Another piece of good new, nearly four years later - I just discovered that my article on the 1688 Germantown Protest is being reprinted in a textbook on Pennsylvania: check it out here.

As for the original article, it was published in the Spring 2007 issue of Pennsylvania History. I can't link directly to the article here, but if you'd like to read a version, please just shoot me an email.

An update on me: I'm now working on my dissertation, which examines the effect of African slavery on Christianity. I'm focusing on the Quakers (surprise!), the Anglicans and the Moravians in the early modern period (17th-18th century). I'm trying to figure out why the majority of organized religions accepted slavery and created theological reasons for accepting African slavery.

I've started a companion blog to my dissertation, which can be found here - please check it out!

Great news! A revised version of my thesis was accepted for publication at "Pennsylvania History: A Journal of Mid-Atlantic Studies." The article will come out in the Spring 2007 issue under the name "Origins of Abolitionism in America: the Germantown Quaker Protest of 1688." I will post the link to full online article when it comes out.

Meanwhile, below is a close-up of the signatures on the Protest. This photograph is published with permission of the Germantown Friends Meeting.


The document, which was rediscovered in the vault of the Philadelphia Yearly Meeting last March, is now in the safe hands of the Conservation Center for Art and Historic Artifacts.

Well, I'm finished!! The thesis is officially bound and submitted. Below I've copied the final introduction and Chapter 3, which covers the English Quaker slave trade in the 17th century. I'd be happy to send the full text to anyone interested... but at 60 pages, it just seems a bit too long to post here. Email me at krg2006@columbia.edu with questions or requests. Happy reading! Katie


Origins of Abolitionism in America: The Germantown Petition Against Slavery

Introduction

On April 18th, 1688, four Quakers in the new settlement of Germantown signed a petition “against the traffick of mens-body.” This protest against slavery was the first of its kind on the American continent and preceded the official Quaker abolition of slavery by ninety-two years. Over the past three centuries, the petition has reached iconic status in abolitionist and Quaker narratives. William Hull, an historian at Swarthmore College during the early twentieth century, calls it “the memorable flower which blossomed in Pennsylvania from the seed of Quakerism.” Samuel Pennypacker, a nineteenth century Philadelphia judge and historian, writes, “a mighty nation will ever recognize it in time to come as one of the brightest pages in the early history of Pennsylvania and the country.” Indeed, the petition has served to strengthen the modern Quaker abolitionist identity and provide deep roots for the anti-slavery movement in American history.

In 2000, the Philadelphia Yearly Meeting included a portion of the Protest in an exhibit on “Quakers and the Political Process,” compiled in celebration of the Republican National Convention’s meeting in Philadelphia. The section entitled “Ending Slavery—Striving for Civil Rights” includes the protest as part of a larger Quaker abolitionist narrative: “Beginning with the Germantown, Pennsylvania Meeting in 1688 and culminating in 1776 with all Quakers in the Philadelphia region, Friends gradually refused to own slaves.” Accompanying this history is a citation from the original Germantown Protest—with notable cuts. The curators of the exhibit chose not to cite the original references to Turks and Europe: one offends modern sensibilities, the other seems irrelevant. The revised text is attractive and accessible to a modern audience, although remnants of older linguistic conventions (and misspellings) remain:

These are the reasons why we are against the traffick of men-body, as followeth…There is a saying, that we shall doe to all men like as we will be done ourselves; making no difference of what generation, descent or colour they are. And those who steal or robb men, and those who buy or purchase them, are they not all alike? Here is liberty of conscience, wch is right and reasonable; here ought to be likewise liberty of ye body, except of evil-doers, wch is an other case. But to bring men hither, or to rob and sell them against their will, we stand against…Ah! Doe consider well this thing, you who doe it, if you would be done at this manner? And if it is done according to Christianity?…Pray, what thing in the world can be done worse towards us, than if men should rob or steal us away, and sell us for slaves to strange countries; separating housbands from their wives and children. Being now this is not done in the manner we would be done at therefore we contradict and are against this traffic of men-body. And we who profess that it is not lawful to steal, must, likewise, avoid to purchase such things as are stolen, but rather help to stop this robbing and stealing if possible.

This recent invocation of the Germantown Protest is interesting for a variety of reasons. First, it demonstrates how the Protest informs a contemporary history of the Quaker anti-slavery movement. Second, the decision to include a portion of the original text suggests that the language of the Protest appeals to a modern audience. This accessibility is rare when compared to the modern treatment of other texts within the same period. George Keith’s Exhortation & Caution to Friends, Concerning buying or keeping of Negroes, the first anti-slavery protest printed in the colonies, has received markedly less attention in the past century and while it is occasionally cited, it is rarely excerpted. Other early anti-slavery texts, including William Edmunson’s 1676 journal or Cadwalader Morgan’s 1698 letter to Friends, have been similarly ignored outside scholarly circles.

The relative popularity of the 1688 Protest raises an important question: Why has the Germantown Protest—both as a symbol and as a text—assumed such a central role in the contemporary narrative of the Quaker anti-slavery movement? What makes it appealing to a modern audience? One answer is that its place as the “first” anti-slavery protest in the American colonies comes with an inherently exalted position. But while it may have been the first “protest” against slavery, the Germantown text was not the first anti-slavery Quaker document. George Fox, while not decisively anti-slavery, defended the rights of blacks and insisted that all were equal “children of God.” William Edmunson wrote letters in 1676, in which he advocated an end to slavery. His reasoning, however, clashes with modern sensibilities. Edmunson urges Friends to introduce blacks to Jesus Christ and the Gospel and to turn them away from their otherwise “unclean” lives. Fox, meanwhile, insists that blacks are no farther from God than whites, but is uncomfortable with the idea of black “strangers” becoming a part of Quaker families.

It may be the very abnormality of the Germantown Protest that makes it so accessible to a modern audience. The language of the 1688 text is unlike other inter-Quaker texts of the same period in content, structure and style. The Germantown Protest does not follow the typical format of a Quaker document sent between Meetings. It addresses itself to “Christians,” rather than “Friends” and with minor exceptions, it forgoes Biblical references and never mentions Jesus Christ—all unusual practices for a Quaker text in the late seventeenth century. The Germantown Protest founds its anti-slavery argument on ethical and pragmatic concerns that are in harmony with, but not dependent on, belief in Christian doctrine and Quaker custom. In its direct approach to the question of slavery, the Germantowners also omit the salutary introduction to Friends that was customary of epistles sent between Meetings. In its structural style, the protest most resembles Quaker pamphlets, which were normally written to groups or individuals outside the Quaker community.

