This introductory module is primarily conceptual, 40,000 feet up view of how post-Quaker migrations affected Pennsylvania, the development of its policy system, and its distinctive approach to state and local economic development. Migrations are not simply the arrival and infusion of a new population into a policy system; migrations necessarily involve the transmission of political culture across geographies, As the reader should understand then, migrations are quite important in how we interpret the evolution of American state and local economic development. Our conceptual module considers migratory population change as one of three fundamental drivers that over time have led us into our present day contemporary world. Not all readers may be interested in conceptual models that superimpose order and direction to our analysis, nor will they appreciate the semi-academic tone and content; some may prefer to move directly to the next module. Put it another way, the terms/relationships are unfamiliar and unhelpful. There are too many moving parts abstracted from actual events. If this is the case, no problem, move onto the next module and, perhaps after that return to this module for an extra layer of understanding. This module could be a conclusion as well as an introduction.

Post 1715 Pennsylvania migration was the single most important disrupter of Pennsylvania’s First Policy System–and it would play that role straight through to the American Revolution and into the establishment of Pennsylvania’s first “American” policy system: the Revolutionary War, Articles of Confederation Policy System. Pennsylvania’s colonial migration began the year the colony was founded (1681) and continued through to the Revolution. The patterns of its migration, and composition, as well as it timing, further distinguishes Pennsylvania from the other colonies, and logically constitute yet another answer to our bottom-line question of why contemporary states and cities differ considerably, while they share common American political structures and institutions, and are elements of a shared American economy. Ours, we again repeat, is a bottom-up view of American history.

Before plodding deep into Pennsylvania’s non-Quaker migrations a few words on how this history will discuss one of the most important and fundamental drivers in its conceptual model.

As we proceed we identify economic development strategies, programs and tools that got involved with the migration. Through experience I have learned to be sensitive to how these economic development activities could be separated out between Mainstream ED and Community Development. Demonstrating the existence of each, the distinction in how Americans have approached economic development, did first appear in the colonial era. In the colonial context we want to see what roles these two approaches played in city/town building, and in this module in the various economic development initiatives and strategies of the era.

Distinguishing between MED and CD often requires an understanding of the quite different political cultures/values that are associated with each approach. These political cultures “inform” (I hate that word and use it reluctantly only when it aptly describes what I intend) the policy system under observation. We spent a good deal of time in Chapter 1 trying to understand its culture and how it affected the Virginia policy systems. But Virginia during the colonial period did not deal with migratory political cultures (the Scots-Irish and Germans) that passed through and settled in Pennsylvania–any integration of those cultures occurred principally after 1800. Pennsylvania, however, the original home base of the Scots-Irish and Germans did have to deal with, and to some considerable extent with the Germans integrate them into the initial Quaker culture and involve them in a policy-political coalition. Nothing like this happened in colonial Virginia.

Pennsylvania plays a very important role in the history-evolution of American political cultures.  Today it is known as the home of the Midlands political culture–arguably the largest of all. The first “phase” in the development of Midlands culture was the Quaker culture first imposed on Pennsylvania through Penn’s Holy Experiment which brought in substantial numbers of Quakers as the original pioneers of Pennsylvania (BTW, separating out Pennsylvania from the lower three counties settled by Dutch and Scandinavians. Those lower counties will eventually form the state of Delaware). As “First Settlers” Penn and his Quaker co-religionists created the colony’s first political structures which in aggregate created its Quaker period policy system. The migrations which began as early as 1684, really impacted the Quaker period policy system after 1715. One could argue the migrations never stopped impacting the Pennsylvania first policy system until they overthrew it in 1776–kicking the Penns out. This German-migration focused set of modules breaks out the effect of the German migration on the initial Quaker culture, its politics and policy system, and in so doing creates a fused Midlands political culture. The foundation for the Midlands fusion of cultures is mostly laid in Pennsylvania between the mid-1720’s and 1760 or so. We will describe that in the next two modules.

