A GOOD PLACE FOR A BELL

To continue from the last posting, this entry looks at the development of Pennsylvania in mostly the 1700s.  But before the turn into the eighteenth century an event in the seventeenth century is going to have a good deal of an effect on the new one.  And that would be the conversion of William Penn to Quakerism.  That happened in 1663.  The effect would be that Penn used his land grant to establish Pennsylvania so as to, in part, provide refuge for his fellow Quakers.  And that would initiate the initial migration to this granted area in North America.

          But Quakers would soon be joined by emigrating Germans and Scot Irish people.  Despite that, Quaker beliefs had profound influence on Penn and his original ideas of governance.  First, Quakers were considered radical Puritans, but unlike other radicals, they, in their beliefs, democratized the dispensing of God’s grace.  They believed that each person shared in God’s grace in some varied way so that each person has a special or unique value or worth. 

Therefore, according to this resulting aura in each person, each is unique with the potential to make his/her own contribution.  The belief further sees each person as equal, and it projects a responsibility for each to look after all others.  This includes for one to do what is necessary, and within one’s power and ability, to protect others from harm.  In addition, Quakers emphasize that people rely on their inner conscious experiences – one’s conscience serves as a basis for a moral life.[1]  One can observe the effects of such a belief system on the actions of Penn and of his cohorts.

One aspect of this bias can be detected, and mentioned in the previous posting, about how Penn interacted with indigenous people.  Despite his land grant, he initiated and completed a series of agreements with the local tribe leaders to attain tracts of land.  Some of the details of these additions are involved, but one can judge Penn’s actions as above board in every case.

Another aspect of this bias was how it attracted its early “fellow travelers” – they have been described as the dredges of society.  It was from those ranks that the first immigrants were recruited.  And it is those who, once on this side of the Atlantic, started what was to become a very industrious and successful colony.  To be measured, though, Quakers never accounted for more than ten percent of the immigrants that would populate this land mass.  Eventually, the immigrant population became anglicized (including Penn’s son).[2]

          One uncommon result of the Quaker influence, uncommon as compared to Massachusetts, Connecticut, and Virginia, was that religion’s anti formal education bias.  Unlike the other colonies, Pennsylvania delayed any establishment of an academy or higher educational facility.  To recall, Massachusetts, Connecticut, and Virginia each had one – Harvard, Yale, and William and Mary. 

In 1740, the Academy of Philadelphia was started, and that institution became first the College of Philadelphia and then the University of Pennsylvania.  Despite, or because of its later start, the institution took on an Enlightenment prone curriculum almost from its beginning.  Some of the famous names of Enlightened thinkers one can associate with the University of Pennsylvania include William and John Alison, John Ewing, Benjamin Rush, and, of course, Benjamin Franklin.[3]

And this short overview of the Pennsylvania colony should share some information as to the beginnings of Philadelphia and, by doing so, more information can be added as to Penn’s efforts in this settlement.  And one question the reader might ask, why did Charles II grant the initial lands that were to become Pennsylvania and Delaware to a Quaker.  Well, the grant was to satisfy a loan the king had with Penn’s father, Admiral Penn, mentioned earlier in this blog.  And part of the story includes a conflict with Maryland since the Penn grant overlaid with territory issued to Lord Baltimore and a resulting armed conflict, Cresap’s War, settled the dispute.

Shortly after that conflict, Penn organized a colonizing expedition.  Penn himself led this effort and upon landing (in New Castle, Delaware) set out to establish a peaceful change of government from Baltimore’s claims in which its people pledged allegiance to the new proprietor, Penn.  This led to the first structured government, previously described. 

Moving up the Delaware River, Penn, along with a group of fellow Quakers, then founded Philadelphia in order to secure religious freedom of the group.  Without going into the details, these developments had as a backdrop a complicated set of antagonism with local tribes.  These pitted settlers in Maryland against Susquehannocks and the settlement of nearby areas by other European immigrants, e.g., Dutch, Swedish, and English in what would become Delaware and New Jersey.

