Those who read the Wilburite/Gurneyite thread I initiated several months ago will recall that I am writing a book about Jane Varney Durgin (1820 - 1895), a Quaker woman who lived in Wolfeboro and Sandwich, NH.  These two  towns constituted the Sandwich Monthly Meeting.

The Sandwich Monthly Meeting was highly representative of rural 19th century New England meetings.

My book describes Quaker life in these two towns in great detail, utilizing the Men's and Women's Meeting Minutes from 1802 - 1872.  These descriptions include instances of complaint and disownment.

My concern is that non-Quaker readers of my book might conclude that the complaint process caused Quaker life in these communities to be unappealing.  To prevent that misperception, I have tried to provide a balanced perspective.

Below you will find the draft of this section of my book.  It is part of chapter 5 and begins circa page 100.  I would like those of you who are interested in Quaker history to read it.  Then I would like you to respond to these questions:  Does this depiction of life in a 19th century Quaker meeting seem balanced and fair?  Have I omitted any topics you hoped I would include?  Are there any errors or misunderstandings?  Include any other comments you wish.

While I have your attention, let me note that I am seeking a few volunteers with a keen interest in and knowledge of Quaker history to read and comment on the draft of my book chapter by chapter.  If you would like to be one of those volunteers, please inform me by email:  petermiller@metrocast.net

 

The Sandwich Quaker Community      

 

      When Paul Varney moved his family to Sandwich, the Quaker community there was at the peak of its population, numbering approximately 700 people.  [Georgia Drew Merrill, History of Carroll County New Hampshire, 1889, p. 689]  This was slightly more than 25% of the total population of Sandwich, the town having 2,744 residents in 1830 [Merrill, History of Carroll County New Hampshire, p. 663]

      A group that large could not be accommodated in one meeting house, thus there were two of them, one located in South Sandwich (now called Center Sandwich, the heart of the village) and one in North Sandwich, close to the Sandwich Range of the White Mountains.  The South Meeting House – 50 feet long, 38 feet wide, and two stories high – had been erected in 1816 to replace its predecessor, which had become too small.  The North Meeting House was built in 1814.  There was also, for six years, a meeting in East Sandwich.  This was discontinued in 1827 [Men’s Minutes, 5/17/1827].

      John B. Hoag, in his article Friends in Sandwich, states that as early as 1777, a decade after Sandwich first was settled, there were approximately 40 Quakers living there.  [Hoag, SHS Twenty Third Annual Excursion, 1942, p. 4]  In 1783, the Sandwich Friends petitioned the Dover Monthly Meeting for permission to hold two meetings weekly for “publick worship.”  This request was granted.  In 1787, they were given permission to build a meeting house.  This first South Meeting House, which was not erected until 1804, was 30 feet long, 20 feet wide, and one story high.  A stove was installed two years later.  Hoag notes, “How heat was provided before that time is not recorded.  Perhaps there was none.”  [Hoag, p. 4]

      In September, 1802, the Salem (Massachusetts) Quarterly Meeting gave Sandwich permission to become a Monthly Meeting.

 

      “Although we believe their state to be weak and low, yet, all circumstances considered, we unanimously think it may be of use to them to grant a Monthly Meeting there, to commence on the Tenth Month next, to be held on the third Fifth Day of each month... “  [Hoag, p. 4]

 

      The first Monthly Meeting took place on October 21^st, 1802.  [Men’s Minutes]  One month later, North Sandwich was given permission to hold meetings for worship.  Eventually, Sandwich was divided into a North Preparative Meeting and a South Preparative Meeting, each district sending two male and two female representatives to the Monthly Meetings.  At these “preparative meetings,” the residents of each district decided who would represent them at the next Monthly Meeting and what business they would discuss there.  In 1814, as has been noted, Wolfeboro became the third Preparative Meeting.

      The Sandwich Quaker community grew as the town thrived. 

 

      “In 1790, [the population] was 902; in 1800, 1413; in 1810. . .it was 2232, and  the town stood sixth among the  towns of the state.”  [SHS Eighteenth Annual  Excursion, 1937, p. 4]

 

      Considering that Sandwich was located at the “end of the road,” backed right up against the sheer flank of the White Mountains, it is remarkable that it was the sixth most populous town in New Hampshire in 1810.

