rterly Examiner_,
July, 1933; Jorns, 197-233.

[124] Horace G. Alexander in Heard, _et al._, _The New Pacifism_, 93.

Political Action and Compromise

The Quakers, for instance, have been noted for their participation in
all sorts of reform movements. Since every reform in one sense involves
opposition to some existing institution, Clarence Case has been led to
call the Quakers "non-physical resistants;"[125] but since their real
objective was usually the establishment of a new institution rather than
the mere destruction of an old one, they might better be called
"non-violent advocates." They were willing to advocate their reforms in
the public forum and the political arena. Since, as Rufus Jones has
pointed out, such action might yield to the temptation to compromise
with men of lesser ideals, there has always been an element in the
Society of Friends which insisted that the ideal must be served in its
entirety, even to the extent of giving up public office and influence
rather than to compromise.[126] In Pennsylvania the Quakers withdrew
from the legislature when it became necessary in the existing political
situation to vote support of the French and Indian war, but they did so
not because they did not believe in political action, in which up to
that moment they had taken part willingly enough, but rather because
under the circumstances of the moment it was impossible to realize their
ideals by that means.[127]

Ruth Fry, in discussing the uncompromising attitude of the Friends on
the issue of slavery, has well described the process of Quaker reform:

"One cannot help feeling that this strong stand for the ultimate
right was far more responsible for success than the more timid one,
and should encourage such action in other great causes. In fact,
the ideal Quaker method would seem to be patient waiting for
enlightenment on the underlying principle, which when seen is so
absolutely clear and convincing that no outer difficulties or
suffering can affect it: its full implications gradually appear,
and its ultimate triumph can never be doubted. Any advance towards
it, may be accepted as a stepping stone, although only methods
consistent with Quaker ideals may be used to gain the desired end.
Doing anything tinged with evil, that good may come, is entirely
contrary to their ideas."[128]

She goes on to say, "As ever, the exact line of demarcation betw