A Former Slave Writes to His Old Owner

 Four months after the Civil War ended, a now former slave owner, Colonel P. H. Anderson wrote to his old slave, Jourdon Anderson. He asked him to return to the plantation to work. The Negro, as then called, had since moved to Ohio, where he found work for pay, and supported his family.

Jourdon replied in a letter of his own:

Dayton, Ohio,

August 7, 1865

To My Old Master, Colonel P.H. Anderson, Big Spring, Tennessee

Sir: I got your letter and was glad to find you had not forgotten Jourdon, and that you wanted me to come back and live with you again, promising to do better for me than anybody else can. I have often felt uneasy about you. I thought the Yankees would have hung you long before this for harboring Rebs they found at your house. I suppose they never heard about your going to Col. Martin’s to kill the Union soldier that was left by his company in their stable. Although you shot at me twice before I left you, I did not want to hear of your being hurt, and am glad you are still living. It would do me good to go back to the dear old home again and see Miss Mary and Miss Martha and Allen, Esther, Green, and Lee. Give my love to them all, and tell them I hope we will meet in the better world, if not in this. I would have gone back to see you all when I was working in the Nashville Hospital, but one of the neighbors told me Henry intended to shoot me if he ever got a chance.

I want to know particularly what the good chance is you propose to give me. I am doing tolerably well here; I get $25 a month, with victuals and clothing; have a comfortable home for Mandy, —the folks here call her Mrs. Anderson),—and the children—Milly, Jane and Grundy—go to school and are learning well; the teacher says Grundy has a head for a preacher. They go to Sunday- School, and Mandy and me attend church regularly. We are kindly treated; sometimes we overhear others saying, “Them colored people were slaves” down in Tennessee. The children feel hurt when they hear such remarks, but I tell them it was no disgrace in Tennessee to belong to Col. Anderson. Many darkies would have been proud, as I used to be, to call you master. Now, if you will write and say what wages you will give me, I will be better able to decide whether it would be to my advantage to move back again.

As to my freedom, which you say I can have, there is nothing to be gained on that score, as I got my free papers in 1864 from the Provost- Marshal- General of the Department of Nashville. Mandy says she would be afraid to go back without some proof that you are sincerely disposed to treat us justly and kindly; and we have concluded to test your sincerity by asking you to send us our wages for the time we served you. This will make us forget and forgive old scores, and rely on your justice and friendship in the future. I served you faithfully for thirty-two years and Mandy twenty years. At twenty-five dollars a month for me, and two dollars a week for Mandy, our earnings would amount to eleven thousand six hundred and eighty dollars. Add to this the interest for the time our wages has been kept back and deduct what you paid for our clothing and three doctor’s visits to me, and pulling a tooth for Mandy, and the balance will show what we are in justice entitled to. Please send the money by Adams Express, in care of V. Winters, Esq., Dayton, Ohio. If you fail to pay us for faithful labors in the past we can have little faith in your promises in the future. We trust the good Maker has opened your eyes to the wrongs which you and your fathers have done to me and my fathers, in making us toil for you for generations without recompense. Here I draw my wages every Saturday night, but in Tennessee there was never any pay-day for the Negroes any more than for the horses and cows. Surely there will be a day of reckoning for those who defraud the laborer of his hire.

In answering this letter please state if there would be any safety for my Milly and Jane, who are now grown up and both good-looking girls. You know how it was with Matilda and Catherine. I would rather stay here and starve, and die if it comes to that, than have my girls brought to shame by the violence and wickedness of their young masters. You will also please state if there has been any schools opened for the colored children in your neighborhood, the great desire of my life now is to give my children an education, and have them form virtuous habits.

P.S. —Say howdy to George Carter, and thank him for taking the pistol from you when you were shooting at me.

From your old servant,

Jourdon Anderson

Photo from author's collection; feel free to use it if you like.

Source: Reprinted in Lydia Maria Child, The Freedmen’s Book (Boston: Tickenor and Fields, 1865), 265–67.

*

I do have some good materials on slavery available for sale if you’re interested, at “Middle School History and Tips for Teachers” on TpT.

These include:

Selected passages from Uncle Tom’s Cabin

“Tale of an American Slave,” based on three autobiographies penned by Frederick Douglass (he uses the N-word; so I quote him).