These observations raise another important question: why was the 1688 Protest different? And why were the Germantowners the first Quakers to write down and publicly denounce slave-holding and trading within a formal Quaker structure? Much of the disparity, I argue, stems from the Dutch and German backgrounds of the Germantowners. The Germantowners were foreigners in a new land; outsiders within their own Quaker community. Linguistically, culturally and ideologically they differed from the English Quakers who controlled the political and religious structures in Pennsylvania. As a result, their transition to the New World was accompanied by unique challenges and situations. This thesis is an investigation of those challenges faced by the German and Dutch Quakers who wrote and submitted what was to be known as “the first step in the fight against slavery in America.”

It is also an exploration of the origins of “revolutionary thought.” For the Protest was something new. The Germantowners critiqued the institution of slavery with a novel argument and humanized the discourse on slave-holding. As Tinkcom & Tinkcom write, “[The Protest expressed an] idea of human rights…[that] was in advance of humanitarian thought in either the Old or the New World.” Given this extraordinary achievement, it is important and interesting to investigate the social factors and individual motivations that contributed to the creation of the Protest. As J. William Frost asks in the introduction to The Quaker Origins of Antislavery, “What causes people to think of something new? Is invention primarily a personal achievement determined by individual genius or should one seek to isolate a significant cultural nexus, economic factor, or social condition?”

In the case of the Germantown Protest, the authors were responding to a variety of social, moral, economic, and political concerns. Their concerns were created by, and voiced within, the complex and unique social matrix of seventeenth century Pennsylvania, where multiple languages, conventions and values were in constant, and often contentious, conversation. For the Germantowners, the institution of slavery, and specifically the importation of black slaves, would have been a new and strange phenomenon that was an accepted convention for English Quakers. This disparity was compounded by class differences: the English Quakers who led the Philadelphia Yearly Meeting in Philadelphia were wealthier than the Dutch and German Quakers of Germantown. So while the more powerful English could own slaves, it would have been an impossibility for most of the Germantowners, nearly all of whom were skilled craftsmen who did not need slaves for their work. Of the Germantowners, only Pastorius had a relatively wealthy and educated upbringing and ironically, Ruth (1983) points out that he actually agreed to be the proprietor of slaves for the Frankfurt Company in 1686.
The partial “outsider” status of the Germantowners and their lack of need for—and unfamiliarity with—black slaves were all important factors that led to the creation of the anti-slavery protest. But circumstance alone cannot determine behavior, and the language of the protest demonstrates a strong moral conviction about the evils of slavery. The Germantowners challenge their readers to imagine themselves in a slave-like position and to take their ethics of equality seriously. They also connect the core Quaker belief in “liberty of conscience” with liberty of body, a step that provides their anti-slavery argument with a strong philosophical foundation based on Quaker theology.

This morality, however, cannot be taken completely at face value. The Germantowners were not only concerned about the treatment of blacks, but also for their own safety. During the last half of the seventeenth century, slave revolts occurred with increasing frequency. In Barbados, Jamaica and Haiti alone, slave rebellions, plots or mutinies were reported in 1668, 1674, 1675, 1678, 1679, 1683 and 1685-6. The Germantowners were aware that a slave revolt could take place in Pennsylvania and they discuss this possibility in their Protest. They also mention that their friends and acquaintances in Germany and Holland are “fearful” and “terrified” to hear that Quakers in Pennsylvania hold slaves. This reaction in continental Europe is a reminder that the Germans and Eastern Dutch would not have been accustomed to black slaves in their society. It also suggests that the Germantowners, who were desperately trying to attract new settlers from their native lands, hoped to assure their friends and families in Europe that Pennsylvania would be a safe location to settle.

In the end, no one factor or incentive can be identified as “decisive” in the creation of the Germantown Protest. Its authors were neither solely virtuous nor shrewdly political. They were influenced by strong moral convictions, social fears and political affiliations and resentments. But what they created has, over the past four centuries, become a defining, formative and inspiring symbol of Quaker abolitionism—a position that warrants merit and respect. Still, it is useful and refreshing to imagine the revered authors as people, who were subject to ordinary human fears, desires and vices. If nothing else, this reminds the admirers of this Protest (myself included) that great things emerge from imperfect people; that revolutionary concepts are often inspired by banal, unknown, or even unsettling, factors; and that revolutionary thought and action are never out of reach.

Chapter Three: Quakers and Slavery, 1688

The Germantown Quakers submitted their protest against slavery into the complex social matrix of seventeenth century Quaker Philadelphia. At the time, slavery was an accepted and common convention among the English Quakers who were in political control of the colony. The Quaker slave trade was developing rapidly and, with few exceptions, the Pennsylvania Quaker population was unanimous in its acceptance of slavery.

The introduction of Pastorius, the Krefelders and the Krisheimers brought a “foreign” group into the Philadelphia Quaker community. Slavery was one issue that was accepted by the majority of English and rejected by virtually all Dutch and Germans. As a result, it is not too surprising that the Germantowners were the first group to formally submit an anti-slavery appeal to the Quaker community. The Protest was, in many ways, “another case pointing to the different outlook upon a common problem held by the Dutch-German and the English settlers.”

The English Quaker Slave Trade

During the last two decades of the seventeenth century, the Quaker slave trade in Pennsylvania grew quickly into a prosperous industry. As Pennsylvania’s social and economic structure developed, ties with the West Indies and other trade outlets flourished and the number of black slaves in Pennsylvania increased significantly. In 1690, less than ten years after Pennsylvania was founded, William Penn announced proudly that ten slave ships had arrived from the West Indies in just one year:

The several Plantations and towns begun upon the Land, bought by those first Undertakers, are also in a prosperous way of Improvement and Inlargement (insomuch as last Year, ten Sail of Ships were freighted there, with the growth of the Province, for Barbados, Jamaica, &c. Besides what came directly for this kingdom).

The slave trade was a source of pride and a symbol of prosperity for many English Quakers who considered slaves to be necessary for economic development. James Claypoole, a Friend and slave trader who emigrated with the Krefelders in 1683 and helped organize their journey on the Concord, expressed anxiety when his slave shipment failed to arrive:

I writt to thee, to send me 4 blacks viz. A man, a woman, a boy, a Girl but being I was so disappointed in Engl[and] as not to send thee those goods thou wrote for, I could not expect thou wouldst send them…Now my desire is that if thou doest not send them all however send me a boy between 12 & 20 years.

Quaker merchants, like other slave merchants, saw blacks as a commodity. Gabriel Thomas, another Friend living in Pennsylvania, lists “Negroes” as one of many imports from the West Indies:

Their Merchandize chiefly consists in Horses, Pipe-staves, Pork and Beef Salted and Barrelled up, Bread, and Flower, all sorts of Grain, Pease, Beans, Skins, Furs, Tobacco, or Pot-Ashes, Wx, etc., which are Barter’d for Rumm, Sugar, Molasses, Silver, Negroes, Salt, Wine, Linen, Household Goods, etc.

