by Leonard Kenworthy
Chapter 3, in Part I of Friends for Over Three Hundred Years of Quakerism: A Study Guide on the Religious Society of Friends (1st published 1981, now out of print).
The 19th century was a period of stresses and strains in Quakerism, especially in the United States. A further tightening ofthe discipline regarding the conduct of Quakers led to thousands ofdisownments, with the consequent loss of many of the younger and more adventurous men and women. It also led to the hardening ofthe spiritual arteries and frequently the lack of a vital and authenticmessage for those times. Intervisitation slackened and many of thenewer Meetings in the old Northwest Territory were isolated fromthe centers of Quakerism in London and Philadelphia, becoming moribund. As a result of these and other factors, several separations took place in that century, with various groups ofFriends in the United States dividing their many-sided message from the past.
In some respects the 19th century was a sad chapter in Quaker history. Consequently one can understand why Howard Brinton capsulated that period with the words Conflict and Decline, both negative words.
Yet there were several more favorable aspects to 19th century Quakerism. Surely a group which could provide such a large share of the leadership in the United States for the anti-slavery movement, the women’s rights crusade, the peace movement, and educational advances, deserves a better summary than the phrase Conflict and Decline. And a group which produced such outstanding persons as John Bright, Elizabeth Fry, and Joseph Sturge in England, and John Greenleaf Whittier, Levi Coffin, and Lucretia Matt in the United States certainly merits more than the words Conflict and Decline.
Therefore we have given this chapter the title Dividing Our Inheritance and Promoting Quaker Concerns. To us that caption captures both the negative and positive aspects of Quakerism in the 19th century.
Further Movements Westward in the U.S.A.
During that period American Friends were still on the move. That was especially true of Quakers in the southern states of Virginia, North and South
Carolina, and Georgia.
Finding slavery repugnant and realizing the new lease on life it had obtained by Eli Whitney’s invention of the cotton gin in 1793, many Friends decided to move to an area of the United States where slavery was forbidden. Therefore entire families sold their property, packed, and moved in covered wagons to the old Northwest Territory. Sometimes whole Meetings migrated, taking their record books with them and naming their new settlements after the ones where they had previously resided.
Thus nearly all the Quakers in Georgia, South Carolina, and Virginia, and many of them in North Carolina joined the trek west. It is estimated that between 1800 and 1860 at least 6000 Friends from the south moved west. So depleted was Virginia Yearly Meeting that it was “laid down” in 1845 and the remaining Meetings transferred to Baltimore Yearly Meeting.
But the loss in one section of American Quakerdom was the gain in another. Soon new Yearly meetings were “set up” – Ohio in 1812, Indiana in 1820, Western (for western Indiana and eastern Illinois) in 1858. Eventually there were several yearly meetings along the main routes west – in Iowa, Kansas, Nebraska, Oregon, and California.
Discipline and Disownments in England and the U.S.A.
Unfortunately the tightening of discipline on members and on Meetings which had begun in the 18th century became even more pronounced in the 19th. And disownments were more frequent. Friends were disowned for playing a fiddle, dancing, using foul language, or drinking. Even more were disowned for “marrying out of Meeting,” which means that they married a non-Friend. It is estimated that between 1800 and 1850 at least 5000 members were dropped in England for that reason. And in the United States, Meetings were at least as severe.
At their best, Quaker groups were caring communities, marked by plain living and high thinking. At their worst, Quaker groups were closed communities, inhabited by a peculiar people. As Sidney Lucas says in The Quaker Story, Quakerism in many places “became a monument rather than a movement.”
Then Came the Division
In the early part of the 19th century Friends in the United States were separated by great distances and they were separated by points of view. Instead of working out their differences in a broad synthesis, they resorted to separations. Thus a large part of the energy of Friends in the 19th century in the U.S.A. was dissipated in arguments over discipline and dogma. Hence the 19th century in American Quakerism became our Tragic Era.
Some of the stresses and strains in that period came from outside the Society of Friends. The American Revolution and the French Revolution had highlighted the new spirit of democracy and personal freedom, and that new spirit of independence had its effects upon Quakers as well as others.