     

      “Farm products, crops, and livestock were the chief activities, but the center had become quite a village...

 

      In 1828, a post office was opened in the Center. . .and a stage brought mail  twice a week from Dover.  By 1830, the population had reached its peak, 2743, and the village was bustling with life and activity.  Three general stores,  an apothecary shop, cabinet makers, carpenters, blacksmiths, wheelwrights, makers of hats and shoes, and the mills on the river all made work, and added   to the town income and aroused the need for a bank.”  [SHS Eighteenth     Annual Excursion, pps 4 – 5]

 

      The Sandwich Social Library was chartered in 1810, and the Sandwich Academy was chartered in 1824, though “the institution did not become complete for many years, and the first school was in the autumn of 1837...”  [Merrill, pps 692 – 693]. 

 

      Such was the town of Sandwich when Paul, Sarah, Hannah, and Jane Varney came to live there in 1837.  Whereas Quakers had been perhaps the smallest religious denomination in Wolfeboro, in Sandwich they were one of the largest.  In Wolfeboro, the Varneys had other Varneys, Bassetts, and Nowells for Quaker neighbors, plus some others for a time as previously noted.  In Sandwich, there were thirty seven different Quaker extended families [Merrill, p. 689].  Varneys were one of the most populous of those groups.  All of the Varneys who had settled in Sandwich before Paul and Sarah arrived were related to them through common ancestry.  Their closest relative, who had lived in Sandwich for many years, was Sarah’s older sister Judith Varney Wiggin Beede (see chapter 2, maternal generation 5).  Judith would ultimately live to the great old age of 102, “with mental faculties undimmed.”  [Merrill, p. 718].

      The part of North Sandwich where Paul and his family lived was a Quaker community.  For the first time in their lives, Paul, Sarah, Hannah, and Jane were surrounded by numerous others who shared their faith.  Their social life was dominated by Quakers to a much greater extent than it had been in Wolfeboro.  In North Sandwich, it was possible to limit contact with non-Quakers significantly. 

      Because 75% of the population of Sandwich was non-Quaker, it possessed all of the same temptations as Wolfeboro.  The numerous misconduct complaints recorded in the Sandwich Meeting Minutes show that quite a few local Quakers succumbed to those temptations.  Some types of violations have already been described, and more will be identified shortly.  The difference between Sandwich and Wolfeboro was not either/or, it was a matter of degree.  In Sandwich, it was possible for Quakers to isolate themselves from non-Quakers to an extent not possible in Wolfeboro.  In Sandwich, Quakers encountered other Quakers in nearly all walks of life much more so than in Wolfeboro.

      The Sandwich Quaker community was very representative of rural New England Monthly Meetings of that time.  It tried to live in accordance with the New England Yearly Meeting’s Rules of Discipline for the most part.  The annual messages which the Yearly Meeting sent to the Monthly Meetings were hand-copied or pasted into the Sandwich Meeting Minutes, as were the Friends Boarding School reports.  Yearly epistles from London Quakers were noted, too. 

      The Sandwich Friends identified themselves as Orthodox [Anna Scattergood Hoag – Birth, Deaths, Marriages].   When John Wilbur and his followers seceded  from the New England Yearly Meeting in the 1840’s, triggering the Wilburite/Gurneyite division well known to Quaker historians, the Sandwich Monthly Meeting, like nearly all New England Monthly Meetings, remained loyal to English Quaker Joseph John Gurney.  The epistle from the Yearly Meeting to the Monthly Meetings regarding this split was dutifully recorded in the Sandwich Minutes:

 

      “At our Yearly Meeting of Friends for New England from Sixth Month Fifteenth Day to Sixth Month Twenty Third Day, 1845 – Believing that in regard to the Secession that has now taken place, the appointment of a committee is called for to visit such subordinate meetings as may appear to  them to stand in need of assistance and to afford such counsel and advice as in the meekness and wisdom of the Truth they may be enabled to afford...”            [Men’s Minutes, 6/1845]

 

      The Sandwich Friends are not likely to have needed such counsel.  As was mentioned in chapter 3, Joseph John Gurney visited Sandwich during his travels in North America in 1839.  In a letter he sent back home, he reported that

 