The Constant Alice, a “non-Quaker vessel owned by William Douglas and James and Hercules Coutts,” which sailed regularly between Pennsylvania and Barbados, records that a cargo worth £134 16s. 3d. was shipped to Philadelphia in June 1701. Of that, £47 consisted of black slaves. The following year, blacks “accounted for more than half” of the cargo: £57 10s. of £114 10s. 8d.

The increase in slave shipments between 1701 and 1702 suggest that the Quaker slave trade was still on the rise at the turn of the century, thirteen years after the completion of the Germantown Protest. Although voices against slavery had intensified in the Quaker community, they were undermined by the economic structure of colonial Pennsylvania and the demand for slaves in the Philadelphia Quaker community.

Early English Quaker Abolitionists

The burgeoning slave trade had few Quaker dissenters in 1688. Still, anti-slavery sentiment can be traced back to the founder of Quakerism, George Fox. Fox emphasized that all humans were “children of God” and advocated for fair treatment of blacks, although he did not condemn slavery. In 1971, he preached to blacks and whites during a visit to Barbados and “urged Quaker masters to limit their slaves’ terms and to educate them.” His thoughts and sermons were published six years later under the title, Gospel: Family-Order, Being a Short Discourse Concerning the Ordering of Families, both of Whites, Blacks and Indians.

The existence of slavery concerned Fox on two counts: first, it made him uncomfortable to imagine himself or other Friends as slaves and he encouraged Friends to treat blacks as they would want to be treated in a “slavish Condition:”

And further, consider with your selves, if you were in the same Condition as the Blacks are…if this should be the Condition of you or yours, you would think it hard to Measure; yea, and very great Bondage and Cruelty. And therefore consider seriously of this, and do you for and to them, as you would willingly have them or any other to unto you, were you in the like slavish Condition, & bring them to know the Lord Christ.

Moral treatment, according to Fox, included allowing slaves to hold worship meetings and providing them with a Christian education. He argues that Christ “dyed for Tawnes and for the Blacks, as well as for you that are called Whites” and concludes that “therefore you should preach Christ to your Ethyopians that are in your Families.”

Fox’s second worry regarded the Quaker family. Fox saw the family as a sacred institution and feared that the presence of non-Christian “strangers” would weaken Christian practices. He reminds Friends to “see that all of your Families do keep this Sabbath, this Rest, both you and your Sons and Daughters, Men-Servants & Maid-Servants that are within your Gates; this concerns every one of you, that are Masters of Families.” He also warned Friends to be wary of bringing blacks into their quarters and while he encouraged Friends to give blacks a time to meet for worship, he did not envision a shared meeting of blacks and whites:

[It] burden’d my Life very much, to see, that Families were not brought into Order; for the Blacks are of your Families, and the many Natives of them born in your Houses...Friends…let them have two or three Hours of the Day once in the Week, that Day Friends Meeting is on, or an other Day, to meet together, to wait upon the Lord.

Fox’s two concerns, one founded on morality and the other on familial “order,” are representative of the philosophical underpinnings of the early English Quaker anti-slavery movement. On moral terms, Friends argued that slavery was inconsistent with Quaker principles of non-violence and equality. This philosophical position came to fruition in the eighteenth century with abolitionists like John Woolman, Anthony Benezet, and David Ferris. The concern for familial order, meanwhile, maintained that owning slaves was ostentatious and would promote laziness in Quaker households. With slaves to perform menial labors, Friends argued, Quaker children would not learn the virtues of hard work, simplicity and humility.

The Quaker concern for familial order came in varying degrees of prejudice. While Fox was anxious that blacks were “strangers” who did not belong in Quaker families, other Friends feared that blacks could be dangerous. Cadwalader Morgan of Merion, an early abolitionist, wrote to the Philadelphia Yearly Meeting in 1696 and asked: “What if I should have a bad one of them, that must be corrected, or would run away, or when I went from home and leave him with a woman or maid, and he should desire to commit wickedness?”

Quakers were also concerned about the moral welfare of blacks. English Quakers tended to regard blacks as unenlightened since they had not been exposed to the Gospel, and the question of how to reform them was a major question for early abolitionists. William Edmunson, a Quaker who traveled to Barbados with George Fox, urged Friends to introduce blacks to God and Jesus as a means to “Christianize” them:

Friends that have Negroes is to take great Care, to Restrain and Reclaim them, from their former Courses of their accustomed filthy, unclean practices, in defileing one another, they are to be Restrained, and Watched over, and diligently admonished in the Fear of God and brought to Meetings, that they may learn to Know God that made them, and Christ Jesus that died for them and all Men, and those things the Lord required.

Edmunson became, as Jean Soderlund writes, “probably the first Quaker to denounce slavery outright,” and Frost adds that “Edmunson’s letters to Quakers…linked spiritual and temporal freedom and raised for the first time the question whether Christianity and slavery were compatible.”

Edmunson’s worry about the spiritual welfare of blacks and Morgan’s concern for the virtue of the Quaker family are both reiterated in the Philadelphia Yearly Meeting’s first anti-slavery statement, issued in 1696: “be more careful not to Encourage the bringing in of any more Negroes, and that such that have Negroes be Careful of them, bring them from Loose, and Lewd Living as much in them lies, and from Rambling abroad on First Days or other Times.”

Slave Revolt: A Common Fear

Early Quaker abolitionists were also aware of the possibility of slave revolt. There had been a series of slave rebellions in the Caribbean during the seventeenth century, including three in Barbados, the site of the Pennsylvania Quaker slave trade. These rebellions, which occurred in 1649, 1674/5 and 1692, supported the perception of blacks as dangerous and encouraged Quaker opposition to the slave trade, albeit for practical, rather than moral, reasons. The prospect of quelling a slave rebellion was problematic for Friends because they were opposed to all forms of violence and had no organized militia.

These concerns were articulated by Robert Piles, another seventeenth century Quaker abolitionist:
I considered, also, that if all friends that are of ability should buy of them that is in this provinc, they being a people not subject to ye truth, nor yet likely so to bee; they might rise in rebellion and doe us much mischief; except we keep a malisha; which is against our principles.

The Yearly Meeting responded to Piles’ letter by writing to Friends in Barbados and requesting an end to slave importation, although the records from The Constant Alice suggest that their request was not heeded.
The fear of revolt influenced Benjamin Furly’s attempt to limit slave ownership in Pennsylvania. Furly, William Penn’s agent in Amsterdam who helped Pastorius organize his journey to Philadelphia, wrote a letter to Penn with the following request:

Let no blacks be brought in directly. And if any come out of Virginia, Maryland or elsewhere in families that have formerly bought them elsewhere let them be declared (as in ye west jersey constitution) free at 8 years end.

