This 1810 petition was sent to the legislature in Virginia by the Virginia Yearly Meeting of the Religious Society of Friends. Its request was not granted, although it has been considered one of our most persuasive statements for the legal recognition of conscientious objection to war. The original is in the Quaker Collection of Haverford College Libraries. The following transcript attempts to adhere to original spelling and punctuation, allowing for a few blurry places in our copy.
To the Legislature of Virginia
THE MEMORIAL AND PETITION OF THE RELIGIOUS SOCIETY OF FRIENDS (COMMONLY CALLED QUAKERS)
RESPECTFULLY SHEW,
That your memorialists, estimating the high regard with which the legislature will be disposed to consider every subject affecting the great principles of civil or religious liberty, beg leave to solicit your attention to the militant laws of this commonwealth, and to the incompatibility which sometimes results between the requisitions of the law, and the obligations of religious duty.
In this enlightened age and country, and before this legislature, your memorialists conceive it unnecessary to urge the unalienable rights of conscience, or to adduce any arguments to shew that the relations between man and his Creator, neither can, nor ought to be prescribed or controuled by any human authority. It is unnecessary because the proposition is self-evident, and especially because it is one of the fundamental principles upon which the civil and political institutions of this country are established. This principle is recognised in the bill of rights; it is confirmed by the law of 1785, passed in the enlightened and liberal spirit of that instrument; and the, state itself, by its convention which ratified the federal constitution, expressly declared, that “the liberty of conscience cannot be cancelled, abridged, restrained, or modified by any authority of the United States.” The free exercise of religion, therefore, is not merely tolerated; it is declared in the most solemn form, it is confirmed in the most explicit manner.
But the liberty of conscience, your memorialists conceive, cannot be restricted to the mere liberty of thinking, or to the silent and unseen modifications of religious opinion. Religion has duties to be performed, and it points out offences to be avoided; its free exercise must therefore consist in an active compliance with its dictates, enforced by no legal compulsion, restrained by no legal impediment.
Your memorialists, in common with every virtuous citizen, would disclaim any exemption under the colour of religious liberty, from the universal obligations of moral duty. But the law of 1785, in making “overt acts” of an injurious nature the limit of the privilege, and the criterion of its abuse, removes all danger to the community. Any encroachment on the rights of others, or violation of the moral law, under pretence of liberty of conscience, would immediately betray its own guilt and hypocrisy, and afford a legitimate cause for the interposition of the civil authority.
These considerations are suggested, as applicable to the case which is now submitted to the wisdom and justice of the legislature.
Your memorialists are Christians; and, impressed with the firm conviction that war is forbidden under the gospel, they cannot bear arms. To require it under legal penalties, is to reduce them to the alternative of refusing a compliance with the laws of their country or of violating what they [most certainly?] believe is to them a law of God, clothed with the most awful sanctions.
Your memorialists plead for no new doctrine, they set up no novel pretensions. They ask permission only to practice the precepts of Jesus Christ─to adhere to a principle which prevailed through the first centuries of the christian dispensation, which pious men through every subsequent age have maintained; and which their predecessors, from the time they have been known as a religious society, under various forms of government, and through sufferings imposed by rigorous and persecuting laws, have uniformly supported.
It is true that in the lapse of time, the spirit of persecution has faded before the lights of truth. Our own country, as already stated, has been particularly distinguished for maintaining the principles of civil and religious liberty, and for rejecting those of coercive law and religious intolerance. The very grievance to which we now solicit your attention, has been acknowledged and redressed. A legislature composed of enlightened statesmen and sages, who had assisted in establishing the chartered rights of America, who had seen the principles which your memorialists maintain tested through the revolutionary war, convinced, it is believed, of their sincerity, and of the justice of their claim, exempted them from the obligation to bear arms, and from certain fines and penalties which had been imposed on their non-compliance with military requisitions. But the laws are changed. They now require that your memorialists, notwithstanding the insuperable objection of their religious scruples, should be trained to arms. Their refusal subjects them to fines, which within certain limitations, are fixed at the discretion of the courts martial, and become in numerous instances extremely oppressive. Nor is this all─your memorialists conceive that the voluntary payment of a fine imposed for adherence to religious duty, or the receiving of surplus money, arising from the sale of their property seized for the satisfying of these demands, would be to acknowledge a delinquency which they cannot admit, and to become parties in a traffic or commutation of their principles. Hence also, considerable loss is sustained. And notwithstanding your memorialists may acknowledge that many officers of the government, in these cases, manifest great reluctance, and execute their trust with a scrupulous regard to the interest of the sufferers; yet there are other instances in which wanton depredations are made on the property of individuals.
Your memorialists are aware that it may be said that the law does not discriminate between them and others, and that they ought equally to support the public burdens, and yield their services to the exigencies of the state. This objection supposes that a general law cannot have a partial or unequal operation. It supposes too, that what may be deemed, a national concern, may supercede the chartered rights and privileges of the people. But your memorialists cannot suppose that these principles, which indeed are no other than the maxims of tyranny, will ever be deliberately adopted or acted upon by this legislature. If one member of the community believe that it is his duty to fight, and to slay the enemies of his country, and if another believe that he is prohibited by divine command from planning the destruction or shedding the blood of his fellow creatures, the question, as it relates to the present subject is not which, or whether either is wrong, but whether a law commanding both to take arms, would not operate unequally, and violate the rights of conscience? It would operate unequally, because it does not discriminate─because to the conscience of the one, it would enjoin the performance of a duty, to that of the other, the commission of a crime. It would violate the liberty of conscience, because it would compel under [fines?] and penalties the performance of an act, which is believed offensive to the Divine Being. Human authority cannot, like the Great searcher of hearts, try the spirits of men respecting truth and error; it cannot remit the penalties of sin, or control the convictions of the heart; and therefore in this country at least, the liberty of conscience is wisely placed beyond the sphere of legislation, and protected from the encroachment of any power in the government.
It may be recollected too, that in every nation of the civilized world, where this society is found, they profess and maintain the same principles. That no hope of reward, no dread of punishment, not confiscations, imprisonments, or death would induce them to bear arms against this country, or in any other cause whatever, and that every attempt to coerce them, would result, on the one side, in the triumph of principle, however severely tested, and in unavailing persecution on the other.
While it is therefore evident that the ostensible object of the law, or training them to arms, cannot be effected; and it is presumed from the general notoriety of their principles, that it is not even expected to be attained─while your memorialists believe that the principles they hold can in no sense prove injurious to the community, and are persuaded that this legislature would disclaim the idea of raising revenue by laws inflicting fines on the free exercise of conscience ─they trust, that a privilege conferred by the Supreme Being, and by the highest authority in this country declared to be sacred and inviolable, may be safely expected from its justice and liberality. They therefore respectfully petition, that the laws imposing military requisitions and penalties for non-compliance, may be considered [as?] they respect your petitioners, and such relief afforded as to the wisdom of the legislature shall seem just and necessary.
Signed by order and on behalf of a meeting of the representatives of the aforesaid society held in Dinwiddie county, the 17th of the 11th month, 1810.
By BENJ. BATES, Clerk at this time.