Likewise the Evangelical Movement had a tremendous impact in England and in the United States, arousing a religious fervor and dedication similar to that of 17th century Quakerism. As Elbert Russell pointed out in his pamphlet on The Separation After a Century, there were at least five major points in that movement: (1) the final authority of the Bible, (2) the “deity” of Christ, (3) his “substitutionary” death on the cross, (4) the depravity of human nature through Adam’s “fall,” and (5) the necessity of a personal religious experience.
Many Friends were influenced by that movement, seeing in it positive points which could help to combat the lethergy and stagnation which marked Quakerism at that point. For example, they saw the need for Friends to return to the close acquaintance with the Bible which had marked the early Quaker movement. They saw the need for more religious education among members of the Society of Friends. And they saw the need for more education.
But there were other tensions, too. There was the tension between those who emphasized the mystical element in Quakerism and those who emphasized the evangelical. There was tension between city Friends and country Friends. And there was tension between the elders and overseers and the rank and file.
These tensions were often heightened by the messages of travelling Friends, some from England and some from the United States. One of the most able of the Americans was Elias Hicks, a farmer from Long Island with a limited education but a logical mind and moving ministry. Hicks abhorred Deism and Atheism but the rational method appealed to him as a new implement to counteract the inroads of the Evangelical movement.
These various tensions came to a head in Philadelphia Yearly Meeting in 1827 in what has come to be called the Orthodox-Hicksite split. There are many interpretations of the conflict, but most Quaker historians now agree that the divisions there came about largely as a result of a revolt of country Friends against city Friends or the rank and file against the elders. Many city Friends at that time were well-to-do and tended to be conservative on most matters. Also, the meetings of the elders were held in Philadelphia and the city elders could attend them more easily than country Friends. By and large country Friends were disturbed by the new doctrines being disseminated and by the “worldliness” of city Friends. Furthermore, country Friends were in revolt against the authoritarianism of the city elders. Elbert Russell even reported that “unofficial members were not supposed to have copies of the book of discipline,” — a condition it is difficult for us to understand today. On the other hand the city elders were disturbed by the disregard by many Friends of the discipline and their resistance to the new evangelical message which they felt would revive a dying Society. Hence they tightened the screws even more rigorously.
The results of the ensuing struggle were sometimes horrendous. Occasionally there were contests over the possession of the Minutes of a Meeting or over the clerk’s desk. There were court battles in many places over the ownership of Meeting Houses, schools, and burial grounds. Some families were divided in their allegiance to the two sides of that controversy. And the scars of that struggle lasted for decades.
In the end, almost every yearly meeting in the United States was split. Only New England, Virginia, and North Carolina avoided such a division. In New York, Philadelphia, and Baltimore Yearly Meetings the largest numbers after the separation were Hicksites, with about two-thirds of the country Friends adhering to that group and two-thirds of the city Friends aligning with the Orthodox division.
However, both groups maintained the original form of Quaker worship — Meetings held on the basis of silent expectancy.
This is a sad story because it left a fragmented Society of Friends in the United States, weakening its witness and work. Both sides in that dispute appear to share the blame. As Rufus Jones once wrote,
both sides lacked…any historical grasp of Quakerism…. Still feebler was their comprehension of early Christianity.
Sidney Lucas, an English Quaker historian, has commented that
Each considered itself the true exponent of Quaker faith and
practice. Both lacked a real understanding of seventeenth cen-
tury Quakerism,. either in its historical background or its spiritual
message, and both created doctrinal fabric that was alien to the
Quaker ideal…. Each party had some portion of the truth.
A Second Split
One split was one too many and should have been avoided. But Quakers in the United States subjected themselves to a second division in the 19th century, thus dismembering the Society further.
In a sense that second split was an extension of the first, being concerned with the evangelical movement, with its accent on Bible study and religious education among young people and adults, and its emphasis upon the historic Christ rather than a combination of the Historic Christ and the Indwelling Christ.
This second split might also have been avoided, but the fires of controversy were fanned by sincere, devout Quakers travelling in the ministry. One especially able visitor was Joseph John Gurney (1788-1846). Gurney was a prominent English Quaker, a member of the famous Gurney banker family, and a brother of Elizabeth Fry, the eminent prison reformer. He was handsome, talented, and persuasive as a speaker and writer. He was a scholar, an ardent student of the Bible, an advocate of higher education, and an evangelical. His messages were filled with references to the Scriptures and were Christ-centered.