The heading of the passage, “For the Security of Foreigners Who May Incline to Purchase Land in Pensilvania,” suggests that Furly’s incentive in writing to Penn was a concern for the safety of his clients—potential German and Dutch emigrants—rather than an altruistic desire to end slavery (although the two are not mutually exclusive). It also suggests that Furly’s clients were concerned about the presence of blacks in the colonies and had spoken to Furly about their fears.
Since Furly’s clients included Pastorius, the op den Graeffs and Garret Hendricks—and his letter was written in 1683, when Pastorius and the Krefelders were in contact with him in Rotterdam —his letter to Penn is of particular interest. It suggests that the Germantowners may have been concerned about slavery in America even before their emigration.

They were certainly concerned about both the slave trade and slave rebellion when they wrote their 1688 Protest. The Germantowners use the possibility of revolt to supplement their argument against slavery:

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

The slave revolt was a fear shared by the German-Dutch and English Quakers in Pennsylvania. Interestingly, it proved to be virtually the only shared concern regarding slavery. Apart from the fear of revolt, the English and German-Dutch Quakers demonstrated divergent perspectives on blacks, slaves and the slave trade.

The Germantown Protest: A New Type of Abolitionism

Within the context of the seventeenth century Quaker anti-slavery movement, the Germantown Protest represents a radical shift in thinking. While the Protest shares philosophical similarities with Fox’s moral concern in Quaker Family Order and Piles’ practical fear of slave rebellion in his 1698 letter, these connections are, for the most part, superficial. Closer analysis reveals that the Germantowners had a fundamentally different perception of blacks than English Quakers. As the anti-slavery texts of Fox, Morgan and Edmunson demonstrate, the English saw blacks as unenlightened at best and dangerous at worst. Neither the “progressive” nor “conservative” English Quakers considered blacks to be the social equals of whites. The belief that blacks were the spiritual equals of whites was itself a development. Abolitionists like William Edmunson were revolutionary in their own way by proposing that blacks, like whites, were capable of salvation through belief in God and Jesus.

The Germantowners, unlike the English Quakers, articulate a distanced awareness of racial prejudice. In a parenthetical note they reference the rumors they have heard about blacks slaves being “wicked and stubborn men,” but they neither affirm nor reject this statement. Their almost sarcastic tone, however, suggests that the Germantowners are unconvinced by English prejudice against blacks.

The Germantowners conceive of blacks as the social and spiritual equals of whites. They argue that there is “no more liberty” to have blacks as slaves as it is to have “other white ones” and in their phrasing of the Golden Rule, the Germantowners add the stipulation that no difference should be made based on “generation, descent, or colour.” The Germantowners also compare the oppression of blacks in Pennsylvania to the oppression of Quakers and Mennonites in Europe. Since the oppression of Quakers and Mennonites was of a social nature, this suggests that the Germantowners believed that blacks, like Quakers in Europe, deserved to be treated as political citizens, not slaves.

The divergent conceptions of blacks among English and German-Dutch Quakers probably has less to do with the relative “morality” of each group and more to do with the rhetorical, philosophical and behavioral customs that defined the mores of each group’s homeland. The near-unquestioned acceptance of the slave trade in England and the general assumption that blacks were socially and spiritually inferior to whites made it nearly impossible for the English to even conceive of racial equality. The German and Dutch Quakers, who were not accustomed to slavery or blacks, were unencumbered by these culturally engrained biases.

A Matter of Reputation

The lack of widespread slavery in Europe did, however, create one notable problem for the Germantowners: many of their friends and acquaintances were hesitant to emigrate to a land with slaves. The “marketable” aspect of Pennsylvania was its pure wilderness and the institution of slavery worked against this image. According to the Germantowners, religious communities in Germany and Holland had gotten word of the presence of slavery in Pennsylvania and were not impressed. The Germantowners mention Pennsylvania’s sinking reputation at three different points in their Protest:

Ah! Doe consider well this thing, you who doe it…You surpass Holland and Germany in this thing. This makes an ill report in all those countries of Europe, where they hear off, that ye Quakers doe here handel men as they handel there ye cattle. And for that reason some have no mind or inclination to come hither…

… such men ought to be delivered out of ye robbers, and set free…Then is Pennsylvania to have a good report, instead it hath now a bad one for this sake in other countries. Especially whereas ye Europeans are desirous to know in what manner ye Quakers doe rule in their province;--and most of them doe look upon us with an envious eye. But if this is done well, what shall we say is done evil?…

…To the end we shall be satisfied in this point, and satisfie likewise our good friends and acquaintances in our natif country, to whose it is a terror, or a fairful thing that men should be handeld so in Pennsylvania…

For the Germantowners, who were desperate to attract more settlers from their own homelands, this was a major concern. Pastorius was still holding on to hopes that the Frankfurters would arrive, but was eager to attract other Germans to Germantown, which was still nearly all Dutch. The other Germantowners were also hoping to lure more like-minded individuals from the Rhineland, and Herman op den Graeff’s letters home had been used to advertise the tranquility and purity of the Penn’s woods.

Still, while the existence of slavery acted as a deterrent for potential German settlers, the Germantowners also found themselves unrestrained by economic reliance upon the institution, a factor that gave them practical flexibility to exercise their philosophical position. As English Quaker perceptions of blacks evolved over the next century, the economic and political structure of the slave trade proved to be the most stubborn obstacle in the fulfillment of the developing ideal of racial equality.

Well, it's been quite a while since my last post, and I've written a few more chapters on my thesis. Instead of including the entire thesis here, I'm going to post my new introduction, which is not so long but gives an overview of all of my points. Please email me if you'd like to see more on any particular issue.

Thanks,
Katie

A Modern Myth: The 1688 Petition Against Slavery

On April 18th, 1688, four Quakers in the new settlement of Germantown signed a petition “against the traffick of mens-body.” This protest against slavery was the first of its kind on the American continent and preceded the official Quaker abolition of slavery by 92 years. Over the past three centuries, the petition has reached iconic status in abolitionist and Quaker narratives. William Hull, an historian at Swarthmore College during the early 20th century, calls it “the memorable flower which blossomed in Pennsylvania from the seed of Quakerism.” Samuel Pennypacker, a 19th century Philadelphia judge and historian, writes, “a mighty nation will ever recognize it in time to come as one of the brightest pages in the early history of Pennsylvania and the country.” Indeed, the petition has served to strengthen the modern Quaker abolitionist identity and provide deep roots for the anti-slavery movement in American history.

