Produced by The James J. Kelly Library of St. Gregory's
University, and Alev Akman.
THE QUAKER COLONIES,
A CHRONICLE OF THE PROPRIETORS OF THE DELAWARE
Volume 8 In The Chronicles Of America Series
By Sydney G. Fisher
New Haven: Yale University Press
Toronto: Glasgow, Brook & Co.
London: Humphrey Milford
Oxford University Press
1919
CONTENTS
I. THE BIRTH OF PENNSYLVANIA
II. PENN SAILS FOR THE DELAWARE
III. LIFE IN PHILADELPHIA
IV. TYPES OF THE POPULATION
V. THE TROUBLES OF PENN AND HIS SONS
VI. THE FRENCH AND INDIAN WAR
VII. THE DECLINE OF QUAKER GOVERNMENT
VIII. THE BEGINNINGS OF NEW JERSEY
IX. PLANTERS AND TRADERS OF SOUTHERN JERSEY
X. SCOTCH COVENANTERS AND OTHERS IN EAST JERSEY
XI. THE UNITED JERSEYS
XII. LITTLE DELAWARE
XIII. THE ENGLISH CONQUEST
BIBLIOGRAPHY
THE QUAKER COLONIES
Chapter I. The Birth Of Pennsylvania
In 1661, the year after Charles II was restored to the throne of
England, William Penn was a seventeen-year-old student at Christ Church,
Oxford. His father, a distinguished admiral in high favor at Court, had
abandoned his erstwhile friends and had aided in restoring King Charlie
to his own again. Young William was associating with the sons of the
aristocracy and was receiving an education which would fit him to obtain
preferment at Court. But there was a serious vein in him, and while at a
high church Oxford College he was surreptitiously attending the meetings
and listening to the preaching of the despised and outlawed Quakers.
There he first began to hear of the plans of a group of Quakers to found
colonies on the Delaware in America. Forty years afterwards he wrote, "I
had an opening of joy as to these parts in the year 1661 at Oxford." And
with America and the Quakers, in spite of a brief youthful experience as
a soldier and a courtier, William Penn's life, as well as his fame, is
indissolubly linked.
Quakerism was one of the many religious sects born in the seventeenth
century under the influence of Puritan thought. The foundation principle
of the Reformation, the right of private judgment, the Quakers carried
out to its logical conclusion; but they were people whose minds had
so long been suppressed and terrorized that, once free, they rushed to
extremes. They shocked and horrified even the most advanced Reformation
sects by rejecting Baptism, the doctrine of the Trinity, and all
sacraments, forms, and ceremonies. They represented, on their best
side, the most vigorous effort of the Reformation to return to the
spirituality and the simplicity of the early Christians. But their
intense spirituality, pathetic often in its extreme manifestations,
was not wholly concerned with another world. Their humane ideas and
philanthropic methods, such as the abolition of slavery, and the reform
of prisons and of charitable institutions, came in time to be accepted
as fundamental practical social principles.
The tendencies of which Quakerism formed only one manifestation appeared
outside of England, in Italy, in France, and especially in Germany. The
fundamental Quaker idea of "quietism," as it was called, or peaceful,
silent contemplation as a spiritual form of worship and as a development
of moral consciousness, was very widespread at the close of the
Reformation and even began to be practiced in the Roman Catholic Church
until it was stopped by the Jesuits. The most extreme of the English
Quakers, however, gave way to such extravagances of conduct as trembling
when they preached (whence their name), preaching openly in the
streets and fields--a horrible thing at that time--interrupting other
congregations, and appearing naked as a sign and warning. They gave
offense by refusing to remove their hats in public and by applying to
all alike the words "thee" and "thou," a form of address hitherto used
only to servants and inferiors. Worst of all, the Quakers refused to
pay tithes or taxes to support the Church of England. As a result, the
loathsome jails of the day were soon filled with these objectors, and
their property melted away in fines. This contumacy and their street
meetings, regarded at that time as riotous breaches of the peace, gave
the Government at first a legal excuse to hunt them down; but as they
grew in numbers and influence, laws were enacted to suppress them. Some
of them, though not the wildest extremists, escaped to the colonies in
America. There, however, they were made welcome to conditions no less
severe.