“A Slave Child Remembers,” which includes details from Booker T. Washington’s Up from Slavery

And:

How Bad Was Slavery? Part I

How Bad Was Slavery? Part II

I had great success with all of these readings in my classes; but the latter pair might scare other teachers away. I sat down with all my books at home, and headed for the library for supporting information. I took stories about slavery that sounded relatively mild or even “good,” and put them in one pile of notes. I took all the worst examples and put them in a second pile.

Then I wrote about slavery in two ways. In Part I, I use stories like one about Derry Coburn. Owned by Daniel Boone, Coburn often went hunting with his master, both men carrying rifles, and when Boone once sprung a powerful bear trap and caught his hand, Coburn didn’t run away or shoot Boone. He helped free his hand and bandaged him up. I quote Solomon Northrup (whose story was the basis for the movie, Twelve Years a Slave), who says of one master, Ms. McCoy, that she was, “A lovely girl, some twenty years of age...she is beloved by all her slaves, and good reason indeed have they to be thankful that they have fallen into such gentle hands.” 

She was “an angel of kindness.”

In discussion, my students almost always failed to catch the implication of Northrup’s words.

If they were thankful (relatively speaking) to be owned by McCoy, what about some of the worst owners—the sadists, the sexual predators, and the slave ship captains, like Theodore Canot.

When one of his slaves comes down with smallpox, Canot orders the boy poisoned, rather than risk having the rest of his valuable cargo infected. Canot justifies his decision as a “necessary murder.”

Part II, based on the same sources as Part I, paints a far different picture and I used these readings to show students the necessity of gathering as much information as possible before drawing conclusions.

Again: both Part I and Part II have usages of the N-word, because both are based almost entirely on contemporary accounts.

Also of interest:

African-Americans during the American Revolution

“A Twilight between Liberty and Freedom” which describes countless facets of Jim Crow life: from separate blood banks to separate taxis to separate military units to Jim Crow homes for the blind.

Again: the latter has the N-word in a quote.

(If I was still teaching, and I had any doubt, I’d probably ink the last few letters out on the master copy before reproducing them for class.)

Andrew Jackson's house. Author's collection.

Author's collection; feel free to use.

Today a Student Broke My Heart

I retired from teaching in 2008 but I like to keep my finger on the pulse of education today.

Ugh, that cliché: “finger on the pulse.” 

If I was still working with students, I’d challenge any who used it to come up with something more original if they could.

And I know they could.

Even now, I enjoy looking at the posts and comments and seeing the passion for the job displayed by so many young educators on various Facebook pages. Today, I spotted this comment by Felicia Swanger on the Middle School Social Studies Teachers page. I asked to copy it to my blog and she gave the okay. 

Here is what she wrote:

Today a student broke my heart. My fifth period class was rowdy while I dealt with a personal problem in the hallway. This isn’t something I do often, but today was that day.

When I came back in, I read them the riot act. I was lecturing them on responsibility and taking things seriously and stopping the nonsense and foolishness, when I looked at those kids and changed tactics.

I told them we were going to gain some focus and I started with a random kid and told him what I saw in him, all of the good things. Then I went to the next one, and so on. When I got to the fifth kid, his head was down and I said, “And you sell yourself short. You have told me several times that you want to quit school as soon as you can and have it behind you. You would rather be outside than sitting in this room, and that’s fine. Academic learning isn’t for everyone. But I want you to know that there are plenty of things you can do that you enjoy that can make you very successful”. We discussed his love of mechanics and I tried to show him that he did in fact have a functioning brain because he was good at things that the rest of us weren’t.

I went on with my discussions and told one little girl that she made the world better just by being in it, that her smile and happiness made people feel better and that she would be great with scared kids because she could put them at ease. 

The previous kid speaks up and says, “I wish I had had a teacher like that in 3rd grade when I moved schools. I was scared and lonely, and no one made me feel better.” That’s when this child’s light was extinguished. One careless teacher made him feel worthless for the next five years. I hope I lit his spark again today.

We have to be so careful with our actions and words. Our students are so important. They begin their journey 100% good and 100% curious and 100% accepting of others, and then the adults in their lives shape them. We let our stresses over testing mandates steal the joy from them.

We have let school become a place of worksheets and assessments at the elementary level where kids need to be fostering a love of discovery. The end result of a child’s education is not to score well on a test; it’s to gain the skills and knowledge necessary to be successful in life. Every child is capable of success. We just need to change our definition of what success looks like.

