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 19th 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 .
No comments:
Post a Comment