This week, I’ve been thinking about 1842-1843 here in Richmond Indiana. In August of 1842, Henry Clay, the head of the Whig Party, campaigned here in Richmond Indiana. While he was campaigning, Hiram Mendenhall brought him a petition from the Indiana Anti-Slavery society asking him to free his slaves. Clay was angry, told him to go home and mind his own business, and then gave a impromptu speech on why slavery was a complex issue, and how disruptive it would be to end slavery.
This event is seen by many as the start of the end of the Whig party. Many who wanted slavery limited or ended voted Whig, as that party was able to win, but when it became clear that both major parties supported the continuation of slavery, and were hostile to emancipation those who supported abolition left and the party died.
One of the local waves was caused by Clay’s visit was religious. Henry Clay visited the 1842 annual sessions of Indiana Yearly Meeting of the Society of Friends. The response at Yearly Meeting sessions, which were also in Richmond caused a breach in Yearly Meeting sessions, and likely a breach in family relationships.
Elijah Coffin was Clerk of Indiana Yearly Meeting, and a member of the Whig party. He recognized Henry Clay as a guest and having him seated as a guest of honor. This offended to those who devoted their lives to abolition.
Another offense was removing those known to belong to the Indiana Anti-Slavery society from committees. Elbert Russel in History of Quakerism tells us that 8 abolitionists were removed, without minuting a reason, from the Meeting for Sufferings. (That is the executive committee that has the power to make decisions that cannot wait until the next Yearly Meeting)
Over the course of the year, a number of abolitionists found themselves not only removed from committees but removed from membership in their own places of worship. The 1838 Indiana Yearly Meeting discipline reads as follows, under the section on Civil Government:
If any persons in membership with us, notwithstanding the preceding admonition, shall persist in a conduct so repugnant to our principles, it is the sense of the Yearly Meeting that they be treated with as in other cases of offense; and if they cannot be brought to see and acknowledge their error, the Monthly Meetings to which they belong should proceed to testify against them.
It is also our judgment that Friends ought not, in any wise, to be active or accessory in electing, promoting to be elected, their brethren or others to such offices or stations in civil government, the execution whereof tends to lay waste our Christian testimony, or subject their brethren or others to sufferings on account of their conscientious scruples. The principle of truth calls us out of contention: it even seeks not its own ends by means productive of animosity; much less, therefore, should its professors indulge themselves in strife for objects of a perishing nature.
The result of this string of offenses is that in the 1843 Yearly meeting session, the abolitionists staged a walk out. They attended the opening of Yearly Meeting sessions, then they walked from the Yearly Meeting house to Newport Indiana (Now Fountain City Indiana) and formed their own Yearly Meeting that would continue to meet until 1857, which happened to be the last year Elisha Coffin was clerk of Indiana Yearly Meeting. The Anti-Slavery Yearly meeting ended because it was merged back into Indiana Yearly meeting, without any of its members being required to acknowledge they were in error.
I was thinking about this period for multiple reasons:
- I have seen what happens when people compromise their beliefs for what is politically convenient. If one cannot vote for the ‘lesser evil’ without deciding evil is good, maybe one should not vote.
- I heard a politician in Indiana talking about slavery like his head was in the 1840’s, making it clear he believes that some people are not people. This was an unforced error, as nobody was delivering him a petition to free his slaves.
- I’ve long been interested in the 1843-1857 period as my direct Jay ancestors and other family members were part of Indiana Yearly Meeting anti-slavery. How could this have happened?
The first issue is not important for a blog post. It would serve no purpose for me to express my disappointment in former role models who now embrace different values than I learned from them. It would not help their reputation, nor would it help them as they wouldn’t listen, the second has been covered far more than a minor state-level politician deserves. The final one was partially addressed by finally reading The life of Elijah Coffin — something I neglected when studying the Antislavery Yearly Meeting.
Elijah Coffin, like his cousins Levi Coffin, Vestal Coffin, Addison Coffin, Emory Coffin, etc. moved to Indiana from North Carolina because they opposed slavery and wanted to live in a place where it was illegal. Elijah because a successful businessman in Indiana and became a prominent and active member of the Yearly meeting, becoming clerk in 1827 and serving for 30 years until 1857. The Yearly Meeting clerk serves as a moderator and is a highly influential position.
The life of Elijah Coffin was a disappointing read. It did not mention Elijah’s cousins such as Levi at all, even though Levi Coffin remembered his cousin Elijah as his Sunday School teacher in New Garden North Carolina, and recounted meeting at his cousin’s house with delegates from London Yearly Meeting regarding the split in Indiana Yearly Meeting.
Not only were family members missing, but the years between 1833 and 1848 are missing. This book is is missing the very period I read it to learn about; however, between this book and other sources I’ve read — I find that Elijah Coffin was active in meeting British abolitionists, and attending international meetings, even after the split, Indiana Yearly Meeting actively lobbied state governments to respect the rights of non white residents.
As Charles Coffin writes of his father Elijah Coffin:
My dear father had, from early life, been a decided anti-slavery man, and while a resident of North Carolina, was connected with an emancipation society. His great aversion to slavery, was the principal cause for his leaving that State, as he preferred to have his children brought up in a free State. He always maintained, consistently and decidedly, bis opposition to slavery ; and when the legislature of Indiana passed laws discriminating against colored people, be was one of a deputation from the Meeting for Sufferings who visited Indianapolis, in the winter of 1830, to urge their repeal, and granting that class of citizens equal rights with others. He labored much during his life for the advancement of the colored people in education and Christianity, and was a firm and reliable friend to the race.
This isn’t an academic paper so much as a reflection on literature. I see a respected man, with a strong principle that lasted through his adult life, choosing a politician over his own principles and even his own family. I see a published diary that excises that part of his life, and excises family that he had a relationship with before moving to Indiana. It not only excludes pushing his cousins out of Yearly Meeting, but their existence in his life at all. I wonder at this breach of principle to support politics especially when it would have been against the newly updated discipline (1838 was just 4 years prior) to promote Henry Clay at Yearly Meeting sessions.
The faith I was raised in had a different view of politics than pre-Civil war Friends. We were encouraged to vote and even run for office. We were involved in lobbying the government at every level. The warning against compromise of faith was moved from interactions with governments to social clubs such as the Masons. My experience has taught me that agree with both those who taught me (be involved), and with those before the Civil War who were trying to step out of the messiness.
If we have to give up what is important to us to support a politician; if we have to go against our principles to hold office; if voting requires us to rethink our principles and change them to match a secular political party — we should step back. Involvement in politics can invite compromises that we should not make. If this becomes an issue, one’s vote isn’t worth selling out one’s soul.
On the other hand, it is a great privilege to be able to be part of the decision making process. It is a great privilege to be able to lobby, to participate, and even to hold office. We have an opportunity to serve our communities this way, and I think those who taught me this were right as well, however, if one starts out seeking the good of the entire community — and finds the focus becomes how to harm other community members (whether powerful or powerless), these politics have become a corrupting influence.
Unfortunately, I’m starting to wonder if it’s time to revisit that 19th century advice, and step back. I’ve seen too much of the corrupting influence of partisanship. I’ve seen too many arguments from people who know better about which people are not really people. I’ve too many friends who have become political arguments which do not respect their humanity. I’ve seen faith being redefined to political conventions. My soul hurts, I long for 1858 — and yet I’m sad that when Elijah Coffin died in 1862, his published memoir did not include his family members who didn’t compromise for the political expediency of a political party that was gasping it’s last breaths.
Michael's 'Deep Thoughts' 