First, I wanted to copy her words because I love the way she addressed the children in her room, finding the good in each. I had served with the Marines before I became a teacher, myself, and I trust my old students would tell you, I could chastise the recalcitrant with the greatest of skill. Yet, my purpose was always the same as hers. I always wanted to put my teens on the right path, if they weren’t—and most were—and spent all my years in a classroom trying to do what she was doing this day. She was set on finding the good in her students, showing them it was there, if they didn’t realize, and bringing it out.

When I asked if I could post her words, I got a second, powerful but negative jolt.

She had this to say about her original post:

I think I have humpty-dumptied this week and decided that things need to change in education. I haven’t slept but one night this week because I decided to launch a crusade. Lol. I have sent a deeply heartfelt email to legislators in my state asking them to change our education practices and structure. I got generic responses, so I am taking it to social media next. It’s an awesome platform.

Sorry, for the long response, but even after seventeen years I remain passionate about this cause.

To be honest, after recovering from the jolt, I was almost relieved to read what she said. When I retired, I wondered if I was losing my mind. I already thought standardized testing was a curse. I told my last principal in my mind I felt teaching to the test was a form of “educational malpractice.”

She neither had a good response to offer, nor did she have a choice. She had to push us to teach to the test or risk losing her job.

I taught American history, myself, but I had a passion for books and tried to pass that on to my classes. I couldn’t work miracles with every student, of course. But I had more than enough success to make the effort worthwhile and convince me I was doing the Lord’s library work in getting teens to read more and read better books. Not long ago, I had lunch with one of my old students and she presented me three books she has come to love. The inscription in the first captures what I believe education is truly about, exactly what Ms. Swanger was trying to achieve with her kind words.

We all reach young people in our own meaningful and different ways. I taught with a great band instructor who turned teens into musicians who made music a career. Two colleagues took decent runners and transformed them into cross country stars. I taught with several English teachers who taught teens to find pure joy in writing and words. There’s no way to measure what these people did—but I believe they were doing something great. You can’t “measure” the solace Ms. Swanger provided to her students on just this one day; but that solace, that shot of well-timed kindness, may resonate down all the years of their lives. I could cite a hundred examples more from my career, of educators who made their marks in ways that will never show up on any standardized test.

I feel confident in saying Ms. Swanger could too. The more I believe that, the more I worry about what is happening in education today.

Last Friday, I was reading with Ellora, my four-year-old granddaughter. She’s just figuring out how to decode words, and I was giving pointers, when I remarked, “You know Papa used to be a teacher, right?”

“Papaukulele,” she replied, using a nonsense word she has coined, that never fails to spark my “outrage,” and provide her a laugh in turn.

Then it struck me.

Would I tell Ellora to go into teaching someday? I loved teaching every day of my career. But I don’t know if I would.

I took her to the park that afternoon and she had fun on the teeter-totters, balance ropes and Astroturf sliding hills. At one point we sat down on a large swing to rest. (She might not have needed the rest but I definitely did.)

A young mother made room for us both. She was watching her youngest scamper about and I started talking to her about raising kids and grandkids. She turned out to have been a teacher herself, I think she said for twelve years. Terry Hurt was her name and she said she’d taught in Texas, before leaving the classroom in 2005.

So I asked her the same question I ask every educator I meet. I’m like Rain Man, always posing the same query, always in a flat tone, hoping not to tip my opinion from the start. “Do you think all the standardized testing and focus on scores has helped education, hurt education, or had more or less a neutral effect?”

“Hurt,” Ms. Hurt answered almost as soon as the question was posed. “Does anyone ever say anything else?”

“Not really,” I laughed.

But what if this is no laughing matter? What if this is the existential question in U.S. education today?

If testing is hurting—as Ms. Hurt, Ms. Swanger and this old codger agree—what should we do?

Ms. Hurt told me her youngest would soon be going to school all day so she’s substituting and thinking about returning to the classroom full time.

“I went in to observe at my daughter’s school recently,” she told me, “but I’m not sure I could do what they’re asking young teachers to do today. It’s sad, too, because teaching was always my passion.”

Passion.

Thinks about that word. Can we measure passion for learning—and for imparting that passion to the young? I read what Ms. Swanger said. I thought about my response when reading with Ellora. I heard what Ms. Hurt thought. I’ve been asking the same question for more than a decade. I’ve heard hundreds of educators reply in the same way, in grocery stores, on the sidelines of soccer fields and seated at wedding receptions, too.

