 men who take different positions on the war were fundamentally closer together in spirit and their idea of values than Raymond Wilson was with large numbers of people vociferous in their zeal to keep America out of war.
Now that American Integral Pacifists have turned much of their attention to Peace Aims, it is easier to conceive of pacifists in both senses of the word uniting their efforts to assure that the war shall be ended at the 1st possible moment consistent with conditions which include the organization of peace by international cooperation. There will often be strong divergence of view. Global conflict forces global solutions upon governments and peoples everywhere. [Any International Authority must include the American nation]. No pacifist of any kind will disagree with this proposition. Perhaps pacifists of both kinds will move helpfully and hopefully toward a modus vivendi which will yield peace, 1st inside the Peace Movement, and eventually in the world
CONCLUSION—[Non-pacifist modus vivendi "proposal" by Dwight J. Bradley]: "The task of religious pacifism is not in any sense a political task, ... [but rather] a cultural one. [Both religious and political tasks are spiritual]. [The political task] is spiritual [through] a sense of order, ... which is a spiritual reality. The pacifist's task is spiritual [because ones] altruistic love is the very core and living germ of spirituality ... Together political and religious help to create and maintain an order which is just and gentle, righteous and humane ... [If either or both] repudiate the other, civilization starts to break up in confusion."
[Integral Pacifist modus vivendi "proposal" by C. J. Cadoux]: "The pacifist is entitled to take ... part as a citizen ... by voting, private and public utterance, in support of the measures he believes are best ... The pacifist needs to remember that great numbers of [ones] non-pacifist and even non-Christian fellow-citizens are despe-rately eager to see war and the risk of it abolished ... Pacifists should make it their business ... to assist all who are working for peace, so far as [the others'] method does not involve disloyalty to their convictions ... [Rigid] refusal to cooperate [politically] needlessly discredits the cause for which one stands by withdrawing support."
Since Quakers emphasize the unity between religion & life, we shall prefer Cadoux's statement [to Bradley's]. It is essential not to assume we are more spiritual than those wrestling with day to day political responsibilities. Nor is statesmanship, with its compromises, necessarily less spiritual than prophecy, education, social improvements, & cultural development. Those of us whose conscience precludes full participation in exercising the modern states' vast power, must avoid a "holier than thou" attitude in judging the motives of non-pacifists.
Pacifists must face the fact that our political role is secondary, so long as the great majority of people are unconverted to the pacifist faith and methods. The "organization of peace," in terms of creating government institutions and removing political and economic causes of war, will proceed along non-pacifist lines. Once Integral Pacifists accept how harmful it is to leave aggressive violence unopposed by any material or spiritual force, the basis for the modus vivendi in the Peace Movement has been well and truly laid. Though the pacifist is not barred from forming political judgments, those judgments must be based on the realities of the situation. Non-violent power cannot be exercised by those lacking the faith or disciplines required.
The Integral Pacifist will naturally inject into politics a plea for mercy, forbearance & kindness which often mark the the best people's lives, including soldiers & police, who deal directly with violence. If the person making that plea can't show that they have done something at personal cost to bear the burden of the frustrations of the human life & spirit which issue in violence, that plea will carry no weight. The pacifist contribution is at present qualitative rather than quantitative.
The violence around us is a true reflection of [individual] hatred, anger, and fear, of greed and selfishness digging hideous gulfs between those who are satisfied and those who are condemned to lives of explosive frustration. The 1st step to peace is that major violence can and must be held in check by organized law and order with force if necessary. Peace is not a goal, but a byproduct of that abundant life for individuals and society which clears away frustrations and frees human energies and yearnings for fulfillment. To promote that abundant life in personal and social relationships is the supreme task of Integral Pacifism.
How are terrific disagreements in what constitutes justice to be dealt with [while national forces are being reduced and the international police system is in its early stage of development]? The Call fails to make clear the personal national cost of adopting Christian pacifism, namely the martyrdom of persons and nations. Also, the final triumph could only be far off and obscure. Integral Pacifists have no full political program for today and only injure our case and exasperate our non-pacifist friends if we are not frank enough to admit that under present conditions coercive force not only will but must be used in the creation and maintenance of order. Our position [of non-cooperation] will be better appreciated [if we are frank about that].
Any Integral Pacifist program for today must be qualitative, complementary, auxiliary, made with special reference to the immediate availability of integral pacifists acting within the existing framework of non-pacifist behavior. The truth that there's no framework of Integral Pacifism except in the sense of what "ought to be." "What is " provides the framework, whether we like it or not. It is very difficult to imagine a state of affairs where most people behave as they ought and the minority of sinners do not overstrain the spiritual resources of the majority.
Positive Role for Pacifists in Politics—The Integral Pacifist is greatly circumscribed in the part one plays by ones inability to take responsibility for current political policies & decisions. Any Christian pacifist (like George Lansbury) who could be both a strong personal pacifist & the holder of high government office [takes on] an extremely difficult position. [One such might eventually leave government] & concentrate on peacemaking as distinct from government, even regret having taken office. For our example, personal peace-making involved visiting heads of most of the major Powers. That type of influence should be neither exaggerated nor minimized. To have influence in British/ Indian relations, pacifists had to combine zeal for peace work, long and careful study of the situation, and cultivation of friendly relations with the chief actors in the drama.
At the time of the Versailles Treaty's signing, English Friends protested in An Appeal to Peoples and Rulers against the failure of the Allies to include President Wilson's 14 Points & ideas from other speeches. Because of their relative detachment from the bitterness and anger generated by the war, and because of the direct contacts they had established with Germany after the Armistice, Friends were perhaps better qualified than most to point to the serious consequences that would inevitably flow from the [harsh] peace terms. Friends Peace Committee in London issued a statement justifying the statements made in the Appeal. Both statements were well-received in Germany. They alleviated some of the bitterness still rankling in the minds of German Christians.
A DIGRESSION INTO GEO-PACIFISM—I once imagined that all pacifists were like English pacifists I knew and not like those eager, energetic converts to the Peace Movement who called universal coercion peace. It was a shock to discover that most Continental peace-workers, mostly "pacifists," were ardent League of Nations supporters, & of law having force behind it. [English "absolutists" were in no mood] for conference in the true sense of the word. When the Conference came to London, we "put across left wing" resolutions which did violence to Continental pacifist's convictions. Their emphasis upon law & order [& force] was conditioned by vulnerable land frontiers, invasions, struggles for national freedom, & fear of attack from predatory neighbors.
One learned that British liberal traditions, our freedom from conscription, flowed from the natural blessings of geography, & that Integral Pacifist ideas had taken root & flourished, not because we were better or more zealous for peace than Continentals, but mainly because conditions favored tolerance. England has ceased to be an island. In British societies old & new, opinions were divided on the force issue. Some saw "sanctions" as only another kind of war, & that to approve even tacitly in the sense of not opposing it, was to compromise pacifism. Others, by 1st-hand experience of Continental conditions or imagination, had understood the "inevitability of gradualness" in the political fight against violence, & chose not to stand in the way of progress. The 2nd view is still the minority one among British Integral Pacifists; it has steadily gained converts in the past 20 years, & is likely to gain them faster as a result of the experience of World War 2—how it came & the nature of it.
I journeyed to the US in 1935 and was tremendously impressed by the amount of water across 3,000 miles of ocean. I found in the Peace Movement over here some at least of the characteristics which were prevalent in England in 1919. Here there was a tendency, to minimize the Federal Army's potentially coercive role, while the role of force in the League was commonly exaggerated. There was also a growing internationalist movement de-spite the US' rejection of the League. [I imagined] William Penn saying, "I had 2 lessons to teach: the power of brotherly love ... and the need for warring princes to unite their sovereignties to compel obedience to a higher law ... in God's good time ... [they] will be learned."
SOCIAL OBJECTIVES & PEACE/ 2 Schools of Thought—I understand the enormous stress that is laid in the British Peace Movement upon the necessity of solving the poverty problem as part of abolishing war. The disastrous effects of unemployment & poverty upon peace are: in the absence of affluent consumers in industrial states, those governments will try by every device possible to secure markets, usually in fierce competition with other industrial states. This intervention to secure special rights is a major cause of international friction & war.
Masses of long-unemployed and disgruntled men are ready material for demagogues and would-be dictator to mold to their purposes. Hitler's persuading masses of people to support his ambitious plans for rearmament and war-risking expansion to get out of Germany's economic and social impasse was at least as important a factor as dislike of the Peace Treaty in favoring Hitler's rise to power.
Those who are evolutionists and who believe that a fairer distribution of product, & a more equitable sharing of the privileges of management and control, can be worked out peacefully; all concerned should help bring this about. This doctrine is really basic to the International Labor Organization. Communists and other revolutionary socialists assume, based on impressive evidence, that those with privileged positions will not yield control without a fight. They envisage a series of wars & revolutions that result in a planned, classless economy and society, a worldwide union of socialist republics, & a durable peace. Great controversy has raged between these 2 viewpoints, but they agree as to the importance of social change as a prerequisite of durable peace. There was a time when the conception of the "United Front," which included the International Peace Campaign and the Russian Trade Unionists, and excluded Fascists and Tories, was strong.
More Pacifist Dilemmas—Integral Pacifists have not allied themselves with Communist parties, but an increasing number of Integral Pacifists have become avowed socialists. Many pacifists became convinced that coercion would have to be used to keep "aggressors" in check, while others became convinced that the governing class would not yield power to any party which proposed radically to alter the ownership and organization of the means of production. The tendency is for some of the these pacifists to renounce pacifism, while others "identify" themselves with the underprivileged working class movements, with the intention of giving every kind of aid and comfort consistent with their pacifist convictions. The circle of Integral Pacifists associated with Leonhard Ragaz of Zurich, like the similar circles of the radical English Independent Labor Party, shared this 2nd attitude. Some radical pacifists abandoned pacifism and got into the Spanish Civil War.
What should be the pacifist attitude in the event of a Socialist government coming into power constitutionally and then being challenged by a unconstitutional counter-revolution? It happened in Russia after World War One. Those both Socialist and pacifist would [advocate] the use of every force at its disposal to defeat illegal violence. Integral Pacifists would probably divide, with a few going into the fight and the majority giving their sympathy to the effort to break the counter-revolution. Social strife goes on around us with unrelenting bitterness to the shame of our religion and our civilization, in which we are all implicated.
A DIGRESSION INTO PSYCHO-PACIFISM—In 1936, I read Carl Jung's "Psychological Types," which revealed with a sudden illumination one reason why pacifists find it so difficult to agree with one another. Jung demonstrated 2 major approaches to reality: "extraverted"; "introverted." I was struck by a curious common denominator in 2 papers on pacifism and public questions. One supported a collective international system; one supported revolutionary changes in the social system. Both groups were focusing attention upon definite and observable political and social data in the field of international strife in one paper and class strife in the other. Both concluded there is no hope of dealing with the worst kinds of violence except by coercion, because an insufficient number of people were won over to a pacifist way of thought and life. Rather than abandon their Quaker pacifism, both groups argued that Integral Pacifism should be faithfully upheld.
Tough & Tender-Minded—While Jung agrees with William James that there are 2 ways of seeing reality, his classification of "extraverted" & "introverted" gives a different content to opposed attitudes which James la-bels "tough" & "tender." Jung writes: "Introverts shape material out of their own unconscious ideas & thus come to experience. Extraverts let themselves be guided by material which contains unconsciously projected ideas, & thus reach ideas." Each type interprets the other's view of reality with a different & misunderstood psychic mechanism. Jung contends that, in addition to introverted or extraverted people, there are also predominately thinking, feeling, sensation & intuition types. Thinking is only part of reality's total view; feeling, sensation & intuition are equally valid operations of the psyche. Jung maintains that William James, with his extroverted thinking, [discounts] the introverted thought processes which proceeds from within outward but are no less valid for that.
Value of Difference—There are sharply divergent types of attitudes to reality. None of them has the whole truth but need [to be integrated with] the compensating contributions to truth of other types. Integral Pacifists need the compensatory emphasis of the attitudes & judgments of non-pacifists in the wider Peace Movement. It may be taken as axiom that no single position or emphasis contains the whole truth; truth is always many-sided.
MODUS VIVENDI AND THE WAR—A modus vivendi must be attempted for the sake of the cause both kinds of pacifism have at heart. I think attainment isn't impossible; it requires a superhuman effort of self-control & charity on both sides. Dr. Alfred Salter (a Friend) spoke in the House of Commons of "the great & terrible fallacy that ends justify means & said: "I pray God ... that some statesman may step in & secure control of events that the leaders of the people in all lands have apparently lost." This challenging appeal was in keeping with his whole nature & life. [We cannot claim a moral superiority with this attitude] & it also offers no sort of suggestion as to how the war at present can be brought to an end that is morally tolerable for professing Chris-tians and the wider group of pacifists. The choices we face are almost always between relative good or evil.
C. J. Cadoux recently wrote Christian Pacifism Reexamined, a survey of the pacifist case & particularly of the relations between Christian pacifists & non-pacifist Christians who are very concerned about international cooperation. In Cadoux's "principle of relative justification" of injurious coercion, "an action may be right & good as regards[: underlying motive; expected results; actual results] Ideally, those 3 should be identical, but in reality ... between them [the actual] distinctions carry ... certain important consequences." Those who employ injurious coercion effect some measure of positive good, even though their belief that it is compatible with Christian calling is mistaken, and they also bring about much evil. "The free and frank acceptance of [this principle helps very materially to clarify the pacifist's interpretation of history and the attitude to society around [one]."
Cadoux's principle crystallizes for me the conclusion I was trying to reach about the deep variations in conscience and judgment about means among people who were equally consecrated to certain great ends. I think it is along this line that a basis is emerging for the necessary modus vivendi. Even during the war, non-pacifist Christians, internationalists, and the Archbishops of Canterbury and York admit the validity of conscientious objection. The belief that Christian Pacifists have an important contribution to make is widespread in the Church. [Some believe that the call to fight must be] answered "yes" or "no." If the pacifists are right it is always a moral evil to fight, and equally if the pacifists are wrong, it is a moral evil to refuse to fight in the cause of justice when the call comes. Gandhi asserted that it is better to fight than do nothing. A. J. Muste writes: "Resistance to evil & oppression, even if it takes a violent form, is on a higher moral plane than cowardly or passive acquiescence." The Integral Pacifist, John Middleton Murry. writes: "The will to peace calls for a readiness to make great sacrifices; a reluctance to make war implies nothing of the kind, and may imply the very opposite."
John C. Bennett (Pacific School of Religion at Berkeley) and E. Raymond Wilson (American Friends Service Committee) put forward the views of non-pacifist Christian and Christian Pacifist, respectively. These 2 men who take different positions on the war were fundamentally closer together in spirit and their idea of values than Raymond Wilson was with large numbers of people vociferous in their zeal to keep America out of war.
Now that American Integral Pacifists have turned much of their attention to Peace Aims, it is easier to conceive of pacifists in both senses of the word uniting their efforts to assure that the war shall be ended at the 1st possible moment consistent with conditions which include the organization of peace by international cooperation. There will often be strong divergence of view. Global conflict forces global solutions upon governments and peoples everywhere. [Any International Authority must include the American nation]. No pacifist of any kind will disagree with this proposition. Perhaps pacifists of both kinds will move helpfully and hopefully toward a modus vivendi which will yield peace, 1st inside the Peace Movement, and eventually in the world
CONCLUSION—[Non-pacifist modus vivendi "proposal" by Dwight J. Bradley]: "The task of religious pacifism is not in any sense a political task, ... [but rather] a cultural one. [Both religious and political tasks are spiritual]. [The political task] is spiritual [through] a sense of order, ... which is a spiritual reality. The pacifist's task is spiritual [because ones] altruistic love is the very core and living germ of spirituality ... Together political and religious help to create and maintain an order which is just and gentle, righteous and humane ... [If either or both] repudiate the other, civilization starts to break up in confusion."
[Integral Pacifist modus vivendi "proposal" by C. J. Cadoux]: "The pacifist is entitled to take ... part as a citizen ... by voting, private and public utterance, in support of the measures he believes are best ... The pacifist needs to remember that great numbers of [ones] non-pacifist and even non-Christian fellow-citizens are despe-rately eager to see war and the risk of it abolished ... Pacifists should make it their business ... to assist all who are working for peace, so far as [the others'] method does not involve disloyalty to their convictions ... [Rigid] refusal to cooperate [politically] needlessly discredits the cause for which one stands by withdrawing support."
Since Quakers emphasize the unity between religion & life, we shall prefer Cadoux's statement [to Bradley's]. It is essential not to assume we are more spiritual than those wrestling with day to day political responsibilities. Nor is statesmanship, with its compromises, necessarily less spiritual than prophecy, education, social improvements, & cultural development. Those of us whose conscience precludes full participation in exercising the modern states' vast power, must avoid a "holier than thou" attitude in judging the motives of non-pacifists.
Pacifists must face the fact that our political role is secondary, so long as the great majority of people are unconverted to the pacifist faith and methods. The "organization of peace," in terms of creating government institutions and removing political and economic causes of war, will proceed along non-pacifist lines. Once Integral Pacifists accept how harmful it is to leave aggressive violence unopposed by any material or spiritual force, the basis for the modus vivendi in the Peace Movement has been well and truly laid. Though the pacifist is not barred from forming political judgments, those judgments must be based on the realities of the situation. Non-violent power cannot be exercised by those lacking the faith or disciplines required.
The Integral Pacifist will naturally inject into politics a plea for mercy, forbearance & kindness which often mark the the best people's lives, including soldiers & police, who deal directly with violence. If the person making that plea can't show that they have done something at personal cost to bear the burden of the frustrations of the human life & spirit which issue in violence, that plea will carry no weight. The pacifist contribution is at present qualitative rather than quantitative.
The violence around us is a true reflection of [individual] hatred, anger, and fear, of greed and selfishness digging hideous gulfs between those who are satisfied and those who are condemned to lives of explosive frustration. The 1st step to peace is that major violence can and must be held in check by organized law and order with force if necessary. Peace is not a goal, but a byproduct of that abundant life for individuals and society which clears away frustrations and frees human energies and yearnings for fulfillment. To promote that abundant life in personal and social relationships is the supreme task of Integral Pacifism.
About the Author—Born in 1891, Richard B. Gregg was a Harvard trained lawyer who practiced law for 3 years before going to work with trade unions. He assisted with arbitration for the railroad workers’ union following WWI. Laid off in the 1920's, he read about the work of Mohandas Gandhi, & went on a 4-year journey through India where he studied nonviolence. He wrote The Economics of Khaddar, & The Power of Nonviolence (1934). His work described nonviolence as a method for changing the character of the world. In 1935-36, he served as the acting director of Pendle Hill. His work was used by many civil rights and other social activists.
I. 2 ASSUMPTIONS & A DEFINITION OF PACIFISM—Pacifism must be an effort to create by non-violent methods a new & better civilization, not just postponing war. We must build a new order that embodies more respect for personality, justice, tolerance, freedom, & love. War is an important & necessary institution of our present civilization, not an illness, maladjustment, or temporary, personal [& political] mistake of a few leaders. The only way to end it is to change, non-violently & deeply, the motives, functions & structures of civilization. We can't eliminate all conflicts, but we can reduce them & settle them non-violently. Miracles can be accomplished by singleness of purpose and devotion.
Every great human movement was begun often when the clouds were dark, by a very small group of people, just as hormones produce great changes in bodies. We can't abolish war, an essential feature of our system, unless we alter the system's nature. Deep changes must begin now, before war comes, in order to get a better civilization later, whether war comes or not. International diplomatic agreements don't alter civilizations. They are are too superficial & fragile to meet the need. It would take at least 3 generations to remake a civilization. The word "pacifist" is an inadequate description [of the task; economic & social forces are also part of the process]. What ought a pacifist do in a country where war or fascism is imminent?
II. PROGRAM FOR THE PACIFIST: 1.Pledge Not to Fight or Help War—Absolute Pacifists, 18 years or over, men and women, ought to sign a pledge not to support or take part in any war and file it with an appropriate organization. It is an affirmation of free will and a commitment to new relationships and new efforts. Industrial conscription will be needed for military applications, and would include women.
Governments of the US, Great Britain, France, Germany, Japan, & many other countries signed a pledge in the Briand-Kellog Pact of Paris "that the settlement ... of all disputes ... shall never be sought except by pacific means." Each signatory government asked by implication all of its citizens to uphold it; asked each citizen to refuse to go to war. (The Supreme Court ruled on the claims of conscientious objectors that the State is supreme over conscience, but lawyers doubt its legal soundness & pacifists doubt its moral or spiritual validity). The Pact allows for self-defense. Unless the signatory governments repudiate the Pact, it is at least a solemn aspiration, to be heartily supported by citizens.