While conventional analysis of the various political cultures that infest America has dealt with blending and blurring of different ethnic groups and different religions, the idea of a fused political culture which arises through politics and policy-making of (in this case) two different ethnic, religious groupings (Quaker English–German Lutheran-Reform-Pietist) is a bit of a departure. Yankees are Puritans with a Covid-like Universalist infection, Virginia Tidewater are English royalists with a Covid-like Whig infection–and that’s that. In Pennsylvania’s case it ain’t that simple.

This module (and the modules that follow in the mini-series) therefore attempt a conceptual leap in how political cultures evolve to incorporate groupings and adherents that share attitudes, beliefs, values and expectations, but are of noticeably different demographic, economic-religious-ethnic and even class composition. Evolution. by definition, implies a time dimension in which an initial culture integrates and merges itself with a new grouping(s) in a later period of time. That, I assert, is precisely what happened in Pennsylvania during the colonial period. The original Quaker culture which created the Pennsylvania’s First Policy System, over a fifty year period interweaves itself with the political culture of an immigrant group, the Germans, and while each maintained its sense of identity and distinctiveness, both not only joined together in political action and policy-making, but did so precisely because they shared similar values, priorities, and propensity to political participation.

In the Pennsylvania instance, we see another significant change dynamic in which the original culture creates its distinctive First Policy System which then confronts new dynamics, the huge German immigration following 1710, and as time passes accommodates and integrates the new group into its policy-making coalition, transferring to it the Quaker style of political participation, and passing on to the Quakers a passive commitment to politics and partisanship, and a more intense interest in family, personal life, lifestyle, home community and aspirations which are interwoven with economics and economic success.

Their fused political culture approached policy-making and politics in a manner distinctive from other political cultures, creating a different style and tendencies toward specific forms of political structures and behavior with its characteristic policy area outputs. We will see this phenomena again, in our discussion on South Carolina and the fusion of the Barbadian political culture with Tidewater and Scots-Irish–a fusion that underlay the rise of the Cotton Belt and the emergence of the “Deep South” fused political culture. It will get more complicated after that. This is significant. It demonstrates how political cultures can change, potentially die, but through merger with others persist in an amalgamated new culture.  It also identifies ways in which culture can “update” and “modernize” the expression of its values, beliefs, expectations, and make adjustments in its political behavior and policy-making.

While this module mini-series does focus on the German-Quaker amalgamation, the reader should also keep in mind there will be other groupings that will also infuse this culture. As we shall see Penn’s Holy Experiment applied to all religions.

Those early years were dominated by English, Welsh and some Scottish Quakers, with a sprinkling of pietistic Germans, and a hodge-podge of religions and personalities attracted by the toleration, democracy, and openness that promised more than anyplace else in North America the attainment of opportunity and a new start in the New World. After 1715, those in-migrants increasingly changed their composition, demographics, even complexion, and over the next five decades increasing came in volumes no one had every anticipated. The commercial-artisan entrepreneurs played an equally transformative role, building Philadelphia’s economic base to be the most sturdy, diversified and largest in British North America by the time of the Revolution. The power and size generated by that economic base made Philadelphia the logical choice to be the home base of the thirteen colony drive to independence, but its first capital as well.

After 1710 Philadelphia and Pennsylvania exploded. In 1710 the former housed 2684 white residents. It grew by a third each of the following decades to 1740, by then its population expanded to 10,117–by 1775, that tripled to 32,973–the largest in English North America (ahead of New York’s 25,000 and Boston’s 16,000). Pennsylvania’s population exceeded 250,000 at that point. By the time of our first census in 1790, there were 434,000 Pennsylvanians-of which about one-third were respectively English, Germans, and Scots-Irish. Philadelphia, attracting fewer residents numerically (about 4 of 5 went to the hinterland), witnessed annually, about 10,000 people settling in the Greater Philly metro. Philadelphia, unlike more homogeneous Pennsylvania hinterland settlements, was so ethnically and religiously diversified by 1750 that it was no longer Quaker. As early as 1740 an estimated 37% of Philadelphia’s population was English (Quaker and Anglican), 27% Scots-Irish and 26% German. In the same year, nearby Germantown was 80% German. By 1750, 34% were German, 38% Scots-Irish, and 28% English