In 2000, the Philadelphia Yearly Meeting included a portion of the Protest in an exhibit on “Quakers and the Political Process,” compiled in celebration of the Republican National Convention’s meeting in Philadelphia. The section entitled “Ending Slavery—Striving for Civil Rights” includes the protest as part of a larger Quaker abolitionist narrative: “Beginning with the Germantown, Pennsylvania Meeting in 1688 and culminating in 1776 with all Quakers in the Philadelphia region, Friends gradually refused to own slaves.” Accompanying this history is a citation from the original Germantown Protest—with notable cuts. The curators of the exhibit chose not to cite the original references to Turks and Europe: one offends modern sensibilities, the other seems irrelevant. The revised text is attractive and accessible to a modern audience, although remnants of older linguistic conventions (and misspellings) remain:

These are the reasons why we are against the traffick of men-body, as followeth…There is a saying, that we shall doe to all men like as we will be done ourselves; making no difference of what generation, descent or colour they are. And those who steal or robb men, and those who buy or purchase them, are they not all alike? Here is liberty of conscience, wch is right and reasonable; here ought to be likewise liberty of ye body, except of evil-doers, wch is an other case. But to bring men hither, or to rob and sell them against their will, we stand against…Ah! Doe consider well this thing, you who doe it, if you would be done at this manner? And if it is done according to Christianity?…Pray, what thing in the world can be done worse towards us, than if men should rob or steal us away, and sell us for slaves to strange countries; separating housbands from their wives and children. Being now this is not done in the manner we would be done at therefore we contradict and are against this traffic of men-body. And we who profess that it is not lawful to steal, must, likewise, avoid to purchase such things as are stolen, but rather help to stop this robbing and stealing if possible.

This modern anecdote is interesting for a variety of reasons. First, it demonstrates how the 1688 Protest can be used to create a modern myth about the Quaker abolitionist movement. The Protest is identified as the “seed” of abolitionist sentiment that came to fruition in 1776. Second, the decision to include a portion of the original text suggests that the language of the Protest appeals to a modern audience. This accessibility is rare when compared to the modern treatment of other texts within the same period. George Keith’s “Exhortation & Caution to Friends Concerning Buying or Keeping of Negroes,” the first anti-slavery protest printed in the colonies, has received markedly less attention in the past century than the Germantown Protest and while it is occasionally cited, it is rarely excerpted. Other early anti-slavery texts, including William Edmunson’s 1676 journal or Cadwalader Morgan’s 1698 letter to Friends, have been similarly ignored outside scholarly circles.

The relative popularity of the 1688 protest raises an important question: Why has the Germantown Protest—both as a symbol and as a text—assumed such a central role in the contemporary narrative of the Quaker anti-slavery movement? What makes it appealing to a modern audience? One answer is that its place as the “first” anti-slavery protest in the American colonies comes with an inherently exalted position. But while it may have been the first “protest” against slavery, the Germantown text was not the first anti-slavery Quaker document. George Fox, while not decisively anti-slavery, defended the rights of blacks and insisted that all were equal “children of God.” William Edmunson published his journal and letters in 1676, in which he advocated an end to slavery. His reasoning, however, does not meld with modern sensibilities. Edmunson urges Friends to introduce blacks to Jesus Christ and the Gospel and to help them turn away from their otherwise “unclean” lives. Fox, meanwhile, insists that blacks are no farther from God than whites, but is uncomfortable with the idea of black “strangers” becoming a part of Quaker families.

It may be the very abnormality of the Germantown Protest that makes it so accessible to a modern audience. The language of the 1688 text is unlike other inter-Quaker texts of the same period in content, structure and style. The Germantown Protest does not follow the typical format of a Quaker document sent between Meetings. It addresses itself to “Christians,” rather than “Friends” and with minor exceptions, it forgoes Biblical references and never mentions Jesus Christ—all unusual practices for a Quaker text in the late 17th century. The Germantown Protest founds its anti-slavery argument on ethical and pragmatic concerns that are not dependent on belief in Christian doctrine or Quaker custom. In its direct approach to the question of slavery, the Germantowners also omit the salutary introduction to Friends that was customary of epistles sent between Meetings. In its structural style, the protest most resembles Quaker pamphlets, which were normally written to groups or individuals outside the Quaker community.

These observations raise another important question: why was the 1688 Protest different? And why were the Germantowners the first Quakers to write down and publicly denounce slave-holding and trading within a formal Quaker structure? Much of the disparity, I argue, stems from the Dutch and German backgrounds of the Germantowners. The Germantowners were foreigners in a foreign land, outsiders within their own Quaker community. Linguistically, culturally and ideologically they differed from the English Quakers who controlled the political and religious structures in Pennsylvania. As a result, their transition to the New World was accompanied by unique challenges and situations. This thesis will investigate those challenges faced by the German and Dutch Quakers who wrote and submitted what was to become, in William Hull’s words, “the memorable flower which blossomed in Pennsylvania from the seed of Quakerism.”

It is also an exploration of the origins of “revolutionary thought.” The Germantown Protest, according to our modern myth, was the critical “seed” of anti-slavery sentiment planted in the 17th century. So why was it written? What social factors and individual motivations contributed to its creation? As J. William Frost asks in the introduction to his text, The Quaker Origins of Antislavery, “What causes people to think of something new? Is invention primarily a personal achievement determined by individual genius or should one seek to isolate a significant cultural nexus, economic factor, or social condition?”

In the case of the Germantown Protest, the authors were responding to a variety of social, moral, economic, and political concerns. Their concerns were created by, and voiced within, the complex and unique social matrix of 17th century Pennsylvania, where multiple languages, conventions and values were in constant, and often contentious, conversation. For the Germantowners, the institution of slavery, and specifically the importation of black slaves, would have been a new and strange phenomenon that was an accepted convention for English Quakers. This disparity was compounded by class differences: the English Quakers who led the Philadelphia Yearly Meeting in Philadelphia were wealthier than the Dutch and German Quakers of Germantown. So while the more powerful English could own slaves, it would have been an impossibility for most of the Germantowners, nearly all of whom were skilled craftsmen who did not need slaves for their work. Of the Germantowners, only Pastorius had a relatively wealthy and educated upbringing and ironically, Ruth (1983) points out that he actually agreed to be the proprietor of slaves for the Frankfurt Company in 1683. As a result of this economic situation, it would have been politically smart for the Germantowners to reject the slave trade. None of the protest’s authors benefited from it, while their political superiors would have felt its absence acutely.

The partial “outsider” status of the Germantowners and their lack of need for—and unfamiliarity with—black slaves were all important factors that led to the creation of the anti-slavery protest. But circumstance alone cannot determine behavior, and the language of the protest demonstrates a strong moral conviction about the evils of slavery. The Germantowners challenge their readers to imagine themselves in a slave-like position and to take their ethics of equality seriously. They also connect the core Quaker belief in “liberty of conscience” with liberty of body, a step that provides their anti-slavery argument with a strong philosophical foundation: “Here is liberty of conscience, wch is right and reasonable; here ought to be likewise liberty of ye body, except of evil-does, wch is another case.”

This morality, however, cannot be taken completely at face value. The Germantowners were not only concerned about the treatment of blacks, but also for their own welfare. In 17th century Europe and America, blacks were often assumed to be dangerous, dirty and foul. The Germantowners reference this assumption at multiple times in their protest, although they do not define their own position on the subject. Still, the Germantowners were undoubtedly concerned about the presence of black slaves in Pennsylvania. They are well aware of the possibility of slave revolt, a common fear that they use to supplement their argument against slavery.