What if we’re doing real harm with our tunnel vision focus on testing? What if we’re selling our soul in return for transient scores? What if we’re ripping the heart out of our children’s educations? What if we’re all playing a small part in a tragedy not of our making—but a tragedy, nonetheless?

*

I think this might be the most profound statement about standardized testing I’ve seen in some time. It comes from a veteran educator, Jennifer Ballard Pinkowski, who taught Secondary English for several years. She has spent the last seven years working in Special Education:

Want to hate these tests even more? Watch students with Specific Learning Disabilities take them.

You see, these students still have to take the grade level tests their age indicates, not what the content they are learning on their IEP indicates. So they sit, hour after hour, frustrated, angry, discouraged, bitter, frightened, but sometimes, occasionally, still trying to do their best. It’s exhausting and heartbreaking and I hate it with the fire of a thousand suns. I hate the politicians who jam it down our throats every stinking year and claim it’s for the greater good. I hate the state education officials who buy into that garbage.

And I HATE having to inflict this pain on my students.

I wonder. How long is it going to be until teachers, administrators and support personnel all band together and say, “Enough is enough. We’re not doing this to young people anymore. Enough.”

I think if people like Ms. Swanger and Ms. Pinkowski—who clearly put children first—have had their fill, something is seriously, seriously, seriously wrong.

I pray Ellora's kindergarten teacher next year will try to do what Ms. Swanger did.
I don't believe my granddaughter's success in life will boil down to a few test scores at all.

The Battle for Freedom in England and America

FREEDOM GROWS SLOWLY

(The flow of English blood is stopped.)

Martin Luther is the first “protestant,” or the first to protest against certain practices of the Roman Catholic Church (1517). Luther took seriously what he called the “four last things.” These were: death, judgment by God, heaven and eternal fire.

Luther admitted he trembled before God’s power. He was, he said, no more than “a miserable pygmy…dust and ashes full of sin.” On one occasion he spent six hours confessing his many sins.

Luther argued that the individual must understand the Bible and the teachings of Christ for himself. For this reason he insisted that the Bible must be translated from Latin into languages the common people understood. No priest or sacrament could wipe out sin. A man or woman could be saved by faith alone. Followers of Luther were soon battling it out with Catholics and a flood of Christian blood would be unleashed.

*

Protestant ideas began entering England at this time. At first, Henry VIII was against these new teachings. Those who read copies of an English-language Bible were arrested. The book was burned. A second offense meant readers were burned at the stake. 

During the 1520s Henry grew increasingly unhappy with his queen’s failure to produce a male child who could inherit the throne. Henry slept with other women and two mistresses produced boys. (Neither “bastard” was eligible for the crown.) So the king plotted to divorce his wife. The pope denied him permission. 

Henry responded by starting his own church, the Church of England or Anglican Church. 

In 1533 Henry married Anne Boleyn. English law now made it a crime to insult the queen or question Anglican teachings. When Henry quickly tired of Anne and wanted to rid himself of another wife he ordered “witnesses” tortured till they admitted to various crimes involving the queen. Boleyn was found guilty and her head was chopped off at the Tower of London. 

In 1536 thousands of Catholics rose up and prepared to revolt. Henry made promises to rebel leaders he never intended to keep. Then he ordered his top general to make “dreadful execution” against these troublesome Englishmen. A “fearful spectacle” and plenty of spilled blood would teach them a lesson.

After 1547 most links to Catholic religious practice were ended. Stained glass windows were removed from churches, sometimes by angry mobs throwing rocks. Bells came down from steeples. Statues of the saints were broken up. Priests and ministers were ordered not to wear fancy garments during services. A New Book of Common Prayer was introduced, making English the language of all religious activities.  Battles over the use of this book led to the death of 4,000 Catholics and Anglicans.

By this time Henry VIII had died.

Edward VI, the new king, was calling the pope “the true son of the devil.”

His half-sister Mary, however, was a devoted Catholic. She cared for nothing in the world, she once said, “but only for God’s service and my conscience.” Told she could not attend Catholic mass she ignored everyone and went to church two and three times a day. 