None of the nations disarmed after signing the Pact, and the US and Great Britain protested against the unilateral violation of treaties. If governments have failed in regard to that Pact, there is all the more reason for the individual pacifist to keep his pledge. Some object that no one should promise certain things without knowing the circumstances at the time of fulfillment. Promises are commonly made that are partly blind.
Just before going to war, governments suppress facts & use distorted propaganda [to whip up passions]. Lack of facts & powerful influences don't allow for sound judgment to support or not support the war. Those objecting to advance pledges against war think that certain wars are justifiable, & can be fought for noble causes. They overlook that in modern wars the alleged reason for fighting is rarely the real one. I believe that modern weapons & methods, expensive, destructive, & indiscriminate, have ended the possibility of war saving or promoting anything of value; fascism begins when war is declared. Those who support wars if they considered them morally defensible invite the government to frame the story so that war "this time" looks wholly justifiable.
Sometimes people refuse to sign a pledge against war because they are unwilling to face the issue. [Author offers the example of the "Statement by members of the Broadway Tabernacle Church of NY City"]. It isn't a pledge. It states: "I can't reconcile the way of Christ with the practice of war ... I believe those who hold this con-viction in time of war to be right ... & desire ... that I shall be among those who keep to this belief." The statement invites comment. A pair of young pacifists call on an older member of the church, seeking their insight & asking if they would be willing to sign the statement. A large part of this church is now convinced pacifists. A pledge not to go to war or support war isn't merely a future promise; it is a present choice of a way of life, & be-gins with a firm decision. It needs to be made in advance of war. Carrying it out is harder & still more necessary.
2. If War Comes, Fulfill the Pledge—In war, the 1st negative duty of the absolute pacifist is to refuse to join the military, or serve in it if conscripted. One should be willing to endure insult & punishment upon one's refusal, even death. Our lives are held together by the loyalty of our forebears & contemporaries to the [qualities of] truth, human unity, nonviolence, & love. If we give our suffering or our lives for those things, we are simply paying a debt that we owe. These qualities outlast any individual or nation. They are more important than I am.
The ultimate insecurity is division, disunity. Unity is the greatest security, & is immensely important to live for or die for. "Safety lies neither in my possession or yours; it lies forever between us. If either of us seeks it for themself both of us must miss it ... Could we but restrain the childish desire to snatch it for ourselves, we should experience security that comes of mutual trust." In the view of the principle of increasing complexity in evolution, taking a risk for ideals, [not fearing the other] affirms human unity or harmony of relationships, making possible a closer and more complex integration.
It seems too great a risk only when we forget the imponderables which are pressing toward a higher, subtler, closer, more inclusive organization. It is richer in resources because inclusive of more forces, more adaptable and more enduring. The giving up of a smaller original self is the 1st necessary step toward the creation of a richer and more permanent self. [Believing in the insignificance of our efforts] overlooks the historical instances of righting great wrongs. The fact that the government is so set against conscientious objectors (COs) proves their refusal isn't futile. An immediate refusal would be tried publicy; a postponed refusal would be tried secretly. Women should refuse to do nursing under military or semi-military orders or to work in munitions plants.
If munition workers become pacifists, or if an unemployed pacifist is threatened with losing benefits if they don't work in munitions, what should they do? If one has no family responsibilities, one's decision depends on conviction, courage, & resourcefulness. If one does have responsibilities, the spouse's attitude will matter. They may risk finding other work or private charity. One forced for family reasons to work in munitions should do as much humanitarian services as possible. To the extent that one expresses love & unity with humankind, one reduces the poison of one's compromise & is generating in one's self courage & power for further advance & ultimate refusal to serve war.
3. Work for the New Order Before War Begins & After—As soon as the pacifist takes the pledge against war, he must begin active work to build a better world. If one waits until war comes & then refuses to take part, one leaves to the government the initiative in deciding one's role. The government will give one merely a choice between evils. One needs to make a pledge, choose a task & get to work on one's chosen role in cultivating a new civilization, so that it is already a reality if & when war comes. If the pacifist hopes to do constructive "alternative service during military war, one should begin now, for a type of economic war is already upon us.
There are many social and economic programs of change that a pacifist can espouse and work for. Such work strengthens intangible but enduring forces, like: respect for personality; sympathy; generosity; mutual trust; unity; and love. These intangibles are a necessary part of the foundation of a better world. Choose the work you feel is most valuable, and devote yourself to it. Work with the poor and unemployed will help heal the deep divisions in society. I urge work other than political propaganda, work that can go on if war comes and the government puts a stop to political efforts for justice and peace. If one wishes to work for democracy, one should do so now, before wartime domestic dictatorship reduces our present degree of democracy to zero.
4.-5. Prepare Individually & in Groups/ Refuse to Cooperate with War Preparations or Government "Alternative Service"—The peacemaker should engage in specific individual & group training of thought, sentiment & spirit, for the creation of a warless civilization. One should try in advance to make one's self immune to war hysteria & hate. One should study the history & economic condition of potential adversarial nations, & try to see how those nations see the acts of one's own government. One should realize how one benefits from actions & attitudes leading toward war, & avoid indignation about the acts of other nations. Before war comes pacifists should organize dependable methods by which they can keep in contact with each other, share information, securely publicity for trials of conscientious objectors, & various kinds of support for them and the family of those sent to jail. How shall pacifists support themselves in time of war? Pacifists will need to learn some other skill than that by which they are now living; it had best be a manual skill.
Numerous European governments are introducing protection schemes for civilians in case of airborne bombing. Spain, Ethopia, and China have seen bombing from the air with terrible results. The schemes include "blackouts" of cities, underground shelters, some gas masks, moving the most vulnerable out of cities, and air raid wardens. In Great Britain it is widely believed that these measures are futile and that the reasons alleged for them are false. Barcelona was bombed in a silent attack beginning at 20,000 feet that was over before the warning sirens sounded. It is believed by many that the government means to frighten the citizenry enough to make them pliable and accepting of repressive measure proposed under the guise of safety. In time of war governments do not abide by their promises and assurances. The wording of laws is sometimes unduly broad and even ambiguous. Those at the top of government who plan broad policies are often far-sighted, sensitive, statesmenlike; those who execute the laws in detail are sometimes short-sighted, petty, domineering, and callous.
I would advocate that pacifists operate outside of government organization. They can operate 1st aid corps, feed, comfort, guide, reassure. They can carry out transport of food & supplies. Pacifists can organize various squads to help after air raids, feed such squads, & care for children. & of course prepare surgical bandages & dressings. Government threats & compulsion in such programs won't promote the kind of community that pacifists desire, so they will want to do it independently, relying on human kindness.
I believe that COs shouldn't accept ambulance work, nursing, or hospital work as "alternative service." The compassionate motive is used by the government to make wounded fit for further fighting. Hospitals & nursing help prolong the war. There will be no shortage of war-minded nurses, ambulance men, physicians, & hospital support. [I have no patience for cowardice in pacifists]. If a pacifist must suddenly to choose alternative service, let one insists on a job not subject to governmental control, serving civilians. Let one try to serve community or society rather than the state. [There is a long list of community services & industries] that will likely be under civilian control . If the government won't permit the pacifist to work free from its orders, then jail is likely. Relief work under strictly civilian or pacifist church direction may be regarded as consistent.
6. Pay Taxes—Should a pacifist refuse to pay taxes to the state at war? The State creates money and property rights, so the pacifist will have to "render unto Caesar the things that are Caesar's." Where all of society is engaged in a system of which war is an integral part, it is impossible for any individual wholly to free themselves from complicity. At what point will one make the wisest compromise? Since modern war is largely caused by the economic system, a thoroughgoing refusal to support war would have required pacifists to stop using that system long before they were fined or went to jail. If sincere pacifists were allowed to withhold payment of taxes paying for war, [there is no end to the number of groups that would have to be given the same privilege]. A democratic government exists to administer certain activities for the whole body of citizens; citizens may not interfere with its administration without penalty.
A refusal to pay taxes challenges the State; it will do battle with all its resources. Pacifists shouldn't refuse to pay taxes, at least until they have prepared themselves sufficiently to have a reasonable chance of success in such a struggle. Pacifists should continue to pay taxes until they have: a plan for a better State; a nonviolent way of winning power & making changes; transitional organizations up & running; skill & confidence in nonviolence; demonstrated executive capacity and responsibility; demonstrated effectiveness of nonviolence; increased social and political unity between groups; working devices supporting the most depressed part of the population through the stress of change. A pacifist may pay taxes under protest. Refusal to use the economic system would cut one off from society and cut down on one's usefulness. A pacifist taxpayer is not directly responsible for the use to which the State puts one's taxes. An individual is morally responsible for one's actions as a soldier.
7.-8. Refuse to Keep War Profits or to Buy War Bonds/ Perhaps Join in Patriotic Ceremonials—If war should bring profit to an industry in which a pacifist has an owner's interest in, he should turn those profits over to some program or person [furthering the formation of a new civilization]; one shall not manage a war industry, or buy government war bonds. The compulsion to pay taxes is part of the legal process. The compulsion to buy war bonds is that of public opinion. The pacifist shall only give to civilian organizations and causes as are designed and operated for civilian purposes.
How far should I as a pacifist join in with patriotic ceremonials? How do I interpret symbols like the flag? How will my neighbors interpret my symbolic actions? How shall I symbolize my real position? How can fine distinctions be expressed to the crowd? Symbols are almost entirely emotional in meaning. I would join ceremonials when I can't avoid it without being conspicuous. I want them to feel the unity & to realize that I feel it. If approached to do something specifically to support the war, on that point I will adhere to my choice of a different way. I think I should somehow symbolize the fact of unities being more important than differences in a way capable of being understood more widely and more emotionally than my silent service can be.
9.-11. Support Strikes Against War/ Aid the Struggle of Labor/ Refuse to Demonstrate with Communists or Fascists—If a union should decide to go on strike against the war or against making munitions & the case were clear of other defects, I would give the union moral support, & perhaps more. So far as possible the pacifist will try, by nonviolent means, to alter our present social & economic systems, & replace it with some-thing better. As best one can, the pacifist will try to persuade labor unions to see that nonviolent resistance is realistic, & is a much more effective method of struggle than violence. The pacifist should be informed, & publish the truth about general labor conditions. If labor is committed to nonviolence, pacifists should take care of any wounded in strike actions. So far as picketing, it doesn't do for outsiders to join just out of emotional sympathy.
Communists are aware that violence is likely to be used by the employer group, and are willing to use it in self- defense. Pacifists involved with Communists in a demonstration that turn violent will be seen like hypocrites. I doubt whether pacifists can afford to take part in public demonstrations with Communists; the same refusal applies to Fascists. Because violence is totalitarian, [a pacifist must oppose it] without compromise.
12. Behave Wisely if Imprisoned—Pacifists in jail are political prisoners. A political prisoner hasn't, like the ordinary criminal, disobeyed the law for selfish reasons, but for ethical principles. Pacifists in jail should work hard at assigned tasks, provided those tasks are regular prison work & not for military use. They should be respectful, open, above-board, & not deceitful. They are entitled to refuse orders clearly intended to humiliate them or to insult or violate their beliefs. Any work compromising a COs position should be refused by the CO.
In certain cases lacking organization, the prisoners can perhaps help the authorities develop work consistent with their position & good for morale. Pacifists may protest against cruel treatment or conditions, 1st through proper channels, then through refusal to work. Hunger strikes shouldn't be used unless the matter is of the gravest importance. Reading & writing are important activities, as is meditation, as a way of making contact with inner reality. Perhaps the cruelty of prison officials is a symptom of the evils of civilization & not all their fault.
13.-14. Plan Peace Negotiations/ Be Chary of Condemnation always, and of Mass Protests after War Begins—A time will come in every war, when the losses are large, that a preparations for a truce or peace would be feasible. Then pacifists ought to propose and help effectuate peace terms which will not lead to another war. At all times—before, during and after any war—pacifists should refrain from moral condemnation of any members of the government, use constructive criticism, stop arguing or using propaganda against war, urge constructive reforms, and lay more emphasis on action than on discussion of war.
It is important for every pacifist to be very sure of one's motives & the relations between one's motives, purposes & conduct. Before war comes & after it is over, all pacifists will do their utmost in all forms of communication to persuade people that the pacifist position is right and practical. During war pacifists should desists from all adverse or public protests against war or government's war actions. Talk about the truth, practicalness, common sense and beauty of the pacifists' methods rather than criticize war. During war, pacifists should throw almost all their energy into quiet work that is creative of a better social order. When it is clear there is war, the pacifist should make it clear to those who support his pledge, as well as a wide range of authorities who might not, that one is a pacifist, but will make no protests. For the most part, one should keep silent and work.
III. ARGUMENT AGAINST PROTESTS AND CONDEMNATION: 1.-2. Motives for Protests/ Argument on Motives of Inner Consistency—It is natural to wish to satisfy one's self-respect or conscience, to repudiate a great wrong or the appearance of consenting to it. A pacifist too old or unfit to fight may feel the only thing one can do is to make verbal protest. There is moral indignation, the [true] honor of nations, making war difficult, removing causes of war, and serving human unity. Are verbal protest and condemnation the surest methods in opposing war? There are other more creative motives for opposition: converting others to pacifism; message to the next generation; displaying non-violent resistance; a chance to make a better peace.
If I condemn evil, one implication is that evil would harm me. If I condemn an evil person, I imply that I am free of evil. I must always try to be gentle and respectful of personality, even though I may feel severely about the wrong. To the extent that we have accepted the comforts and privileges of our civilization, we are responsible for its evil results. Jesus is cited as an example of speaking condemnation. Jesus spoke it only in very limited circumstances, and on other occasions avoided condemnation. People protest and condemn when they discover that their very enjoyable means have very unpleasant results. We seek a scapegoat: government; arms makers.
Since our real job is to build a new civilization, let us use our energy for that purpose, in its constructive aspect. Verbal condemnations of war may may be properly made only by those who declined the benefits of our civilization and who have refused the "perks" of our present economic warfare. They must also have a life of simplicity and tireless service to humankind. We may not pick and choose from Jesus' teachings, which are an integral whole; it can't permanently work unless taken and used as a whole.
The failure to share a high standard of living more equitably among all is wrong; it is mainly due to moral inadequacy. If we pacifists assert that war, a part of our inheritance, is wrong, then we should discard comforts that cause us to cling to the processes that surely cause war. Clear vision & a single purpose are necessary to win a great following or a very quiet conscience. Because of the momentum of past habits, we can't successfully halt at the brink of disaster & stand still. To turn aside requires abandonment of some accustomed modes of living.
Refusal to support military activities, and speaking in favor of liberty and social reform, will subject pacifists to ridicule, scorn, hatred, rough treatment, imprisonment and loss of property. The effort for building a new civilization cannot be fixed, rigid and uniform, no matter what the development in the world may be. Changes in strategy may denote cowardice, but usually they are evidence of sound and flexible strategy. Pacifists need not be upset by the taunts of their opponents, if they themselves realize the nature of the struggle, have a clear plan, and are prepared to persist. One's simplicity of living and service for others, whether, before or during war, promote unity and generate love and trust. The wider and stronger and longer-standing the love, the less the fear. One's silent work can at least repair some of the damage & help to prevent another war; protest does not. Unless pacifists prove themselves to be as brave and self-sacrificing as volunteer soldiers are, militarism will prevail.
Relatively few CO's have realized the implications and real requirements of the pacifists position—namely the necessity for changing civilization completely. If we grapple with the problem as it really is, we may begin to make those earlier sacrifices bear fruit. Our conscience ought to have caused us, before war began, to change our habits and begin work for that different order. Since action speaks louder than words and is usually less ambiguous, silent right action is the best way fully to satisfy the conscience. [In this world of grays], conditions are often partly right, with wrongness so closely intermixed that for swift decision they can't be separated. The best action is the one with the greatest amount of rightness in it, as in working before the war to build a better civilization, or beginning the same work after it started and showing restraint in talking against war. An adequate and effective refusal must be aimed at the system in the form of action to make a better one. The most effective mode of expressing the truth is putting the truth we know into action.
What we are seeking is wider, deeper, & more complex than non-war. The pacifist wants to avoid the romanticism & histrionics of repeated verbal refusals, & the opportunism & expediency of converting large numbers of people to a new way of life. [Put in terms of biblical passages], I refer to ones emphasizing deeds over words. Jesus didn't condemn soldiers, or war, or even the imperial Roman equivalent of modern dictatorship & oppression which lay all around. Perhaps he confined his words & deeds to that which would cure the underlying disease, if put into wide practice. His silence before Pilate & silent accepting of crucifixion are the most potent argument for silent action by his followers. Many kinds of useful work are open to those too old to be conscripted. They may be more effective than younger pacifists because less liable to interference by war-minded people.
3. Argument on Motives of Civic Obligation—Many pacifists believe that by speaking out their faith in time of war they help liberty. If one restrains verbal expression of opinion temporarily out of respect for one's opponents, and yet acts silently in accordance with one's opinion, liberty of thought is maintained. If a pacifist publicly analyzed the concept of democracy and included civil liberties among its values, the government would make trouble for itself if it arrested someone for that. Liberty is in abeyance during modern war because of fear and hate, and the need for swift action and autocracy. I believe that liberty will gradually return, and that wise conduct by pacifists will hasten the day. Also, working people who value truth and literacy in their work, will value truth also in social, economic and political realms, [which will make it hard for dictators to operate].
Freedom's price is eternal efforts to create mutual trust among people by respecting personality, trusting in truth's power, practicing unity, kindness, & love. Freedom has declined because we have failed to practice ideals. Humans are the only creatures in whom discriminatory action is initiated in the fore-brain, where thinking happens. Humans are compelled to seek truth & to search for laws by which one's environment operates. Human freedoms are a result of human physiological make-up. This basis of freedom antedates any political system.
Pacifists must be scrupulous not to let their protests for freedom infringe upon the freedom of others. One sure reason why we can & must accord respect to every person is this physiological capacity & impulse to seek truth. It is evidence for the validity of the belief that everyone has a Divine spark within. A voluntary & partial silence on 1 or 2 topics for the period of the war wouldn't injure democracy. If free discussion, non-violence & respect for personality are used to achieve democracy, we will have more & better democracy than we have at present. Protest is part of the democratic process before the war. During the war, the processes looking toward formation of a new public opinion after the war must operate more deeply than the realm of verbal criticism. Democracy's essence lies not in majority rule, but in the give & take of ideas which results in a recorded majority & minority. Majority opinion deserves respect & most of the time should be obeyed. It is humanly plastic and sensitive to the truth. These qualities [and humanity's conscience] exists and no wise person will disregard them.
[Moral Indignation]—I believe that in modern life moral indignation has become dangerous. Through mass communication, sentiments are far more easily & rapidly stimulated, mobilized, & guided, than formerly. Pacifists can be & have been swept up in mass indignation and end up aiding the prosecution of the war with moral fervor. I grant that moral indignation is better than indifference or cowardice. The energy of indignation is good; its direction is mistaken. Much of moral indignation is "projection," finding a scapegoat. It is attributing to other people conflicts or failings that really are within our own selves, or for which we are responsible. "Projection" often exists between nations. News distortion keeps us from realizing the wrong-doing of our own government. In our indignation toward Germany and Japan, we forget the 19 month blockade of Germany by the British Navy after the war, without significant protest from the US, that starved over 2,000,000 women and children. The injustices against the Germans in those post-war years made the Germans practically neurotic.
We forget that our forefathers seized by force over half of the land of our present 48 States from Indians or Mexicans & that the Louisiana Purchase was buying violently stolen goods. The truth is that every government has been deceitful & unjust & has violated treaties & promises, and all people are at fault. An indignant pacifist denies the unity of humankind. "... Forgive those who trespass against us" may have been aimed at mass indignation against the wrongs committed by Rome. [Mass indignation is used by Communists, Fascists, & Nazis] to infiltrate organizations. The capacity of prelates, priests, & ministers for righteous indignation is a great asset to the state. All people enjoy power & want to keep it; meanwhile, it blunts the imagination & sympathies of those who exercise it for any length of time. We must alter unjust systems & people, but without indignation or anger.
The Germans and many others exalt the State as a person with moral qualities, but it is a mistake. The State includes only certain of their qualities, certain of their powers, and these it uses to create an organization and thereby produce conditions in which people dwell. We must be scrupulously responsible about our position. We must realize that within the framework of their assumption and ideas, high-ranking government officials are sincere and devoted. We must grant them all their virtues.