In the “Greater Philadelphia area” the origination of the population that came from various English colonies between 1710 and 1740 is especially interesting: about 17% arrived from Maryland, Virginia, New England each, 11 percent New York and New Jersey, and 38% from the Caribbean. By the eve of the American Revolution about 2,700 slaves entered into Philadelphia –the first in 1684; by 1705 about 7% of families owned slaves. “Most slaves arrived in Philadelphia in two peak periods, from 1732 to 1741 [510] … and from 1757 to 1766 [1,200] … In 1710 slaves constituted 10 percent of [Philadelphia’s] population, but only 3 percent by the time of the Revolution” . Most slaves resided in Philadelphia (household and shipping) “Rarely dis farmers use slave labor, preferring to use European servants [indentured] [99] Marie Basile McDaniel’s, Immigration and Migration (Colonial Era) https://philadelphiaencyclopedia.org/ archive/immigration-and-migration-colonial-era/. Philadelphia’s population was quite mobile–nearly half migrated out every decade.

The interaction of that huge economic base, and the role and involvement of its commercial and artisan elites added a new and somewhat complex to the evolving Quaker-German political culture, filling a gap in that culture that made its governance and policy-making functional and in its way effective: Privatism. The fusion of Quaker and German values, behaviors, and policy preferences combined with commercial privatism created a amalgamated political culture which at the time of this writing (2020) is likely the largest numerically in the United States: the Midlands political culture. We shall introduce this fused political culture in this module and develop it further in modules to follow.

 

Early Pre-1711 Pennsylvania Migrations

The modules thus thus far in this chapter are built mostly on personalities (Penn, his wife Hannah, Logan, the the two Lloyds), implications deriving from the sole proprietorship, the dynamics of political and policy conflict that shaped, battered might be better, the political structures of Pennsylvania and its provincial-local patterns of governments. Now we turn to migrations of non Quakers, and their impact on policy-making and the original Quaker political culture. Succinctly put, the Pennsylvania policy making systems were set in place by Penn himself, imbued with his Whig policy-making, personal background as a feudal baron and his entrepreneur vision of commerce filters his Quaker Holy Experiment and its initial economic base. This personally idiosyncratic initial policy system collided with the political culture and personal aspirations of Pennsylvania’s most Quaker First Settlers from day one of the the colony’s founding in 1681-2. That struggle heated and tempered his Frame, economic aspirations, and the hopes and plans it entailed; that struggle was the fire forged a political system which by the late 1720’s was emerging into the first formal Pennsylvania policy system, the foundation for our contemporary Pennsylvania and Philadelphia policy system.

 

If William Penn and Pennsylvania had a business card promoting the openness to immigration implied in his Holy Experiment, it was Penn’s personally drafted Naturalization Act of 1682. In that act he, the sole proprietor, personally guaranteed individual equality and an expressed toleration of religion regardless of national-ethnic background. Even papists, Baptists and Church of England Anglicans could make a home in his colony. Most readers will think this as “religious toleration” and while quite proud will leave it as that. We see it also as a naturalization–i.e. pro-immigration strategy (which BTW was also an element in Penn’s thought). From the beginning Philadelphia was a “mecca” for American Quakers, and starting in its first decade Quakers with merchant and artisan backgrounds trickled into Philadelphia and its hinterlands. Penn as we know actively recruited German pietists by promotional materials and his earlier religious missions to the Rhine area. In his mind, nor in that of George Fox the founder of Quakerism, was this religion intended to be English only. Germans/Dutch ventured to Pennsylvania (in small numbers), cut their deal with Penn and founded a German settlement, oddly called Germantown in 1684. A sprinkling of everybody else, Freed and escaped Blacks, Huguenots, Jews, and in 1711 Palatine Germans set up home and shop within Pennsylvania’s boundaries over the next decades. So did English Anglicans who Quakers saw more as their tormentors and jailors than as co-ethnic English.