So long as Edward lived the Protestants were in control. When he died in 1553 Mary took the English throne and Catholics appeared poised to regain power. The next year she declared England to be under the pope’s control. Then she married Philip, a good Catholic and son of the Spanish king. Soon she was ordering the burnings of heretics, this time, those who refused to give up “protestant” ideas. More than 200 died in the flames. Victims included Hugh Latimer and Nicholas Ridley, bishops in the Church of England. Another was Joan Waist, a poor blind woman, who saved money to buy a New Testament and paid others to read it to her. The queen has been known as “Bloody Mary” ever since.[1]

Queen Mary died in 1558.[2] She was followed on the throne by Elizabeth I, this time a Protestant queen. For the next fifteen years England seesawed with Protestants and Catholics battling for control and often killing those who stood in the way. In 1579 John Stubbs published a book which angered the queen. As punishment his right hand was amputated. Meanwhile, Pope Pius V offered a reward to anyone who could assassinate the English ruler. The government began using spies to keep watch on religious enemies. When testimony was needed in court the rack (a device to stretch the arms and legs of a victim) and the thumbscrews were employed. 

Mary Stuart, Elizabeth’s niece, a Catholic, was executed when it seemed she was plotting to take the throne. 

Differences over religion helped stir rivalry between Spain and England. In 1580 Spain gobbled up neighboring Portugal and held power there for sixty years. Eight years later the Spanish sent a mighty fleet, the Spanish Armada, to attack England. The fleet was smashed—opening the door for other nations to found colonies in America.

France was also torn by religious differences. Blood again flowed. In 1598 the Edict of Nantes was issued. This decree granted religious toleration to all members of Christian churches. Spain took another direction: in 1609, rulers ordered almost a million people driven from the country because of their beliefs. 

Meanwhile, people in Scotland were swayed by John Calvin’s ideas and the Presbyterian Church spread in the north. Calvinism insists that the Scriptures are the one rule for life. Each individual must be able to read them for him or herself and must follow them to the letter.

John Knox, a Scottish leader, compared going to Catholic mass to drinking a glass of poison. Lawmakers there made attendance at mass more than twice grounds for execution. Ireland remained strongly Catholic, except in the northeast, where Protestants settled in large numbers. Differences of religion led to fresh conflict and the spilling of fresh blood.

*

Queen Elizabeth died in 1603. She was followed on the throne by James I, who ordered a new version of the Bible. This King James Bible (1611) would become the standard for almost every Protestant church. James also worked to limit Parliament’s control over his decisions. He refused to call the body into session unless it was absolutely necessary and lawmakers met for only thirty-six months during James’ twenty-two years on the throne. [3]

Parliament struck back when possible by refusing to raise taxes or give the king the money he needed to run the government.

Differences over religion soon led to fighting between the English and the Scots. At about the same time Robert Filmes argued, “A thing may by the king be commanded contrary to law, and yet obedience to such a command is necessary.” Samuel Rutherford, a Scottish leader, insisted otherwise. The king did not have absolute power. The true idea was “LEX REX:” “The law is king.” Not “REX LEX:” “The king is law.”

For a time England settled down and the killing slowed. Still, groups like the Pilgrims rose up, arguing that the Church of England was too much like the Catholic Church. The Pilgrims were driven out of the country and settled in Holland in 1609. In 1620 they moved to America. There they hoped to worship freely and avoid having their noses split or their foreheads branded. These were typical punishments for heretics at the time.

James died in 1625. Next to wear the crown was Charles I, his son. Charles thought of himself as God’s “lieutenant on earth” and was not inclined to share power. Parliament grew worried and decided to act. In 1629 lawmakers issued the Petition of Right. By this act they claimed the right of all Englishmen to trial by jury, the right of Parliament to control taxation, and outlined other important freedoms.

Officers of the king tried to storm the hall only to be locked out by lawmakers. On March 10, 1629 Charles dissolved the body. Parliament would not be called back into session for eleven years.

In 1633 Bishop William Laud rose to the head of the Anglican Church. Backed by the king, Laud introduced new rules that appeared to take the church back to Catholic practice. He insisted that all church altars be raised above the people in the pews. Altars must be at the east end of the church. All ministers must wear the same kind of vestments or clothing.

Puritans—people who wanted to “purify” the Church of England and rid it of Catholic ideas—were shocked. They argued that all religious ceremonies not mentioned in the Bible (for example:  kneeling or celebrating Easter or Christmas) should be abolished. They were arrested by the dozens and filled the jails. William Prynne, for one, was branded on both cheeks and had his ears cut off after calling actresses “whores.” (Charles and his queen pursued acting as a hobby at the time.)