As for the general areas of what became Philadelphia, they drew the interest of European explorers all the way back to 1609 when Henry Hudson was actively seeking a Northwest Passage to the Far East.  Some years later the New Sweden Company engaged in fur trade activities.  This included the building of a fort.  A series of claims and establishment of business enterprises followed – including the establishment of New Sweden – but it had difficulties remaining viable.  But as far as establishing a permanent settlement, it was the Penn group that did so.

He, upon arriving at that area, found about fifty people – mostly subsistence farmers – making their livings there.  From the start, he foresaw a city as a safe zone for people of all faiths.  They would be able to practice their religions in freedom and be able to live peacefully together.  Penn personally appreciated this vision because he had experienced discrimination due to his Quakerism. 

He also was an early visionary who saw the Enlightened urban plan of a grid outlay that would mimic English rural towns rather than its crowded cities.  He also advocated spacious house plots which could have gardens and even orchards.  The first purchasers would be allotted plots along the river.  He planned for a commercial center, a state house, and some other key buildings.[4]

In this Philadelphia story, one does not see any diminution of federated values.  If anything, Penn encouraged those foundational elements that would enhance the institutional qualities that not only allowed it to influence how the various polities got started but encouraged people to think in terms of adopting federal values in how they saw governance should occur.  This included high degrees of tolerance for believers of other faiths and even accommodation of indigenous people. 

In short, the combination of Puritanical thinking and Enlightenment ideas and ideals, while contrary on many levels, did not contradict each other in this area of concern at least under the leadership of Penn.  Here is how the History Channel describes Pennsylvania’s origins:

 

Philadelphia, a city in Pennsylvania whose name means City of Brotherly Love, was originally settled by Native American tribes, particularly the Lenape hunter gathers, around 8000 B.C.

By the early 1600s, Dutch, English and Swedish merchants had established trading posts in the Delaware Valley area, and in 1681, Charles II of England granted a charter to William Penn for what would become the Pennsylvania colony.

Penn arrived in the new city of Philadelphia in 1682. A Quaker pacifist, Penn signed a peace treaty with Lenape chief Tamanend, establishing a tradition of tolerance and human rights.

But in 1684, the ship Isabella landed in Philadelphia carrying hundreds of enslaved Africans. Tensions over slavery, especially among local Quakers, resulted in the 1688 Germantown Petition Against Slavery, the first organized protest against slavery in the New World.

Penn’s colony thrived, and soon Philadelphia was the biggest shipbuilding center in the colonies. Among those attracted to the city was Benjamin Franklin, who in 1729, became the publisher of The Pennsylvania Gazette.

The Pennsylvania State House—later known as Independence Hall—held its first Assembly meeting there in 1735. State representatives ordered a large bell for the building in 1751 with a Biblical inscription: “Proclaim LIBERTY throughout all the Land unto all the inhabitants thereof.”[5]

 

Of course, Philadelphia would play a central role in the events leading up to the Revolution.

---

[1] See “Quakers,” BBC (July 3, 2009), accessed May 12, 2021, https://www.bbc.co.uk/religion/religions/christianity/subdivisions/quakers_1.shtml#:~:text=of%20the%20Quakers-,Quakers%20believe%20that%20there%20is%20something%20of%20God%20in%20everybody,as%20the%20basis%20of%20morality.

[2] Allen C. Guelzo, The American Mind, Part I – a transcript book – (Chantilly, VA:  The Teaching Company/The Great Courses, 2005). 

[3] Ibid.

[4] “History of Philadelphia,” Wikipedia (n.d.), accessed May 12, 2021, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_Philadelphia#:~:text=The%20written%20history%20of%20Philadelphia,inhabited%20by%20the%20Lenape%20people.

