Discussion Jumpstarter
Study leader reference - not a definitive answer
Question 7
The Second Continental Congress (July 1775) said it intended “no violence to their conscience” for those who “cannot bear arms,” yet urged them to “contribute liberally” and serve the cause in other ways; how does this “conscience respected, but pressured to fund the war” approach compare to how Christians today talk about conscientious objection, and where is the line between respecting conscience and coercing it?
Another way to ask: If people can’t fight but are still pushed to pay for the war, is their conscience really being respected? Where is the line between honoring someone’s conscience and pressuring them to go against it?
Discussion Jumpstarter
Direct Answer
Based on the transcript, the Congress verbally acknowledged conscience but still leaned on objectors to materially support the war, which blurs into pressure; the line is crossed when “no violence” becomes financial or legal compulsion that forces believers to participate against their convictions.
- The militia act language is quoted: for those who “cannot bear arms,” Congress “intends no violence to their conscience.”
- Yet it “earnestly recommends to them to contribute liberally…to the relief of the distressed brethren… and to do all other services…consistent…with their religious principle.”
- The speaker reports militias’ reaction: they “could not believe” there were conscientious objectors who “did not want to support the revolution.”
- He notes petitions and agitation grew in places like Lancaster and Berks County starting in fall 1775.
- Franklin’s proposal is cited approving compulsion: those who can’t contribute militarily “should make a monetary one based on a fixed rate.”