*

Germany was now torn by religious warfare, in what is known as the Thirty Years War (1618-1648). France, Spain, Sweden and Denmark were drawn into the fight. By the time the bloodbath was ended there were far fewer people left to go to any church. Norman Davies, a modern historian, estimates that German population fell from twenty-one to thirteen million during the war.

During this era a German prince[4] built a special “witch-house” where suspects could be tortured. On the walls he posted Biblical texts. Before he was done he had “rid” the world of 600 witches. One victim wrote his daughter, explaining why he confessed. “They never cease to torture,” he said, “until one says something.”

Over the course of three centuries, beginning in 1484, Davies estimates “millions of innocents” were executed for practicing witchcraft.

Individuals convicted of witchcraft were executed all over Europe and in the American colonies.
The last executions in America came in 1692.

*

Back in England, the Church of England was splintering. The Pilgrims and others left for America. The Puritans held out hope of “purifying” the Anglican faith—if only they could clean it up. They protested against issues such as these: the use of rings in marriage ceremonies, the sign of the cross during baptism, organs for music, and the wearing of fancy garments by ministers. The Puritans insisted no priest or minister could save members of his flock. Only God could do it and men and women were predestined before birth.

Starting in 1637, Puritans rose up in protest against the Church of England and Charles I. According to one of their leaders, “obedience to God” was far more important than obedience to any earthly king. In 1642 Charles tried to arrest leaders of the Puritan party in Parliament but failed. It was soon clear civil war was coming. 

Two years later, Oliver Cromwell and a Puritan army smashed the king’s forces at the battle of Marston Moor (July 2, 1644). Cromwell naturally felt God gave him victory. Cromwell also believed God spoke to him and “instructed” him on how to run the government.[5]   

At this same time the Puritans cut off Charles I’s head. He had been their prisoner for months. 

The Puritans now set out to strengthen their hold by closing the House of Lords (the upper house of Parliament), which included members of the noble families. They closed down festivals, eliminated holidays like Christmas and Easter and shut down theaters. Citizens who cursed could be arrested and fined, including Henry Gollop who strung forty curses together. Horse racing was banned. So was bowling. The same was true for dancing. Wrestling was out and bear-baiting, too. According to another law, “Children under twelve heard saying something filthy were to be whipped.” Sex before marriage meant prison time.

Adultery meant death. 

The Puritans believed in eternal damnation.

*

By 1649 young George Fox had lost faith in Puritan beliefs. He had come to believe each individual was answerable to God alone and not to his fellow man. Each person had an “inner light” which could lead him or her to understand God’s truth. He also insisted predestination was wrong. It was inconsistent with God’s great love. Fox was against war. He was against ministers, believing they were unnecessary, against fancy churches, against marriage services. Now he set out to roam the land and spread his ideas. Fox was the first “Quaker.” 

Fox and his followers were often attacked. Fox was hit in the face with a Bible, dragged from a church and thrown over a hedge. A follower, James Nayler, was jailed for speaking his mind. He was pilloried for two hours, branded on the forehead and had his tongue bored with a red-hot iron. Then he was tied to a cart and whipped through the streets. 

Quakers suffered in England and in the American colonies. Robert Hodshone was arrested in 1657 in New Amsterdam (the Dutch colony which later became New York). At his trial he was not allowed to speak in his defense. Found guilty, he was sentenced to two years of hard labor. One August day he was brought out of his jail cell and told to go to work. He refused, saying he:

…had done no evil and broken no law, and he would not obey. Then he was stripped to the waist and a [jailer] with a piece of rope beat him until he fell to the ground. This was repeated for several days… [Later] he was kept for two nights and a day without bread or water, and then hung up to the ceiling by his hands while a heavy log of wood was tied to his ankles. In this position he was cruelly beaten with rods. 

Hodshone refused to break. The punishment was repeated two days later. At last, the sister of Governor Peter Stuyvesant insisted mercy be shown and Hodshone was set free.

Henry Townsend, another Quaker, was arrested in Flushing. A judge sentenced him to be whipped. Town authorities refused to carry out the punishment. They sent in this protest to the governor:

The law of love, peace, and liberty, extending in the state to Jews, Turks, and Egyptians, forms the true glory of Holland; so love, peace, and liberty, extended to all in Christ Jesus, condemn hatred, strife, and bondage…[Such protection covers] Presbyterian, Independent, Baptist, or Quaker…Should any of these people come in love among us, therefore, we cannot in conscience lay violent hands on them. 