      “...we enjoyed a long drive by the side of [Squam] Lake to Sandwich, where we spent a day or two among a community of Friends, composing two meetings, who enjoy but little of the riches of this world, but live in peace and simplicity on the fruit of their own labour.  This romantic village is situated within an amphitheatre of mountains near the head of the lake.”   [Gurney, A Journey in North America, 1841, p. 214]

 

      The annual messages the New England Yearly Meeting sent to its subordinate Monthly Meetings show the concerns that existed then regarding deviations from Quaker beliefs and practices.  Consider, for example, the admonition regarding intemperance issued in 1835:

 

      “It is truly painful to observe that, at the present time, when the public mind is becoming more and more awakened to the alarming evil of intemperance, and whilst others are engaged in persevering efforts for its removal, any who   profess with us should be so unmindful. . .as to indulge themselves in the use of spirituous liquors, except for medicinal purposes.  May there be an increasing care faithfully to maintain this branch of our Christian testimonies, and we believe as this comes to be the case, we shall find that the necessity of  resorting to the use of this pernicious article, even as a medicine, will be of extremely rare occurrence.”  [New England Yearly Meeting, Sixth Month 1835]

 

      This annual message then addressed the subject of war:

 

      “The violation of our testimony in relation to War, instances of which are  acknowledged in the reports of several of our subordinate meetings, has become a subject of deep concern at this time. . .Military requisitions [involvements] by any of our members. . .have been voluntary.  An ignorance   of the principles on which our objections to this anti-Christian practice are             founded, or a want of serious consideration thereof, is clearly evinced; and desires have been expressed in this meeting, that there may be a renewed attention to the circulation and perusal, among the younger part of our society, of such treatises as exhibit, in a striking manner, the unlawfulness of war, and its utter incompatibility with the principles of the gospel of peace.  We are impressed with the belief, that as we are faithful in the discharge of our religious duties, our society may be made eminently instrumental, under the divine blessing, in hastening the coming of that day when ‘nation shall not lift up sword against nation, neither shall they learn war any more.’

 

      And we earnestly desire that Friends may be impressed with the importance of maintaining a vigilant supervision over the dear youth under their care, early endeavoring to guard them against every thing which may give a wrong direction to their susceptible minds, carefully restraining them from attending military parades as spectators, and guarding them from the pernicious         influence of those books wherein military fame is held up to view as a worthy object of pursuit. .”  [New England Yearly Meeting, Sixth Month 1835]

 

      The Men’s and Women’s Monthly Meeting Minutes, preserved in the Sandwich Historical Society’s library, are the best source of information regarding 19^th century Quaker life in Sandwich.  This author has read many hundreds of pages of both.  They are a remarkably precious and detailed record of a bygone time and a bygone people.  Marriages, relocations of individuals and families into and out of Sandwich, visits by esteemed Friends from other Monthly Meetings, converts to Quaker Society, disciplinary infractions and their consequences, financial aid to the poor, raising funds for new meeting houses or the purchase of new record books, and the names of those who were appointed to all positions of responsibility were faithfully recorded.  Although feelings about significant events were not written into the minutes, one can sometimes infer them from expressions of concern.

      These Quakers did not elect or appoint a president, a chairman of the board, or anything of that nature.  They had no paid minister.  The most important position was that of clerk, chosen separately by the men and women.  During the first sixty years of the Sandwich Monthly Meeting, only three men were appointed as clerks – Benjamin Frye, Ezra Meader, and Stephen Beede [Merrill, p. 689].  All three were residents of Sandwich.  No Wolfeboro Quaker ever was appointed clerk.  Meader and Beede seem to have been highly respected, for they also became clerks of the Dover Quarterly Meeting.

 

      “The clerk was presiding officer as well as recording officer, and made his  record from verbal expressions without vote, and was himself sole judge of the preponderance of sentiment as gathered from verbal expression, made his record accordingly, and scarcely or never was any objection made to the record.”  [Merrill, p. 689]

 

      The Men’s and Women’s Meetings were parallel governments, acting semi-autonomously.  This degree of empowerment of women, found throughout Quaker Society since its founding, was most unusual for that era.  The minutes kept separately by the Sandwich male and female clerks show that they always concurred on all issues.  They must have conferred regularly with each other between meetings.  The most critical decisions usually originated with the men and were seconded by the women, but the women had primary control over disciplinary matters pertaining to other women. 