4. Argument on Motives of Persuasions—Until without violence we can persuade militarists to change, we must tolerate people who are true to their beliefs, even when those beliefs are different from ours. Militarists believe in the efficacy of violence in the last resort. They must therefore be expected to go to war; for them it is either fighting or cowardice. If pacifists believe that one should love his opponents, & if respect for the personality of one's opponents is part of love, then pacifists may not, in wartime, make such a demand of militarists.
Modern war will thrust its crime before all on a vaster scale & more forcefully than in previous wars. In the beginning the militarist will under-emphasize its evil. His mistake will be revealed to him only by experience. What is mistaken is the militarist's premises and assumptions. We must go deeper than logic. The pacifist's silent action stimulates the imagination of the militarists and other spectators in favor of the belief implied by it. It thus helps to win them eventually [through working on the militarists' sentiments]. The right sort of deeds can slowly shift the controversy to a higher level where it can be resolved. Silence concedes to others both freedom and responsibility. To that concession, people respond favorably.
Modern methods of treating criminals are successful only to the extent such methods show respect for personality. The same would hold true in relation to militarists. In the cases of both militarists & criminals moral law prevails, & eventually both suffer for their mistakes. We can prevent both crime & war only by abolishing their causes, which are not the people engaged in crime or war. The war idealists & their virtues of courage, devotion, self-control, self-sacrifice claim our respect in their own right. The forces of the State, industry, & finance are in control, with tremendous war hysteria & hate; crime has different conditions. Some pacifists call for the restraining of militarists as one would restrain children or the insane. Childish thinking and mistaken adult thinking are not the same. And insanity can be cured only when we respect the personality of the insane person.
A pacifist may try to influence the small number of neutral or doubting citizens there are in the midst of frightened people. The pacifist had best discuss a positive program and be respectful of government officials, rather than discuss war and condemn the government. Doing this will strongly persuade thoughtful people to join the pacifists. In my judgment, quiet, constructive action for a program of human betterment would seem to the sensitive minds of young people more significant than being arrested for a critical speech. Some pacifists have suppressed desires to fight, or morbid tendencies. This possible temptation should be carefully pondered by all pacifists. We must steer the difficult course between cowardice and self-glorification. Conciliation may be wisely postponed until the horror and fatigue of war begin to raise doubts among the nation's leaders.
IV.-V. AN APPLICATION OF THE PRINCIPLE OF SILENCE/ PACIFIST PROGRAM UNDER FASCISM—While war is going on, the pacifist ought not to persuade soldiers or sailors to become pacifists & break their oaths to the government, following what was said earlier about silence & respecting someone's promise. If before war were declared, soldiers or sailors should voluntarily join an audience, the pacifist should carry on as planned. If someone in the military sought an explanation of the pacifist position, the pacifist should be sure the person is sincere and morally troubled before helping his questioner.
There are reasons for thinking that fascism in this and most countries is more likely to come than a world war. Centralization, communication, and transport improvements, along with a decline in world economy, may be creating centralization and totalitarian control in all countries. Many people are feeling insecure in this climate, and are willing to yield up civil and political liberties in return for promises of security.
Bombing from the air not only endangers statesmen, but makes probable the destruction of industrial equipment of a nation, making it impossible to supply the military, or profit from the newly won market after the war. Shrewd leaders will avoid war. Control of powerful societal forces may be possible only through fascism and some civil wars in Europe and the US. What shall a pacifist do about the likelihood of fascism? Since fascism involves so much conflict and violence, the pacifists program should be practically the same as what I have described in case of war, with: simplicity of living; silent, nonviolent work toward a better civilization; taking a pledge against war; maintaining contact and mutual aid with one another. Deep religious conviction will be needed in order to refrain from bitterness and keep up morale in the face of prolonged violent repression. The more support the poor get from non-government sources, the less support they will give to a dictator.
We are all partly responsible for our corporate failures to live up to our democratic ideals. We may have to give up large amounts of liberty of action and speech to take care of the largest number of people. To resist the creep of personal and bureaucratic tyranny nonviolently and suffer punishment will a part of the price we pay for past errors. We can have joy and deep satisfaction in our work in building better ways of human association. Gandhi spent more time in constructive organization and propaganda than on non-cooperation and civil disobedience. Silence combined with constructive work is often the wisest policy.
VI. LIVE OUT YOUR PRINCIPLES—This program isn't proposed as a minimum compromise or adaptation to the social environment. It is proposed as part of a way of altering social environment in accordance with the enduring principles & law of our beings. Our living out of our principles will create other pacifists to continue the work. This program is a retreat only from our mistakes. Unless there is a change of habits towards social justice, we shall certainly have our liberties repressed whether war comes or not. Don't postpone your preparation; face the issues. Where do you stand [in bringing a new world]? What do you want? How are you going to get it? Ahead of you lies a most exciting & important task for the whole world. It is the new frontier.
About the Author—A. J. Muste, was born in 1885 & died in 1967. He was a Dutch Reformed minister for 5 years, & a Congregational minister for 3; [he left both churches because of a conflict of conscience, the latter church because of his pacifist views]. In the early 1920s, A.J. became director of the Brookwood Labor College in Katonah, New York, which taught the theory & practice of labor militancy. He was also chairman of the new Fellowship of Reconciliation. He was deeply involved in labor strikes and politics. He devoted his life to causes that stem from a religious faith—peace action, racial equality, political & economic justice. Through- out his life, A. J. devoted himself to non-violent social justice & change. He also wrote PHPs, #13, 64, 124.
1. The Way of Non-Violence—It is a prerequisite of fruitful thought & discussion in such a crisis as the present [war] that we should think of each other, pacifist & non-pacifist, as fellow-searchers for truth, not as adversaries. Diverse positions contain something valid, a fidelity to the truth. Recognizing this is a way of seeking at-one-ment, which isn't appeasement. Avoiding clearly defined issues & differences doesn't make for reconciliation. It is never built on a lie or half-truth. Healing coolness & balm comes into any situation the moment nobody is pretending or holding anything back; the poison is sucked out of difficult situations. We owe it to our neighbor to bear faithful witness to the truth as we see it, holding nothing back, in nought equivocating or being subtly snobbish, & not trying to beat our truth into their brains with arguments. There is no greater honor one can pay another, no greater service one can render, than to share with them such truth as has been vouchsafed to one.
That pacifists should be not mere talkers, but practical friends and helpers, cannot be too often or too emphatically stated. We have no desire to obstruct our fellow-citizens in the performance of what they see as their patriotic duty. "There is a time for silence." We must not press impatiently for immediate results like the child who sows seeds one day and digs them up the next to see if they are sprouting. We must be content to let it make its own way in the minds and hearts of others.
The idea that in wartime there should be no preaching of our philosophy and gospel, and that this would somehow make for reconciliation, seems to me unsound. Suspending religious pacifist analysis of war will mean that what pacifists regard as false and dangerous ideas are presented, but no criticism and no alternatives. If the majority someday agrees with us, will they not ask: "Why did you keep still while we were engaged in sense-less slaughter? Why should we have any special confidence in you who took pains to keep your counsel until everybody agreed with you? The time to witness against tragic, self-righteous distortion of the truth is when it is most widely proclaimed and believed. What all need finally is to be able to believe in themselves, in truth, in an inexorable moral order, in the God of Love. [Those faithful to] the Word of God and Truth [to the end of their lives], have always been the great reconcilers.
The reconciliation which must take place in our own minds and spirits is promoted when we try to think through each problem with our fellows with the innocence, freshness, childlikeness, and humility which Jesus taught. We must seek to divest ourselves of any notion that our knowledge is sufficient and final; of prejudices and inappropriate emotions. Our unwillingness to be reconciled to the truth, which is a manifestation of God, is one of the fundamental causes of division in life, of the divided self, the divided human family. When we think of our insights as having finality, as something to be possessed and defended, we set up a wall against God who is the Source of Light and whom we can receive only if we become infinitely receptive like little children.
Dr. Trigant Burrow speaks of a "subtle attitude of secret self-propitiation" ... a delusive sense of personal approbation" in people & in social groups as a most pernicious danger to society. The self that thus tries to justify itself and which sees itself standing over against others, rather than being limited & sustained by them in the at-tempt to apprehend truth, necessarily sees the world, any problem, in a partial, distorted sense, not as a whole & objectively. It can't function with its whole, undivided attention. This self has only a "specialized, restrictive use of its part-brain." "One needs to encompass this [world] problem of ones own making with the whole of oneself."
Now in the degree that we have divested ourselves of inner resistance to the truth and have developed a readiness to receive it from whatever source, we are also enabled to "speak the truth in love." We can hope that our fellows may see and come to welcome the light we have. There is no reconciliation through the medium of any partial love, but only through a love that is prepared to pay the final price. Until individuals and nations are prepared to sacrifice as much in practicing reconciliation and non-violence as they sacrifice in the pursuit of war, we can't reasonably expect an end of wars. What as yet uncalculated sacrifice in prayer, giving, witnessing, renunciation of war are we called to, so that in us the world's enmity may be slain?
2. The Non-Pacifist Position—We know what it means to resort to modern, planetary war. We recognize that we share a large responsibility for things having come to their present pass. We can't believe that anything except decisive defeat in war can stop inhuman, brutal dictatorships. We believe we can fight without bitterness and hate. If we win, we shall make a wiser, more Christian use of our victory than we made the last time.
It is a dangerous delusion to think that if the United Nations win, we shall make a much better use of our opportunity than we did the last time. The US has followed a course similar to that of 1914-17. We aim at a decisive victory that will give us a much greater relative superiority than the last time. And, having reached that point with fatal precision, a miracle will happen. [The momentum and direction nations have pursued in this century thus far will suddenly change]. We shall get off this road & strike boldly out in another direction. What reason have we to believe that after following the same foolish and disastrous behaviors, we shall suddenly change and follow new, wise, and successful ones?
There is increasing concentration of power in the executive, regimentation of the population, and gearing of all energies to war purposes; it is these developments that are decisive. After the war, [there is likely to be a] catastrophic spiritual let-down. If writing the peace and policing the situation proved too much after the last war, what reason to expect a different result now? This time, [in terms of disarming], our statesmen frankly say that we do not think in terms of no more war following the present, that we must disarm "the aggressors" even more completely than before, while we remain "suitably protected." It seems to us to require a grave or a great simplicity to suppose that this can spell aught but disaster for us and humankind.
A word about the contention that war can be waged without hate & bitterness. Expressions calculated to stir up hate & contempt aren't absent from Mr. Churchill's references to the Germans. No apologies are being offered for the indiscriminate bombing of women and children. Hatred for the Japanese has been fairly general in the US in recent weeks. If people do all that is required in modern war, without being aware of any hate and anger, then we are faced with a grave psychological and moral problem. A complete splitting of personality has taken place. There is no relationship between what one feels and what one does. A columnist urged that we need not grow hysterical with hate and that it might become a military necessity to blot out whole Japanese cities from the air. [In this state], there will be no limit to the deeds we may perform, the havoc that may be wrought. And what will be the personal & social reactions as the divorce between inner state & outward act becomes more complete—& when one returns to reality & contemplates with unveiled eyes what one has done [in war]?
People of goodwill choose war because it seems the only way to prevent a diabolical, demonic tyranny over all, the only chance to build a decent world. We try to calculate the consequences of our decisions & actions in complex social situations. But we are human & fallible & can see only a short distance ahead & calculate only a few of the consequences of our decisions, & these imperfectly. I may not be fully aware of the consequences of my refusal to support the US government in war. Neither can non-pacifists calculate the forces released over which they have no control. Aldous Huxley writes: "It is by no means impossible to foresee, in the light of past historical experience, the sort of consequences that are likely ... to follow certain sorts of acts ... The consequences ... [of] large-scale war, violent revolution, unrestrained tyranny & persecution are likely to be bad."
In a real sense conscience, the Inner Light, is the only guide among the complexities of life. The only thing we can know is that evil cannot produce good, violence can produce only violence, and love is forever the only power that can conquer evil. I started in the last war as a Christian pacifist. As a result largely of experiences in the labor and radical movement, I abandoned my religion and my pacifism, & became a Marxist-Leninist.
The pacifists of the last war, although ill-informed & unsophisticated, somehow sensed what the war was really about, sensed what would come after war. I was more experienced, but still I drifted into complete opportunism which brought outward confusion & inner disintegration. If one moves away from the center & the law that evil can be overcome only by dynamic, sacrificial good, one may know & see vastly more, but it will be out of focus, blurred. I became convinced that in spite of all the brains, the vast energies, the titanic sacrifices, the effort to establish democracy by dictatorship, brotherhood by terrorism & espionage, fullness of life by war & violence, left you with dictatorship, terrorism & strife. 3,000,000 or more peasants were destroyed in forcible collectivization of Soviet agriculture. The Soviet press reveals that the upper 11% or 12% of the population receives approximately half the national income. Demoralization & defeat overtook modern revolutionary movements in other important centers. In the 1920s & 30s people were nearly unanimous in pointing out that WWI had miserably failed to accomplish the good it was supposed to bring. Many college professors are troubled about their students "souls", because the students still believe what other professors told them about war a few years ago.
3. A Pacifist Proposal—It is inevitable that reasonable and conscientious people should feel a concern for the problem of a "just and durable peace. Unless one can believe in such a goal, war, wholesale slaughter, be-comes utterly irrational and completely immoral, "the sum of all evils." We have stated our disbelief that we can strike out in an entirely new direction after following the same old fatal path. The only thing religious pacifists can say to our country now is: "Stop the war, put up your sword before it is too late. There is no hope in a peace dictated by 'totalitarian' powers; nor in a peace dictated by 'democratic' powers. Try the Way of Reconciliation."
The US should negotiate immediately with all nations, & should: share responsibility for building world government; invest billions otherwise devoted to war, in a plan for rehabilitating Europe & Asia; not try to fasten war-guilt on any nation or group of nations; Work with all people toward building the good life which resources & modern technology makes possible. Subject nations of India, Philippines, Puerto Rico, Denmark, Norway, France, Belgium, Holland, & other subject people, must be given an opportunity to determine their own destiny. World government should administer the affairs of those not ready for self-government. All people should be assured of equitable access to resources & markets; immigration & emigration should be internationally con-trolled; establish equal opportunity in the US in housing, land use, health and education; repudiate racism and call on others to do the same; immediate and drastic reduction of armaments.
In power politics, [nationalism, & materialism], this seems like a fantastic proposal. [Telling the Germans "The world has no choice except a crushing, decisive victory" [echoes] Hitler & keeps them fighting behind him, & has them believing that the alternative to a victory behind Hitler is "something worse than Versailles." Our military "success" in separating the German people from the Kaiser gave us Hitler in place of the Kaiser.
Our proposal for a dynamic peace [process] at this time is dismissed by non-pacifists as "unrealistic." But unless a spirit of humility and repentance, a high spiritual [rebirth], imaginativeness and courage animate the victorious peoples; unless the German and Japanese people feel they can trust us and are freed from fear and resentment, there can be no good peace after this greatest and most destructive of all wars. If we don't wait with proposals for a creative peace until the spiritual energies of this generation are utterly exhausted, we may yet find salvation. There is a possibility that to such dynamic peace action by the US now as we have proposed, there would be a tremendous, spontaneous response [from other nations], which simply could not be ignored. Why should so many Christians be so sure that the way of Reconciliation would not work?
[The recent successes in Asia] have the Axis Powers & Japan in particular feeling that world-domination is in their grasp, & nothing except crushing military defeat can keep them from attaining that prize. [If the full, desperate strengths of all concerned] are to be thrown into this war before it ends, it must result in a stalemate of exhaustion or a "victory" of one group of embittered people over a group of despairing people [in the midst of] a devastated planet. This isn't a goal for which human beings can rationally fight. Now when they feel that the stigma of inferiority has been somewhat removed & that they could negotiate as equals, the Japanese & German people may be more willing & able to discuss a just peace than before. It is reasonable to suppose that multitudes in these & other lands are aware of the incalculable costs of continuing. Working together with other peoples at utilizing the earth's resources to build the good life for all, offers them more than Hitler & the Japanese militarists, even if victorious, can bring them. We will gain more than a victory of the United Nations can bring us.
4. If the Way of Reconciliation is Rejected?—Howard Brinton reminds us that our pacifism is not primarily that of objectors to wars or of peace propagandists. Support for pacifism rests finally upon "arguments based on the direct insight of the soul into the nature of Truth and Goodness, revealed through Divine Light and Life. [Through this revelation], a certain way of life is intuitively recognized as good and with this way war is seen to be incongruous. We are sustained by the historical evidence that the "little fellowships of the holy imagination which keep alive in men sensitivity to moral issues" and faith in the Eternal Love, may indeed be more effective than surface appearances indicate. Isaac Penington wrote: "Whoever desires to see God's Peaceable Kingdom brought forth in the general must cherish it in the particular."
The trouble with the world today is precisely that men have come to believe that "the only means which work are the material and the only goal attainable is also material. The physical world is mastered through physical force. Developing a consciousness of the reality of spiritual things and generating moral power is the supreme need of such a world. [This might be done through] small groups of men and women, who renounce outward things, strip down to bare essentials, and give themselves to the task of "purifying the springs of history which are within ourselves," to "that secret labor by which those of a little faith raise, first of all in themselves, the level of humankind's spiritual energy." Though we be driven still further "out of this world," into seeming futility, confined to very simple living in small cooperative groups and giving ourselves to silence, meditation, prayer, discipline of the mind and spirit, we shall hold to the Way.
"Fear not, little flock. It is your Father's good pleasure to give unto you the kingdom. And lo, I am with you always, even unto the end of the age. For God has not given us a spirit of fearfulness, but of power and love and discipline" [Lk. 12:32; Mt 28:20b; II Timothy 1:7].
http://www.pendlehill.org/product-category/pamphlets
56. Toward Pacifism: [Convincement & Commitment of a Young European] (by Gunnar Sundberg; 1950)
This pamphlet should be looked upon as a plea for pacifism. I don't think pacifism is on the way out; apparently some people do. To those people these pages should be an attempt to stop pacifism on its way out, and have it turn back again to live among us.—G.S.
Preface—My paper will be from the convinced pacifist's point of view. The narrative is personal & [in the order] of my development. It must seem presumptuous for a [neutral Swede to write this], rather than one who experienced the difficulties of the pacifist position. The most startling experience I had involving pacifism, was as part of a young Friends' seminar in Philadelphia. [There they asked the question]: [How] is pacifism on the way out? To European peace workers it would be a hard blow to see Friends give up, or question their renowned testimony against war. I had a European approach to pacifism, & I knew the ethical motives for pacifism. Perhaps I could give American Young Friends some additional points of view, and strengthen them in their pacifism.
[Introduction]—I hadn't left school when WWII started. I attended the Viggbyholmsskolan co-ed boarding-school, which father founded near Stockholm. [With] political persecutions, many boarding-schools in sheltered countries were meeting-places for young people of various countries. Our class was proud about contact with Mahatmas Gandhi & our [sister] Hindu School. Some of us joined the International Friendship League. We got visits from foreign students. I saw advantages to military training & refusing to submit to it; I was in favor of national defense. Except for the state church, birthright membership in other organizations was uncommon.
My parents had joined the Society of Friends by the time I left school. Religion was no concern of mine & religious pacifism was far from me. Quakers & the few pacifists I knew seemed to be odd & unusual. Father knew that faith & personal commitments such as pacifism must have time to grow from within; [father] lived his faith. [I received military training when I was 20; [I still remember lessons about twisting the bayonet in bayonet drills]. I led an attack drill on a small coastal town. I got carried away with the fighting during the drill & was completely out of my mind. I hadn't noticed being hit & bleeding above the eye. What on earth had been going on inside of me [in the midst of a "mock" fighting frenzy]? Why had my emotions been frightfully stirred? What did I have inside of me? What a thin layer there is between man & beast, an instinct, something dark & horrifying. I feel my present conscious pacifism may be weak, compared with the unconscious instincts.
FROM BEWILDERMENT TO DETERMINATION—After military service and during the war, I joined the Swedish work camp movement; the Friendship League was no longer enough. The world would expect Sweden to take upon ourselves a large part of post-war reconstruction. Many young people trained themselves during the last war years to be able to work in Europe, as soon as the arms were laid down; Funds were raised. For some years there was a strong movement for international relief that faded away too soon.
The 1946 work camp in Finland opened my eyes to the pacifist brotherhood in the cause of peace. It was as if a curtain had been lifted, revealing a whole new world. The world was full of human beings just as seeking [of peace] as myself. I realized how old & how manifold is the cause of peace. I realized how broad the scope was of related areas of human activities governing human relations, from forms of government, to economics, to religion, to social reforms. I said over & over, that I could never feel so close to non-pacifist Swedes as I would feel to pacifist Hindus or Chinese. [The 1st 4 pacifist principles I will look at represent the common sense level].