The first law against the Quakers in Massachusetts was passed in 1656,
and between that date and 1660 four of the sect were hanged, one of them
a woman, Mary Dyer. Though there were no other hangings, many Quakers
were punished by whipping and banishment. In other colonies, notably New
York, fines and banishment were not uncommon. Such treatment forced the
Quakers, against the will of many of them, to seek a tract of land
and found a colony of their own. To such a course there appeared no
alternative, unless they were determined to establish their religion
solely by martyrdom.
About the time when the Massachusetts laws were enforced, the principal
Quaker leader and organizer, George Fox (1624-1691), began to consider
the possibility of making a settlement among the great forests and
mountains said to lie north of Maryland in the region drained by the
Delaware and Susquehanna rivers. In this region lay practically the only
good land on the Atlantic seaboard not already occupied. The Puritans
and Dutch were on the north, and there were Catholic and Church of
England colonies on the south in Maryland and Virginia. The middle
ground was unoccupied because heretofore a difficult coast had prevented
easy access by sea. Fox consulted Josiah Coale, a Quaker who had
traveled in America and had seen a good deal of the Indian tribes, with
the result that on his second visit to America Coale was commissioned to
treat with the Susquehanna Indians, who were supposed to have rights in
the desired land. In November, 1660, Coale reported to Fox the result
of his inquiries: "As concerning Friends buying a piece of land of the
Susquehanna Indians I have spoken of it to them and told them what thou
said concerning it; but their answer was, that there is no land that is
habitable or fit for situation beyond Baltimore's liberty till they come
to or near the Susquehanna's Fort." * Nothing could be done immediately,
the letter went on to say, because the Indians were at war with one
another, and William Fuller, a Maryland Quaker, whose cooperation was
deemed essential, was absent.
* James Bowden's "History of the Friends in America," vol. I, p.
389
This seems to have been the first definite movement towards a Quaker
colony. Reports of it reached the ears of young Penn at Oxford and set
his imagination aflame. He never forgot the project, for seventeen is an
age when grand thoughts strike home. The adventurousness of the plan was
irresistible--a home for the new faith in the primeval forest, far from
imprisonment, tithes, and persecution, and to be won by effort worthy of
a man. It was, however, a dream destined not to be realized for many a
long year. More was needed than the mere consent of the Indians. In
the meantime, however, a temporary refuge for the sect was found in the
province of West Jersey on the Delaware, which two Quakers had bought
from Lord Berkeley for the comparatively small sum of 1000 pounds. Of
this grant William Penn became one of the trustees and thus gained
his first experience in the business of colonizing the region of his
youthful dreams. But there was never a sufficient governmental control
of West Jersey to make it an ideal Quaker colony. What little control
the Quakers exercised disappeared after 1702; and the land and situation
were not all that could be desired. Penn, though also one of the owners
of East Jersey, made no attempt to turn that region into a Quaker
colony.
Besides West Jersey the Quakers found a temporary asylum in Aquidneck,
now Rhode Island. * For many years the governors and magistrates were
Quakers, and the affairs of this island colony were largely in their
hands. Quakers were also prominent in the politics of North Carolina,
and John Archdale, a Quaker, was Governor for several years. They formed
a considerable element of the population in the towns of Long Island and
Westchester County but they could not hope to convert these communities
into real Quaker commonwealths.
* This Rhode Island colony should be distinguished from the
settlement at Providence founded by Roger Williams with which it was
later united. See Jones, "The Quakers in the American Colonies," p. 21,
note.