As he travelled hither and yon in the United States, Gurney urged Friends to saturate themselves in the wisdom of the Scriptures, to organize Sunday Schools and adult conferences on religious education, and to found Quaker colleges.
He was received enthusiastically in many places. He even visited the President of the United States and held services in the Senate chamber.
The man who became the acknowledged leader of the opposition to Gurney and his friends was John Wilbur, a birthright Friend from New England. In the 1830s Wilbur took a trip to England and was disturbed to discover the emphasis many English Friends placed on the Bible, fearing it would lead eventually to a belief in the infallibility of that book. He also opposed lectures and other types of religious education, believing that they constituted undue
preparation for open Meetings for Worship. He also wondered if learning of any kind would not lessen spirituality. His own belief was in the importance of the leadings of the Inner Light of Christ and his support was for much of the Quietism which had characterized the previous century.
John Wilbur was an earnest, sincere, and gifted individual but he was no match for the highly educated, colorful personality of Joseph John Gurney.
Eventually a second split took place in American Quakerdom, with the two groups known as Gurneyites and Wilburites. However, this separation took place only among Orthodox Friends, starting in the 1840s in New England Yearly Meeting and continuing into the 1850s. Most Orthodox Friends sided with the Gurneyites, but several small yearly meetings were formed as a result of this division – in New England, Ohio, Indiana, Iowa, and North Carolina. By far the largest group was Philadelphia Yearly Meeting:-Wilburite [usually identified later as Philadelphia YM (Orthodox).]
The Role of English Friends in These Separations
Despite differences in interpretation of the Quaker message, London Yearly Meeting avoided separations, except for a small group of Fritchley Friends. In England the distances were less and communication better, a broader flexibility in beliefs prevailed, and a more staid and conservative political atmosphere seemed to curtail the extremes which characterized life in the United States in the 19th century. And in spite of theological differences, all the Meetings in England retained the original form of Quaker worship — the silent Meeting.
English Friends could have played a reconciling role and some individuals and groups did attempt to do that. But the extremists carried their message to the New World and wherever separations occurred, London Yearly Meeting “recognized” the evangelical groups in the U.S.A.
In her book on The Story of Quakerism,· Elfrida Vipont Foulds recently summarized the role of English Friends in these controversies in these words:
London Yearly Meeting was in a unique position to effect a reconciliation, had it been able to rise to its opportunities; not only was it the parent group, but it was spared the painful experience of actual separations within its own ranks save in a minor degree. If only English Friends had maintained a fraternal relationship with all groups in America bearing the name of Friends, they might thus have kept a vital link unbroken. Unfortunately they not only took sides in the dispute, but allowed prejudice to blind them to the merits of one side in the dispute to such an extent ttlat their views were utterly distorted. For years the “Hicksite” and “Wilburite” Friends were unrecognized, and only the “Orthodox” groups received the Epistles of London Yearly Meeting.
[ed. note: Many believe that the London YM Friends who played a prominent role in organizing the 1840 World Antislavery Convention insisted that it only be open to men in order to prevent the participation of leading Hicksite minister and abolitionist Lucretia Mott in the gathering. The exclusion of women delegates was a strong motivation for Mott and Elizabeth Cady joining in organizing the world’s first women’s rights convention in Seneca Falls 8 years later.]
The Divided Inheritance
Charts have their faults but they can sometimes clarify an idea or ideas better than words alone. In the writer’s autobiography, Worldview: The Autobiography of a Social Studies Teacher and Quaker, the following chart was used to try to illustrate the ways in which Quakers over a long period have
divided the total message of 17th century Friends, with each group in the United States concentrating on certain aspects of that many-sided message. The greatest loss has probably been in the division of the original testimony of The Inward Christ and The Historic Christ into two separate testimonies:
Friends in the U.S. have divided our inheritance: (which once included all of these dimensions):
- Hicksites (now FGC) have emphasized rationalism, education & social concerns
- Wilburites (now Conservative YMs) have emphasized simplicity, the inward Christ, the historic Christ & the Bible
- Guerneyites (now FUM & EFCI) have emphasized the historic Christ, the Bible and Evangelism & missions.
Writing about this fragmentation in a book on Friends Search for Wholeness, Jack Kirk said:
Each group has thought that it carried the full Quaker banner, while in actuality each has tightly clasped only a tattered shred of the rich tapestry that was the original Quaker movement.