[1] Atomic Warfare; [2] Nobody Considers themselves Aggressive; [3]; Diplomatic Instability [4] Nation-State—We must all change our minds & adapt our standards & practices to the new world which [nuclear] science has discovered. We must realize what is invested in the old military system. If new standards are introduced [1,000's will be displaced]. In earlier wars, soldiers had gone out to meet the enemy & defend their country. Guided missiles have done away with what was left of romantic, sentimental feelings. Soldiers on the front lines may be comparatively well off, when we consider the fate of big cities with their women & children.
Aggressive wars have been rejected completely, but wars of defense are still praised. If we pacifists can prove to the soldier that he can never be sure whether his war is aggressive or defensive, eventually he may be less willing to jump to the conclusion his government expects him to adopt. Defense is impossible with atomic bombs. You can only send them, not stop them. Our government will not inform us about the character of our wars. Nor shall we be able to find out the truth for ourselves. We had better make our own stand, once & forever.
If we agree to fight and to kill, we would like to see a sensible principle for the selection of who we are defending ourselves against. How can we see the point of fighting a country which was our ally & friend 10 years ago? Governments & public opinion egg each other on, time & again, to define a fresh enemy. The policy of "Let us fight nobody who attacks us," is extremely difficult for a government to stick to, even though it allows for non-violent resistance. Early 1940, The British sent a note to the Swedish government demanding that the export of iron ore to Germany be stopped. If necessary, the British would take the necessary steps to have it stopped. They mined the waters west of Norway and British troops left from England the day before Germany invaded Norway and Denmark. [With the new information], we might even picture England and Germany as lions, leaping for the same piece of juicy meat.
The majority of the Swedes felt that they belonged to the Western allies. But neutrality plus ideological sympathy is just as inconsistent as pacifism plus ideological sympathy. If we had given up our principle, we might have helped the British fight the Germans; [in so doing], the neutrality platform would have been lost. We would then have been used as tools by the great powers. To [react] according to the moves of someone else, [rather than act according to the strict requirements of peace] is not the way to build peace. [This is why] pacifists make a definite stand and refuse to be tossed about by arbitrary public opinion and helpless governments.
Borderlines are artificial & arbitrary. What huge amounts of emotion & sentiment are invested on either side. Wars are easier to start if leaders have a nation-state sentiment to build on. Family, community, home town, your home's countryside trigger a strong affection naturally. The next natural unit is the whole world. Everything in between is more or less fictitious. How is nationalism the inexplicable anachronism of our time? A nation's economy shouldn't mould its people's minds; the reverse should be true. We can insist that our fellow citizen are not so enormously better than our neighbors across the border. The similarities are greater than the differences.
From Humanistic to Christian Pacifism/ Accepting Society as it is; or Trying to Change it—At Hirvasvaara work camp in 1946, the searching and penetrating attitude of our souls, which grew in proportion to our friendship, helped to develop my religious faith. My own belief, confronted with other beliefs had to be clarified and articulated. In my new world of idealistic commitment, I saw my course, direction, and goal. There is some kind of Great Power, and if I am right in this, the Great Power will approve my new course. My pacifism was essentially humanistic, rationalistic, ethical and based on international sympathy. A year later I stop resisting explicitly Christian convictions within me. I joined the Christian pacifist organization, Fellowship of Reconciliation. I picture pacifism as a pyramid with a wide base. The base becomes narrower as it rises, the commitments more sharp and more exclusive. Moving beyond the common sense level, we require a certain degree of idealism and willingness to follow. [I hope the following sections will help young Christians decide to include pacifism as part of their faith]. Perhaps a more powerful ethical support of pacifism would be helpful.
How is our goal to educate good citizens for democracy as it exists at the present time? [In the democracy of the ideal Utopia], society would have to conform to our students, when they have grown up; not they to it. To look ahead, to get one's bearings in relation to the future, in relation to a better world, may seem unrealistic & naive. It is this effort that lies behind progress. People who refuse to accept contemporary society aren't always successful reformers. They may play an important role, as the bad conscience of an imperfect order.
To Kill the Evil-Doer isn't to Kill the Evil/ Double Standards/ Human Brotherhood—Individual soldiers must be convinced that the cause is just. Every war can be made out to be just, or a war of defense against evil. In a soldier's conscious mind, one is always certain one is fighting a just war, a war against evil. Evil isn't done away with by bullets, a bayonet sting, an atomic explosion, or the electric chair. Evil may infect victors after victory. Evil cannot be extinguished by wars. Evil must be overcome by good. To love our enemies.
Peace, education for internationalism, and creation become part of a person devoting themselves to peace. If one then accepts war, one must modify one's ideals. A double standard will split one's inner consistency and disrupt one's calm. A good life must be a consistent life, with one set of standards. I cannot permit myself to be turned around and work in the opposite direction.
Feeling, intuition, faith, all play their role in pacifism. A person who sees others as statistics or separate, quarrelsome creatures, as less than real people, has a long way to go before one is ready to become a pacifist. True internationalism and the average public opinion of our day seem to operate on different wavelengths. World citizens in the deepest sense of the word have a different [take] on contemporary history in which prejudices, moral "superiority, and selfishness appear to be corner stones of society.
A real international outlook is a matter of education. Far-off human beings are promoted from statistical figures to likeable brother, or at least to next-door neighbors. Various international organizations take on the responsibility of kindling and strengthening the feeling of human brotherhood all over the world. Faith in human brotherhood and loyalty to humankind touch the essentials of religion, and grow into an all-compelling conviction. Killing 1 human being would break that loyalty, and betray one's deepest faith.
Responsibility to Posterity—[Hunger is a basic reason people kill each other]. What are other reasons besides hunger for people to kill each other? The ideal of peace must be estimated in reference to the history of ages past and the distant future. Recent fighters took and still take the slogan "making the world safe for democracy" as their watchword on which to base their policies. The ideal of not killing must also be made safe for posterity. I could visualize a time when pacifism would be dead as Latin is dead.
A quick succession of wars may lead to the conclusions that either all humans are bad or all wars are useless. It seems to me that the time has come when the opposite set of values should have a chance to be tried, to overcome evil by good. The pacifist principle must be carried on in the hearts of a few living & breathing human beings, [even if it goes largely unused], passed on from generation to generation for centuries or a millennia. [I belong to those few. We have committed ourselves to a mission, [along with all who have lived and have made the commitment and all who shall live and make the commitment; we have have a responsibility to posterity.
That of God in Every Man/ Accepting the Cross—The Quaker "that of God in every one" doctrine is generally considered to be the basis for the Society of Friends' pacifism. It gives specific emphasis to Christianity, as interpreted by George Fox, & fellow Quakers. The step between the human brotherhood concept & the religious "that of God in every man" doctrine must be fairly easy to take. "God as supreme power to be revered & worshipped," mingled with my earlier international feeling, caused my pacifism to be identified with the "that of God in every man" doctrine. Quaker tolerance seems to result from that doctrine. The freedom to believe in [universal] brotherhood must be a great asset to those who want to move from ethical idealism to religious faith.
Religious pacifism based on acceptance of the Cross in its extreme form may appear more authoritarian. A pacifism founded just on authority of what is recorded in the Bible accepts limitations, like less universality than some other living religions, & a sense of hopelessness [that goes along with the authority]. The relationship of Man—Bible—God may be too focused on one's own particular relationship to God, rather than a brotherly relationship among men. The Bible-centered pacifists feel a certain assurance that they will be richly rewarded. A pacifist conviction based on "that of God in every one," is anchored better in human brotherhood, more international & universal. Pacifism must be an instrument for every human being's benefit, & for improving human relations. The danger of a pacifist isolationism exists. Under extreme duress, a religious loyalty might be of greater support to you than a human loyalty. I have 2 foundations for my pacifism; one human, & one religious.
FROM ONE-TIME COMMITMENT TO CONTINUOUS INVOLVEMENT—[I had a dream of American & Russian soldiers fighting on the plains of India]. Bodies were torn apart by stones and bayonets. A war correspondent reported everything that happened; I was only a spectator. Pacifism must beware of isolationism. Life should include a combination of pacifism and engagement in world affairs. How much of one's energy should pacifism take? [The vast majority of people] should not specialize in pacifism. They should just make the commitment, and then turn again to their individual, normal activities. If all pacifists were only pacifists, the whole movement would soon become impossible. One's normal activity should be as well integrated with the positive and constructive elements of one's pacifism as is possible, and at the same time earn one's living.
Lately, I have encountered the argument that a one-time commitment followed by normal activity is no longer enough. 2 British Quakers strongly emphasized that view at Pendle Hill in the US. The concrete prevention of impending war seemed to weigh much more heavily on them than abstract rejection of wars did. Today's system of total warfare called for a basic change in pacifist policy. In earlier days, [soldiers withdrawing from the armed forces would have a greater impact on the ability to fight wars]. Now, even if 99% of armed forces were withdrawn, a present-day "push-button" war could easily do many times as much damage as the last war. The threat of total war compels the pacifist to take the risk of continuous involvement on the highest level, the only level where total wars can be prevented. [Peace workers will have to get over their reluctance to go into politics, and find a difficult balance between their ideals and compromise].
What Would you do, if Somebody Broke into your House to Kill your Family? /How much Should we Refuse to do Because of our Pacifist Convictions?—I wanted to be very sure that it was right to join with-out having a complete command of one's instincts. If we should wait for that, we would have no pacifists at all. It is misleading to concentrate too much on the ultimate choice of killing or not killing a would-be murderer. Life has more to do with the factors that make such an ultimate choice impossible—or possible. George Fox said that one should live in a spirit that takes away the occasion of war. The ultimate choice [would result as a logical outcome of a constructive and positive attitude]. There will be choices in which both alternatives are utterly tragic, but life as a whole will not consist exclusively of such hopeless situations.
My brother holds that it's impossible to do anything at all in our day without helping the war machinery. How does one live as a pacifist in a world where it is impossible to do anything without helping war machinery? What responsibility does a pacifist have to inform those around him of his decision to not kill? How does one deal with others' expectations that one will resort to violence to defend one's self & those around one? A pacifist must tell people the decision not to kill has been made. Not telling may lead to betrayal of one's countrymen; that is also contrary to human brotherhood. Refusing to register seems to me to be more a testimony against government power than against killing other human beings. Refusing to register is probably more natural to Americans with their devotion to individualism. Europeans find American youth's refusal to register puzzling.
How can one be a Pacifist & yet not sanction evil in some form or other?—How is trying to stop an enemy intruder with friendliness cooperation with evil? The problem becomes even more difficult when it is carried over from the individual to nations. [The difficult of this] conflict is the main reason I have partly abandoned my reliance upon my own judgment, and have laid my unsolvable problems in the hands of God. When I stayed in Germany; the young Germans argued: "You criticize us for not having revolted against Hitler and not having put an end to that inhuman state of things ... We should have done it, but what about you? ... You knew what happened in Germany ... We saw what you did ... the Olympic games in 1936 with all the countries accepting Nazi Germany ... your diplomats still in Berlin ... your products being exported to our country. How could we revolt against Hitler, when you all sat back and did nothing?" How can the arguments of the young Germans be applied to the young people of Russia, [with their slave labor camps]? We must risk war, stop trade, break diplomatic relations, [broadcast] rejection and non-cooperation. We must show the Russian people what we feel, so that eventually they can act with our opinion as a standard of righteousness.
Involvement in world affairs is the only answer to the threat of total war. A pacifist isolationist may have little difficulty in remaining faithful to his ideals, but can he can do little to prevent a war. The more a person is willing & eager to involve one's self in world affairs & preventing wars, the more unsolvable he will find conflict between non-cooperation on an ethical level & cooperation on a basis of love. This cooperation on the individual level means we no longer hate a criminal, we hate his action. As a teacher, we love children, but strongly dislike their stealing, lying, and cheating. When conflict appears on the international level, it seems to me to be a superhuman task to find the right solution. It seems more important than anything else that our descendants shall see pacifism alive, that kind of pacifism that lies at the core of all religions. [I close with a legend]:
A sinful man travelled to Jerusalem seeking forgiveness. He had to light a torch from the holy flame of the Temple and travel all the way back to his native town with the fire still burning. He started home well-equipped, but was stripped of everything except the torch and an old donkey on the way home. During the nights he made big fires out of his flame, so that it would be sure to be burning when he awoke from sleep. He was cold and hungry and pitied. People thought he was out of his mind. The flame had become so dear to him, his only friend, the only thing that meant something to him. He cherished it and watched over it. The poor man safely reached his native town, with the flame still burning. How shall we succeed? How will humankind succeed?
[Summary Editor's Appendix]: Divine Humility Gunnar Sundberg (1998) The Quaker Universalist Reader: UNIVERSALISM AND SPIRITUALITY (Patricia A.Williams Ed.; 2007 Quaker Universalist Fellowship)
One of the problems that any Quaker must face in our days is what kind of picture we have of God. Maybe we have no picture at all. And if so, [How] is it better for us, all round, not to have any picture? How do we concentrate seriously on the energy-flow as a divine Spirit, and play down the ideas of the will of God and the love of God? But we—or at least our children—so far have found it necessary to have some idea about the origin of the love. Human beings need pictures.
It seems to me that for a few generations, at least, it is unrealistic to discard all images. They will turn up subconsciously, anyway. But what we can do—and what seems to fit the universalist thinking—is to diversify the image of God. It is impossible to go on imagining God as a fearful judge or as a majestic grandfather. But if we, as universalist Quakers, wish to emphasize our closeness to other religions, we should open our hearts for many different pictures of God. And I am confident that this is possible. In 1951 I acquired my copy of "The Eternal Smile" by the Swedish Nobel Prize winner Par Lagerkvist (Chatto and Windus, UK 1971) and since that year a very special image of God has been uppermost in my mind.
Here follows a summary of that cosmic saga where all the dead people of this planet have been sitting together in the darkness talking to one another. After a very long time, however, they make up their minds to visit God. [The saga is called]:
An Old Man Sawing Wood (by Par Lagerkvist)-- They went on & on; they didn't arrive. They went on
& on, 100's of years, 1,000's of years; they didn't arrive. Then they thought how tremendous this was that
they were doing. At last they saw far off a feeble light. It shone steadily, but ... it could scarcely be
distinguished amid all the darkness. It was a little lantern with dusty glasses, casting a quiet light around it.
Under it stood an old man sawing wood ... it was God. They said, “You stand there sawing wood.”
[God] made no reply. God wiped God's mouth with the back of God's rough hand, looking about timidly.
“I am a simple man”, he began at last in a submissive voice. “We can see that”, said the leaders. “Yes, we can
see that”, said all the others, all the 1,000,000's, as far away as you could imagine them.
“You have vouchsafed us the intimation that in suffering our life became great and precious, precious to eternity and God. You have let us languish, despair, perish. Why, why? All you have wanted is life, nothing
“You have vouchsafed us the intimation that in suffering our life became great and precious, precious to eternity and God. You have let us languish, despair, perish. Why, why? All you have wanted is life, nothing
more, only life over and over again to no purpose. Why, why?”
God answered quietly, “I have done the best I could. I only intended that you need never be content
God answered quietly, “I have done the best I could. I only intended that you need never be content
with nothing.” Gradually, the weeping ceased. Gentleness and peace came over them, as it does after a
shower in summer, when the earth lies damp in the sun, clearer and as if nearer than before. And they
understood that their visit to God was fulfilled.
Apart from the peculiarities of God as Par Lagerkvist pictured him, and apart from the opening up to other religions of the stereotyped Christian God, it is important to show that the idea of humility can exist in a culture that for centuries continued to despise humility. If ever we shall be able to abandon the colonial attitude, it seems necessary to foster a different image of the divine. Thus, indirectly, universalism may help to put a stop to the global terrorism of unrestricted western economy. Also, to an old work-camper, it is inspiring to picture God as an individual who works with his hands rather than pointing a finger at that which should be done.
About the Author—Wilmer Young, born in the Conservative Quaker community in Iowa, attended [Quaker schools throughout his education]. He taught 4 years at Friends Boarding School at Barnesville, Ohio, ending with 12 years at Westtown School in PA. From 1936-55, he, his wife M. B. Young, & their 3 children worked with white & Negro sharecroppers & tenant farmers in MS & SC. For 5 years, Young taught nonviolent methods of dealing with race, poverty, & war at PH. He is now working at Peace Action Center in Washington, D.C.
[Omaha Action: Path to Jail]—I was asked to explain how I found myself in jail on July 6, 1959, [since I had never been there before]. It came after years of travail of spirit. I had written to my 3 children that I was going to help protest missile site construction. [The protest project was called] Omaha Action. There was a public meeting, but in spite of advertising, only about 30 people were there, & ½ of them were from our group. Reporters stressed that very few Omaha people attended. The small Omaha Friends Meeting did what they could to help us throughout our stay. One part of our group walked from Lincoln 40 miles to the Mead Ordnance Base; another group was walking 30 miles from Omaha. I was errand boy [& quartermaster] for the Omaha contingent, and in charge of finding them places to sleep. One night when I could not find a place the owners would allow us to sleep in, we ended up on a railway right-of-way. The night at both camps passed with only minor disturbances. On the 3rd day, the groups converged and completed their march to the base, near the missile site.
The Mead Ordnance Base is 26 miles2. A shelter for 2 guards was set up after we came. At a group meeting, each person gave their decision as to what actions they would be taking. I surprised myself by saying I planned to offer civil disobedience. I was quite calm about it. and I never regretted it; it was completely new to me. Construction was in the early stages, and the crew was probably less than 100.
We were conscious that, in this situation, we were only protesting. We couldn't find a way to suggest that we had a positive program in mind, calling for the strengthening of the United Nations, making use of the World Court, & studying nonviolent resistance to evil & training for its use. We couldn't talk to the workers; leaflets were of limited effectiveness; & the local papers, churches, radio, & TV, were all closed to us. The only way we could see to get our message to the people was to dramatize our protest by getting arrested for illegal entry.
[Civil Disobedience, Courtroom, & Jail]—We had meeting for worship right before 3 of us went in. After the meeting A. J. Muste preached a pacifist sermon to the 50 or so onlookers. There were 30 Air Force officers & a Federal Marshall. The rest of us could be arrested for using Federal land without permission [but were not]. Muste & 2 others climbed over the gate, & were informed by the Air Force officers that the penalty for entering was 6 months in prison & a $500 fine. They gently but firmly led them out and shut the gate. The 3 again climbed over again, were arrested and taken to jail.
My date for action was July 6. My partner in the action & I wrote statements for our reasons for offering civil disobedience. Someone tried to stamp on my toes as I headed for the fence. When I turned around on the other side, they were lying on the ground; the rumor was that I had been violent & pushed him. My partner and I entered twice and were taken to a "tank" in the Omaha jail. There were only the 5 trespassers in the tank. The judge gave us 6 months & a $500 fine with sentence suspended & 1 year probation; one defendant said he could not accept probation. When arrested again he was sent to prison; we were warned there would be no leniency.
I decided that I could not accept probation; I wrote the Judge a letter. I said that my life ending in a war is of small moment. But I had children and grandchildren that deserved the same opportunity for life I had. I desired to make a maximum protest against the unnecessary descent of mankind into oblivion. I believed that this protest requires me to spend this time in prison. There come times when action is essential to break through the hard crust of inertia and custom. On July 21, I was arrested again at the Mead Base for violating probation. I was questioned by the Chief Probation Officer why we didn't do educational work instead of making people angry and excited. I told him the very fact that he knew nothing about the writing and lecturing on peace that had been going on for years was a clear indication that other methods were needed.
[Jail and Courtroom again]—My next 6 days with 34 other men in a "tank" designed for 32 was not as pleasant as the previous internment; a young man, Arthur Harvey, was with me. No one gathered round to hear our experience, looked us in the eye or greeted us unless we spoke 1st in this crowded, 2-story, 16 x 50 feet cell block. After 6 days & nights, a few showed signs of seeing some light on pacifism, & many had become friendly, but I saw more clearly than ever how deep is the hold of the military mind in our country. Getting letters was a tremendous help, but many received none, & I felt sympathy for them. The other men here were relatively young and were in for offences like forgery, robbery, sexual crimes and murder. The prison system is an arm of a larger system which protects the rich at the expense of the poor. There is a place for protesting the cruelties of prisons, but I was protesting against the missile base and trying to bear witness to a way of life that renounces war.