The experience in the Jerseys and elsewhere very soon proved that if
there was to be a real Quaker colony, the British Crown must give
not only a title to the land but a strong charter guaranteeing
self-government and protection of the Quaker faith from outside
interference. But that the British Government would grant such valued
privileges to a sect of schismatics which it was hunting down in England
seemed a most unlikely event. Nothing but unusual influence at Court
could bring it about, and in that quarter the Quakers had no influence.
Penn never forgot the boyhood ideal which he had developed at college.
For twenty years he led a varied life--driven from home and whipped by
his father for consorting with the schismatic; sometimes in deference
to his father's wishes taking his place in the gay world at Court; even,
for a time, becoming a soldier, and again traveling in France with some
of the people of the Court. In the end, as he grew older, religious
feeling completely absorbed him. He became one of the leading Quaker
theologians, and his very earnest religious writings fill several
volumes. He became a preacher at the meetings and went to prison for his
heretical doctrines and pamphlets. At last he found himself at the age
of thirty-six with his father dead, and a debt due from the Crown of
16,000 pounds for services which his distinguished father, the admiral,
had rendered the Government.
Here was the accident that brought into being the great Quaker colony,
by a combination of circumstances which could hardly have happened
twice. Young Penn was popular at Court. He had inherited a valuable
friendship with Charles II and his heir, the Duke of York. This
friendship rested on the solid fact that Penn's father, the admiral,
had rendered such signal assistance in restoring Charles and the whole
Stuart line to the throne. But still 16,000 pounds or $80,000, the
accumulation of many deferred payments, was a goodly sum in those days,
and that the Crown would pay it in money, of which it had none too much,
was unlikely. Why not therefore suggest paying it instead in wild land
in America, of which the Crown had abundance? That was the fruitful
thought which visited Penn. Lord Berkeley and Lord Carteret had been
given New Jersey because they had signally helped to restore the Strait
family to the throne. All the more therefore should the Stuart family
give a tract of land, and even a larger tract, to Penn, whose father
had not only assisted the family to the throne but had refrained so long
from pressing his just claim for money due.
So the Crown, knowing little of the value of it, granted him the most
magnificent domain of mountains; lakes, rivers, and forests, fertile
soil, coal, petroleum, and iron that ever was given to a single
proprietor. In addition to giving Penn the control of Delaware and, with
certain other Quakers, that of New Jersey as well, the Crown placed
at the disposal of the Quakers 55,000 square miles of most valuable,
fertile territory, lacking only about three thousand square miles of
being as large as England and Wales. Even when cut down to 45,000 square
miles by a boundary dispute with Maryland, it was larger than Ireland.
Kings themselves have possessed such dominions, but never before a
private citizen who scorned all titles and belonged to a hunted sect
that exalted peace and spiritual contemplation above all the wealth and
power of the world. Whether the obtaining of this enormous tract of
the best land in America was due to what may be called the eternal
thriftiness of the Quaker mind or to the intense desire of the British
Government to get rid of these people--at any cost might be hard to
determine.
Penn received his charter in 1681, and in it he was very careful to
avoid all the mistakes of the Jersey proprietary grants. Instead of
numerous proprietors, Penn was to be the sole proprietor. Instead
of giving title to the land and remaining silent about the political
government, Penn's charter not only gave him title to the land but
a clearly defined position as its political head, and described the
principles of the government so clearly that there was little room for
doubt or dispute.
It was a decidedly feudal charter, very much like the one granted to
Lord Baltimore fifty years before, and yet at the same time it secured
civil liberty and representative government to the people. Penn owned
all the land and the colonists were to be his tenants. He was compelled,
however, to give his people free government. The laws were to be made by
him with the assent of the people or their delegates. In practice this
of course meant that the people were to elect a legislature and Penn
would have a veto, as we now call it, on such acts as the legislature
should pass. He had power to appoint magistrates, judges, and some other
officers, and to grant pardons. Though, by the charter, proprietor of
the province, he usually remained in England and appointed a deputy
governor to exercise authority in the colony. In modern phrase,
he controlled the executive part of the government and his people
controlled the legislative part.