Of all, the groupings, the one that exerted the most pre-1701 impact were the merchant community: Anglicans and American Quakers from the other colonies. In no time they matched wit and wealth with Penn’s First Purchasers, and put out of business his Free Society of Traders. Numerically these entrepreneurs were probably about 5% of the immigrants but the wealth/experience they brought in with them set them apart and by 1696, royal governor Fletcher (royal governor of New York and Pennsylvania declared Philadelphia was “nearly equal to the City of New York in trade and riches“. These early mercantile merchants pressed for “a government based on the rule not of an acknowledged gentry [whose home and base of wealth was a manor-plantation] but rather of an economic elite freshly established which sought political power corresponding to financial achievement[99] Joseph E. Illick, Colonial Pennsylvania: a History (Charles Scribner’s Sons, 1976), p. 58. It was this grouping more than any other that caused Penn to set up his Philadelphia municipal corporation, stacked with his friends, Quakers, and allies.

Not to be deterred these merchants secreted themselves in the time of war that followed into the West Indies, usually illegally, and cut out their niche in trade to that lucrative geography. Their incursions resulted in fines levied by the Board of Trade on the Proprietor who it could catch, not the merchants. From then on Penn was the in-between in the enforcement of the various Navigation Laws issued from London. Motivated by several reasons, Penn was compelled to return to Pennsylvania in 1699 to satisfy the Board of Trades latest concerns with Philadelphia and New Castle mercantile escapades. When he arrived the city of Philadelphia was not as he left it; “they now build with stone and brick” he muttered, put off by the wealth of its commercial inhabitants–it was only slightly smaller than Boston itself. Predominantly, but not exclusively by any means, Anglican, non-Quaker merchants were hard-core supporters of the General Assembly and its fight against the Proprietorship-the fight that resulted in the 1701 Charter of Privileges. For those not familiar with 1700 colonial religious politics, Anglican-Quaker bitterness, if not contempt, already went back over fifty years. Quakers dissented more than anything against the Anglican Church of England. Anglican support sustained Penn’s chief opponent of that time, David Lloyd. As related in an earlier module, after Penn left Pennsylvania for good in 1701, he soon put the governance, political control of Pennsylvania up for sale. Along with his need for cash, functioning as the Board of Trade in-between with the Pennsylvania merchant community were certainly his compelling motivations.

Germans and Scots-Irish: “Two” Much of a Good Thing

After 1710 Philadelphia and Pennsylvania exploded. In 1710 the former housed 2684 white residents. It grew by a third each of the following decades to 1740, by then its population expanded to 10,117–by 1775, that tripled to 32,973–the largest in English North America (ahead of New York’s 25,000 and Boston’s 16,000). Pennsylvania’s population exceeded 250,000 at that point. By the time of our first census in 1790, there were 434,000 Pennsylvanians-of which about one-third were respectively English, Germans, and Scots-Irish. Philadelphia, attracting fewer residents numerically (about 4 of 5 went to the hinterland), witnessed annually, about 10,000 people settling in the Greater Philly metro. Philadelphia, unlike more homogeneous Pennsylvania hinterland settlements, was so ethnically and religiously diversified by 1750 that it was no longer Quaker. As early as 1740 an estimated 37% of Philadelphia’s population was English (Quaker and Anglican), 27% Scots-Irish and 26% German. In the same year, nearby Germantown was 80% German. By 1750, 34% were German, 38% Scots-Irish, and 28% English

