Chester County (Pennsylvania)
Documents: Abolitionism, the Underground Railroad, Kidnapping and Quakers.
Our Main Object:
Abolitionists and the Underground Railroad, 1851
On October
15-16, 1851, the Pennsylvania Anti-Slavery Society met at West Chester in the
Horticultural Hall. Among the resolutions passed at the meeting, and
subsequently published in the Pennsylvania
Freeman of October 24, 1851, were several pledging the assembled
abolitionists not to obey the fugitive slave law. There was also a resolution
printed in the Freeman under the
heading “Our Main Object” as follows:
“Resolved, That while we rejoice in the
escape of every fugitive from Slavery, and in the opportunity to give
assistance, shelter, and protection to all such fugitives, our chief and all
important work is,-- not to aid the escape of individual slaves, nor to prevent
the extension of Slavery [this in reference to the aims of the “Free Soil
Party”] but the immediate and total abolition of Slavery wherever it may
exist.”
Free Produce in London Grove, Chester County, ca. 1831
The following
account by Joseph Preston concerning the growing of “free cotton” by his
father, Amos Preston and Ezra Mitchner, ca. 1831, in London Grove township, was
written by Joseph for a Lancaster County newspaper in 1881, and later
incorporated into a sketch about Joseph published in The Journal: A Paper Devoted to the Interests of the Society of Friends,
4 Mo. 18, 1883, following Joseph’s death. Joseph’s sister was Anna Preston, a
pioneer woman physician and Dean of the Women’s Medical College of
Philadelphia. The Free Produce Movement
was an almost exclusively Quaker concern.
“More than fifty years since [ca.
1831], when a boy of some twelve or thirteen years, I wore a shirt made from
cotton raised in Londongrove township, Chester county, and a very good and
substantial garment it was, though the muslin was not smoothly finished. It was
spun and woven by Jacob Pusey, at Hockessin, Delaware.
“Dr. Ezra Mitchner then owned a small
farm adjoining my father’s. They were abolitionists and wished to clothe their
children without slave-labor, and procured some cotton seed from North Carolina.
My father planted a small plot in his garden; the cotton came up, grew luxuriously,
and made a beautiful appearance. In due season, the balls opened, displaying
the natural white cotton, new balls appeared each morning, until, as I remember,
a frost after the middle of September wilted down the plants. Dr. Mitchner
had a large plot. He was a man of ingenuity and enterprise, and made a small
gin to clean the seed out of the cotton. Both crops made a small bale, which
was sent to the factory, and my father’s share was about five and a half yards.
After bleaching this on the sod, my mother made one for my father and one
for me, and I doubt whether either of us ever wore shirts that would stand
as much wear as these.”
The Question of Obedience to
Law: William Jackson, London Grove, 1846
The
willingness to aid fugitive slaves raised the question of the balance between
the moral and religious obligations of individuals and the responsibilities of
citizens to obey the laws. The following passages are from An Essay on the Rights of Government, by William Jackson, of Chester
County, Pennsylvania (Wilmington, Delaware: Evans and Vernon, 1846):
“Human government being a necessary
appendage of all social organizations, there must be in every body politic, a
rightful source of authority; and this source of authority is no other than the
majority of the people… Hence if it be
admitted, that the government of the United States exists with the consent of a
majority of the people; it cannot consistently be denied that it has a rightful
existence, and that it possesses a just and competent authority to do everything
which a government might rightfully do. And in all cases over which its
authority may rightfully extend, its mandates are morally binding upon every
citizen, whatever may be his opinion of their justice or expediency…”
“But while the government has its
rights, which all are bound to respect; the citizens, by virtue of their
characters as human beings; have theirs also, which the government may not
invade without committing a wrong. And if at any time the government should
require of the citizen that which it has no natural right to demand, he is
under no moral obligation to comply with such requisition. Of these rights
which belong to every individual alike, one of them most important is, that of
obeying God rather than man, in all cases. We have a clear right, and it is our
duty to obey our Creator in all things; and consequently where that Creator has
established certain principles of right and justice… we are in duty bound to
obey those rules… No one is under any more obligation to lend himself as a tool
to others for the commission of a crime, even when commanded by his government
to do the wrong; we cannot well deny that he also possesses a discretionary
power in the case, a right to judge of what is criminal and what innocent for
him to do. As a conscience is the faculty which God has given us to judge of
right and wrong, it is manifest that we possess a natural right to make on
conscience the supreme guide and authority to direct our actions through life…”
“It is no light matter for an
individual to set himself up in opposition to the deliberate judgment of the
collected wisdom of his country, solemnly expressed in the form of law; and it
is proper that every one in such case, should feel the full weight of the
responsibility which rests upon him. But important and solemn it is; it may
often by a person’s duty to thus bear a faithful testimony against the popular
sins of his day and generation…”
Quakers Divided on
Cooperating with the World, 1840s-1850s
The following
description of the controversy among Friends of Chester County over the issue
of joining the “world’s people” in abolitionist societies is included in “A Few
Reminiscences of Lucretia Mott” by “N” as published first in the West Chester Local News and subsequently
reprinted in the Quaker weekly, The
Journal, 3 Mo. 23, 1881.
