George McIntosh and the Struggle for the Liberation of the Shakers (Spiritual Baptists)

I missed the debate in Parliament on the Spiritual Baptists. I don’t know to what extent George McIntosh and his struggles to have the revocation of the Ordinance that banned the Shakers Religion in 1912 had been acknowledged and celebrated.

After McIntosh’s Workingmen’s Association entered and dominated the Legislative Council from 1937 to 1950, one of the items high on his agenda was the repeal of the Act of 1912 that brought hardship on the poor people who practised the Shaker religion. From 1939 until 1950 he constantly brought motions before the Legislative Council to address that matter. The constitutional status of St. Vincent, at the height of Crown Colony government worked against his efforts. In 1965, after Adult Suffrage and the provision of a Chief Minister, Ebenezer Joshua successfully piloted a bill through the Legislature that killed the 1912 Act. He was seconded by the Leader of the Opposition, Milton Cato, who as a private lawyer in 1951, won a case in Marriaqua defending the Shakers. In 1965 when the motion for abolition was being discussed, both Joshua and Cato recognised the role of McIntosh. Joshua said, “Mr McIntosh tried his best, but the age was not ripe when the iron heal of Colonialism was still more rampant in these parts; he tried but when he thought this thing was removed, perhaps he didn’t know, poor fellow, steps would be taken to have it removed even today when we are a little more enlightened.” Mr Cato in his contribution said, “I would like to express a little amazement, Mr Speaker, that even though a motion was passed in these terms ten years ago that no positive steps have yet been taken to have it erased from the statute books and… to remove all doubts that any hindrance lies in the way of religious worship. The Chief Minister has suggested when a previous legislator he mentioned by name (that is McIntosh) took steps to champion this cause that the final steps were not taken to have the vicious and pernicious ordinance eradicated and once again we see that in 1955 the Chief Minister took steps with a similar aim in view and today, we are continuing the request to this House to have the terms of the motion finalised.”

Persistently from 1939 to 1950 McIntosh was prepared to raise the issue in the Legislative Council. In 1950 when yet another motion was being discussed he stated in the Legislature “I WILL COME HERE A MILLION TIMES IF NECESSARY AND I AM GOING TO COME UNTIL WE GET WHAT WE WANT, AND I TELL YOU THIS MUCH, IF WE DON’T GET IT ONE WAY, WE WILL GET IT ANOTHER.” (My emphasis) McIntosh was obviously not doing this to win votes. The Shakers then were very poor persons who under the prevailing constitution did not qualify to vote. That only came in 1951 with the introduction of Adult Suffrage.

At a time when the Shakers were forbidden from holding their meetings/services in town, McIntosh allowed them to have one of their meetings in his yard in Paul’s Lot, defying the authorities. There was an incident in Barrouallie that was reported in the Times newspaper of June 15, 1940: “On Thursday last, when being tried in the Magistrate’s Court in Barrouallie for practising Shakerism, all the Shakers got the ‘Spirit’ and indulged in some shaking before the whole court. Mr Magistrate Cox in a lengthy address advised and warned the Shakers to give up the practice as he felt it was definitely injurious to themselves. They were cautioned and dismissed.”

The person behind this was George McIntosh. He spoke about it in the Legislative Council on October 5, 1950. “ …there have been several attempts to take these so-called Shakers before the Magistrate and hitherto there have been many prosecutions. I remember once about forty (40) of these people were hounded down and brought to Barrouallie for prosecution. I went down to Barrouallie and asked the people, “Are you conscientious that this is the way you should serve God?” And when they said yes, I told them, “if you are arrested it will be nothing more than being a martyr to your cause and if you are put in prison there is nothing to prevent you from Shaking in prison.” And as we have been told, they did.

Many Shakers were prosecuted over the years, and they devised their own strategies. McIntosh, however, used his position in the Legislative Council to assist their struggles. He also wrote consistently in the newspapers highlighting their struggles. There was no other person who struggled for as much and as long for their right to worship as they saw fit. McIntosh ought to be recognised and honoured for his efforts at a difficult period in this colony (as it was then) when Crown Colony Government ruled supreme. Hail to George McIntosh who defended a people who were being prosecuted because they were poor and as the Acting Chief of Police, Frank Griffith stated, their religion “has its roots in one of the few distinct hereditary traits of African barbarism which still remains to the black race of St. Vincent.” LET US NOT FORGET MCINTOSH’S ROLE!

• Dr Adrian Fraser is a social commentator and historian