In the “Greater Philadelphia area” the origination of the population that came from various English colonies between 1710 and 1740 is especially interesting: about 17% arrived from Maryland, Virginia, New England each, 11 percent New York and New Jersey, and 38% from the Caribbean. By the eve of the American Revolution about 2,700 slaves entered into Philadelphia –the first in 1684; by 1705 about 7% of families owned slaves. “Most slaves arrived in Philadelphia in two peak periods, from 1732 to 1741 [510] … and from 1757 to 1766 [1,200] … In 1710 slaves constituted 10 percent of [Philadelphia’s] population, but only 3 percent by the time of the Revolution” . Most slaves resided in Philadelphia (household and shipping) “Rarely dis farmers use slave labor, preferring to use European servants [indentured] [99] Marie Basile McDaniel’s, Immigration and Migration (Colonial Era) https://philadelphiaencyclopedia.org/ archive/immigration-and-migration-colonial-era/. Philadelphia’s population was quite mobile–nearly half migrated out every decade.

Interestingly, the more familiar Scots-Irish, English Protestant as they were, stood in less contrast to the dominant English Quakers and Anglicans. In the early years of migration, it was not the Scots-Irish who encountered discrimination, it was the German speaking Germans. They were thought to be dangerous, and as non-English their loyalty in the various wars in which England indulged, was questioned. Germans who arrived before 1759 had to take loyalty oaths to the Crown, and had to contend with Naturalization laws. If the Scots-Irish had been tossed from their land in England, the Germans fled from war or its threat, and came in tow with their own conception of the American Dream; their dream reflected values set in late medieval Germany (not a nation until 1870), and Germans were not acquainted or even comfortable with English law and tradition, nevermind governance institutions. For these reasons, and others, Germans and English Protestants got off to a rather bad start in Pennsylvania. That will have its implications.

Both increased the already evident economic inequality of Pennsylvania society and economy, and to make matters worse each came armed with their own political culture. As we shall soon explain, however, the Germans were better able to afford purchase of a household yeoman farm and more determined to do so. That purchase of land usually qualified them for voting, a luxury the more mobile and less affluent Scots-Irish had to dispense with. Keep that in mind as we move deeper into this module. The Germans, often indentured, also benefited from early German immigrants who made their fortune in commercial-artisan Philadelphia, yet another avenue of success not available to the Scots-Irish. Arriving at the same time, the two ethnic groupings had two very different destinies in Pennsylvania. Together they constituted the bulk of the increase in Pennsylvania’s population from about a quarter of a million in 1700 to a million and a quarter in 1750. Germans and Scots-Irish came in numbers that dwarfed Puritans, Virginia royalists, Maryland Catholics, and even heterogeneous New Yorkers. That is one reason why the political cultures they brought with them, are so formidable in our contemporary cultural melange.

As mentioned previously, in this module-series we shall focus on the Germans. Not that the Scots-Irish will not be found in our present tale, they will be around and important. At this juncture it is helpful to discuss both as we distinguish their individual distinctive migration paths, and their propensity to establish settlements in Pennsylvania.

 

Germans and Scots-Irish immigration came to America overwhelmingly, but not exclusively through Pennsylvania ports (Philadelphia and New Castle) after 1710. About seventy-five percent of Germans came through Philadelphia, and likely two-thirds of the Scots-Irish through New Castle. Simply put, subsequently each followed their own ethnic Big Sort commencing with the walk down the gangplank to the pier. Their future migration patterns reflected the separate geographies in which they initially settled (there is, to be sure, considerable overlap). Why Pennsylvania? Post 1710 migration benefited from the perception that Quaker-controlled Pennsylvania represented the best combination of opportunity, openness, travel cost and political/cultural tolerance. Quickly, a structured industry cluster developed around the migration of each ethnic group, and distinctive shipping lines and migration “agents”, customized indenture and transit agreements, and specific exit procedures and relationships developed for each nationality. Ship Captains had considerable impact on the quality of the trip, and were critical to debarkation. Most of us today have a rather personalistic, emotional, perhaps patriotic perception of the migration experience, but reality also included dealing with a formidable set of bureaucracies. For most migrants the experience was harsher than we imagine today, storms, sickness and death were common features and congested living conditions without privacy characterized a voyage that could extend from 6-8 weeks to three months, if blown from the planned route by winds and storms, or ship damage.