“Many years ago… [Lucretia Mott]
addressed a number of Friends’ meetings in the townships of Marlborough,
Kennett, Londongrove and others. The chief purpose of her discourses appeared
to be a desire to arouse the members of that body to a livelier appreciation of
duty in connection with their religious profession respecting the anti-slavery
cause—urging the open, active affiliation with abolitionists and their
societies, was an important part of their obligations as professing Christians.
“At that time a considerable number of
prominent Friends earnestly opposed active co-operation and union with the
anti-slavery associations, believing that a consistent adherence to their
testimonies as a religions body was all that was required of them in relation
to the practice of slaveholding…
“George F. White, a resident of New
York, and a prominent speaker in the society, was earnestly opposed to Lucretia
Mott’s views in regard to the matter referred to. He followed her through the
townships spoken of, and sought to infuse among Friends a disinclination to
join the anti-slavery crusade, largely on the grounds that by such action they
would, in his opinion, find themselves associated with infidels, freethinkers
and those who regarded active opposition to slavery as a religion in itself…
In the
abolitionist press, George Fox White was described as “pro-slavery” because of
his objections to Friends joining with the world’s people. However, White
considered himself as anti-slavery. The writer of the above account of Lucretia
Mott recalled, apparently from memory, White’s attacks on slavery at the London
Grove Friends Meeting House delivered thirty or more years before:
“While objecting to the mode of
operation of the Abolitionists, he [White] professed a great abhorrence of
slavery, and refused to partake of the product of slave labor. Speaking of the
traffic in human flesh, he used substantially the following language at
Londongrove[:]
[“]The rapacious and heartless dealer
in the bodies of human beings repairs to the coats of Africa; there he seizes
his helpless victims… he binds and carries off the strong, forces them between
narrow decks of his vessel… Arrived at the shores of our own native land, the
hapless victims, manacled together, are driven under the lash to the block of
the auctioneer, whose voice is heard “going! Going! Gone!” Forced to the
plantation of the cruel task-master, the soil on which they stand is fattened
by their blood and watered by their tears… [”]
In Chester County, the dispute among Hicksite Quakers over the
appropriate role of Friends ultimately related in a division in Kennett Monthly
Meeting and Western Quarterly Meeting in 1851, resulting in the more radical
Friends setting up new and separate
meetings of “Progressive Friends”
in 1851. These Friends with other reformers established the Pennsylvania Yearly
Meeting of Progressive Friends in 1853. Some of those who left the Hicksite
meetings at this time were disowned for “holding meetings out of the order and
in subversion of the Discipline of our religions society under the name and
character of Kennett Monthly Meeting…” About 1873, the Progressive Friends
ended their weekly meeting and many rejoined the Hicksite meeting the following
year. The Yearly Meeting of Progressive Friends (often called the “Longwood
Yearly Meeting”) continued to meet until 1940.