The writer’s reaction to this story of separations was summed up in a brief account on All Kinds of Quakers in his booklet of Meditations Around the World, written in 1958. That brief meditation was as follows:
Gurneyites, Hicksites, and Wilburites, Five Years Meeting [now Friends United Meeting] Friends, General Conference Friends, Evangelical Friends, and Independents. Birthright Friends, Convinced Friends, and Overconvinced Friends. It makes one’s head ache to try to understand the many Quaker groups, and one’s heart bleed to realize such divisions exist. ·
Quakerism today is like a good-sized plot of ground which has been divided among several sons and daughters, each inheriting a small section of the original plot. These strips are too small to cultivate properly alone, and yet people do not seem to be able
to farm them cooperatively.
What a Society we would have if we could work together, learning from each other and using the talents of each group. In such a Society we would utilize the zeal, sacrificial giving, and concern for the spreading of the Gospel, of Evangelical Friends. We would profit from the mission work, the concern for children and young people, the talents of many pastors, the network of colleges, and the broad base of membership of Five Years Meeting Friends. And we would all gain from the highly educated, upper middle class membership of the Friends General Conference and of Independent Friends, with their emphasis upon worship on the basis of silence and their interest in social service.
What a Society of Friends that combination would make.
Friends and the Civil War in the United States
In the meantime an event of tremendous importance to Americans, including Quakers, had taken place- the Civil War. And what a dilemma it posed for Friends! Quakers had been pioneers and leaders in the Underground Railroad and in the abolition movement. Many of them had left the South because of their abhorence of that inhuman institution. But they were also opposed to war as a means of settling disputes.
Abraham Lincoln summarized that dilemma in his famous letter to Eliza P. Gurney, the widow of Joseph John Gurney, writing:
You people — the Friends — have had, and are having, a very great trial. On principle and faith, opposed to both war and oppression, they can only practically oppose oppression by war. In this hard dilemma, some have chosen one horn and some the other. For those appealing to me on conscientious grounds, I have done, and shall do, the best I could and can, in my conscience, under my oath to the laws.
Obviously there were difficult decisions to make. Officially Friends upheld the peace testimony. Yet many young men took part in that conflict. Others paid the $300 permitted by law to hire “substitutes.” A few hid out (shades of the Vietnam conflict). In general Orthodox Friends disowned those who joined the army. On the other hand, Hicksite Friends were more tolerant or less faithful, depending upon your point of view.
People often castigated Friends for bringing about the war and then failing to support it. Some Quakers, especially in the South, had their property seized and sometimes destroyed. But the faithfulness of many Friends attracted attention and North Carolina Yearly Meeting grew in this period. Once the war was over, Friends everywhere redoubled their efforts to help the former slaves, a movement we will describe in more detail in Chapter 9.
The Extension of Quakerism to Other Parts of the World
During the 19th century the Quaker movement also began to spread beyond the two places where it had been prominent – England and the United States.
In Norway there had been some interest in Quakerism since the days of Fox and the early Friends. But a new lease on life for the Society there came during the Napoleonic Wars when some Norwegian and Danish prisoners of war on a British ship studied a translation of Barclay’s Apology and started meeting together for worship after the manner of Friends. When they were repatriated, a little group of Quakers was formed in Norway and eventually a yearly meeting was established in 1846.
Then, in 1875, a yearly meeting was set up in Denmark.
However, both groups suffered from military conscription and emigration, and only a small group remained in Stavanger, Norway.
As a part of the evangelical influence of English Quakers, a Friends Foreign Mission Association was formed by London Yearly Meeting in 1868 and missionaries were sent to Madagascar, Pemba, India, and China. One Quaker writer has said that “those missions contributed largely to the recovery of purpose, spiritual power, and heightened social conscience in the Society.”
The Introduction of the Pastoral System in Many Friends
In the latter part of the 19th century a very new development occurred among American Friends. That was the gradual acceptance of the pastoral system. This revolutionary shift in the ways of worship of most Quaker groups in the U.S.A. is treated in considerable detail in Chapter 12, but the barest outline
needs to be given here because it explains some of the expansion of Quakerism in the United States and its new vitality, as well as some of the current tensions among various groups of American Friends.