      Did the clerks who kept these minutes realize the window into history they were creating?  Were they ever concerned about how future people might view the events and decisions they recorded?  Probably not.

 

      All things considered, what was the experience of Quaker Society like for the 19^th century residents of Sandwich?  Pronouncements like those from the Yearly Meeting quoted above, and the numerous disciplinary actions reported in the Men’s and Women’s Minutes, make Quakers of this era seem highly controlling of their members.  Complaints were brought against members for nonattendance of worship, for dressing too gaudily, for using the pronoun “you” or other unacceptable forms of address, for intoxication, for defamation of character, for marrying without receiving “clearance” or for marrying a non-Quaker, for unethical or incompetent business practices, for sexual impropriety, for enlisting in the military, for joining another religious society, and so forth.  All of these were cause for disownment. 

      Most modern people would object to this degree of regulation.  Many Quakers who lived at that time did, too.  Jane Durgin was one of them.  Lest readers of this book conclude that the 19^th century American Quaker hierarchy was suffocatingly rigid, making the Quaker way of life unappealing, some other perspectives must be presented.

 

      The other major religions of that time policed the conduct of their parishioners, too.  They might not have been as methodical as the Quakers, and they might not have recorded the infractions and consequences as compulsively, but the privilege of membership required adherence to group norms.  Those who deviated were pressured to conform, and those who didn’t were shunned, ostracized, banished, or punished in other ways.  Some probably were fined or whipped.  The Sandwich Quakers never used physical force to police their membership.

      There was a democratic aspect to the Quaker complaint process.  With certain types of infractions – including nonattendance of worship, profanity, intoxication, improper dress, slander, and nonpayment of debt – the offenders were given an opportunity to amend their ways.  A committee would “labor” with them to try to effect change.  Complaints were brought only when the desired changes did not occur.

      Other types of wrongdoing – including sexual deviance, marrying a non-Quaker, joining another religion, military enlistment, or major violations of law – brought immediate complaint.

      Those accused of wrongdoing had an opportunity to explain their conduct to the committee that met with them.  They could appeal disownment to the Monthly Meeting.  In some cases, they could avoid disownment by acknowledging their wrongdoing and expressing sorrow.  They also could, without apology, request that their transgression be “passed by.”  Members who were disowned eventually could apply for reinstatement.

      Between the years 1802 and 1872, no instance of appeal was recorded in the Sandwich Minutes.  Acknowledgements (apologies) did occur somewhat frequently,

 

      “Whereas I [Abram Varney] have been so unguarded as to report scandalous   things about Asa Fowles and Mary Folsom, and John Folsom and Mary Bean, which I acknowledge to be false and greatly to the reproach of Society, for which I am sorry and wish Friends to pass it by.”  [Men’s Minutes  10/19/1820]

 

The committee appointed to visit Abram Varney reported that there “appeared to be a good degree of sincerity” to his apology, and he was retained a member.  [Men’s Minutes, 11/16/1820].  Alas for Abram, a second complaint was made about him two years later due to

 

      “...frequent use of ardent spirits and also the practice of profane language and other consequent evils, for which labor has been bestowed without the desired effect.”  [Men’s Minutes 11/21/1822]

 

Consequently, Abram was disowned “until he repents and amends his life.”  [Men’s Minutes, 12/19/1822]

 

      Apologies for marrying non-Quakers were rare but did occur occasionally:

 

      “Respected Friends:  I [Henry Felch] for some time past have so far disregarded that which I believe will preserve us in a right channel as to marry one out of our Society contrary to the good order amongst Friends for which I am sorry and do condemn the practice and wish Friends to pass it by and receive me again.”  [Men’s Minutes 10/21/1831]

 

The minutes do not record whether Henry Felch remained married to this woman.  If he did, one wonders how Mrs. Henry Felch viewed the matter.