The Germantowners were also concerned about Pennsylvania’s reputation in Europe. At three separate times they note that their friends and acquaintances in Germany and Holland are “fearful” and “terrified” to hear that Quakers in Pennsylvania hold slaves. This reaction in continental Europe is a reminder that the Germans and Eastern Dutch would not have been accustomed to black slaves in their society.

In the end, no one factor or incentive can be identified as “decisive” in the creation of the Germantown Protest. Its authors were neither solely virtuous nor shrewdly political nor covertly racist. They were influenced by strong moral convictions, social fears and political affiliations and resentments. But what they created has, over the past four centuries, become a defining, formative and inspiring symbol of Quaker abolitionism, a position that warrants merit and respect. But it is also useful and refreshing to imagine the revered authors as people, who were subject to ordinary human fears, desires and vices. And this is what this thesis attempts to do. Beginning with a historical, political and socio-economic overview of the years leading up to and following the petition (Chapter One), it continues with specific histories of each petition signer (Chapter Two). Chapter Three places the 1688 protest within the broader context of the 17th century Quaker slave trade/early Quaker anti-slavery movement while Chapter Four examines the text of the protest as part of a genre of Quaker documents that were sent between Meetings (“inter-Quaker documents”). It ends with a brief explanation of the protest’s immediate effects within the Quaker community (Chapter Five) and a reexamination of the protest’s meaning within a modern context (Conclusion). The petition, I conclude, continues to mold and define the modern Quaker identity. Its role has shifted from community disrupter to community cohesive over the past three centuries as the cultural landscapes shifted, but its social currency remains alive and important.

Thesis Draft: Introduction and Chapter One

**This is the first draft of my introduction and first chapter. Chapter One focuses on the historical, political and socio-economic influences of the petition authors. (note: my footnotes did not copy here, so you can ask me if you'd like the references. Also, any comments/suggestions are greatly appreciated.)**

Introduction: The 1688 Petition Against Slavery

On April 18th, 1688, four Quakers in the new settlement of Germantown signed a petition “against the traffick of mens-body.” Despite its rejection by the meetings of Abington and Philadelphia for being “too weighty,” this public protest against slavery was the first of its kind on the American continent and preceded the official Quaker abolition of slavery by 92 years. Over the past three centuries, it has reached iconic status in abolitionist and Quaker narratives. William Hull, a historian at Swarthmore College during the early 20th century, calls it “the memorable flower which blossomed in Pennsylvania from the seed of Quakerism.” Samuel Pennypacker, a 19th century Philadelphia judge and meticulous historian, writes, “a mighty nation will ever recognize it in time to come as one of the brightest pages in the early history of Pennsylvania and the country.” Indeed, since its rediscovery in 1844, the petition has served to strengthen the Quaker abolitionist identity and provide the anti-slavery movement with deep roots in American history.

The petition demonstrates moral and revolutionary conviction that defied the well-established slave trade and called into question economically based social norms. It asks the reader to “doe to all men, licke as we will be done our selves: macking no difference of what generation, descent, or Colour they are.” With language that anticipates the rhetoric of the Declaration of Independence (though not, unfortunately, the Constitution), the petition is both revolutionary and inspiring.

But its story is not so simple. These revolutionary ideas emerged from the minds of real people: people who worried about what to eat, how to earn money, and what to wear. They were people who fought with their neighbors, disagreed with politicians and argued with their children. They were also people who chose to leave behind all they knew for the promise of an imagined place. Departing from their homelands in Germany and Holland, they found themselves in the wilderness of Pennsylvania with little shelter and little warmth. When Francis Daniel Pastorius arrived in Philadelphia in August of 1683, he wrote home that “Alles ist nur Wald”—all is only forest. When the Krefelders landed two months later, 20 of them squeezed into Pastorius’s “cave”—a small cabin built into a mount of earth. From this beginning, they worked to carve new homes for themselves, forging a new existence through hard work, difficult conditions and persistence.

This was life for Gerhard Hendricks, Dirck op den Graeff, Francis Daniel Pastorius and Abraham op den Graeff, the four signers of the anti-slavery petition. And it is this life that needs to be imagined in order to more adequately contextualize their petition. Prompted by religious persecution in Europe and equipped with idealistic conceptions of the rough—but pure—wilderness of Penn’s woods, these settlers arrived in a new world and found themselves under the power of an English-speaking government and often marginalized by the English Quaker population. The political situation in Pennsylvania was less than harmonious. In the 1690s, founder and governor William Penn was displaced by Benjamin Fletcher and the Philadelphia population was divided in its opinion and support. Nor was the relationship between Quakers or Germantowners without schism. The early history of Germantown is wrought with disputes between Quakers and Mennonites in realms of worship and government. The Quakers themselves were divided when George Keith began preaching against “orthodox” Quakerism at the end of the 17th century. The four petition signers split on whether to support “Keithian” or “orthodox” Quakerism, and the controversy led to vicious disagreements within the Germantown and Philadelphia communities.

These socio-economic and political factors must be taken into account within any kind of historical analysis of the anti-slavery petition. It must be remembered that none of the Germantowners owned—or had ever owned—slaves. Neither did their friends: they had neither the means nor the precedent. As skilled weavers and craftsmen, their trades were self-sufficient while the livelihood of many of the richer English Quakers of Philadelphia did depend on slavery. Of the Germantowners, only Pastorius had a more wealthy and educated upbringing and ironically, Ruth (1983) points out that he actually agreed to be the proprietor of slaves for the Frankfurt Company in 1683.

Still, this socio-economic analysis is just one lens through which to understand the petition. The petition is also a text. And as a text, it can be examined as part of a literary genre that was culturally defined for a specific purpose: to declare a position and create social change. There were other “petitions” written at the same time and discussed within the Philadelphia Quaker community. How does the anti-slavery petition compare to these categorically similar texts? What literary and philosophical patterns were common to the genre of “petition,” and how were these put to use by Pastorius, Hendericks and the op den Graeff brothers?

These are the questions I will address in my analysis of the famous 1688 protest. Beginning with a historical, political and socio-economic overview of the years leading up to and following the petition (Chapter One), I will continue with specific histories of each signer (Chapter Two). Chapter Three will examine the specific text, analyzing both its philosophical content and its literary structure as a “petition” in comparison to other petitions published at the same time in the Philadelphia Quaker community. Chapter Four will consider the reasons for the petition’s rejection by the larger Quaker community while the final chapter will analyze the place of the petition today. The petition, I argue, continues to mold and define the modern Quaker identity. Its role has shifted from community disrupter to community cohesive over the past three centuries as the cultural landscapes shifted, but its social currency remains alive and important.