When I was called before the Judge, he asked questions he knew the answer to, & said he would continue me on probation, even though I had refused compliance with the terms of probation. At another vigil at the base, someone told me I would not be arrested. I would have to enter the Base a 3rd time to force the hand of the Judge, and go to prison. 3 of us decided to spend 10 days making our decisions. I sought advice from Paullina Meeting (IA), and my son, who had spent 3 years in Civilian Public Service and a year in Federal prison for refusing to register for the military draft. In the end I refrained, largely because of my wife's strong feeling against a repetition of the illegal action in the circumstances. I am inclined to feel that both Marj's decision and mine were right for ourselves. Her protest made far more impact than mine. It may be pure rationalization on my part to think that what little impact mine made wouldn't have increased much by actually serving 6 months in prison.
[Heart-searching and Making Decisions]—When we went to work in the South, from a good and happy position to a seemingly very precarious one, the decision was made only after several years of heart-searching, discussions with friends, and many prayers for light and guidance. One has to seek in the deepest spiritual levels that one knows for the answer, which may not come immediately, but rather as it did at Omaha, because the time for decision has come. [In light of the bomb dropping on Hiroshima, and Jesus saying] "They that take the sword shall perish by the sword," [I felt that in that method lies destruction]. If as a people, we did not recognize we had reached a dead end, we were going to perish.
I remember a quotation from a New Yorker story, a father speaking to a son going off to war: "I've wasted my life. I'm an old man and alone and my son has gone to war and all I did was pay rent and taxes ... I should have been out screaming on street corners. I should've grabbed people by their lapels in trains, in libraries, and in restaurants and yelled at them, "Love, understand, put down your guns, remember God ..." This is much the same as I felt at Abbeville, SC in 1945. Although a few saw [what I saw and felt what I felt] and worked at it, not enough did, and the mighty of the earth did not. They thought you have to fight fire with fire, and resist evil with more evil. So America, which might have led the way, led the way toward doom.
[Direct Action for Peace]—The people who believe that there are other, [nonviolent] ways of solving inter-national conflict have worked hard. How are we to get to the people, with an urgency that will shake them out of complacency, & with a poignancy that will pierce the wall of stereotyped ideas? It was in answer to this question that Direct Action for Peace began. [Beginning in 1957, early actions included] illegal entry to an atomic bomb testing area (Las Vegas), sailing into forbidden waters of nuclear bomb tests that were being carried out (Pacific Islands), and protesting the building of a missile base (Cheyenne); Omaha Action was in 1959.
[There is an unspoken agreement in the press to self-censor], especially educational, unremarkable material. Some of our group had come to Omaha intending to commit civil disobedience; I had not. To be arrested for trespassing, as I was at Omaha, is not something to do lightly. The reason given for making the instruments of war [at bases like Mead] has been to save lives. There seems no reason to suppose that this form of rescue will be more successful in the future than it has been. A minister suggested that the only thing we can do is pray for peace. I believe in prayer, but I believe God gave me my capabilities, so I might help God in God's purposes. If war comes, it will be a punishment for our sins: preparing for war; doing nothing to try to prevent it. The whole tenor of Jesus' teaching condemns war, though not explicitly. His denunciations of wrong-doing on the part of men were so profound, searching, specific and often-repeated that he was crucified for them. What impact had Jesus had on the great and powerful and influential of his day? Immediate success is not the only criterion.
[Fort Detrick Vigil/ Pentagon Vigil/ The Walk]—After Judge Robinson made it clear that I could go my own way, I often joined the Vigil at Fort Detrick, protesting against biological warfare research. Studies for disease prevention are also made at Fort Detrick; both are under army control. We advocated having the installation become a World Health Center under civilian control, solely for disease prevention research. This Vigil lasted for 21 months, & has been succeeded by the Peace Action Center in Washington; it was a spiritual experience. I came to see that many of those working at Fort Detrick, like me, were troubled about their lives, wishing they were more loving, could see more clearly what they ought to do. Others were convinced they were right, & puzzled that anyone should think the opposite. Others simply had good jobs & were raising their families comfortably. Why worry? Others were angry [at the interference of strangers in their lives; mind your own business].
The Pentagon Vigil organized by the Friends Coordinating Peace Committee in November 1960 gave a tremendous lift to the peace action movement. 1,000 Friends stood in the line during the 2-day Vigil. I hope that it is only the 1st of many such visible witnesses for their peace testimony on the part of the Society of Friends. A Walk for Peace began on December 1, 1960 from San Francisco across the US & Europe to Moscow. My part, aside from some speaking, was chiefly to give advance notice to the press & radio stations, find hospitality, & clean up afterward. The Walk got good coverage in most of the towns & medium-sized cities; the same can't be said for large cities. We were urging our government to take the initiative in disarmament. It was this radical approach, which is criticized by many pacifists as well as non-pacifists, that this group felt needed to be made now.
The Walk, was extremely interesting & sometimes exciting. Constantly in motion & in new places daily, we were often joined by other people who felt strongly about peace. Some walked with us for a few hours, or a few days. Occasionally one would stay for reasons that were difficult to determine. Sometimes such people were a handicap. Perhaps we ought to include training for [temporary or long-term outside joiners]. The core group of walkers was made up of clear-headed, dedicated, articulate people. It was an unusual form of public witness for peace, carried out with considerable imagination & courage, & with almost unbelievable energy.
It was also a prime opportunity for communication. Literally millions of people heard it mentioned on TV or radio. [Slightly fewer] heard broadcasts of interviews with the walkers. Several thousand attended expositions and discussions of our positive program. Some had never heard pacifism intelligently discussed, or had any idea that people exist who believe that the world could live without war; we pacifists have been talking among ourselves too long. More discipline within the group and more training in advance might have strengthened the witness by deleting certain irrelevant and contradictory features of it; we learn by experience. The appeal for disarmament and for the building of a world that renounces using war to settle disputes is a more difficult thing to get at than pleading directly for personal, civil rights. We need projects that are more clear cut, more understandable, and with more obvious meaning, than any we have yet had.
[Reaching the General Public/ Changing Public Opinion]—What is the process of arousing public opinion? of getting laws changed? We can print our pacifist ideas, but we don't reach the general public. We need ingenuity to get our message to the general public & to centers of policy-making. Friends of the 17th century simply refused to obey laws that forbade them to meet for worship as well as other laws; [they suffered for it] & they succeeded in changing laws. It is hard to make resistance to war as clear [as the issues they faced] & the resistance they offered. A refusal to serve is an invisible witness, & does little to communicate with others or convince them. We need to find powerful vetoes that are available to every person, & are visible, with meanings so clear that anyone can get their point.
In my lifetime, a small minority changed widespread opposition to WWI, beginning with "Preparedness Parades," & working on & through Congress. Conscription was made law with probably 90% of the people opposed. Suddenly, hardly anyone was against war. When women 1st asked for the vote, it was a tiny, extremely unpopular minority. The minority grew, & though they convinced many people, they couldn't convince enough politicians to vote for their proposals. Eventually they picketed at the White House, & they couldn't be ignored; they became visible. 2 groups, the National Party & the Women's Party, worked in their own ways toward the same end, the 1st using only conventional methods, like meeting with the President, & the 2nd using "action" methods, like being arrested for picketing the White House. In 1920 the 19th Amendment was ratified, giving women the vote. This was a struggle in which both the "dignified" & the "undignified" method played their part.
[Angering the Opposition/ Possible Risks ... Certain Disaster]—Pacifists are not likely to be the ones at the negotiating table. But there will not even be negotiations unless large numbers of common people make it clear that they want disarmament. I am often told [not to make the opposition angry]. When one is resisting an evil, one should do it without anger on one's own part. But one should not evade issues because people are touchy about them. There is no hope of getting justice for Negroes, or getting rid of war, without making some men angry. Occasional anger is part of our education. It is sometimes said that "direct actions for peace" do more harm than good. If those believing in such action could be shown that they cause the opposite of what we are working for, we would stop; we have not been shown.
The large demonstrations against the Polaris submarine base at Holy Loch in Scotland were inspired by a little project in New London, CT, called Polaris Action. When the Polaris submarines are launched, efforts are made to get on them by boat, or by swimming. One of these submarines is powerful enough to destroy millions of people. We are told in a Ford Foundation study that "The military élite is clearly in a position to assume actual political command over the U.S. striking forces." On one side there are obvious risks in restricting nuclear armaments. In a risk there is still hope. We pursue the hope; we work for a change in military policy. The risk is still there if we make the change, but unless we make it, we have the certainty of an arms race & of bombs going off.
[New Methods]—New methods seem to be called for. Gandhi used new methods with telling effect in Africa and India. The Norwegians and Danes used them under the Hitler's occupation; early Friends used them in England. Although many instances of their use are on record, most historians tell not about victories gained in peaceful ways, but about war. And the world comes to believe that war is necessary. The program that is being used to convince people that large numbers can survive a nuclear war seems more fiendish than just to let people be destroyed. Governor Meyner of NJ says: "What will they use for air? What will they use for water? What will they use for food? What will they use for people?" We must learn by doing. As we get new ideas for better witnesses, and develop them, the effect will grow. [Some can do the dramatic, physical actions], and almost any of us can stand in a quiet line and hold up a sign that gives the message, or hand out leaflets. There is some way for each of us to stand up and be counted for a world in which all can live as brothers [and sisters, children] of one Father.
[Excerpts from "for Wilmer Young" by J. H. McCandless]: "... You say I turn the key, imprisoning myself within these childless walls & fences without progeny. Let it be so.// Because I don't hope to climb/ those many fences more ... my arms will not support this weight of blood, guilt, hatred, passion men call world.// I was a climber once ... [Now] Atop your gate I saw my prison walls & turned the key. // & what that key unlocks we cannot know:/ prison or garden, man must make it so ... And I must climb to make my grandchild free."
http://www.pendlehill.org/product-category/pamphlets
380. A very good week behind bars (by Janeal Ravndal; 2005)
About the Author—A Pendle Hill Pamphlet some 50 years ago sparked my interest in Friends. My parents and their parents were all pacifists. Teresina Havens relieved my difficulty with creeds by saying, “You cannot catch the spirit in a net of words.” I belong to Stillwater Meeting in Barnesville Ohio, Chris taught at Olney Friends School there and I became a social worker. Chris and I presently live and work at Pendle Hill.
I have learned that if I wait in the right spirit and am bulwarked by caring support, I am able to choose, commit myself, and follow through. Janeal Turnbull Ravndal
[Civil Disobedience, Arrest, and Trial]—On March 20, 2003, at the start of the war in Iraq, I was among 107 war protesters blocking entrances of the Federal Building in Philadelphia; I had never before committed civil disobedience or been arrested. I considered whether this civil disobedience was the right thing for me to do if war began, worrying about the trouble it would cause [users and employees in the Federal Building].
[In the arrest and the court room I experienced kindness]. What I found that day sitting in the rain and then behind bars was a sense of personal peace. I pled guilty to obstruction but refused to pay the $250 fine. While realizing our country’s justice system is often flawed, especially for the poor, for African Americans, [and Native Americans. The thinking of] our Presbyterian family did not allow for enemies: all people were God’s beloved children. My mother loved and suffered with the people of the Middle East. My father was a lifetime member of the Fellowship of Reconciliation. [During the war], the assurances of adults that war would not come here never made sense to me. I expected every plane I saw or heard to drop a bomb on me.
[My 67 years, my study, social work, and parenting have led me to understand that violence does not solve problems; violence makes us less safe. [As a child] in every service I met the Apostles Creed. I knew I did not fully believe it. Should I say it? Today, the war in Iraq still seems to me a tragic mistake with raging repercussions. When will the dear children of one group stop obeying orders to denounce and kill the dear folk of another group? I use much more than I need of the world’s resources. I still send in taxes that pay for this war. I am thankful for my day of civil disobedience, my day in court, and especially for my week in prison.
[Reporting to Jail, Singing; Cold Nights]—O n Earth Day April 22, 2004, I went off to jail. As I left for Jail from Pendle Hill, I was told that the Christmas star would be lit until I returned from jail. I realized that I no longer felt like my usual rather skeptical self, but was full of faith. Downtown, 9 prospective prisoners and some supporters gathered in front of the Federal Court Building and walked the block to the Federal Detention Center.
Inside detention center [we went to a holding cell where we 6 women would now spend more than 8 hours on metal benches. We waited, speculated & sang; the 1st strip search went all right. [I was a smart aleck when I spoke to a social worker], which perhaps stemmed from my growing fear. We 6 women were taken, hands cuffed behind our backs, to a small visiting room near the Special Housing Unit (SHU). There we had a 2nd strip search. I put on the orange bra, panties, t-shirt, socks, shoes, and jump suit that was handed in through the door’s hole.
I was delivered to a cell and found Patricia Pearce would be my cellmate. We knew the same hymns and she was a soprano, so I could sing alto. We had a blessing for our cell: “Spirit, we thank thee for this cell/ Thy bounteous love provides./ Stay with us here that ours may be/ A cell where peace abides.// Let all our words be soft with love/, Our thoughts all free from shame./ Let every act beneath this roof/ Be worthy of thy name.”
The room had a shower, metal bunks, metal table, stainless steel toilet & sink. We took turns leading start-of-the-day time. I made lists of what we wanted, & our luxuries. [A man who was a counselor, ordered me to be handcuffed to go make a phone call]. I called my husband Chris & gave him my prisoner number. The counselor was irritable & unkind]. I cried a bit, perhaps at the thought of inmates having such a bitter, angry counselor.
[Activities on “Retreat”]—That night we had trouble sleeping. We were chilly, but worse, couldn't turn off our very bright room light. The next day we felt solidarity with all prisoners everywhere. Hoping to find something to use for glue, we saved juice carton, plastic spoons, drink & condiment packages. It turned out coffee powder with a few drops of water made serviceable glue. [I made a collage about imprisonment.] It occurred to me that President Bush appears to want people to trust and follow his lead without challenge; that is not what is best, even for him. He must be so overwhelmed; what he needs is a few quiet days in a quiet jail cell.
[We enjoyed Father Ben and his book cart when it came. He enjoyed spreading good cheer on his rounds]. My life has been spent living in church or Quaker communities, so I wondered about community in prison, whether some inmates might even experience more there than on the outside. I know I was being supported by the Pendle Hill community. [That night I used a thick layer of newspaper to insulate the bottom of the bed, tucked in one blanket and pulled the other to my chin].
In maximum security we weren’t allowed to leave cells for religious services in detention center. We taught others in SHU hymns, & held our own service, using our orange cotton blankets as shawls. Patricia’s closing prayer went in part: “Thank you for the vision of a healed world where children are cherished & protected … We pray that shalom will take root & people will come to see the ineffectiveness of violence … Help us to inhabit the world so that through us your shalom and healing will spread to others.” We found ourselves able to joke about our circumstances. I wrote: “Oh dear! I’m sentenced to 7 days/ away from traffic, chores, phone.”
Regimentation, Rules and Prison Employees—[Right before going to jail, I met a young man who had done 45 days in county prison; he called my week in Detention “a cakewalk. I suspect he was right. Yet] bright lights, a headache, feeling grimy and uptight about no privacy brought me pretty close to discouragement, [despite the fact that] I was there by choice and without the burden of guilt.
I found myself thinking about how prison un-prepares people for democracy in particular and life in general. They may expect a continuation of such rules, or possibly even feel more comfortable taking orders. [Yet in places like a Domestic Abuse Safehouse] it is the staff’s job to recognize them as responsible and mature adults who need to learn to make their own choices and decisions. [I wondered] how many prisoners could be much better helped back to a state usefulness by a different type of program [than jail]?
We received cleaning supplies, and a fresh change of clothes, everything except the jumper. Later I wrote: “Do you hear that noise?/ I think they cannot keep from us / The sound of spring rain,” and “Oh that the news/ in these papers spread on my bed/ would keep our whole world warm.” That morning we were taken to “the cage” for recreation. A narrow strip of gray sky was visible around the high roof. There was a young woman with us who was the mother of 3 children. Perhaps I have never seen a look of more sadness and exhaustion on such a young face. We talked, sang, and danced; what a happy hour. As time went by the situation seemed more and more absurd to us. What threat were they recognizing in trying to control us [with prison]? What could the government have done instead to save itself the cost and trouble of housing me there? Surely the point is not punishment but choosing some legal response likely to further the welfare of society.
[Mail Call; Fasting; the Hokey Pokey]—At Mail Call I received 2 letters from Chris & a homemade card with a peace crane on the front, full of cheering notes from Pendle Hill folk. I read everything, read everything again, & hung up the peace crane. A correctional officer said that former military personnel not up-to-date on the present situation would be very angry at our anti-war positions, & that if he were in this prison he would want to be where we were. On Tuesday Patricia & I fasted until suppertime, in concert with some of Patricia’s friends.
After some writing I finished my bracelet, made from torn-paper beads wound up with toothpaste glue and strung on triple blanket threads. I wore my beads to recreation hour the next day. I think it was because it was so cold in the cage that I had the idea of dancing the “Hokey-Pokey.” The others seemed to experience our “performance” as something of a lapse from their intentions to be single-minded in working for peace here in prison. The thin line of sky around the top of the cages that day was blue.
Having long seen myself as a doubter, questioner &, a challenger of believers, I have always omitted any name for God. [With Patricia], I finally started my prayer, “Spirit of Love among us.” I told Patricia the story of Pendle Hill’s Christmas star, how my hope was reborn by it being hoisted to the top of the tall Canadian hemock. [I left half-serious advice to future inmates in the margins of] “S.H.U. Rules & Procedures Inmate Copy.”
[Last Day &Lessons Learned]—On the last day Patricia came up with the idea of painting “Strip for Peace” on her back. We never did get warm enough. The last night we talked to our friendly 2nd-shift guard about the men & community in prison. The men were noisier, more numerous & most of them hadn’t gone to trial. He said there was some community here. Our final morning I woke with words for a thank-you to the SHU staff. From flowery magazine pages I composed a note which said: “Thank you SHU staff for the kindness & respect & caring you show those who are under your supervision. I think there is a real possibility that new peace in our world will begin with you.” We had our final prison breakfast of Honey Nut Cheerios & sang our room blessing. Volunteering as accomplice, [I wrote] “STRIP FOR PEACE” on Patricia’s back in brazen, hot orange capitals.
We handed out our Priority Mail envelopes filled with letters and journal pages and secreted artwork. In the storage room where we were taken to change into our own clothes, we had to call to the attention of our beautiful young inspector the words painted on Patricia’s back. Her laugh seemed to reflect a sort of resignation to the impossibility of keeping this group in order. [We sang one last time in a holding cell. One of our number referred to us as either “The Prisoner of Conscience Choir,” or “The Outrageous Orange Sextet].”
Finally, handcuffs removed; we were taken by elevator to the basement & let out through garage-like area in the building's rear, into a bright, cold day. [Friends, family, & former prisoners] gathered in a circle in front of the Federal Building where adventure had started. Patricia blessed a loaf of bread & we passed it around until it was gone. Then the circle scattered, each of us heading home through the lush, plush world of spring & freedom.
That night I enjoyed star shining atop a Canadian hemlock; the next morning I enjoyed the photo of our 8 beautiful grandchildren & patches of morning sun on the table. I walked to morning Meeting for Worship past dogwood, lilac, & new green. I said thanks for support, then added that I had a good time. Great laughter; it felt then, & still feels, true. It was a good time. I kept prison hairdo when a local news photographer took my photo.
After this week I really did feel in a new and revised relationship to the world—a larger, more complicated world, with awareness of my brothers and sisters living or employed in prisons. The bonding and faith I felt on leaving jail, and honor now as I write this, seem akin to that faith which is the opposite of fear. [I felt] decidedly not guilty about the whole week in maximum security. Our list of miracles included turning coffee into glue and being able to view our guards as thoughtful caretakers.
Hopefully I will find some way to serve, or at least remain more alert to, the needs of those living in these institutions. I have learned that if I wait in the right spirit and am bulwarked by caring support, I am able to choose, commit myself, and follow through. I hope to retain new appreciation for freedom, more consciousness of my privileged status. The Korean Christian pastor Joon Park spoke of his 11 years in prison for speaking out for democracy. He remarked that life was easier when he was in prison. I think he meant choices were more clear, less complicated, God’s will more evident, as he discerned how best to serve God and his fellow prisoners.
Perhaps I understand better now what Joon meant. Thoreau said something like, “Read not times, read eternities.” I think during my very good week in prison I was a bit better at reading those eternities. Daily homework is to continue, in this more complicated world outside prison, a journey toward faith, away from fear.
http://www.pendlehill.org/product-category/pamphlets
A. J.—Memory of a Man (by Alfred Hassler, Exec. Secretary of Fellowship of Reconciliation) What is there to say of [A. J. Muste]? Perhaps “understanding” is [best]. Understanding of the motivations that led people to the violence, exploitation & oppression he hated. And understanding of the needs of a young assistant in the midst of a political or organizational crisis. I worked on his staff, and was deeply moved by his insistent focus on the humanity of those with whom he came in contact. This attitude produced Of Holy Disobedience.