 

      Requests that transgressions be passed by without apology occurred somewhat often.  One such request was made by Jane Durgin’s cousin Mary Bassett Varney.  Mary (born 1817), was the youngest daughter of Joseph Varney and Hannah Bassett.  What happened in Mary’s case was that she fell in love with and wished to marry her deceased sister’s husband.  Her sister Almira (born 1804) had married David Breed.  Almira died in 1826, and David remained a widower afterwards.  Circa 1837, more than a decade after Almira’s death, David and Mary developed affection for one another.  The New England Rules of Discipline, however, prohibited marriage to a deceased sibling’s spouse.

      The Sandwich Quakers first tried to make it possible for Mary and David to wed by petitioning the Dover Quarterly Meeting (and hence the New England Yearly Meeting) for a

 

      “reconsideration of that portion of our discipline which disallows our members to marry a deceased wife’s sister or a deceased husband’s brother.”     [Men’s Minutes, 1/18/1838]

 

The Weare (New Hampshire) Monthly Meeting, where David Breed resided at the time, most likely made a similar request.  Evidently, this rules change did not occur, for Mary made the following request of the Sandwich Meeting after marrying David:

 

      “Dear Friends – I have so far violated the discipline of our religious society as to marry a deceased sister’s husband, which I desire Friends to pass by and continue me a   member.  Mary B. Breed”  [Women’s Minutes, 10/17/1839]

 

No apology was made because none was necessary.  Mary’s request was automatically granted the very next month.  She and David appear to have remained loyal Quakers for a very long time afterward, perhaps for the full duration of their lives.

 

      When Jane Durgin transgressed against Quaker Society in 1844, she too made a “pass by” request without apology.  In her case, an apology might have been warranted.  This will be described fully in chapter 7, “Marriage.”

 

      With just a few exceptions, all “pass by” requests made between 1802 and 1872 were granted by the Men’s and Women’s Meetings in concurrence with each other.  Essentially, the only people who were disowned were those who no longer wished to be Quakers.  There were quite a few such people, causing significant loss of membership.

 

      In retrospect, it appears that the Sandwich Monthly Meeting tried to accomplish four things through the complaint process:  (1) insure adherence to core Quaker beliefs and practices, (2) prevent deviation from American societal norms, (3) maintain harmony within the Quaker community, and (4) deter Quakers from being assimilated into mainstream American culture.  Its goal was to retain members, not expel them.  The emphasis was prevention of infractions, not punishment for wrongdoing.  Most American Monthly Meetings of that era are likely to have functioned similarly.

 

      Here are additional examples of each type of complaint:

     

      (1) To insure adherence to core Quaker beliefs and practices:

 

      Complaint against Richard Buffum for intoxication, profane language, and “entering the Naval Service.”  [Men’s Minutes 7/20/1826]  He was disowned on this same date.

 

      Complaints against Daniel Folsom and Silas Varney for “deviating in dress  and address and joining the train band.”  [Men’s Minutes, 8/19/1830]  Both were disowned 9/16/1830.  See below for explanation of “train band.”

 

      (2) To prevent deviation from societal norms:

 

      Complaint against Joseph Varney III for “telling untruths and has lately signed a note for $100 with another man’s name.”  [Men’s Minutes, 12/20/1827]  He was disowned on 5/15/1828.

 

      Complaint against Aaron Hoag, who “has been charged by a young woman with being unlawfully the father of a child, which he acknowledges...”          [Men’s Minutes, 9/15/1836]

 

      Complaint against Emily Varney who “has so far deviated from the path of  rectitude as to have been guilty of lasciviousness.”  [Women’s Minutes, 8/19/1847]  Disowned 10/20/1847

 

      (3) To maintain harmony amongst Quakers:

 

      Complaint against Paul Jenness because “a difficulty has for some length of time existed between [him] and his neighbor, both members with us, upon which account they have been treated with and such advice given as appeared necessary and best, which Paul appeared to disregard.”  [Men’s Minutes, 4/21/1842]  Paul eventually apologized for his conduct, stating “[if] I have done anything regardless of truth and its testimonies, I condemn it and wish Friends to pass it by.”  [Men’s Minutes, 9/15/1842]  His request was granted, and he was retained as a member.  [Men’s Minutes, 3/16/1843]

 

      (4) To prevent assimilation into mainstream American culture:

 

      Complaint against Parker Beede for joining the Congregational Church.    [Men’s Minutes, 12/15/1831]  Disowned same date.