In many Meetings in the United States in the 19th century, spiritual life was at a low ebb. Often there was no public ministry in meetings for worship or the same people spoke frequently on the same or similar themes. The travelling ministry of outstanding Friends still existed but it no longer flourished. And distance separated the many Quaker groups. Many Friends were farmers and alone much of the time during the week so they longed for more speaking rather than more silence in their meetings for worship.
Many Quakers were impressed with the new life in other churches, brought about in large part by their revivals. And many of the young people coveted the music which characterized other church services.
In many places a non-Friend or a Friend of a very evangelical persuasion was brought into the community for special services. New attenders were drawn to Quakerism but many of them were not happy about their form of worship on the basis of silence. So, in many places the evangelist was brought back as a paid pastor, or some one else was hired by the congregation to preach. Music was introduced, too.
Gradually a large part of American Quakerdom embraced the pastoral system, with a prepared sermon, congregational singing, and other aspects of most Protestant churches. This occurred solely among Orthodox Friends, however. The Conservative or Wilburite Quakers and the Hicksites continued to adhere to the original form of Friends worship. English Friends also maintained this approach.
Some Outstanding Friends in the 19th Century
In any list of prominent Quakers throughout the nearly 400 years of its history, the 19th century should ·be well represented because there were a large number of outstanding Friends in England and in the United States in that period.
Three of them have already been mentioned in this chapter – Elias Hicks, John Wilbur, and Joseph John Gurney- all religious leaders.
The others who will be mentioned here were primarily social reformers and political leaders whose concerns grew directly out of their Quaker beliefs. For them there was little if any separation between the spiritual and the secular.
Among the English Quakers, Joseph Sturge, John Bright, and Elizabeth Fry were certainly luminaries.
Few Quakers in any period have been involved creatively in so many movements as Joseph Sturge (1793-1860), whom Rufus Jones regarded as “the consummate flower of Quakerism in the nineteenth century.” He was one of the foremost workers for the abolition of slavery in the British Empire, for the repeal of the iniquitous Corn Laws, for the establishment of schools for juvenile delinquents, and for temperance. In addition, as president of the London Peace Society and other similar groups, he devoted himself tirelessly to the cause of peace and improved international relations. For example, he made a trip to Russia in 1854 and talked with Czar Nicholas, hoping thereby to prevent the Crimean War. And he was active in opposing the opium trade with China. In addition he worked diligently to obtain the vote for the working men of England. And he was one of the leaders in the movement to establish religious education programs, primarily for working people, in Quaker meeting houses.
Even more effective was John Bright (1811-1889), one of the great liberal political leaders in England. As a lad of 15, John Bright went to work in his father’s mill and for the rest of his life he identified closely with the working people of England. When he entered the House of Commons, about one-sixth of the working men could vote; by the end of his life all of them were enfranchised, due in large part to his eloquence and organizational ability. Furthermore, he was one of the major opponents of the oppressive Corn Laws which were especially hard on the poor. He was likewise outspoken in his opposition to capital punishment.
But John Bright’s interests were even broader than that. He stood almost alone in the House of Commons in denouncing the Crimean War. His sympathies were with the people of Ireland and India, too, and he did much to increase their participation in the governments of those areas. Probably his most effective work was in enlisting the support of the working people of England for the northern cause in the Civil War in the United States, even though that meant unemployment, suffering, and even starvation for many
Is it little wonder, then, that Rufus Jones once wrote of John Bright:
No other Friend since William Penn has put the Quaker peace position to such a public test, and no other Friend has succeeded to the extent he did in carrying Quaker ideals into practice as the sound and stable basis of national policy.
Then there was Elizabeth Fry (1780-1845). Along with Margaret Fell Fox and Lucretia Mott, she was undoubtedly one of the greatest women in the entire history of the Society of Friends. Born into the famous Gurney family of Quakers and raised at Hall, she began at the age of 17 to take her Quaker background seriously. Married eventually to Joseph Fry of the well-known Quaker banking family, they raised 11 children. Despite the demands on her time and energy in raising that large group of boys and girls, and her delicate health, she took part in many movements, especially work for the humane treatment of women prisoners. Eventually she became the acknowledged world leader in that field, the outstanding pioneer in prison reform.
In the United States the best known Quaker of the 19th century, both inside the Society of Friends and outside it, was John Greenleaf Whittier (1807-1892) — a champion of democracy, a leader in the antislavery movement, an advocate of women’s rights, an opponent of capital punishment, a poet and writer of hymns — in short, an able and concerned Quaker.