Germans and Scots-Irish had choices in destinations. Overwhelmingly they chose colonial Pennsylvania to start their New World Dream. Pennsylvania’s reputation as “the best poor man’s country” was perhaps Penn’s most durable and positive legacy: that of religious, economic, political and ethnic tolerance and economic diversification. In a world wracked by war or its threat, Quaker pacifism was a comfort to those fleeing from war. The economic boom that Philadelphia and Pennsylvania had experienced in its first two decades generated a positive word-of-mouth and letter-writing to family afterwards. The German migration (the third) peaked between 1749 and 1754, while the Scots-Irish peaked during the early 1770’s. No where else in British North America enjoyed such a population boom during these years. Predictably, these two groups rocketed Philadelphia and Pennsylvania past rival British colonies.

The Germans came in three distinct waves, and the Scots-Irish people-flow varied, reflecting the various countries from which they came (England, Ireland, Scotland and Wales). The reader is alerted here that Scots-Irish is not an ethnic grouping per se–that will be developed later in the chapter. Scots-Irish shared much in common, but there is no Scotch-Irish DNA in 1750. While I have serious doubts about Irish and Scottish, Scots-Irish were English-speaking, and originated from the many border regions of the United Kingdom. They shared a common historical experience, religion, and were very familiar with the English tradition of governance, history, and shared a strong preference for agriculture and hinterland peripheries. The Germans, guess what, were not English-speaking, did not emigrate from an establish country with its own identify, and had little experience with English governance, its budding democracy, and developed  its own sense of individual rights. While both Germans and Scots-Irish were almost completely Protestant, each professed a very different version of Protestantism: Germans were Pietistic/Lutheran and Scots-Irish Calvinist. The distinction is very meaningful–there is a religious gap in values between the two, and they did not identify with each other). It is not surprising, however, that around 1740 they both were attracted to America’s First Great Awakening–but for different reasons, and took away very different experiences.

Both sets of immigrants arrived with families in tow–although young single males remained a sizable component.  Through most of the period, children and married households were in the majority. Probably more than two-thirds were 30 years of age, or below. Through 1750 agriculturalists predominated, but Germans after that were more diverse and Philadelphia benefited. There was always a distinct urban-hinterland dichotomy for both migratory groups, and their impact on Philadelphia will need be treated differently from the hinterland experience. For example, whoever settled in Philadelphia became bilingual–not so the hinterland-bound Germans. Their relationship and interactions with the Quakers were not identical–just the opposite.The city of Brotherly Love had a harder time dealing with the Germans through 1750, as did Benjamin Franklin whose dislike for Germans was vividly expressed in his writings. and that will directly result in Philadelphia’s founding of the German Society in 1764–which BTW was a colonial example of a Community Development CDO which will be later elaborated upon. Hence Philadelphia’s political behavior patterns, reflecting these migratory tensions, played out vastly different than the more homogeneous hinterland towns and settlements.

Because each came from different European ports, they followed different transportation routes, and dealt with varying merchant shipping companies that plied each port. In that some shipping companies from Rotterdam did travel a circuit picking up passengers at different ports on the same trip, Germans and Scots-Irish could travel on the same trip–and usually would up in Philadelphia. Otherwise, the Scots-Irish disembarked mostly in New Castle in today’s Delaware (six miles from Wilmington), and from there went on their merry way, while Germans overwhelmingly arrived at Philadelphia. As a port, New Castle was a speck on the map, and no urban center (in 1850 (yes 1850) it had amassed almost 1200 residents). As was their druthers, the Scots-Irish immediately trekked off to what passed for Pennsylvania’s borderlands at the time they landed. As indicated, that was mostly true for the Germans also before 1750. Each wound up settling down, at least for a while, in communities whose residents “resembled them”, i.e. homogeneously Scots-Irish, or German. Northampton (and Berks, and Lancaster) County for example became a German stronghold, and Chester, York and Cumberland Counties disproportionately Scots-Irish. Philadelphia on the other hand accumulated sizable German and Scots-Irish, who either settled into Philly proper or to one of its artificial suburbs, Northern Liberties and Southwark. The indenture experience was a critical factor in determining where each wound up.