[5] History.com Editors, “Philadelphia,” History Channel (March 8, 2019), accessed May 13, 2021, https://www.history.com/topics/us-states/philadelphia-pennsylvania .  

PENN PENS-IN INCLUSION

 

The next colonial tale this blog wishes to review is that of Pennsylvania, but as promised in the last posting, a short overview is helpful.  That would be a comparison between initial natural rights view and a federal view.  The reason for this insertion at this time is that the development of Pennsylvania took place mostly during the 1700s – it started its existence as a colony in 1681 when William Penn was issued the land grant by King Charles II.  And, the ensuing years, as this blog has already described, saw an increased influence of Enlightenment ideas.

          Along with those ideas, John Locke’s arguments were being considered by the American educated class.  Locke would pose serious questioning of prevailing either feudalistic notions, to the extent they existed in America, but also Puritanical rationales that promoted a more equitable social arrangement – as opposed to an Anglican/Roman vertical view that supports hierarchical church structures and power distributions.  Locke’s ideas, as he initially proposed them, promoted what would he called a “social contract” approach to the founding and development of polities.

          In formulative language, he described polities being initially created by free-standing individuals.  With complete freedom to act as each person wished, to formulate an authoritative entity for mutual benefits, each would surrender those rights – and only those rights – that allow for such an arrangement and retain all other rights.  This is a social contract.  And given the retention of each person’s bulk of rights – naturally endowed – this approach to government and politics can be called the natural rights approach or view.  These ideas were part of the array of Enlightenment ideas which also supported non-Lockean arguments.

Here is how Stanford Encyclopedia describes Lock’s contribution:

 

In the Two Treatises of Government, [Locke] defended the claim that men are by nature free and equal against claims that God had made all people naturally subject to a monarch. He argued that people have rights, such as the right to life, liberty, and property, that have a foundation independent of the laws of any particular society.  Locke used the claim that men are naturally free and equal as part of the justification for understanding legitimate political government as the result of a social contract where people in the state of nature conditionally transfer some of their rights to the government in order to better ensure the stable, comfortable enjoyment of their lives, liberty, and property.  Since governments exist by the consent of the people in order to protect the rights of the people and promote the public good, governments that fail to do so can be resisted and replaced with new governments.  Locke is thus also important for his defense of the right of revolution.  Locke also defends the principle of majority rule and the separation of legislative and executive powers. In the Letter Concerning Toleration, Locke denied that coercion should be used to bring people to (what the ruler believes is) the true religion and also denied that churches should have any coercive power over their members.  Locke elaborated on these themes in his later political writings, such as the Second Letter on Toleration and Third Letter on Toleration.[1]

 

What this blog has shared is that the ideas of Locke have been misinterpreted today – a philosophic point of contention – and have, therefore, helped lead the nation to the current polarized political landscape.  So, to help understand Pennsylvanian history and to help understand the current political debate, it is useful to review a set of distinctions between natural rights view and federal view.

          This review is organized by comparing the positions of these views in relation to a list of issues.  The issues are general conception amongst people, moral role of government, era of dominance in American history, and expectations of individuals.

 

·       General conception amongst people:  natural rights view sees that political order is equal to marketplace relationships (competing interests); federal view sees that political order is equal to a commonweal (undivided interests)

·       Moral role of government:  natural rights view is neutral to this issue, it provides protection for individual moral positions and its emphasis is on governmental procedures (e.g., due process rights); federal view provides structural prerequisites for self-rule by which local/communal moral positions vie in the consideration of proposed policy

·       Era of dominance:  natural rights view has been dominant in the last 70 plus years; federal view was dominant from the beginning of colonial existence to the late 19^th century with strong influence, if not dominance, through the New Deal and World War II period

·       Expectation of individual:  natural rights view expects people to be respectful of others’ rights and behavior from a self-interest point of view; federal view expects active participation in creating a common environment and caring attitudes of fellow citizens and for the whole community.

