Lately, the Libertarian Party and several of its prominent members have been floating the idea of a National Divorce. It is being treated as a commonplace, common-sense solution to government overreach and as a surefire defense against opposing cultural forces. The idea has obviously existed since the nation’s existence. It has been argued that our forefathers envisioned a country where theocratic Puritans could live in one state, while free-thinking Anglicans lived in another. Early state constitutions sought to enforce such ideologies, while honoring the federal government’s promise to not establish a state religion.
Alleged anarchists seem to think it makes perfect sense. If all governments are local, one wouldn’t want to be neighbors with someone who doesn’t share your values. Of course, by seeking to divide the state with such harshly wrought ideological lines, one assigns the state an awful lot of power. Not to mention, more liberal members of the party would rather not see the country divided up over social issues, which is of course the chief complaint of divorce’s most vocal proponents.
Regardless, it’s an idea worthy of discussion. I like to approach such ideas with a simple question: is there a Quaker perspective? Surely, it is a fool’s errand to attempt any doctrine or sense of a “Quaker truth” when it comes to a question of conscience. Although, this is not the first time Quakers have attempted to come up with an answer.
Quakers and the State
The core of the matter lies in how the Religious Society of Friends has treated the concept of “the state” and what parameters one uses to define such a concept. When William Penn took a boatload of Friends to the New World, they had every opportunity to follow the other colonies’ steps and seek to establish legal parameters on religious practice, or at the very least strict cultural paradigms to edge out those who would seek a livelihood outside the bounds of conventional Quaker thought. However, these opportunities were avoided – purposefully. Quakers had no interest in such a legal system. One could argue that they were radically tolerant. I would wager they were simply uninterested in such a lowly and human concept as organized religion. Early American Friends seemed to understand the reality of government: a good man on the ground is worth three in the saddle. There is real work to be done in the world, and you often get more done by getting your hands dirty. Morality cannot be legislated, but cultures can change if people live their lives in a moral manner.
Perhaps a more fitting definition for “National Divorce” is secession. Instead of defending the perceived rights of slave owners, people are now seeking to secede from the Union as a means of winning a “culture war.”
Quakers and the Civil War
In the 1800s, as the Civil War became imminent, there was an obvious tension within communities of Friends. Throughout the course of American slavery, Quakers stood in opposition to its practice. However, the Peace Testimony condemns warfare. There was little consensus into how that opposition should be manifested into action. Many Quakers were active in the Underground Railroad, guiding runaway slaves to freedom. Some found slavery so abhorrent that they overlooked their commitment to peace and enlisted in the union army. Others simply lived apart from mainstream culture, refusing to participate in a system that would condone such institutions.
John Greenleaf Whittier, a Quaker poet and abolitionist, had very big opinions on the matter. While Longfellow was romanticizing the midnight ride of Paul Revere and the combatant heroism of American muscle, Whittier penned several condemnations of American culture, including the mistreatment of indigenous people, witch trials, and, of course, slavery. In the face of Southern secession, he wrote a poem entitled, “A Word for the Hour.” Whittier suggests that since such a cancer has been removed from the Union, we shouldn’t waste any time trying to get it back:
They break the links of Union: shall we light
The fires of hell to weld anew the chain
On that red anvil where each blow is pain?
To Whittier, fighting a war to share the country with slave owners was preposterous. Why would someone send men to die to hold onto a portion of the country devoted to something as evil as slavery? That being said, it seems equally reckless to start writing off portions of the country. Surely, if a great evil exists one state over, maybe we should seek some form of justice, rather than turning a blind eye.
Classical Liberals may be disappointed to know how rarely Friends sought traditional political solutions to slavery. There are examples of Quakers pressuring the establishment regarding the issue, but there are few who sought public office in an attempt to change the system from within. Some examples are Isaac Harvey and Eliza Gurney.
As the story goes, Harvey was plowing his field when he was struck with a revelation. He and his wife Sarah then traveled to Washington D.C. and initiated a chain of events so serendipitous it is hard not to assign supernatural intervention. They introduced themselves to a stranger who happened to be a member of Lincoln’s cabinet, and before they knew it, they had a meeting with the president himself. Harvey then proposed a federal buy-back, in which the government would pay slave owners to free their slaves. Gurney traveled on a similar mission, though instead of proposing policy, she sought to offer the president spiritual support and counsel as he navigated the contentious political front.
Regardless of anti-slavery sentiments, Friends in the U.S. were much more likely to live their lives according to their own principles than seek the power needed to course-correct the entire government. Maybe, this is a simplistic, and perhaps selfish approach. However, I argue that it is more realistic.
Conclusions, or Lack Thereof
If Quakers have a unique perspective to offer in the libertarian realm it is surely their disregard of the status quo. As the Friends community originally took shape, they lived in spite of public policy, but did not necessarily seek to dismantle it. Neither did Quakers declare the state as anathema. This is all to say if there is a Quaker position on a National Divorce, I would imagine it being a giant, meekly confounded shrug of the shoulders. Borders can be re-written. Ideological lines can be charted. We will still be called to live simply and peacefully.
Guest blogger Timothy Tarkelly has this to say about his background: There are no meetings where I live, though I regularly attend Pendle Hill and other virtual meetings regularly. When I am visiting certain places, I attend as I can. I regularly attend a Baptist church, mostly because of geography. That being said, I am very passionate about Quakerism in general. I also have article coming out in Friends Journal this coming August, regarding Quaker perspectives on hunting. I am a published poet, and have written guest blogs for Students for Liberty and the Libertarian Party of Kansas. You can find more of all of this at my website www.timothytarkelly.com