The Land of Propaganda is built on Unanimity (From Bread and Wine by Ignazio Silone)—“In the Land of Propaganda, a man, any man, any little man who goes on thinking with his own head, [who says ‘no’ or writes ‘no’ on a wall at night] imperils public order. . . Killing a man who says ‘no’ is a risky business because a corpse can go on whispering ‘No, No, No’ . . . How can you silence a corpse?”
George Bernanos from Brazil wrote in Tradition of Freedom: “If some day, the increasing efficiency of the technique of destruction finally causes our species to disappear from the earth it will not be cruelty that will be responsible for our extinction . . . but the docility, the lack of responsibility of modern man, his base subservient acceptance of every common decree.” This warning might serve as a text, for an appeal to American youth to practice Holy Disobedience, non-conformity, and resistance toward, Conscription, Regimentation and War.
Most believers in democracy and all pacifists begin with agreement as to the moral necessity of Holy Disobedience. Should we not emphasize “[positive and constructive service]” rather than the refusal to fight? Should young men who are eligible for it accept the IV-E classification or take the more “absolutist,” non-registrant position? (IV-E are persons who oppose participation in any war on grounds of religious training and belief). Those who hold to one [side of the question] are likely to be very critical of those who take the other. And while a minister should not pass moral condemnation on those who enlist or submit to conscription, we do not deduce that this minister should abandon his pacifism or cease to witness to it.
The choice confronting the youth of draft age tend to fall in three categories: Christian or human “vocation”; “the immature 18-year old”; the pacifist’s and citizens’ relation to conscription and the State. The argument for accepting alternative service was: “[When] the government under wartime or peacetime conscription requires some service of mercy or construction [unrelated to war] from us, we will raise no objection to undertaking such work. We may even seek . . . the opportunity to demonstrate our desire to be good citizens.”
Conscription and Vocation—The question of one’s vocation does not or should not arise [only] when Congress enacts a conscription law. The committed Christian, [presumably following a vocation in agreement with the will of God, is nonetheless required to] render some civilian service . . . different from what they have been doing. Was what they were doing then so definitely not meaningful and sacrificial? [We should ask ourselves: Is the rush to get into other jobs and to go to distant places motivated by fear of men and of the authorities, by a desire to be thought well of, or by a dread of social displeasure or legal punishment?
The Normal as Meaningful—God calls men and women fundamentally to “be fruitful and multiply and replenish the earth and subdue it and have dominion.” To resist [war’s] breaking up of the orderly family and community life [called for by God] is one of the great services the people who believe in non-violence and re-conciliation may render. It may well be that the most challenging opportunity to display courage, hardihood and readiness to suffer will be found in the community in which one has been living doing ordinary things. [Indeed] it is possible that some leave the home or college environment, yielding to the temptation to avoid hardship.
The pacifist may judge the action of a government’s alternative conscription 3 ways. 1st, the government demands that conscripts temporarily abandon their Christian or true vocation for work to which they clearly are not “called.” The Christian’s only choice is to refuse to comply; one’s non-conformity becomes a true vocation.
The Role of Jehovah’s Witnesses—The 2nd possible attitude is to say the government is competent to determine that alternative service constitutes their Christian vocation for the time being. This position seems precarious & I question whether it can be maintained as consistent with Christian theology and ethics. The position of Jehovah’s Witnesses that they cannot submit to conscription because they must always be free to “witness” to the faith, is in this respect surely a strong and impressive one, if not a clear and consistent, centrally Christian one. Where, then, does the State get the competence, or mandate to determine a Christian believer’s vocation?
There remains a 3rd possible position, namely that the State is doing evil in taking the individual out of the work to which God has called them. Pacifists in general, & especially Christian pacifists have to ask: Is conforming with any provisions of a draft law, [in reality] promoting war through conscription? It is important that pacifists not give the impression to the government of gratitude for the concession to conscience, after inflicting conscription on the people. If non-resistant pacifists get off the high ground of bowing [under] Caesar’s yoke, by letting Caesar inflict civilian conscript service upon them, they are immediately on the low ground, with little bargaining power. The treatment of WW I’s COs influenced fairly liberal provisions for WWII COs.
Two Miles or None—We [thus] have the choice of not going along at all or going 2 miles, not a skimpy [grudging] 1 mile. There was not a great deal of this glad “second miling” on the part of conscript COs. It was for many making the best of a bad business; [compulsion] colored this whole experience. Service of others, fellowship with them, on the one hand, and non-cooperation with evil, witness against injustice, non-violent resistance, on the other hand are essential in every pacifist’s life. “For some their witness was their service, for others, their service was their witness, or resistance. No matter how “liberal” or considerate” the conditions for administering alternative service may be in the estimation of Government officials or the pacifist agencies, if alternative service is accepted [to any degree], it pose grave problems from the standpoint of Christian vocation.
And if one is allowed to remain in one’s job [while others don't, he does], to a degree benefit from discrimination. It is hoped that [in the future] a good many young men will be “furloughed” to projects at home and abroad which won't be exclusively for COs, & which will have real social value. It is my conclusion that the consistent attitude toward conscript alternative service is that which regards submission or non-resistance to the State’s evil as the Christian man’s vocation or duty, [rendered] joyously & with readiness to carry it the 2nd mile.
The Immature 18-year-old—There are 18-year-olds who have a strong aversion to war and a leaning toward pacifism. But if left with the choice between the army and jail, all but a few will choose the army. They could develop into a pacifist if they had a third choice (i.e. civilian service). A counselor will want to avoid inducing a young man to take this or that course, while still making a particular young man aware of their own thoughts and feelings. It is my impression that pacifist [laymen and] ministers will work harder to keep a young pacifist from [choosing to] go to jail rather than into civilian service, than to [have them] think seriously about not going into the army. Why should they have this reaction?
Army or Jail?—I should feel much deeper grief over having possibly had some part in getting a some youth to go into the armed forces than over having some responsibility for bringing a young man to go to prison for conscience’s sake. Are the qualms people have about COs going to prison related to [the strong social disapproval of going to prison, and the strong social approval of becoming a soldier]? Is it just possible that we older people are sometimes concerned with sparing ourselves [disapproval] when we think we are solely concerned about sparing teenagers?
The great mass of teenagers are going to be put through rigorous military training with all the hardships, and perhaps they will actually experience modern war at the front. Is [the prison experience] vastly more terrible than this? Do we have a right to [divert energy] from lifting the curse of conscription from the mass of youth into an effort to secure alternative conscript service for COs?
The “Non-religious” CO—[Religious COs are eligible for the IV-E classification; non-religious COs are not.] For the religious man it should surely be a central and indispensable part of his faith that discrimination, most of all where two men acting in obedience to conscience are involved, is unthinkable and that if there is dis-crimination, he cannot be the beneficiary of it.
Advocacy of alternative service for the teenage CO is based on consideration relating to the pacifist movement's future, as well as on the effect on the COs themselves. It seems to me we have to decide whether our problem is to find shelter for COs or to find freedom & the opportunity for self-expression & service. The draft now gets the young man at the age when it is difficult for him to stand out from his fellows. The additional number of pacifists recruited because of alternative service may turn out to be very small. [There is a trend] toward greater conformity & regimentation. There may be a time when army or jail may be the only choices.
The Nature of Conscription—Participation in alternative service is often defended on the grounds that our opposition is to war rather than conscription. We are ready to render whatever service of a civilian character may be imposed on us. The question with which we are dealing is that of conscripting youth in and for modern war. Since we are opposed to all war, we should be opposed to military conscription, for the additional element of coercion by government enters in; young boys are deprived of freedom of choice in virtually all essential matters. This is a fundamental violation of the human spirit which must cause the pacifist to shudder.
Here I wish to suggest that even if the question is the conscription of non-pacifists, it is a fundamental mistake for pacifists to relent in their opposition to this evil. The terrible thing that we should never lose sight of, to which we should never reconcile our spirits to, is that the great mass of 18-year-olds are drafted for war. They are given no choice; few are capable of making that choice.
We need to ask ourselves whether conscription is really a lesser evil. As soon as [the State has], by simple decree, created millions of soldiers, [it seems] proven that they have sovereign rights over [everyone], that there are no rights higher than theirs. Where then, will their usurpations stop? It can't be successfully denied that totalitarianism, depersonalization, conscription, war, & the power-state are inextricably linked together. As pacifists we can have nothing to do with war. I don’t think it’s possible to distinguish between war and conscription.
Disobedience Becomes Imperative—Non-conformity, Holy Disobedience, becomes virtuous & necessary for spiritual self-preservation, when the impulse to conform is the instrument which is used to subject men to totalitarian rule & involve them in permanent war. [It seems wisest] not to wait for evil to catch up to us, but to go out to meet it—to resist—before it has gone any further. To me it seems that submitting to conscription for civilian service is permitting oneself to be branded by the State. A decision by the pacifists to break completely with conscription, to give up the idea that we can “exert more influence” if we conform & don't resist to the uttermost—this might awaken our countrymen to a realization of the precipice on the edge of which we stand.
The Reconciling Resistance—Thus to embrace Holy Disobedience isn't to substitute Resistance for Reconciliation; it is to practice both Reconciliation and Resistance. We are not practicing love toward our fellow-citizens, if, against our deepest insight, we help to fasten the chains of conscription and war upon them. Our works of healing and reconstruction will have a deeper and more genuinely reconciling effect when they are not entangled with Conscript service for the [welfare] of the US or any other war-making State. The Gospel of reconciliation will be preached with a new freedom and power when the preachers have broken decisively with American militarism. [There may be fierce opposition to our message, but perhaps then they will see again [as Paul did] the face of Christ and the vision of a new Jerusalem.
To depart from the common way in response to a conscription law is one thing. To leave father, mother, wife, child and one’s own life at the behest of Christ or conscience is quite another. We should understand that for the individual to pit himself in Holy Disobedience against the war-making and conscription is now the beginning of the core of any realistic and practical movement against war and for a more brotherly world. [War continues and conscription continues because of the prevailing feeling that] “we have no choice.” [In the face of this feeling], the human being, the child of God, must assert his humanity and his sonship again. He must exercise the choice which he no longer has as something accorded him by society. He must understand that this naked human being is the one real thing in the face of the mechanized institutions of our age. [We need] “the kind of morality which compels the individual conscience, be the group right or wrong.”
23. Clash by Night (by Wallace F. Hamilton; 1944)
PREFATORY NOTE—Clash by Night was written in response to an award offered by Pendle Hill Publications to members of the Civilian Public Service (CPS). Wallace Hamilton was a member of the CPS unit at MA General Hospital.
["What Else Can We Do" [Besides War]?]—[I am visiting the Navy Yard with a friend, now a Navy Lieutenant]. Rows of long warehouses and sheds stretched out into the distance. [Army vehicles lined the road, with tanks on flat cars]. Cranes lifted girders; the bright blue lights of welding torches lit up repair depots. He showed me the drydock, a vast open space that looked like a crater on the moon, with tiny figures, beetle-sized, working at the bottom. There was so much bigness, so much of everything; it made a [man feel tiny]. There were several more like this, 4 or 5 more on the Atlantic Coast, a couple on the West Coast, built to handle even British ships.
We drove to a long dock with 2 destroyers tied to either side. His was old, built in 1939, but still sleek, narrow, powerful, and compact. A welter of superstructure, catwalks, and cables seemed to fit miraculously into the simple-lined framework and form a solid working unity. There was more tangle and systematic confusion, more bigness within the ship. The Lieutenant's voice was dry and factual as he explained how to work the AA gun.
From the bridge we could see the whole panorama of the shipyard, the sheds, warehouses, cranes, other ships, locomotives—the valves, levers and gears of the whole monster machinery that I said was wrong, should be torn down and beaten into plowshares. After dinner, he took me aft to his "battle-station," an inhospitable-looking platform of grillwork, where the AA gunfire was controlled. [I offered him a cigarette, and with that the "tour" ended. We tried to start a "talk-of-home" conversation, but] as quickly as the conversation started, it died, leaving us standing at the platform railing looking out to the lights of other ships in silhouette.
We asked how each other was doing. His response was a shrug & "No complaints. Stupid. But what else can we do?" What answer did I have that wasn't a blind assertion of faith? Didn't he have a faith too, that some worthy peace would come of the sins of war? Beneath tolerance, beneath freedom, beneath friendship, [the little bits of common ground], there was civil war. "We are here ... Where ignorant armies clash by night." I belonged to the miniscule "we" of pacifism, & he to the mammoth "they" of war. Across the breastworks of faith our ignorance clashed. He said, "I hope you don't think that all this dressing up in uniforms & running around taking pot shots at people & [being shot at] is our idea of amusement ... we'd just as soon be doing something else" ... Maybe you guys have time ... to figure things out ... so it won't happen ... somebody's got to ..."
[The Struggle to End War]—No evidence need be put down here to prove that we are losing what little control they ever had over the war system. By conservative estimates at this war's end this war's dead will be 1/20 of the human race. The abolition of war has always been a case of "ought to." It is now becoming a case of "got to"; the moral imperative is becoming a social necessity. Worldwide, pacifists have held the conviction that no war can ever be just [or anything but a sin against God. This conviction gives them a functional part in the struggle to overcome war; pacifists must be taken into account. Pacifists must prepare for the next world armistice. Pacifists must have a clear idea of what they are opposing. Where are pacifists going? How are we getting there? How are we in danger of being sidetracked? Those pacifists, some of them young, who have experienced war as civilians carried on their lives in their home places. Perhaps this has made them less conscious than they should be of the monstrous human distortions of the world in which they live. A life responsible to its own aspirations and ideals is far more constructive and meaningful than a life uprooted and twisted by some external will. A vigorous and effective segment of the peace movement's leadership will come from those now serving in the armed forces. They will bring to the pacifist movement a strength and knowledge that will be needed.
[Conscientious Objectors (COs) as Segregated Beings]—A large part of postwar pacifist activity will be carried on by men who are now in jail on parole, or in the Civilian Public Service (CPS). External circumstances have forced them to explore byways of their beliefs that would normally have gone unexplored. COs have proven that they are stubborn. The peace movement can rely on those labeled "COs" to carry their activated beliefs into the postwar movement. Where are COs going? How are they getting there? How are they in danger of being sidetracked? From the time they are classified by their draft board until they are released from government control, COs are segregated beings.
Whether in prison or CPS camps, COs were physically segregated; camp segregation was not acute until the camps were opened in isolated areas. Physical segregation [was presented as] "Church and State alike seek to defend individual sovereignty, the right of conscience, and freedom of religion even in wartime ... [The camps] open new educational, social, and spiritual resources within the campers; it reveals them to their community and spreads the message of reconciling love." As time went on, however, restless discontent became stronger, and stronger. CPS men wanted to work with people; they wanted to help people. Prisoners wanted paroles back to the jobs for which they were best trained and fitted. Some elder pacifists knew that prolonged periods of forced segregation are not spiritually enlightening, and worked to change that.
CPS administrators attempted the nerve-racking feat of going the 2nd mile in 2 different directions, between an infringing government & a dynamic camp personnel; special service units were set up. Nearly half of the total personnel of CPS is working in special-service units or detached service, and some of these services are integrated into a nonpacifist communal life. CO's who have been back in society often realize that physical segregation is only part of the problem. [The problem is also perception, with being a CO as the primary identifier.]
[CO: In a Strange Community]—The drafted or paroled CO is in a strange community to which he has come to do a job; [he has no past, no identity with that community]. The CO is likely to find only limited rapport. The subject of war will be studiously & graciously avoided, or the subject quickly changed if it is brought up. The CO wants to talk about one's ideas about war, to test them against the ideas of others, find out why people support the war and how they feel about it. In the name of tolerance that gate of communication is closed.
He has been absent from the home community. Both CO & the community have gone through experiences the other hasn't shared; adjustments are necessary regardless beliefs. One's beliefs make these adjustments complicated to varying degrees. The home community seldom entirely rejects the CO; strange ideas about war have now become a social fact. There is a wealth of difference between any antiwar sentiment & refusal to take up arms. Perhaps the bitterest fact is that the CO has cut one's self off from one's own generation. Those who hold out as COs & who come in contact with familiar men in uniform are apt to find the deepest understanding anywhere outside of strictly pacifist circles. For all the latent soldiers and latent COs, the choice has been made and the paths have split. [The surrounding social environment, the orders given, the attitudes held will have an effect] and ideologies will draw apart. Thus, the CO finds [one's] self apart from one's work community, home community, and the experience of one's generation. Part of the COs current real-life drama is the willing suspension of belief. [Despite this, there is an inner monologue going on with society's support of the war].
[Helping the Segregated CO]—For the vast majority of young COs, being drafted is the 1st time they come into contact with government, nation, & society as a whole. The ideas gained from this 1st close contact with society are likely to be carried on through life. The taught ideas of early years will give way to experienced ideas of 1st contact. Those who help segregated COs should examine carefully the patterned reactions being set up. Understanding & help are needed, for segregation has given COs strange ideas. COs find that companionship amongst themselves, [even with their broad spectrum of ideas], has a great deal of meaning; there is "we-ness." Companionship with other pacifists is a source of strength. When the CO is finally segregated with other COs, one finds it a refreshing experience to have companionship with whose basic ideological tenets one can agree.
[Unification by Dynamic Division]—[CO congregations are not] likely to be quiet, loving, spiritual fellowships. They can disagree with fervor, [and tear one another's ideas to shreds. The reality of CPS camps has shaken the hopes of visiting COs with their cherished images of ideal CO communities]. They fail to realize that the gusty chaos they have seen is in itself a creative process, which might be called "Unification by Dynamic Division." Some groups of COs are unified by common doctrine. In those CPS camps administered by Friends, there is a great deal of unification necessary. Only some unification is possible, which among rugged and strongly opinionated individualists leads inevitably to a good deal of thrashing about. COs can make a camp meeting to discuss bedmaking sound like a crisis session of the prewar French Deputies. [What may seem like] irrelevancies may simply be Fundamentalist, Socialist, Anarchist, or Quaker variations on a single theme. Myriads of startling discoveries [about one's own beliefs] are made when COs congregate.
Cohesive human relations can be wrecked on the assumption of agreement where no agreement exists. The roads to peace are many and they are all directed to one temporal goal, but it is fruitless for a man to travel 2 or 3 different roads at once. COs have to work with each other not only as personification of various ideologies, but as people. The problems of communal life have to be met and some reasonably well-working arrangements has to be made somehow. In spite of differences, COs develop a sense of WE, a "consciousness of kind." [The current group of CPS men will not make the mistake of setting up another Civilian Public Service system.
[COs: WE and THEY]—The necessary counterpart of a sense of WE is a sense of THEY. If a sense of WE is the means of social change, THEY are the ends of social change. No CO is normal, rational and honest at all times, but as members of a movement, they do take some pains to be so in public. The sense of WE makes the group feel responsible for public relations, and those hurting the public image are likely to develop a sense of public relations if they had none before. COs begin to to think that there is some sort of invisible picket fence that separates one from the rest of the citizenry. A what-is-expected-of-one set of artificial reactions starts to develop. One guards oneself against close associations, because of the potential for a big rift that affects the whole group. Because of a lack of ease it is hard for one to have any real rapport with people, even old acquaintances. What makes war supporters fight?
Reconnoitering THEM is a good idea, but COs are often pre-occupied with some interesting controversy on the national scene. Another factor in the CO's mentality is repugnance for [the overwhelming abundance of support in public opinion for violent retribution]. By rejecting varying accounts of what is being written about the war, one is bound to miss some of the honest reporting that gets through censorship. Some of the suggestions in this writing are very relevant to pacifists. One will have difficulty in understanding THEIR thinking during the postwar era if one has little knowledge of THEIR bases of information. Reconnoitering requires effort, incurs friction & argument, & considerable strain on social relations. The hazy and distorted picture which the CO has of THEM is perhaps the greatest difficulty which one has to overcome to be an effective pacifist in the future.
[THEY Categories: Sympathizers, Citizenry, Janissaries]—Who are THEY as the segregated CO sees them? The 3 principal categories of THEY are: Sympathizers, Citizenry, and Janissaries. In a hitchhiking situation with a CO, a Sympathizer will ask questions and offer a cigarette; a Citizen will accept the right to their own ideas; a Janissary (avid war supporter) will throw the CO out of the car. Toward Sympathizers, the CO feels pleased that one has found agreement; the agreement has well-defined limits. The CO is acutely embarrassed to be called the "real hero of the war"; they have too much doubt, fear, and uncertainty to feel like one. The CO thought that a great many of those people were part of WE, not part of THEM. Their presence and their respect for COs gives one the feeling that perhaps one has not acted in vain. The CO faces a dilemma with the Citizenry. The roots of one's pacifist convictions are embedded in democratic soil. [The CO believes in democratic process and] the Citizenry as an active force, and generally a force for good. [There is not much enthusiasm for the war], but there is plenty of support. The CO concludes that the Citizenry has been sadly duped by the Janissaries.