Let the Oppressed Go
Free: Kennett Monthly Meeting Petitions
Congress, 1847
The text of
this memorial was printed The National
Era, an abolitionist weekly published in Washington, DC, on March 2, 1848. The minutes of Kennett Monthly Meeting for
the 11th and 12th Months 1847 confirm the writing and
approval of this memorial, drafted by Richard M. Barnard, Samuel Martin, John
Woodward, Simon Barnard and William Barnard, but do not record the wording of
the document. This is an example of many
similar memorials and letters by Friends meetings to Congress. The appeal is
limited to the abolition of slavery in the District of Columbia and to the
interstate slave trade as it was the opinion of most people of this period that
the Federal Government had no authority to legislate on slavery within the
states. Kennett Monthly Meeting sent an additional memorial to Congress on 1st
Month 9, 1849. The text given below was
transcribed from the National Era,
correcting only the spelling of “Kennett” which is misspelled as “Hennett” in
the Era.
To
the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States:
The
memorial of Kennett Monthly Meeting of the Religious Society of Friends, in
Chester county, Pennsylvania, respectfully represents:
That
the institution of Slavery, as it exists
in our country, opposed as it is alike to the theory of our Government and the
precepts of our religion, demands, and we trust, will receive, your candid consideration.
No
question at all likely to come before you is, in the opinion of your
memorialists, of so much importance to our individual and national prosperity.
The interests of Slavery and Freedom are always and necessarily antagonistical.
Aside from the cruel injustice inflicted upon its victims, nothing so much as
the system of Slavery tends to corrupt the morals and impair the energies of
the people; nothing presents so formidable an obstacle to the struggle for
popular reform—to the kindred cause of education, and the diffusion of
knowledge—to internal improvements, and the consequent development of the
resources of the country, or perhaps to the advance of civilization, and the
progress of free principles throughout the world. In whatever light it is
viewed—whether of principle of or policy—whether with reference to its own
intrinsic sinfulness, and the Scriptural injunction to “Do to others as we
would they should do to us;” “To undo the heavy burdens, and let the oppressed
go free;” “to break every yoke;” to “Execute judgment in the morning and
deliver him that is spoiled out of the land of the oppressor” – or with regard
to the stability of the union itself, and the multiplied interests, real or
imaginary, which cluster about it—still Slavery, in each and all its aspects,
appears to be an evil of such portentous magnitude as to require, on the part
of a prudent and Christian people, its entire and immediate abandonment. We
therefore earnestly ask that you will use all rightful and constitutional means
to abolish Slavery in the District of Columbia; and prevent the traffic in
slaves between the States, which is scarcely surpassed in the enormity by that
on the African coast, which your laws have long pronounced piracy; and, as you
value your own and your country’s liberty, that you reject, with virtuous
resolution and promptitude, and offered accession of territory, without the
entire exclusion of Slavery from its soil. And the blessings of the perishing
and the answer of a good conscience shall be yours. Signed by direction and on
behalf of the aforesaid meeting, the 8th of 12th month,
1847.
RICHARD M. BARNARD, CLERK
MARIA JANE CHANDLER, CLERK
The Kidnapping of George
Mitchell, Unionville, August 1849
The following
account from the Pennsylvania Freeman
(Philadelphia, PA), Thursday, September 6, 1849, reports on the
kidnapping/capture of Thomas Mitchell from Unionville in East Marlborough
Township, Chester County. Mitchell’s Quaker employer, George Martin, and others
pursued the abductors to Baltimore, were Martin himself was briefly jailed.