Chapter 1: Germantown, 1683-1688

In 1688, no more than 44 families lived in Germantown, a small village near Philadelphia. The majority of them were skilled craftsmen, and several were linen-weavers. Where did they come from? Why did they leave their homeland? And what prompted four of them to write a petition against slavery? An investigation into the Germantowner’s lives in Europe, their struggles through the turmoil of the post-30-year-war era, their motivations for starting a new life and their experiences in their new world illuminate the context within which their initially rejected—but eventually cherished—protest against the “traffick of mens-body” was written.

The Old World: Krefeld and Krisheim

With a few exceptions, the earliest Germantowners hailed from small towns in present day West Germany: Krefeld and Krisheim. Over the past two centuries, scholars have disagreed over the ethnic, national and religious identities of these original settlers. While Pennypacker (1899), Eschelman (1917) and Learned (1908) cite the Germantowners as German Mennonites, Ruth (1983) calls them ex-Mennonite German Quakers while Hull (1932) argues that the Germantowners were Dutch Quakers. What must be taken into account is that ethnic, national and religious boundaries were not defined as they are today. It is clear, however, that the Krefelders spoke Dutch and the Krisheimers spoke a Dutchified German and that Pastorius, a German, referred to them as “Hollanders,” although Ruth (1983) points out that some Krefeld families had German-speaking ancestors.

The political history of the Krefelders and the Krisheimers was tumultuous and complex, but Ruth (1983) gives a good overview of the situation in the Lower Rhine/Palatine region during the 17th century:

"…this small (some seven acres) walled and militarily neutral town had proven by 1640 to be unusually tolerant of religiously nonconformist families in this so-called “lower Rhine” region, “in the borders of Germany and Holland.” The predominantly Catholic rulers of this area participated zealously in the Counter-reformation after the end of the Thirty Years’ War (1648), with the result that expelled Mennonites fled both up the Rhine to the Palatinate and to Krefeld, a Protestant-controlled island of toleration under the ruling House of Orange. This rapid Mennonite influx doubled the number of families in the town and raised apprehensions especially among Reformed neighbors, whose fellowship, as in the neighboring town of Kaldenkirchen, had had its own lengthy persecutions from the Catholic regime. But the new Mennonite inhabitants brought with them an entrepreneurial diligence…that was to lead toward the establishment of Krefeld as a major European nexus of the textile industry…The newer Mennonite population which had flooded in from neighboring Höfe and towns after the Catholic persecutions (ca. 1630-50) also brought doctrinally less precise attitude…The modified atmosphere that resulted among the Krefeld Mennonite community of textile workers and handlers also proved more than usually receptive to the preaching of…the Society of Friends…"

As Ruth explains, Mennonites in the 17th century were forced to flee from their homes in response to various political situations. The experiences of Wilhelm Lucken, father of Germantowner Jan Lucken, demonstrate the individualized effects of these social trends. Wilhelm Lucken was born and married in 1620 in Dahlen, but was expelled, along with other Mennonites, in 1652. He moved to Wickrath, where he lived until 1678 when the ruler was “urged” by the Archbishop of Cologne to make the Mennonites leave his domain. Wilhelm fled to Rheydt and soon after, his son Jan converted to Quakerism and departed for Pennsylvania, where he hoped to gain religious freedom. Wilhelm himself was forced to move again in 1694, when the Mennonites were again expelled—this time by the Duke of Julich.

During this time of political upheaval, Quaker missionaries arrived in Holland and Germany. Quaker William Ames came to Krefeld as early as 1657, where Quakerism took root in the Mennonite communities. By 1979 a Quaker congregation was founded in Krefeld. Two years later, the Quaker community in Krefeld was consciously modeling its customs according to Quaker precedent. One surviving document from the period is the marriage certificate of Derick Isacks op den Graeff and Nöleken Vijten. Issued by the Krefeld Monthly Meeting, the marriage was conducted as a Quaker ceremony and followed the guidelines presented at the London Yearly Meeting of 1675. The marriage certificate is signed by (among others) Derick Isacks op den Graeff, Herman Isacks op den Graeff, Abraham Isacks op den Graeff and Tünes Kunders. Derick and Abraham were, of course, co-authors of the anti-slavery petition that was signed in the house of Tünes Kunders. Nearly all the other certificate signers would also immigrate to Germantown. This document gives a clearer picture of who these Krefelders were: a tight knit Dutch-speaking Quaker community in the Rhineland who followed the developing rules and rites of the larger Quaker population.

William Penn’s Promise

A year after a congregation was founded in Krefeld, six Quakers, including Herman Isaacs op den Graeff, were driven into exile. William Penn, another English Quaker missionary, heard of these abuses and wrote a letter to William of Orange about the treatment of Quakers. The next year, Penn was the recipient a large amount of land in 1681 in the American forest in repayment of a debt owed to his father by Charles II. Soon after, he wrote his “Account,” inviting Quaker and Mennonite communities in Holland and the Rhine to his land in the New World—Pennsylvania.

Penn offered 5,000 acres of land for 100 pounds and guaranteed freedom of worship to all: “all Persons living in this Province who confess and acknowledge the One Almighty and Eternal God to be the Creator Upholder and Ruler of the World, and that hold themselves obliged in Conscience to live peaceably and quietly in Civil Society, shall in no ways be molested or prejudiced for their Religious Persuasion or Practice in matters of Faith and Worship, nor shall they be compelled at any time to frequent or maintain any Religious Worship, Place or Ministry whatever.”

Within a year, in March of 1983, three Krefelders purchased a total of 15,000 acres of land from Benjamin Furly, Penn’s agent in Amsterdam. This purchase established "an economic framework for the famous contingent of mostly Quaker emigrants from Krefeld to Pennsylvania." In addition to these larger purchases, Govert Ramke (Mennonite, never emigrated) purchased 1000 acres, Lenart Arets and Jacob Isaac van Bebber purchased 1000 acres each and the op den Graeff brothers bought 2000 of Telner's 5000 in June 1683.

This offer was appealing not only to the Mennonite-Quakers of Krefeld and Krisheim, but also to a group of Frankfurt Pietists. The Frankfurters, later known as the “Frankfurt Company,” hired a young lawyer named Francis Daniel Pastorius to organize their purchase of Penn’s land and their emigration to Philadelphia. Pastorius bought 15,000 acres of land for the Frankfurt Company before sailing to Philadelphia in summer 1683. Pastorius’s account of the proceedings demonstrate his great desire to leave the turmoil of Europe for what he saw was a pure and holy new world. “This begot such a desire,” he writes, “to continue in their Society and with them to lead a quiet, godly & honest life in a howling wilderness.” At another point he wrote that he left with “the confident expectation that by fleeing hither from Europe…we might escape the disturbances and oppressions of that time, and, likewise, transport other honest and industrious peoples in order that we might lead a quiet, peaceful, Godly life…”

“Alles ist nur Wald”: Arrival in Pennsylvania

With this motivation, Pastorius sailed for Pennsylvania and arrived on August 20, 1683 with four man servants, two maids and two children. Upon arrival, he described Philadelphia: “the Metropolis (which Brother-Love they call,) Three houses, & no more, could number up in all.” There he met William Penn and drew up designs for the makeup of a new town which he named “Germantown” or “Germanopolis.” When the Krefelders arrived on October 6, 1683, they choose a location for their new town and began to build a settlement. On October 12, William Penn issued a warrant for the Krefelders and Frankfurt Company for 6,000 acres on the East Side of the Schuylkill River. This land was divided equally among the two parties, but to Pastorius’s dismay and dissapointment, his Frankfurt Company never arrived.