[Janissaries: The Imperial Guard of War]—This group is the CO's special concern. They are the body of enlisted regulars serving under officers who see war as an expression of human nature. A nation armed to the teeth at all times will avoid unnecessary wars & win the necessary ones. Some Janissary officers are in the armed forces; war preparation is their chosen occupation. Other Jannisary officers are in the press, government, & industry. In peacetime the Jannisaries bide their time, advocates preparedness, & nurtures [the war side of "patriotism]." They feel a need to suppress those elements in society that would hinder the job [of brute force] victory.
The contact point of CO and Janissary is strained and sometimes ferocious and explosive. The CO is well aware of the Janissary's hostility. CPS men are denied foreign service and even respectable national service. The Citizenry may see reason in the CO's needs and desires, but in wartime the Janissary rules and must be served. The CO and the Janissary obstruct what the other considers to be their jobs: promote and advocate peace; promote military strength and overpowering victory, respectively. Since most COs contact society-as-a-whole only during a wartime experience, the CO bases his plans on his wartime conception of THEY. The CO is going to deal with THEM not as they ought to be, but as he thinks they are.
[Pacifist vs. Janissary: False Dichotomy]—COs tend to assume that Pacifists and Janissaries are 2 opposing dynamisms, with the Citizenry as a reactive being, its actions determined by the relative strengths of the 2 opposing dynamisms. America went into WWI on the crest of a Janissary wave; pacifists were mobbed, tarred and feathered. After the war, [Janissaries were seen] as "merchants of death." Because of world events and the Depression, the Janissaries gained strength again, and eventually the Citizenry belonged to the Janissary again. But the Janissaries fear that a wave of disillusionment will engulf the Citizenry when it begins to realize the full import of the war just fought. They act now to preserve the will to war in time of peace; [the Pacifists brace themselves to] oppose this intrusion. [Young COs in pacifist leadership roles] may evolve a program to eradicate the Janissaries as guardians of the nation's will to war. This concept of Pacifist and Janissary as a [cycle of] dynamisms playing on a passive Citizenry is a delusion, a sidetrack a fraud. Pacifist and Janissary is each the other, part of a single dynamism—the Citizenry.
[Understanding Who WE Are]—COs are going to have to consider the question of who we are, in order to better to understand who THEY are, and what relationship WE and THEY have to one another. Caxton Doggett writes: "If some Christians define wars with reference to something beyond the state and call them retribution, other Christians define revolutions with reference to something beyond the facts of war and state and call them reformations ... [The Pacifist's] special calling is to be agent and if need be a victim of divine reformation." Few COs will say they are agents of a divinely created Citizenry, which struggles toward God's will and Truth. The CO has experience with Sympathizers and Janissaries, but the longer one remains segregated the less one understands the vast majority of the Citizenry. Yet the CO was once both pacifist and Janissary, not because one was either, but because one was a Citizen.
In WWII, the CO became a specialized cell of the human race, the articulate personification of the human need for those affected by war for reformation. The CO finds it hard to understand how both CO and Janissary are agents of the Citizenry. Why do people think it is necessary to keep nurtured within themselves the will to war? Most pacifists believe that there is that of God in everyone, but ignore that there is also that of Satan. [This is illustrated in] the dealings of groups and groups, nations and nations, which are almost bereft of what someone in ordinary life would consider to be the most elemental human decencies.
[Citizenry: Need of & Doubts About War]—For transgression of the laws of commonweal there is retribution. For the transgression of Nazism, Americans made the only retribution they [believed was strong enough to] stem the tide of evil—war. As long as the Citizenry thinks it has need of the Janissary, the Janissary will continue to exist. Trying to stamp out the Janissary will be a hopeless task. While the Citizenry acknowledged the evil of Nazism, it was very dubious about the retribution, the war which the Janissary proposed. [Since Hitler was one result of the 1st World War], the Citizenry questioned what would next escape from Pandora's Box of War. As the Citizenry questioned one war, it questioned war as a method. By wondering what war proved besides brutality, death, destruction, the Citizenry has come to see that there is something basically and structurally wrong with war as a system, because wars become transgressions themselves. The maelstrom of war is a vortex of nothingness, [annihilation]. "Reformation" is an urgent necessity common to everyone touched by war.
[Sharing Knowledge of War's Evil]—In the COs segregation, one can't know how widely & how deeply one's knowledge of war's evil is shared. [From external behavior, one might conclude that few see war as a CO or Hemingway does]. Ernie Pyle writes: "The most vivid change [in troops after considerable fighting] was the casual & workshop manner in which they talk about killing. [I had been gone, so] it hadn't been necessary for me to make the change along with them ... It was only spasmodically that I seemed capable of realizing how real and how awful war was ... I could look on rows of fresh graves [or] ... mutilated bodies without flinching or feeling deeply ... [Only at night, after] thinking & thinking & thinking ... [did] the enormity of all those newly dead strike me like a living nightmare." In moments of retrospect, one truly & bitterly hates war, for its sacrifice & futility. So long as pacifists remain agents of reformation, they will keep on existing until that evil is reformed. The pacifist's job is to search for a possible & understandable answer to the simple question—What else can we do?
[COs Response to War's Evil]—By merely reiterating, reminding the Citizenry of war's evil and futility, the CO will make no contribution to reformation. The pacifist movement can expose the Janissaries' dirty work, done prior to and during the war. None of that is essentially reformative. It seems like THEY are giving hearty approval to the fighting. But the hearty approval doesn't exist. Few people can disagree with General Sherman's "War is Hell" analysis. The American CO is likely to consider oneself in civil opposition to the American Janissary. But the opposition WE face in THEY, the Janissary, is democratically controlled and has specific limitations, both self-imposed and externally imposed. The enemy THEY face has few moral controls and limitations.
The pacifist can lead a more comfortable existence if one can discount such details as "Mixed Transports," railroad cattle-cars carrying human beings, divided up into the useful & useless (disposable), further divided by roles of: hard labor; political prisoners; & forced prostitution; it is just another atrocity story. By ignoring the evil THEY confront, the CO can't appreciate the terrible dilemma THEY face. Let the CO try to figure out what to do about the creators & practitioners of Mixed Transports—besides using overwhelming, brute force & slaughtering them. Somebody's got to figure such things out. Another of the pacifist's jobs is to strive to create conditions that make dealing with evil & bringing reformation possible; the people will carry out the reformation.
[The COs' Lifelong Job]—The 1st step is to stop waging war one's self and be a conscientious objector. Becoming a CO is simply the imperfect social expression of primary allegiance to reformation. The Pacifist's special calling is to be an agent and if need be a victim of divine reformation. The important part of a pacifist is not the "won't power" [one is accused of exercising], but ones will power, ones vivid, decisive allegiance to reformation. The minimum objective of reformation is the eradication of the organized mass slaughter of groups of human beings by other groups of human beings. War includes neither [reasonable results nor betterment of humankind], and the more total war is, the less it resolves.
The only way to abolish war is to replace national sovereignty with an honest, workable world government, a federal government run by the consent and active participation of all the governments, with a bill of individual rights, power to tax, and its own police force. One government is the best expression of one humankind, one commonweal, one brotherhood, transcending cleavage, distinctions, and classifications. The hope of "One World" has been a hope shared by people the world over for a very long time. Only within the last century or so has the hope been considered even a remote possibility. Internationalists everywhere are saying, "Let's sit down together like reasonable people and organize." The only difficulty with doing that right now is that there do not seem to be enough reasonable people to sit down, organize and support the organization. How will the internationalist build an international organization after 2 world wars in a generation? How can a house of international goodwill be built on war-whipped sands of hatred, suspicion and greed?
Centrifugal Force (War) vs. Centripetal Force (Peacemaking)—[War is a supremely centrifugal, disintegrating force]. To counteract it there must be a centripetal, [a drawing inward, integrating] force. This joining-of-people-together, this essential condition of reformation must be worked for by many agents, especially in time of peace. Janissary agents do this good work, and then devote their energies to tearing down their own work—in time of war. [The propaganda changes from universal, international humanity in peacetime to valiant allies and evil foe in war. They respect centripetal force only in time of peace.
The American CO has developed, in varying degrees, a sense of WE and THEY, a sense of 2 forces that "clash by night." It is futile to attempt to suppress the Janissary, because the Citizenry will always turn to the Janissary when confronted with internationally intolerable evil. In time of peace the pacifist is usually indistinguishable from the ordinary internationalist and peace-lover. It is the pacifist's job to build in each country a determined body of people who will [resist the centrifugal (alienating, scattering) force of total war, and promote the centripetal (centering, gathering) force of international fellowship], by creating and keeping in contact with a core of reasonable folk who can [and will hold to that fellowship in peace and in war.] In war and in peace there will be progress, constant pressure toward the center point of union.
As the CO builds an organization and works in conjunction with other centripetal forces, there will come a day when the conditions of reformation will have been fulfilled. At that point all will be able to sit down, with knowledge and justice, and build a parliament of humankind, a federation of the world. Beyond that point all will know [peace as they have never known it before].
[Introduction]—Historians have long emphasized the importance of wars in US history; war resistance has been virtually unmentioned. Even though violence & wars permeate much of our heritage, there is a solid tradition of anti-war activity. None of [our wars] have had the support of all Americans. The recent division of opinion over foreign policy has past parallels. [Even John Woolman in 1757 mentions] young men “tarrying abroad until it was over.” Such historical parallels can be pressed beyond their usefulness, yet they do point up the wide range of antiwar activity, both past and present. [5 types of anti-war activity will be mentioned here].
Religious Objection to War: The Quakers/Others—Religiously motivated pacifism has been an important ingredient in American history from colonial times, [especially from the Quakers]. Pennsylvania Quakers confronted difficult problems & had to make compromising decisions. During French & Indian war, several Friends decided to resign rather than continue to accept measures which they couldn’t in good conscience support.
The membership usually found itself divided on the position which individuals should take. John Woolman refused to pay war taxes; most did pay. [He found it hard to go against the majority], “but to do a thing contrary to my conscience appeared yet more dreadful.” [At the end of the Mexican War an Indiana congressman said], “[Quakers] being inconsistent wasn’t the least conspicuous [fraility] … even on the subject of war … [they weren't] as conscientious as they claim to be.” Aiding the enemy was a charge frequently leveled against Quakers. In recent years many Friends have served in the military organization without jeopardizing membership.
While the government has tried to avoid needless religious persecution by making legal provision for conscientious objection, there were Friends who could not accept the alternatives to military service available to them. One of those whose sufferings served as an inspiration for later war-objectors is Cyrus Pringle, a Vermont Quaker of the Civil War era (PH pamphlet #122). Pringle wrote: “I was very quiet in my mind as I lay there on the ground [soaked] with the rain of the previous day, exposed to the heat … suffering keenly … And if I dared the presumption, I should say that I caught a glimpse of heavenly pity… I was sad, that one endeavoring to follow our dear Master should be so generally regarded a despicable and stubborn culprit.” For the most part, Quaker pacifism was more moderate, finding expression in the lives of men working to heal the wounds of war and remove the causes of future wars [e.g. Rufus Jones, Henry J. Cadbury, David Richie, E. Raymond Wilson].
The 2 best known of the peace sects, other than the Friends, are the Mennonites and the Church of the Brethren. Mennonites believed that the state of grace they enjoyed forbade war for them. Most found them-selves exempt from military service. The Brethren had a tradition similar to Mennonites, though they mixed more with the world and were more divided on the stand each member should take. Very few of them became war resisters in the modern sense. Many Protestants outside the 3 historical Peace Churches also came to reject war on the basis of personal conscience. Catholic opposition to war has taken on new significance since the founding of the Catholic Worker Movement in 1933. Some of the more militant leaders of the war resistance movement are Catholic (e.g. David and Philip Berrigan, David Miller, and Cornell).
Selective Conscientious Objection—Some individuals limit their objection to a particular war rather than to all wars; they do not oppose war in the abstract. [They object to]: country’s justification for involvement; method of warfare; supporting the wrong side. The growing resistance to the Vietnam War has brought the selective conscientious objector to the public’s notice. Historically, those who supported the other side include: Tories in the American Revolution; southern sympathizers in the Civil War; pro-Germans in World Wars I and II.
The Mexican War was a conflict which seriously divided the American people. The best known selective conscientious objector of this war was Henry David Thoreau. His one night in Concord jail produced the famous essay on “Civil Disobedience,” which profoundly influenced such men as Tolstoy, Gandhi, and Martin Luther King. It was an impassioned plea for moral commitment in the face of injustice. More recently, Socialists, anarchists and members of the IWW opposed WWI as an imperialist war. Carl Haessler regarded himself “as a patriotic political objector, acting largely from public and social grounds.”
War Resistance as a Phase of Reform—Much of the anti-war thinking & activity in our national past has been associated with a version of another & better plan for society than the one which persisted in the US. The 1st peace movement coincided with such other reforms as the temperance, prison reform, handicapped education, and slavery opposition movements. War resistance was also a part of the history of those American utopian communities that tried to remake society by gathering people together and providing the world with an example of a better social structure. [Beginning with] the War of 1812, the Shakers declared their abstinence from violence, requested draft exemption (Civil War), and held a convention diminish the prospects of war (1905).
The Oneida & Hopedale communities also had strong anti-war overtones. These 3, along with other 19th century utopians had a working model for a warless society. The Socialists & members of the IWW who refused to fight in World War I were involved in reforming or basically changing their society. As supporters of the international working class they wouldn’t war against working class counterparts in other nations. [Ernest L. Meyer hoped for an increase in war objectors]. Meyer added that if the dream should prove idle, “Well then, in our defeat we have sacrificed no other lives. But the dream of the militarists? … Ah, what blood is on their heads.”
Opposition to Conscription—One of the reforms which war resisters have recently emphasized is the elimination of conscription from our national life. [Conscription was resisted by New England during the war of 1812]. Although the Civil War law was more an inducement to volunteering than a well-devised project for raising conscripts, reaction to it was swift and extreme, including draft riots in various cities.
It wasn’t until the 20th century that conscription became a big feature of American life, permanently it would seem, after World War II. Those who resisted the draft were perpetuating a tradition. In 1940, a peacetime conscription bill was passed; it offered alternative service. There were objectors who couldn’t accept alternative service; conscription itself had to be opposed. The Union Theologians stated: “We believe that by opposing Selective Service, we will be striking at the heart of totalitarianism as well as war …” Current opposition to the draft is a continuation of that war resistance phase which 1st assumed meaningful expression during the Civil War.
Toward a Resistance Movement/Current War Resistance—Draft refusal is part of the program young people call “The Movement." Since the early 19th century there have been organizations dedicated just to war’s abolition, although the members of such groups frequently were involved in other reform movements. [There were 3 disastrous wars after the Revolutionary War, up to & including] the War of 1812. It was shortly after these wars that 30 Americans organized the 1st peace society in New York. The American Peace Society was organized in 1828. William Ladd said: “We hope to… promote the practice … of submitting national differences to amicable discussion & arbitration … as becomes rational creatures, & not by physical force as is worthy of brute beasts.
William Ladd & the American Peace Society’s mild philosophy failed to attract those taking a stronger position against war. In 1838 William Lloyd Garrison, Henry C. Wright, & others formed the New England Non-Resistance Society. [They made an unequivocal statement against all aspects of war]. The growing impulse to-wards inward civil conflict, the reformers ambivalent attitude toward a war against slavery, & the Civil War itself seriously disrupted these early organizations.
In 1866 the Universal Peace Union appeared. Its scant 10,000 membership kept the peace idea [& disarmament] alive, & cooperated with a French peace society; the Union’s guiding spirit was Alfred Love. During or shortly after World War I appeared 3 organizations most active between the wars & still active today: Wo-men’s International League for Peace & Freedom; Fellowship of Reconciliation; & the War Resisters League. Since WWII new anti-war organizations include: Peacemakers; SANE; Students for a Democratic Society; Women Strike for Peace; Quaker Action Group; Student Peace Union. These are part of a long, American tradition.
Today’s young war resisters are living in an age which may well be characterized as the age of the balance of terror. Never before have people witnessed the stupidity and horror of war so vividly and with such dependable regularity, every evening at the dinner hour. Television has certainly added a new dimension to the anti-war movement. Youthful fervor, dedication & concern is often expressed in emotional reaction rather than reason. An increased number of older people are also alienated from our acquisitive, materialistic society and from the wars which it cannot seem to avoid. We could all, young and old, profit from a deeper understanding of the history of war resistance as a balance to, and perhaps a corrective for our tendency to emphasize war in our nation’s past. [Perhaps some day, peace movement leaders will be mentioned in textbooks alongside leaders of war].
286. War Taxes: Experiences of Philadelphia YM Quakers through the American Revolution (by Elaine J. Crauderueff; 1989)
About the Author—Elaine J. Crauderueff has worked for Friends in several capacities involving teaching and curriculum. She is also an active member of the war Tax Concerns Support Committee. This pamphlet is a result of work done for a master’s thesis in religious studies at Villanova University in 1986 titled “War Taxes: The experiences of Philadelphia YM Quakers 1681-1800.”
[Introduction]—In the winter of 1979, I began an unplanned spiritual journey. I was working on a flyer about governmental budget priorities. I read “The Moral Equivalent of Disarmament,” which said in part: “How much longer can church continue quoting to government its carefully researched figures on military expenditures and social needs [while] serving up the dollars funding the berserk priorities? Our bluff has been called.”
During my spiritual journey I came to a quiet and very firm clarity that I could not pay war taxes. I explained to the IRS what I was doing with the money I wasn’t sending to them. Every year since then, my husband Mike and I have resisted war taxes in a variety of ways that have seemed right for us to make our witness. The results have not been dramatic, at least in terms of affecting the federal budget. We don’t spend a lot of time worrying about it. We have come to know that it is the least we can do to witness to God’s love and power.
The “Holy Experiment”—During the years 1681-1800, the Philadelphia YM members considered war taxes many times as a religious concern based on the Friends Peace Testimony of 1660. The struggles, occasional unity, love & courage of Friends who preceded us are offered as witness to challenge & encourage Friends today.
War taxes were an issue for Philadelphia YM Friends right away. Quakers controlled the PA Assembly & were influential in NJ until the French & Indian War. Compromise was used for political survival. The Crown asked for military requisitions. In 1693, legislators vote for a small tax for military defense in order to get “approval for laws.” Objections were made before funds were allocated; rarely were religious objections raised. Money “for the King or Queen’s use” was the norm from 1693-1756. The 2nd type of response was to raise a war tax.
A few refused to pay for war in any form. [Others were offered or sought ways of side-stepping the issue by paying for war indirectly]. English Friends were not concerned about how the government used their taxes, believing that to be Caesar’s responsibility. Several attempts were made to convince Philadelphia Friends to conform to the tax-paying ways of English Friends. Elizabeth Redford was the notable exception and was eldered by her meeting. In the 1st half of the 1700s, Philadelphia YM advocated obedience.
Philadelphia YM in an epistle wrote: “When at any time it hath pleased God to suffer the rulers that hath been over us to Impose any thing against out Allegience to God, we have Patiently suffered under them until the Lord [opened] their Understandings and mollify their Hearts towards us.” A few Friends felt that their allegiance to God was violated by the war tax of 1711; some refused and were jailed. Friends generally paid the war tax during this period. [How willing they were] is not clear from the surviving sources.
In 1722 Philadelphia YM included the war tax issue at its sessions; the lack of unity, yet growing concern was clear. [1736 Meetings called for obedience in] “the payment of Duties to the Crown.” In 1739, the YM asked Friends to be “vigilant in keeping the peaceable Principles professed … & in no manner to joyn with [those] ma-king warlike preparations offensive or defensive.” Assemblyman James Logan said: “All Civil Government … is founded on Force.” If Quakers could not be pacifists & participate in politics, they should get out of politics.
The End of the “Holy Experiment”—When the legislators continued to approve war sums, with the normal equivocations, they were moving headlong into a confrontation with an emerging & growing spiritual revitalization in the Philadelphia YM. John Woolman, John Churchman & others addressed the Assembly as follows: “we shall at all times heartily & freely contribute … for benevolent purposes … [but] we apprehend that many among us will be under the necessity of suffering, rather than consenting to paying a tax for [war] purposes.”