Among the many Friends who developed the Underground Railroad to help slaves escape into free territory in the northern part of the United States was Levi Coffin, a Quaker from North Carolina who moved to Indiana, just north of Richmond, and later to Cincinnati. He was a business man with unusual gifts as an organizer and the ability to win the confidence and cooperation of his neighbors in what was a dangerous and illegal enterprise. His home was considered the Grand Central station of the Underground Railroad and so successful was he that people sometimes called him the “president” of the Underground railroad. Altogether it is estimated that 3000 slaves passed through the Coffin home. His move to Cincinnati came as a result of his efforts to organize a depot for goods made by free labor. After the Emancipation Proclamation, he and his friends continued to work for Negroes. He was also instrumental in starting some of the first Sunday Schools among Quakers.
Recently Quakers have begun to rediscover one of the most effective of women Friends — Lucretia Mott. Born into the Coffin family of Nantucket Island, she was educated in Boston and at the Nine Partners School in New York state (now Oakwood School in Poughkeepsie). Later she taught at the Nine Partners school and married one of her colleagues, James Mott. Early in life she was recognized as a recorded Quaker minister and her participation in the women’s business meetings gave her experience in speaking in public and in conducting meetings, an experience which few women in those days had. Eventually she used those experiences as one of the outstanding leaders in both the anti-slavery and woman’s suffrage movements. In the latter movement her name is linked with that of Susan B. Anthony who was raised a Friend but who left the Religious Society of Friends because of the conservatism of many Quakers in her day. Nevertheless Susan B. Anthony was motivated to a large extent by the ideals she learned as a young person from the forward-looking members of the Society of Friends.
Some Central Concerns of Friends in the 19th Century
As we have indicated in several parts of this chapter, Friends in the 19th century were involved in a large number of social and political movements. Almost always those concerns started with individuals and eventually were supported by the entire society. All of these will be treated in more detail in Chapters 9 and 10, but they need to be mentioned here in order to place 19th century Quakerism in proper perspective, as it was this aspect of the Society in which Quakers were most successful in that period.
In at least eight different fields Friends provided some or most of the leadership. This is true of the anti-slavery movement and the Underground Railroad, peace efforts, the women’s suffrage and women’s rights crusades, temperance, prison reform, work with American Indians, and education. In most instances both English and American Quakers were active; in a few it was primarily Friends in either England or the U.S.A.
Some Questions on Quakerism in the Nineteenth Century
- What idea or ideas strike you most in this chapter? Why?
- Should any potential separation among Friends threaten the Society, what suggestions would you make to avert such a tragedy?
- How do you explain the fact that London Yearly Meeting, by and large, escaped the tragic consequences of separations?
- Does your personal set of beliefs encompass all the points listed on the chart on page 39. Why? Why not?
- Which of the men and women included as outstanding Friends in the 19th century appeal to you most? Why?
- Which of the several movements of the 19th century in which Quakers were interested, appeal to you most? Why?
A Brief Reading List on Quakerism in the Nineteenth Century
Readers should consult the books mentioned in Chapter One as good general accounts of the history of Quakerism by Brinton,
Newman, Russell, Trueblood, and Vipont. Among the other references dealing especially with this period are the following:
- Bacon, Margaret H. The Quiet Rebels: The Story of Quakers in America. Basic Books, 1969. 229 pp.
- Comfort, William Wistar. Stephen Grellet: A Biography. Macmillan, 1942. 202 pp.
- Elliott, Errol T. Quakers on the American Frontier. Friends United Press. 1969.434 pp.
- Forbush, Bliss. Elias Hicks: Quaker Liberal. Columbia University Press, 1956. 355 pp. Abbreviated edition, Friends General Conference, 1984.
- Kenworthy, Leonard S. John Bright: Nineteenth Century Humanitarian. Friends Bookstore- Philadelphia. 32 pp.
- Kenworthy, Leonard S. Elizabeth Fry Speaks, John Wilhelm Rowntree Speaks, and John Woolman Speaks. 8 pp. each. Also in Kenworthy’s Sixteen Quaker Leaders Speak.
- LeShana, David C. Quakers in California. Barclay Press, 1969. 186 pp.
- Moore, Floyd. Friends in the Carolinas. North Carolina Yearly Meeting, 1971 (Third printing). 30 pp.