Pennsylvania, besides being the largest in area of the proprietary
colonies, was also the most successful, not only from the proprietor's
point of view but also from the point of view of the inhabitants. The
proprietorships in Maine, New Hampshire, New Jersey, and the Carolinas
were largely failures. Maryland was only partially successful; it was
not particularly remunerative to its owner, and the Crown deprived him
of his control of it for twenty years. Penn, too, was deprived of the
control of Pennsylvania by William III but for only about two years.
Except for this brief interval (1692-1694), Penn and his sons after him
held their province down to the time of the American Revolution in 1776,
a period of ninety-four years.
A feudal proprietorship, collecting rents from all the people, seems
to modern minds grievously wrong in theory, and yet it would be very
difficult to show that it proved onerous in practice. Under it the
people of Pennsylvania flourished in wealth, peace, and happiness. Penn
won undying fame for the liberal principles of his feudal enterprise.
His expenses in England were so great and his quitrents always so much
in arrears that he was seldom out of debt. But his children grew rich
from the province. As in other provinces that were not feudal there were
disputes between the people and the proprietors; but there was not
so much general dissatisfaction as might have been expected. The
proprietors were on the whole not altogether disliked. In the American
Revolution, when the people could have confiscated everything in
Pennsylvania belonging to the proprietary family, they not only
left them in possession of a large part of their land, but paid them
handsomely for the part that was taken.
After Penn had secured his charter in 1681, he obtained from the Duke of
York the land now included in the State of Delaware. He advertised for
colonists, and began selling land at 100 pounds for five thousand acres
and annually thereafter a shilling quitrent for every hundred acres. He
drew up a constitution or frame of government, as he called it, after
wide and earnest consultation with many, including the famous Algernon
Sydney. Among the Penn papers in the Historical Society of Pennsylvania
is a collection of about twenty preliminary drafts. Beginning with one
which erected a government by a landed aristocracy, they became more
and more liberal, until in the end his frame was very much like the most
liberal government of the other English colonies in America. He had
a council and an assembly, both elected by the people. The council,
however, was very large, had seventy-two members, and was more like
an upper house of the Legislature than the usual colonial governor's
council. The council also had the sole right of proposing legislation,
and the assembly could merely accept or reject its proposals. This was
a new idea, and it worked so badly in practice that in the end the
province went to the opposite extreme and had no council or upper house
of the Legislature at all.
Penn's frame of government contained, however, a provision for its own
amendment. This was a new idea and proved to be so happy that it is now
found in all American constitutions. His method of impeachment by which
the lower house was to bring in the charge and the upper house was
to try it has also been universally adopted. His view that an
unconstitutional law is void was a step towards our modern system. The
next step, giving the courts power to declare a law unconstitutional,
was not taken until one hundred years after his time. With the advice
and assistance of some of those who were going out to his colony he
prepared a code of laws which contained many of the advanced ideas
of the Quakers. Capital punishment was to be confined to murder and
treason, instead of being applied as in England to a host of minor
offenses. The property of murderers, instead of being forfeited to the
State, was to be divided among the next of kin of the victim and of
the criminal. Religious liberty was established as it had been in Rhode
Island and the Jerseys. All children were to be taught a useful trade.
Oaths in judicial proceedings were not required. All prisons were to
be workhouses and places of reformation instead of dungeons of dirt,
idleness, and disease. This attempt to improve the prisons inaugurated
a movement of great importance in the modern world in which the part
played by the Quakers is too often forgotten.
Penn had now started his "Holy Experiment," as he called his enterprise
in Pennsylvania, by which he intended to prove that religious liberty
was not only right, but that agriculture, commerce, and all arts and
refinements of life would flourish under it. He would break the delusion
that prosperity and morals were possible only under some one particular
faith established by law. He, would prove that government could
be carried on without war and without oaths, and that primitive
Christianity could be maintained without a hireling ministry, without
persecution, without ridiculous dogmas or ritual, sustained only by its
own innate power and the inward light.