Mitchell’s status is unclear, though it seems likely he was a fugitive slave
who had been living openly in Chester and Lancaster Counties for the previous
twelve years. His case was one of several similar incidents in the 1840s and
1850s involving African-Americans residents of Chester who may or may not have
been fugitives. Earlier in August 1849, two men from Downington, were convicted
and sentenced to prison for their role in the kidnapping of a teenager from
Downington who was then sold into slavery in Baltimore. If Mitchell was in fact
a fugitive slave, the fact that his captors resorted to a midnight abduction
rather than applying to the courts for the return of Mitchell to slavery under
the 1793 fugitive slave law is an indication that both the laws of Pennsylvania
and popular sentiment made the recovery of fugitives in Pennsylvania difficult
by 1849:
Thomas
Mitchell, the victim of the late abduction, is a colored man and a native
Maryland, where he once resided as a slave, claimed by a Mr. Hays of Cecil
County. About the year 1837—twelve years ago—he came to Pennsylvania, and has
since resided in Lancaster and Chester Counties, where he has been considered a
free man, even according to the laws
of Maryland. He always spoke of himself as such, and he still asserts that he
was a slave only for a term of years, and is legally free. During his residence
here he has married and became a father, and obtained for himself and family a
snug and comfortable home, near Unionville, where by industry and honesty he
had won the esteem of his employers and acquaintance. Happy in the performance
of his daily duty and in the joys of his humble home, he lived on, no omen of
future evil casting a shadow on his present peace. With no hint or fore-warning
of danger, his terrible reverse fell upon him.
After
midnight on the 21st of August, cries of “murder” and shrieks of
distress, were heard by his neighbors, one family of whom lived but a few rods
distant. Instantly they repaired to the spot and found Mitchell’s door battered
in, his wife half sensible with fright lying within, but he was gone. Near the
fallen wife lay a pistol loaded with three balls, the percussion cap of which
was exploded. It was found that the door had been broken in by a large log
wielded by several men; that Mitchell had been seized in his bed and in spite
of his resistance, torn from the arms of his wife by three or four stout
ruffians, and hurried into the carriage almost without clothing. To silence her
cries and compel her to relax her grasp, a pistol was presented to the breast
of his wife, and her life was threatened. Little more than this could be
learned from the terrified woman.
Instant
alarm was given throughout the neighborhood, and long before the dawn two
parties were formed for pursuit: one going to Wilmington, and the other to
Elkton, and thence to Baltimore by rail road.
The
latter party consisted of George Martin and Samuel Pennock. Friend Martin,
though in no way identified with the abolitionists, whose agitation he had
stoutly opposed, and hitherto immovable in his Quaker quiet, could not resist
this appeal to his heart, nor wait for any other prompting than the call of
humanity. He had long known and employed Mitchell, and to remain inactive when
he saw the honest poor man kidnapped from his home, his wife and his child, and
dragged into slavery, without a form of trial, would have required a harder
heart that that of Friend Martin’s. It was a glorious enthusiasm that thrilled
his soul then, and we only hope that once kindled it may never die, but prompt
him to many another deed, as generous and hearty, for the deliverance of the
enslaved.
Before
reaching Baltimore, Friend Martin and Pennock discovered that the kidnappers
(with their victim hand-cuffed in their midst,) were on board the same train
with themselves. On their arrival they found Dr. Snodgrass, who had been
informed of the outrage by a telegraphic dispatch from Thomas Garrett at
Wilmington, at the depot with an officer to arrest the kidnappers. But the
slave prison was near, and the men-thieves had everything in readiness, and
before they were intercepted had lodged poor Mitchell in the slave trader’s
den, where they were followed by Friend Martin, while his companion proceeded
to procure advice and assistance from friends in Baltimore.
The
slave-dealers learning incidentally that Mr. Martin had formerly employed the
man they claimed as their slave, arrested him on a assumpsit for the hire of a
slave, and he was thrown into prison, though good and sufficient bail was
offered for him. The Sheriff’s deputy fearing the wrath of the slaveholders,
refused the bail on the paltry pretense that it was not offered by
“freeholders.” The slave catchers had probably hoped, by these means, to
frighten Mr. Martin into the payment of their demand, and from any further
efforts to bring them to justice, but failed, as he found ready friends who
were able and willing to support him in resisting their claim. Able counsel
were employed, and the case was brought before Judge Legrand by a petition for
the discharge of Mr. M., under the provisions of a law of 1846, for the relief
of non-resident debtors. It was readily proved that Martin resided in
Pennsylvania, and was, of course, not liable to Maryland laws. It was proved by
McCreary, the head kidnapper, and the only witness introduced by the
prosecutors, that while the suit was brought in the name of John Hays and wife,
of Cecil county, as claimants of Mitchell, (under the name of Albert,) McCreary
himself had brought “Albert” running, and seized him as his owner. A lawyer
named Stump was the counsel for the slave catchers, and feeling that he had no
foundation in law or reason for the suit, he attempted to carry his point by an
appeal to the anti-abolition prejudices of the judge; his speech being little
else that a tirade against the abolitionists—on whom he poured a volley of all
the foul epithets he would call to his aid…
Lawyer
Stump mistook his man in the contemptible effort to prejudice Judge Legrand:
and Mr. Martin was discharged from custody, greatly to the chagrin of the
slave-catching gentry, whose greedy fingers were itching for fresh plunder,
from a Northern pocket. We learn from the Baltimore correspondent of the
Standard and the Era that Stump’s speech excited only disgust, except among the
immediate supporters of his clients and the hangers-on of the slave pen. A
Baltimore Abolitionist offered five
dollars for a faithful report of it for publication in the South as an
anti-slavery document. Stump is a Fit lawyer for his cause and clients.