 

So, with these general distinctions, one can better understand Pennsylvania evolvement.

          Pennsylvania (or Penn’s Woods) was granted to Penn late in the 1600s.  Actually, the territory is named for Penn’s father, Admiral Sir William Penn.  The family retained ownership of the grant until the American Revolution at which time the family was expelled.  The grant would eventually lead to two colonies, Pennsylvania and Delaware.

          Original settlers were mostly Penn’s fellow Quakers.  That religion was originally a radical form of Puritanism.  In addition to British Quakers, the area attracted large numbers of Germans and Scot Irish people.  One can detect that German influence by the number of towns or areas in Pennsylvania holding German or German derived names.  Roughly 30 percent of current Pennsylvanians claim German ancestry.[2]  And while initial relations with indigenous people, the Lenape, were cordial, eventual war broke out between settlers and local tribes (especially as extensions of the French and Indian War hostilities).

          The first efforts to establish a government was an extension of the land grant.  William Penn was the appointed governor, although he did not live there, and a 72-member council and larger general assembly constituted the colonies governance.  This did not work, and subsequent “frames of government” were written and put into effect in 1683, 1696, and 1701.  The last instrument was known as the Charter of Privileges and served as an organizing document until the American Revolution.  The next frame was to be a constitution, i.e., a compact-al instrument.

          Admittedly, Penn’s initial and subsequent “constitutions” were not occurrences in which a people gathered to hammer out an organizing document to arrange for a structure of governance and spelling out the other functions of government.  But Penn can be judged as being highly influenced by federal principles.  Here is a short overview of his handiwork:

 

[Upon visiting America in 1699], he put forward a plan to make a federation of all English colonies in America.  There have been claims that he also fought slavery, but that seems unlikely, as he owned and even traded slaves himself.  However, he did promote good treatment for slaves, and other Pennsylvania Quakers were among the earliest fighters against slavery.[3]

 

One can readily read that he was biased toward inclusion and, given his Puritanical view, was biased against hierarchical structures.       

          But in all of this, one should not lose sight that Pennsylvania was a business arrangement and, unfortunately, Penn was not above racists attitudes prevalent during his time (and one can argue, still exist today).  But he had a demonstrable federal bent.  He attempted inclusive policies and even sided at times against his commercial interests.  And to put a finer point on this portrayal, this blog has clearly indicated that the federal views that existed at the time limited their inclusiveness to white, European peoples and has given that version of federalism the name parochial/traditional federalism.

          This blog will at this point stop this story and pick it up in the next posting with the political developments that characterize that colony’s experience in the years leading up to the Revolution and independence.  What one generally sees in that history is the story of an industrious people and the development of the colonies’ first prominent urban center, Philadelphia.

---

[1] “Locke’s Political Philosophy,” Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (2005/2020), accessed May 10, 2021, https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/locke-political/#:~:text=Locke%20used%20the%20claim%20that,better%20ensure%20the%20stable%2C%20comfortable .  What exactly Locke’s views mean is of great philosophic debate.  This blog, from time to time, has alluded to the fact that even Locke did not believe what has come to be seen his ideas to mean today.  This citation goes on to describe this point.  There are those who emphasize, even to the exclusion of other concerns, that Locke posed a position of natural rights.  This position argues everyone can do what he/she wishes as long as he/she does not interfere with the rights of others.  But there is another interpretation:  that is, once formulated under governance, individuals have certain duties and obligations under a principle of natural law.  Here, the door is opened to consider religious notions of what makes up natural law.  Be that as it may, the point is that a purely hedonistic view of rights would be averted if this latter view was adopted.

[2] See “Pennsylvania German Language,” Wikipedia (n.d.), accessed May 10, 2021, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pennsylvania_German_language .  Of note also has been the immigration of a good number of Dutch people.

[3] “Brief History of William Penn.” William Penn (n.d.), accessed June 8, 2020, https://www.ushistory.org/penn/bio.htm .