The Assembly responded with great indignation. They compared their 1755 bill with the 1711 war tax bill, even though in their bill they were spending money on war directly (The Crown spent the money in the 1711 bill). A Philadelphia YM committee wrote a radical interpretation of the Peace Testimony. Friends were increasingly alarmed at the legislators’ behavior, and as a body and as individuals labored with its members in the Legislature to get their resignations; 6 resigned from these efforts. “The Epistle of Tender Love and Caution,” at the end of 1755, was the 1st YM statement by a committee, endorsing individual and corporate war tax resistance.
Friends Reaction to War Tax—The actions Philadelphia YM & individuals took on war taxes during the French & Indian War reveal an evolving understanding of the Peace Testimony to be more dynamic. John Woolman wrote: “I couldn’t see that [upright-hearted men paying such taxes] was sufficient reason for me to do so. [Danger to the society would result if “by small degrees there might be an approach toward that of fighting, till we came so near that the distinction would be little else but a peaceable people’s name.” Joshua Evans wrote: “it Opened very clear to me … that to hire men to do what I couldn’t for conscience sake do was very Inconsistent. I refused to defray war expences (tho my part might appear as a drop in the Ocean, yet it is made up of drops.”
Assemblyman James Pemberton resigned from the Assembly that had become a war Assembly. His brother Israel advocated war tax resistance; this embarrassed London Quakers. James Pemberton noted: “A number of us refuse taxes; most comply with it & censure those who don’t.” There was fear that other religious liberties would be sacrificed if the tax issue were pursued. There were indications that there was support throughout YM for war tax resisters but not endorsement. The resisters asked: What are the consequences to other Friends, to non-Friends, & to oneself when taxes are paid for war? They each made clear decisions against paying war taxes, & yet asked individuals not to accept their answers but to ask the Spirit of Christ for personal guidance.
The Revolutionary War Period/Taking a Stand: Amending the Discipline—During the Revolutionary War period Friends in America faced the war tax issue directly, and the meeting’s control over individual behavior was vastly expanded to include clothing, furniture, marriage, fighting, and military assistance. Members could be eldered and disowned for violating Society discipline. How would individual Friends respond to war taxes and formal Advice? What would result in taking a radical position on the war tax issue?
The war tax issue [was especially difficult, because] it was “difficult to separate in a time of war the support due to the State’s usual demands & needs from those directly & obviously for war purposes.” The use of Continental Currency was an issue that highlights the daily dilemmas that confronted Friends who were conscientiously opposed to supporting war. It “was considered a covert means of taxation to finance the prosecution of war.” The YM decided to allow each person to determine individually what was right action, & to “abide in true love & Charity” [with those of opposing view]. [John Cowgill of Duck Creek & Thomas Watson of Buckingham suffered ostracizing, boycott, public ridicule, jail, & court martial for faithfulness to their religious duty].
By 1776 the war tax issue was a yearly meeting concern. Friends in New Jersey felt it their duty to refuse to pay. Meeting for Sufferings note that this may result in an increase in refusers. At the 1776 Fall YM Friends concluded that: “Such who make Religious Profession with us … and [they or their family or servants] pay any Fine, Penalty, or Tax, in lieu of their personal services for carrying on the War do thereby violate our Christian Testimony, and by so doing manifest that they are not in Religious Fellowship with us.”
The Meeting for Sufferings again considered the tax issue just prior to the 1778 YM. Chester Quarter asked: At what point should a Friend refuse to support what in peacetime would clearly be acceptable, but in war might actually or implicitly support the war effort? The YM wrote the [tax resister’s intent to] maintain the Peace Testimony “hath remarkably tended to unite us in deep sympathy with the seed of Life in their hearts, … [all members should] avoid complying with the injunctions & requisitions made for the purpose of carrying on War, which may produce uneasiness to themselves or tend to increase the sufferings of their Brethren.” In 1780, the YM recommended: “according to the Advices given forth by this Meeting at sundry Times, … the Members of our religious Society be again exhorted to attend the Monitions of divine Grace, and carefully guard against suppressing them in either themselves or others.”
After the war, the government carried a huge war debt. Most Friends paid the taxes for defraying the war debt. Gloucester and Salem Meetings queried: What should this Meeting do about those Friends who have a “religious scruple” that forbids paying taxes to defray the war debt, [and who have] suffered Distraint of their Goods, when “the greater part of the Society pay the same Taxes? Should these accounts be forwarded as Suffering to the Meeting for Sufferings? The YM affirmed that those Friends should keep careful accounts of their losses and forward them to the Meeting for Sufferings. The strong Minute from 1776 was not changed for well over 100 years. Compliance, though, was low and the practice of disownment over the tax issue did not lead to large numbers of disownments. It can be accurately said that Philadelphia YM endorsed and supported war tax resistance as a matter of enforceable discipline during the American Revolution.
Friends Witnessing—The stated Discipline of the Religious Society of Friends reflects the actual practice of the Society only to the extent that individuals choose to follow it. Some Friends followed it, but not nearly all. Since some Friends had political agendas, their neighbors assumed that all Friends motives were partisan. The total of recorded sufferings in Pennsylvania from property being seized was over £38,000. Some Friends were elected tax collectors against their will in order to inflict a fine for noncompliance.
Anthony Benezet and B. Mason wrote a tract entitled, in part, Reasons why we ought not to pay Taxes to support War. They refuted the usual Scriptural arguments and concluded with: “how then can we do that by proxy under the Character of a tax, which we cannot do in Person or with a Fine? … let us not through fear of suffering give out Money for the worst of purposes.” Samuel Allinson wrote Reasons against War, and paying Taxes for its Support, and discerned criteria for determining rightly led action: “Whenever an act strikes the mind with a religious fear that the performance of it will not be holding the light of the Gospel of Peace, or be a stumbling block to others it ought carefully to be avoided … that may be a cross today which was not before.”
Enforcing the Discipline—The possibility of being read out of meeting for paying war taxes irked Friends who had patriotic leanings. Isaac Sharpless wrote: The integrity of Quaker testimony against war was at stake, & gathering up all their reserve of strength & shutting their hearts against the pleadings for mercy … they cleared the Society of open complicity with war. There was a lot of variation in the severity of dealings with deviators.
Isaac Grey published Serious Address to Such of the People Called Quakers … as profess Scruples … concerning Obedience to Civil Authority in 1778. Grey accurately explained that “no precedent for censure or condemnation can be found in the history or proceedings of Friends. Why should there be pain and separation when “love and union might be preserved?” His Meeting labored with and eventually testified against him. Almost all who participated in the military were disowned; less than half who paid war taxes were disowned. A total of 239 Friends in Philadelphia were disowned for paying war taxes or fines.
The War Ends and the Witness Continues—Some Friends who participated in the war effort and had been disowned or left on their own began to reconsider. They began asking to be reunited with their meetings. Friends continued to suffer persecutions for nearly a decade after the war ended. A Quarterly and Yearly Meeting “Taxpaying was titely tried by a Large Commite and to pay refused.” After decades, Joshua Evans was still not defeated by the apparent ineffectiveness of his witness. Once he determined that paying for war was wrong, he could not do regardless of changing circumstances, including not paying a Duty on imported articles because: “I could see no material differences between paying by Tax or Duty [for war].”
Thoughts for the Present—Philadelphia YM continues to deal with the religious concern of war tax refusal; they have evolved detailed administrative policies to support employees who refuse war taxes. The historical witness of Philadelphia YM Friends is inspiring, inconsistent, and at times, embarrassing. However their struggle encourages us today to be both more patient and challenging with one another. What does Peace Testimony mean to individuals and the Society of Friends as a body today? [An especially meaningful part is: “That the spirit of Christ, by which we are guided, is not changeable, so as once to command us from a thing as evil and again to move unto it.” Is there nothing that we now believe to always be true?
While I confess still to desire the strength of a unified Quaker witness, I know that the Spirit of Christ makes the future results of all spiritual journeys, others and my own, unknowable. Just when I am comfortable accepting our diversity, John Woolman’s words call out: “To conform a little to a wrong way strengthens the hands of such who carry wrong customs to their utmost extent; the more a person appears virtuous and heavenly-minded, the more powerfully does his conformity operate in favour of evildoers.” History can be used to strengthen either side of the war tax argument. Friends [need to be] mindful that war tax resistance is not a matter of doctrine, but the result of an individually changed heart, a matter between each Friend and God.
Queries—What obligation do Friends have “to beware lest by our example we lead others wrong?” Do you respect others’ feelings on issues, even when you differ with them? What are the ways your Meeting responds to the war tax issue? Is your Meeting open to war tax resisters & war tax payers? How are you challenged by the diversity of opinion & action of Friends through the American Revolution? Are there Quaker beliefs or practices for which you would be willing to lose property or be jailed? How does the Spirit of Christ help you to discern what is right for you on this and other issues of conscience?
[Introduction]—In the winter of 1979, I began an unplanned spiritual journey. I was working on a flyer about governmental budget priorities. I read “The Moral Equivalent of Disarmament,” which said in part: “How much longer can church continue quoting to government its carefully researched figures on military expenditures and social needs [while] serving up the dollars funding the berserk priorities? Our bluff has been called.”
During my spiritual journey I came to a quiet and very firm clarity that I could not pay war taxes. I explained to the IRS what I was doing with the money I wasn’t sending to them. Every year since then, my husband Mike and I have resisted war taxes in a variety of ways that have seemed right for us to make our witness. The results have not been dramatic, at least in terms of affecting the federal budget. We don’t spend a lot of time worrying about it. We have come to know that it is the least we can do to witness to God’s love and power.
The “Holy Experiment”—During the years 1681-1800, the Philadelphia YM members considered war taxes many times as a religious concern based on the Friends Peace Testimony of 1660. The struggles, occasional unity, love & courage of Friends who preceded us are offered as witness to challenge & encourage Friends today.
War taxes were an issue for Philadelphia YM Friends right away. Quakers controlled the PA Assembly & were influential in NJ until the French & Indian War. Compromise was used for political survival. The Crown asked for military requisitions. In 1693, legislators vote for a small tax for military defense in order to get “approval for laws.” Objections were made before funds were allocated; rarely were religious objections raised. Money “for the King or Queen’s use” was the norm from 1693-1756. The 2nd type of response was to raise a war tax.
A few refused to pay for war in any form. [Others were offered or sought ways of side-stepping the issue by paying for war indirectly]. English Friends were not concerned about how the government used their taxes, believing that to be Caesar’s responsibility. Several attempts were made to convince Philadelphia Friends to conform to the tax-paying ways of English Friends. Elizabeth Redford was the notable exception and was eldered by her meeting. In the 1st half of the 1700s, Philadelphia YM advocated obedience.
Philadelphia YM in an epistle wrote: “When at any time it hath pleased God to suffer the rulers that hath been over us to Impose any thing against out Allegience to God, we have Patiently suffered under them until the Lord [opened] their Understandings and mollify their Hearts towards us.” A few Friends felt that their allegiance to God was violated by the war tax of 1711; some refused and were jailed. Friends generally paid the war tax during this period. [How willing they were] is not clear from the surviving sources.
In 1722 Philadelphia YM included the war tax issue at its sessions; the lack of unity, yet growing concern was clear. [1736 Meetings called for obedience in] “the payment of Duties to the Crown.” In 1739, the YM asked Friends to be “vigilant in keeping the peaceable Principles professed … & in no manner to joyn with [those] ma-king warlike preparations offensive or defensive.” Assemblyman James Logan said: “All Civil Government … is founded on Force.” If Quakers could not be pacifists & participate in politics, they should get out of politics.
The End of the “Holy Experiment”—When the legislators continued to approve war sums, with the normal equivocations, they were moving headlong into a confrontation with an emerging & growing spiritual revitalization in the Philadelphia YM. John Woolman, John Churchman & others addressed the Assembly as follows: “we shall at all times heartily & freely contribute … for benevolent purposes … [but] we apprehend that many among us will be under the necessity of suffering, rather than consenting to paying a tax for [war] purposes.”
The Assembly responded with great indignation. They compared their 1755 bill with the 1711 war tax bill, even though in their bill they were spending money on war directly (The Crown spent the money in the 1711 bill). A Philadelphia YM committee wrote a radical interpretation of the Peace Testimony. Friends were increasingly alarmed at the legislators’ behavior, and as a body and as individuals labored with its members in the Legislature to get their resignations; 6 resigned from these efforts. “The Epistle of Tender Love and Caution,” at the end of 1755, was the 1st YM statement by a committee, endorsing individual and corporate war tax resistance.
Friends Reaction to War Tax—The actions Philadelphia YM & individuals took on war taxes during the French & Indian War reveal an evolving understanding of the Peace Testimony to be more dynamic. John Woolman wrote: “I couldn’t see that [upright-hearted men paying such taxes] was sufficient reason for me to do so. [Danger to the society would result if “by small degrees there might be an approach toward that of fighting, till we came so near that the distinction would be little else but a peaceable people’s name.” Joshua Evans wrote: “it Opened very clear to me … that to hire men to do what I couldn’t for conscience sake do was very Inconsistent. I refused to defray war expences (tho my part might appear as a drop in the Ocean, yet it is made up of drops.”
Assemblyman James Pemberton resigned from the Assembly that had become a war Assembly. His brother Israel advocated war tax resistance; this embarrassed London Quakers. James Pemberton noted: “A number of us refuse taxes; most comply with it & censure those who don’t.” There was fear that other religious liberties would be sacrificed if the tax issue were pursued. There were indications that there was support throughout YM for war tax resisters but not endorsement. The resisters asked: What are the consequences to other Friends, to non-Friends, & to oneself when taxes are paid for war? They each made clear decisions against paying war taxes, & yet asked individuals not to accept their answers but to ask the Spirit of Christ for personal guidance.
The Revolutionary War Period/Taking a Stand: Amending the Discipline—During the Revolutionary War period Friends in America faced the war tax issue directly, and the meeting’s control over individual behavior was vastly expanded to include clothing, furniture, marriage, fighting, and military assistance. Members could be eldered and disowned for violating Society discipline. How would individual Friends respond to war taxes and formal Advice? What would result in taking a radical position on the war tax issue?
The war tax issue [was especially difficult, because] it was “difficult to separate in a time of war the support due to the State’s usual demands & needs from those directly & obviously for war purposes.” The use of Continental Currency was an issue that highlights the daily dilemmas that confronted Friends who were conscientiously opposed to supporting war. It “was considered a covert means of taxation to finance the prosecution of war.” The YM decided to allow each person to determine individually what was right action, & to “abide in true love & Charity” [with those of opposing view]. [John Cowgill of Duck Creek & Thomas Watson of Buckingham suffered ostracizing, boycott, public ridicule, jail, & court martial for faithfulness to their religious duty].
By 1776 the war tax issue was a yearly meeting concern. Friends in New Jersey felt it their duty to refuse to pay. Meeting for Sufferings note that this may result in an increase in refusers. At the 1776 Fall YM Friends concluded that: “Such who make Religious Profession with us … and [they or their family or servants] pay any Fine, Penalty, or Tax, in lieu of their personal services for carrying on the War do thereby violate our Christian Testimony, and by so doing manifest that they are not in Religious Fellowship with us.”
The Meeting for Sufferings again considered the tax issue just prior to the 1778 YM. Chester Quarter asked: At what point should a Friend refuse to support what in peacetime would clearly be acceptable, but in war might actually or implicitly support the war effort? The YM wrote the [tax resister’s intent to] maintain the Peace Testimony “hath remarkably tended to unite us in deep sympathy with the seed of Life in their hearts, … [all members should] avoid complying with the injunctions & requisitions made for the purpose of carrying on War, which may produce uneasiness to themselves or tend to increase the sufferings of their Brethren.” In 1780, the YM recommended: “according to the Advices given forth by this Meeting at sundry Times, … the Members of our religious Society be again exhorted to attend the Monitions of divine Grace, and carefully guard against suppressing them in either themselves or others.”
After the war, the government carried a huge war debt. Most Friends paid the taxes for defraying the war debt. Gloucester and Salem Meetings queried: What should this Meeting do about those Friends who have a “religious scruple” that forbids paying taxes to defray the war debt, [and who have] suffered Distraint of their Goods, when “the greater part of the Society pay the same Taxes? Should these accounts be forwarded as Suffering to the Meeting for Sufferings? The YM affirmed that those Friends should keep careful accounts of their losses and forward them to the Meeting for Sufferings. The strong Minute from 1776 was not changed for well over 100 years. Compliance, though, was low and the practice of disownment over the tax issue did not lead to large numbers of disownments. It can be accurately said that Philadelphia YM endorsed and supported war tax resistance as a matter of enforceable discipline during the American Revolution.
Friends Witnessing—The stated Discipline of the Religious Society of Friends reflects the actual practice of the Society only to the extent that individuals choose to follow it. Some Friends followed it, but not nearly all. Since some Friends had political agendas, their neighbors assumed that all Friends motives were partisan. The total of recorded sufferings in Pennsylvania from property being seized was over £38,000. Some Friends were elected tax collectors against their will in order to inflict a fine for noncompliance.
Anthony Benezet and B. Mason wrote a tract entitled, in part, Reasons why we ought not to pay Taxes to support War. They refuted the usual Scriptural arguments and concluded with: “how then can we do that by proxy under the Character of a tax, which we cannot do in Person or with a Fine? … let us not through fear of suffering give out Money for the worst of purposes.” Samuel Allinson wrote Reasons against War, and paying Taxes for its Support, and discerned criteria for determining rightly led action: “Whenever an act strikes the mind with a religious fear that the performance of it will not be holding the light of the Gospel of Peace, or be a stumbling block to others it ought carefully to be avoided … that may be a cross today which was not before.”
Enforcing the Discipline—The possibility of being read out of meeting for paying war taxes irked Friends who had patriotic leanings. Isaac Sharpless wrote: The integrity of Quaker testimony against war was at stake, & gathering up all their reserve of strength & shutting their hearts against the pleadings for mercy … they cleared the Society of open complicity with war. There was a lot of variation in the severity of dealings with deviators.
Isaac Grey published Serious Address to Such of the People Called Quakers … as profess Scruples … concerning Obedience to Civil Authority in 1778. Grey accurately explained that “no precedent for censure or condemnation can be found in the history or proceedings of Friends. Why should there be pain and separation when “love and union might be preserved?” His Meeting labored with and eventually testified against him. Almost all who participated in the military were disowned; less than half who paid war taxes were disowned. A total of 239 Friends in Philadelphia were disowned for paying war taxes or fines.
The War Ends and the Witness Continues—Some Friends who participated in the war effort and had been disowned or left on their own began to reconsider. They began asking to be reunited with their meetings. Friends continued to suffer persecutions for nearly a decade after the war ended. A Quarterly and Yearly Meeting “Taxpaying was titely tried by a Large Commite and to pay refused.” After decades, Joshua Evans was still not defeated by the apparent ineffectiveness of his witness. Once he determined that paying for war was wrong, he could not do regardless of changing circumstances, including not paying a Duty on imported articles because: “I could see no material differences between paying by Tax or Duty [for war].”
Thoughts for the Present—Philadelphia YM continues to deal with the religious concern of war tax refusal; they have evolved detailed administrative policies to support employees who refuse war taxes. The historical witness of Philadelphia YM Friends is inspiring, inconsistent, and at times, embarrassing. However their struggle encourages us today to be both more patient and challenging with one another. What does Peace Testimony mean to individuals and the Society of Friends as a body today? [An especially meaningful part is: “That the spirit of Christ, by which we are guided, is not changeable, so as once to command us from a thing as evil and again to move unto it.” Is there nothing that we now believe to always be true?
While I confess still to desire the strength of a unified Quaker witness, I know that the Spirit of Christ makes the future results of all spiritual journeys, others and my own, unknowable. Just when I am comfortable accepting our diversity, John Woolman’s words call out: “To conform a little to a wrong way strengthens the hands of such who carry wrong customs to their utmost extent; the more a person appears virtuous and heavenly-minded, the more powerfully does his conformity operate in favour of evildoers.” History can be used to strengthen either side of the war tax argument. Friends [need to be] mindful that war tax resistance is not a matter of doctrine, but the result of an individually changed heart, a matter between each Friend and God.
Queries—What obligation do Friends have “to beware lest by our example we lead others wrong?” Do you respect others’ feelings on issues, even when you differ with them? What are the ways your Meeting responds to the war tax issue? Is your Meeting open to war tax resisters & war tax payers? How are you challenged by the diversity of opinion & action of Friends through the American Revolution? Are there Quaker beliefs or practices for which you would be willing to lose property or be jailed? How does the Spirit of Christ help you to discern what is right for you on this and other issues of conscience?
Comments
Post a Comment