 

      Complaint against Huldah B. Varney “wife of Stephen Varney a member of this meeting has so far deviated from the order of Friends as to join another religious society and has received the ordinance of water baptism, which we submit.”             [Women’s Minutes, 4/20/1843]  Disowned 5/18/1843

 

      Complaint against “Anna Clark formerly Beede for neglecting the attendance of meetings, departing from the good order of Friends in dress and address and in marrying with a man not a member of our society, also appears to have been guilty of incontinency [pre-marital sex?] for which she has been treated with and appears in no situation to make Friends’ satisfaction.”  [Women’s Minutes, 2/15/1844]  Disowned 5/16/1844

 

      Complaint against Elizabeth Hines for departing from plainness of dress and address “and we have reason to believe by her appearance when last amongst us that she had no desire to be considered a Friend or continued a member of our society.”  [Women’s Minutes, 2/20/1845]  Disowned 1/15/1846

 

      The “train band” referred to above had nothing to do with railroad trains.  Railroads had only recently begun operating in New England, and there were none near Sandwich.  Rather, train bands were quasi-military units somewhat analogous to today’s National Guard.

 

      “Trainbands were not combat units. Generally, upon reaching a certain age a man was required to join the local trainband in which he received periodic training for the next couple of decades. In wartime military forces were formed by selecting men from trainbands on an individual basis and then forming them into a fighting unit.”  [Trainbands, Wikipedia]

 

Hence, joining a train band violated the Quakers’ opposition to war.  Between 1828 and 1839, at least seven young men were disowned by the Sandwich Monthly Meeting for joining the train band:  John Gove on 2/20/1828, Daniel Folsom and Silas Varney as noted above, Oliver Varney on 12/15/1831, Richard Brown and John Brown on 1/21/1836, and Stephen H. Varney on 6/20/1839  Nearly all of these men were accused of other infractions, too.

 

      The majority of the complaints recorded in the Men’s and Women’s Meeting Minutes were of the fourth type.  They depict the valiant but ultimately losing effort the Quakers made to prevent the assimilation of their members.  Their attempts to prevent the erosion of their unique way of life are chronicled in the New England Yearly Meeting’s messages and Boarding School reports sent to the Monthly Meetings throughout the 1820’s, 1830’s, 1840’s, and beyond.  Here is another revealing example:

 

“We believe it right for us at this time. . .to point out, more explicitly than we have heretofore done, what we consider a proper dress for the children of [the Friends Boarding] School.

 

We should ever remember the apostolic exhortation, ‘Let your moderation be known unto all men.’  And, ‘Let not your adorning be that outward adorning of plaiting the hair, and of wearing of gold and of putting on of apparel, but let it be the hidden man of the heart, in that which is not corruptible...’

 

In accordance with the recommendations of our Discipline, we earnestly desire that parents and guardians would impress upon the minds of their children the necessity of maintaining plainness of speech and behavior, which is strictly required in the School.

 

And it will be expected of every male admitted into this Institution, that his body-coat, jacket, and vest be single-breasted and without lapels or falling collars. . .and that they wear hats, caps being excluded.

 

In the dress of females, we expect a corresponding degree of plainness, and that they avoid the extravagance of the fashions of the present day.  They will be required to wear silk, or plain straw bonnets, without any trimmings for ornament.  Their frocks or gowns should be of materials that are plain in color, and conformable in the size of the sleeves, and. . .not according to the vain fashions of the world.  Their handkerchiefs and collars should be without edgings or trimmings – and no article intended [merely] for ornament will be permitted to be worn.

 

In order to carry into effect these regulations, the Superintendents are to examine the trunks and packages of the children previous to admission, and if any articles are found unsuitable on account of plainness, or for any other cause, they will be laid aside, or altered, and the expense charged to the parents or guardians.”  [Committee of the New England Yearly Meeting Boarding School, 8/7/1835]

 

      In the long run, the rigidity of the Rules was self-defeating.  Would more members have remained Quakers if, for example, the dress code had been relaxed or if members had been permitted to marry non-Quakers?  The prohibition against marrying “out” cost the Quakers many exceptionally talented members.  Might more of those non-Quaker spouses have converted to the Quaker faith had their marriages been welcomed?  That seems unlikely, but we’ll never know for sure.  If these spouses had been receptive to becoming Quakers, conversion prior to marriage would have prevented future complaint.