During these first weeks, Pastorius and the Krefelders saw many new faces. Herman op den Graeff wrote in a letter home that he encountered “blacks, or Moors” as well as Swedish farmers and Indians. In March of the next year, Herman reported that things were going well and that the Indians had been friendly.

Life in “Germanopolis”

n 1683-4, the Krefelders began to build their town. During this time, Pastorius stayed in his “cave” in Philadelphia before moving to Germantown in 1685. Germantown at once proved to be industrious and successful, as the Krefelders continued their work as skilled craftsmen. On February 12, 1984, Herman op den Graeff wrote home, “Most of us already have our own habitations; and every day more good houses are being built.” Pastorius recorded that Germantown had twelve houses and forty-two people in 1684 and that the cellars of sixty-four houses were being laid in 1687.

Pastorius also wrote about the professions of the Germantowners in a letter: “The inhabitants of this town are for most part handworkers (craftsmen) Cloth, Fustian and linen weavers, tailors, shoemakers, locksmiths, carpenters, who however, all are acquainted with agriculture and cattle breeding.” This description of Germantown is repeated by Richard Frame, in his poem entitled “A Short Description of Pennsylvania,” published by Wm. Bradford in 1692: “The German Town of which I spoke before, / Which is, at least, in length one mile and more, / Where lives High German People, and Low Dutch, / Whose Trade in weaving Linnin Cloth is much, / There grows the Flax, as also you may know, / That from the same they do divide the Tow.”

Indeed, Germantown was very much industrial rather than agricultural. As Stephanie Grauman Wolf argues in Urban Village, this gave the sparse town an unusually cosmopolitan aspect: “To the European eyes of the 18th c. Pennsylvanians, Germantown was a village, despite Pastorius’s vision of a city in the wilderness and his attempt to popularize the name “Germanopolis” for the community…much of its sociology was, indeed, distinctly urban, and its inhabitants unconsciously underscored this character when they erected and maintained for generations a market building that was not really needed or used (Tinkcom, M: “Germantown’s Market Square”). Although never successful and frequently abandoned, the Germantown market stood asan ancient urban symbol of a community’s ability to accumulate a surplus.”

Germantown was an unusal combination of idealism, skilled craftsmanship, a rural environment and strong religious conviction. This did not, however, always make for peaceful, cooperative living. When Pastorius wrote back to the Frankfurt company, he requested that the Company send German families to Pennsylvania rather than “Hollanders” for “as sad experience hath taught me” the latter were not “so amiable, which in this country is a highly necessary quality.” He requested people with skills in farming, carpentry and tanning with a disposition to work.

Religious Practice in Germantown

Until a church was built in 1686, worship meetings took place in the house of Thones Kunders. Before then, Mennonites and Quakers occasionally worshipped together and some Mennonites signed Quaker marriage certificates. Initially, Jan Lensen and his wife Mercken were the only Mennonites in Germantown, and it was not until more Mennonites arrived that a separate congregation could be formed. In 1686, after the arrival of Jacob Isaac van Bebber, Mennonites gathered in the van Bebber house where Dirck Keyser would read to them.
This situation was described in a letter written in 1690 about Germantown, "I came to a German village near Philadelphia, where among others, I heard Jacob Telner, a German Quaker, preaching. The village consists of 44 families, 28 of whom are Quakers, the other 16 of the Reformed Church, among whom I spoke to those who had been received as member of the Lutherans, Mennonites and Baptists, who are very much opposed to Quakerism, and therefore lovingly meet every Sunday when a Menist, Dirck Keyser from Amsterdam, reads a sermon from a book by Jobst Harmensen.” As this note says, the relations between Quakers and Mennonites in Germantown was not always cordial. The Mennonites increasingly separated themselves from the Quaker congregation, and appointed their own minister and deacon in 1690.

Politics: Philadelphia, Germantown, Quaker

Religious life could not be separated from politics in 17th century Pennsylvania. While Penn’s “Holy Experiment” may have given individuals religious freedom, this freedom did bring about tranquility or peace. On the contrary, as we have seen, the diverse religious and cultural backgrounds in Philadelphia “proved quarrelsome and disorderly.” In 1691, Pastorius wrote in a letter back to Germany, “I sincerely wish that the dissension and strife which, alas! are all too rife, may be entirely erased from the hearts and minds of the people of Germantown…”

Indeed, it was not only the Quakers and Mennonites in Germantown who quarreled, but also English and Germans in Philadelphia. In Historic Germantown, H and M. Tinkcom argue, “the famous Protest against slavery issued from Germantown in 1688 is another case pointing up the different outlook upon a common problem held by the Dutch-German and the English settlers. In fact, throughout the eighteenth century, one important phase of the Germantown story is the history of the “Americanization” of an alien group.”

The cultural differences between the English and Quakers certainly played an important role in Germantown politics and the protest against slavery can be understood as an attack against the English and their customs. While slave holding was well-established among the English immigrants, including Quakers, it was unusual for Germans. This difference in national slave-holding patterns is illustrated in the first American census of 1790. Hildegard Binder Johnson reports, “the practice differed not only according to geographical circumstances but also according to different nationalities…It is significant that the smallest proportion is shown by the Germans who even at the early period were obviously opposed to slave ownership. Had the proportion of slaves for the entire white population of the United States in 1790 been the same as it was for the German element the aggregate number of slaves at the First Census would have been but 52, 520 instead of 700,000.” As this later census shows, slave holding was clearly a nationally-influenced phenomenon. But it was also undoubtedly a class phenomenon, and the Quakers of Germantown were not as wealthy as their English neighbors. Thus the petition can also be seen as an assertion of power in the realm of class relations. By declaring their moral superiority, the Quakers of Germantown were also declaring a kind of subversive power over the otherwise more important and wealthy English Quakers.

Overall, it is clear that the political, religious, socio-economic and historical factors contributing to the petition were both important and complex. The authors built upon their experiences as persecuted peoples in Europe and their theological belief that all men are of God while also making the most of their social situation in Philadelphia with wealthier and more powerful English rulers.