THERE IS DEATH IN THE POT - The University of Texas at Arlington

Orthodox and Hicksite Quakers both agreed that slavery was sinful and must be
abolished. However, the two groups differed significantly in defining the proper
approach to abolitionism, particularly radical abolitionism. Even within each group —
Orthodox and Hicksite — Friends differed significantly over the relationship between the
Society of Friends and abolitionism. 6 Quakers had never accepted the idea that the end
justified the means. The rise of radical abolitionism and the often violent response to the
movement complicated Quaker definitions of prudent and imprudent means. How might
Quakers support abolitionism without adding to the social tensions that threatened to tear
American society apart? 7 Abstinence from slave-labor products seemed a possible
compromise for many Quakers. More conservative Quakers emphasized abstinence as
means of purifying Friends from the taint of slavery. Quaker abolitionists, in contrast,
emphasized abstinence as a means of identification with the slave. For this group, in
particular, abstinence became a radical statement of individual and communal
Consequences for Quaker Women in Antebellum America,” in Witnesses for Change: Women over Three
Centuries, edited by Elisabeth Potts and Susan Mosher Stuard Brown (New Brunswick, N.J.: Rutgers
University Press, 1989), 94; Wellman, The Road to Seneca Falls, 102.
6 Christopher Densmore warns, “The extent of the division between Orthodox and Hicksites
before the 1860s should not be overemphasized. Although the Orthodox in particular were reluctant to do
anything to recognize the legitimacy of the Hicksite, individuals on both sides read one another’s
publications, occasionally attended one another’s meetings, and shared common practices. The Orthodox
tended to be more theologically similar, whereas the Hicksites were more theologically diverse.”
Densmore, et. al., “After the Separation,” in Quaker Crosscurrents: Three Hundred Years of Friends in the
New York Yearly Meetings, edited by Hugh Barbour, Christopher Densmore, Elizabeth H. Moger, et. al.
(Syracuse: Syracuse University Press, 1995), 142-143. In his study of Chester County Friends, Densmore
argues that leading figures on both sides of the schism were “deeply committed to the core principles of
Quakerism, but conflicted about the proper response to the organized abolitionist movement. Absent the
external strain of the abolitionist debate, and there would have been no separation.” Densmore, “‘Be Ye
Therefore Perfect,’” 30.
7 Drake, Quakers and Slavery, 134-135.
137