Conditions were no better in England. William Penn was arrested on a variety of charges for speaking out about his Quaker beliefs. Among other charges he was accused of touching off a riot and speaking to an “unlawful assembly.” At his trial, Penn defended himself with skill and courage. The jury of twelve studied the facts but could not agree. The judge sent them back to continue their work. They returned and announced they had found Penn, “Guilty of speaking in Gracechurch Street.” This verdict ignored the charges. The judge locked up the jury without food, drink or heat for the night. John Fiske, the great historian, continues the story. The next morning they were returned to court and:

The question was put to them, “Guilty, or not guilty?” The foreman replied, “Guilty of speaking in Gracechurch Street,” and stopped, whereupon the Lord Mayor added, “to an unlawful assembly.” “No, my lord,” said the foreman, “we give no other verdict than we gave last night.” So these brave men were scolded again, locked up again for several hours and brought into court [again]…“Is William Penn, the prisoner, guilty or not guilty?” asked the mayor. “Not guilty, my lord.” Then the mayor, quite beside himself with rage, proceeded to fine each of the jurors [a large sum] with jail time until it should be paid.

A higher court threw out the mayor’s decision soon after. Penn’s freedom—and the English jury system were both upheld.

*

Meanwhile, the Puritans lost control of the government. Charles II regained the throne in 1661 and promised “liberty to tender consciences.” Puritan leaders, however, paid for executing Charles I thirteen years before. Several were hanged. Others fled to America.[6] One of Charles’ first acts as king was to require printers to apply for a license to print any book or newspaper. 

France also continued to struggle with religious issues. Starting in 1685, religious freedom was denied to Huguenots, as French Protestants were called. Their churches were closed. They could no longer serve as lawyers or doctors or print or sell books. Troops were placed in their homes. New laws made it easy to take young children from Protestant families in order to raise them in the Catholic faith. 

After Charles II died in England, he was replaced by his brother James II, like Charles, a secret Catholic. James tried to take greater power into his hands but succeeded only in making new enemies. At his order, several American colonies were combined under one governor. This governor took the power to tax into his hands. In Massachusetts the assembly was abolished. Reverend John Wise protested. For speaking out he was arrested, jailed and fined. Then he was suspended from preaching.

James II lasted till 1688 when he was driven from the throne. He was replaced by William III, a good Protestant, and Queen Mary II, James’ own daughter, also a Protestant. 

After a hundred and fifty years of bloodshed and beatings, the English were ready for a change. The ideas of John Locke were spreading. Locke argued that government was the creation of men and not God. 

Therefore the first job of government was not to uphold religious views. It was to protect “the safety of the people in all that it can.”

The Declaration of Right was issued in 1689. It included protections for basic liberties. Among them: 

·       Limits on the power to tax

·       Protection of rights in court

·       Right to petition

·       Free elections

·       Annual meetings of Parliament

·       An end to standing armies (that is: troops kept on duty so that they might put down any protests by the people.

The same year an Act of Toleration was passed granting freedom of religion to most Christians.

Even in the American colonies freedom of religion was limited at first.
Roger Williams was thrown out of Massachusetts for questioning Puritan ideas.

In many colonies, Quakers could be arrested for speaking about their beliefs.

---

[1] As early as 1554 Sebastian Castellio argued that Christians did not know enough to justify killing those with different opinions. Instead, he believed God would care more about sincere belief than minor matters like which prayers were used and what a priest or minister wore.

[2] At this same time the Netherlands were controlled by Spain and bitter religious fighting erupted between the Dutch (mostly Protestant) and the Spanish (Catholic). When Philip II returned to Spain after leading the fight in the Netherlands he was greeted by a great celebration. As part of the festivities a huge “auto da fe” was held. This was an “act of faith” and involved the strangling and burning of large numbers of heretics.

[3] James I firmly believed in witchcraft and warnings against the practice are included in the Bible. Hunting witches became more common.

[4] Germany was then divided into hundreds of small states or principalities. The modern nation did not yet exist.

[5] Cromwell had no love for Catholics. Fighting in Ireland in 1649, he ordered thousands of Catholic prisoners slaughtered after the Battle of Drogheda. But he did believe in toleration for most Protestant faiths. He compared various sects to different kinds of trees, all offering comfortable shade. He allowed Jews to reenter England, the first time they had been welcome since 1290.

[6] John Bunyan, another Puritan, was sent to jail.  There he began to write his famous book:  Pilgrim’s Progress.