      The demise of the Quaker Society that flourished in the 17^th, 18^th, and 19^th centuries is not surprising.  As has so often been the case in America’s history, the “melting pot”  eventually won out.  The decline of the Sandwich Monthly Meeting will be described in a later chapter.

      Quaker Society in America survived early persecution and thrived for nearly 200 years.  That testifies to the rewarding fellowship so many Friends experienced.  They shared a precious heritage.  They were inspired by unique and powerful Christian ideals.  That Jane Durgin, as strong-willed, rebellious, and independent-minded as she was, chose to remain a Quaker throughout her life is understandable.

 

      If infractions and their consequences were the “down side” of Quaker life, fellowship was its “up side.”  The author would like to conclude this portion of his book with two poetic descriptions of the benefits of Quaker membership that were written by Sandwich Quakers.  The first was penned by Judge David Hill, who wrote the article on Sandwich Friends for Georgia Merrill’s History of Carroll County New Hampshire, published in 1889.  The second is part of the address John B. Hoag read on August 27, 1939 to commemorate the 125^th anniversary of the building of the first Friends Meeting House in North Sandwich.  This was published in the Sandwich Historical Society’s Twenty Third Annual Excursion, 1942.

       

“More than a century has passed since the establishment of the Quakers in Sandwich, and the time is not come to sum up their influence. Their influence has entered new organizations, and, to a great extent, speaks through other people.

 The Quakers spoke for the slave in unmistakable terms, when many were servile or silent; they spoke for spiritual freedom, when many were bound to outworn creeds; they spoke for ‘the Spirit that makes alive,’ while many could see only ‘the letter that killeth; ‘ they upheld the law of human kindness, while with many ‘the iron heel went down upon the hearts of men.’  Tending in some cases and in some directions to narrowness, because they did not always interpret aright the teachings of their founders, yet in their cardinal principles they were set as bright sunbeams in the orient of a brighter day; their principles live in the teachings and practices of many who do not bear their name. 

 The Quakers of this town met twice a week in their respective houses of worship, through wind and storm and flood, and often sat in peaceful silence, and no human voice was heard. Often was it asked, ‘Why this waste of time?’  But far other judgment may determine that such time was not wasted. In the hush of meditation, in the all solemn silentness of nature, spirit voices oftenest speak. Then comes the solemn contemplation of human and divine relations; of the vast possibilities of the human soul in time and eternity, and rich and valuable as speech may be, silence may be more golden.  In the Quaker burial-ground at North Sandwich, on a declivity that gently slopes toward singing waters, in the land guarded by mighty mountains that keep watch from the skies of the measureless north, the families of four generations are sleeping. With all their human frailties, their work has been done well. By the present generation the names of many of them are absolutely forgotten. But those who sleep in the dust have molded the lives of the living, though they are unconscious of the fact, and who shall estimate their influence?”   [Judge David Hill, History of Carroll County, pps. 690 – 691]

 “They stood, and worked, for the freedom of every slave everywhere.  It is stated that by 1784 no Friend in America owned a slave.  They opposed war.  To them, ‘Thou shalt not kill’ meant thou shalt not kill at any time, under any circumstances.  If differences rose among them, an effort was made to settle them without recourse to law.  They cared for their own poor without burdening the community.  In their poverty, they assisted those poorer than themselves without regard to race, color, or creed.   They were especially interested in education, particularly in their school at Providence, even when it had only twenty pupils and an annual cost per pupil of eighty dollars a year for board, tuition, etc., when it gave little promise of its future greatness and destiny.

 The early Friends are no longer with us.  Some passed away here.  Others moved to distant states, taking with them their culture, their principles, and their practices.  Wherever they went, they set up beacon lights for progress.  They hoped to establish a new order, new bounds for human conduct to help do away with age old wrongs.  If their ideals had been realized, how different the world would be today.  But did their decline mean failure?  Perhaps if we could understand the working of Divine Providence, we could say with Whittier:

                        ‘Who fathoms the Eternal Thought?

                        Who talks of scheme and plan?

                        The Lord is God.  He needeth not

                        The poor device of man!’

 

[John B. Hoag, Friends in Sandwich, pps. 8 – 9]