Though
Mr. Martin is personally discharged, the suit is continued, and will be tried
at the October session of the Court, should the plaintiffs press it, which is
not probable.
In
the meantime, Thomas Mitchell has been sold to a slave trader, and is confirmed
in Wilson’s den, (pen is not the
word) and probably will be sent South—as the trader threatens, when trying to
speculate upon the sympathy of the Pennsylvanians—but that his shoulder was
dislocated, and we was otherwise disabled in the scuffle when he was taken.
The
names of three of the wretches engaged in this bold outrage are known, and
measures will undoubtedly be taken to procure their delivery to the authorities
of Pennsylvania, to be tried for the crimes of burglary, the threat of
assassination against a peaceable woman, and the kidnapping of a Pennsylvania
citizen.—Chester county is roused by the atrocious deed, and no effort will be
spared to wipe away the shame of the crime from the County and State, and to
prevent like atrocities in future.
The
subject is fruitful of thought, but our space forbids comment.
The
citizens of Chester County, without distinction of party, are required to
assemble in a grand mass meeting at the house from which William Mitchell was
recently kidnapped, near Taggart’s Cross Roads, in East Marlborough township,
on Saturday, September 22d, at 10 o’clock A.M., to express their sentiments
concerning that highhanded outrage, and take measures to prevent future
incursions of Maryland land pirates upon them. The Meeting will be held in the
woods near the house, if the day be fair; if not, in the barn near by. It will
continue through the afternoon. Let every person who would protect the rights
of the poor, the peace of the county, the honor of the State, and his own
liberties, from the midnight invasion of burglars, assassins and kidnappers,
come up to this gathering of the people. Speakers from abroad are expected.
Philadelphia Yearly Meeting
Forbids Compliance with the Fugitive Slave Law, 1851
From the
Representative Committee [Meeting for Sufferings], Philadelphia Yearly Meeting
(Hicksite), 1 Mo. 31, 1851.
“It is evident that the Yearly Meeting
does not recognize the institution of Slavery as one that can be upheld where
christian feelings predominate; and that under this conviction its members cannot assist in carrying out
such laws as may be enacted to perpetuate its existence, without violating
our testimonies…
“Whilst we do not feel at liberty to
oppose the laws of the land by any demonstration of violence whatever, or to
speak evil of those who enacted them, we have the right of calmly and firmly
maintaining our ground against wrong and injustice, and of giving living
evidence of our faith, by suffering, if necessary for a cause which we believe
to be founded in Truth…
“We would recommend our members firmly
to adhere to the principle of acting conscientiously and uprightly according to
the light received, and to decline on such grounds to be made the instruments
of a law which requires them to assist in returning a human being into a
bondage which we believe is not sanctioned by divine authority; but which, on
the contrary, appears to us to have been established in violation of those
christian principles which we profess.
“Some of you may be called into
suffering on this account…
Compiled by: Christopher
Densmore, Curator, Friends Historical Library, Swarthmore College, 500 College
Avenue, Swarthmore, PA 19081-1399
(610) 328-8497;
cdensmo1@swarthmore.edu