To clarify German” ethnic” labels.  Our Germans were composed of both Swiss and mostly Rhineland-broadly defined–western Germany. They were usually called “Deutch” at the time by Americans, which referred mostly to their language, and not to Dutch with which it sometimes confused. The matter is even more confused as many Germans traveled to America from Dutch ports on Dutch ships. One more warning: Germany did not exist as a nation until 1870. It is not at all clear that our “Germans” identified themselves as German in terms remotely similar to contemporary identity. Mostly language and culture-literature were the unifying bonds. German-speaking as defined by an English colonial can mean many things, including not speaking German. Dutch is not German, nor is Finnish, nor is Swiss. Scandinavians are frequently smushed into German for all sorts of reasons. There is no doubt that each of these three German waves came principally from the extended Rhineland area. My Palatine Coan family came from western Rhineland, leaving Germany through Amsterdam, to London, and from there to New York City, finally settling as an indenture in New York’s Long Island Hamptons–to become, of all things, whalers; other Coans went South (there is a Coan River in Virginia), still others to Maine. Most Palatines wound up on the Hudson River in upstate New York.

Interestingly, the more familiar Scots-Irish, English Protestant as they were, stood in less contrast to the dominant English Quakers and Anglicans. In the early years of migration, it was not the Scots-Irish who encountered discrimination, it was the German speaking Germans. They were thought to be dangerous, and as non-English their loyalty in the various wars in which England indulged, was questioned. Germans who arrived before 1759 had to take loyalty oaths to the Crown, and had to contend with Naturalization laws. If the Scots-Irish had been tossed from their land in England, the Germans fled from war or its threat, and came in tow with their own conception of the American Dream; their dream reflected values set in late medieval Germany (not a nation until 1870), and Germans were not acquainted or even comfortable with English law and tradition, nevermind governance institutions. For these reasons, and others, Germans and English Protestants got off to a rather bad start in Pennsylvania. That will have its implications.

Both increased the already evident economic inequality of Pennsylvania society and economy, and to make matters worse each came armed with their own political culture. As we shall soon explain, however, the Germans were better able to afford purchase of a household yeoman farm and more determined to do so. That purchase of land usually qualified them for voting, a luxury the more mobile and less affluent Scots-Irish had to dispense with. Keep that in mind as we move deeper into this module. The Germans, often indentured, also benefited from early German immigrants who made their fortune in commercial-artisan Philadelphia, yet another avenue of success not available to the Scots-Irish. Arriving at the same time, the two ethnic groupings had two very different destinies in Pennsylvania. Together they constituted the bulk of the increase in Pennsylvania’s population from about a quarter of a million in 1700 to a million and a quarter in 1750. Germans and Scots-Irish came in numbers that dwarfed Puritans, Virginia royalists, Maryland Catholics, and even heterogeneous New Yorkers. That is one reason why the political cultures they brought with them, are so formidable in our contemporary cultural melange.

 

 

My best sense is that the Germans affected the most impact on Pennsylvania, its economy, policy system and political culture. That impact was greater than  Scots-Irish, despite the latter’s larger number and Scots-Irish impact/disruption during, and after, the American Revolution. Germans on the whole were more likely to settle, and stay in Pennsylvania, where Scots-Irish were prone to pack up and move on. More importantly to our history, Germans were integrated into the Quaker political culture, as we shall argue shortly, while the Scots-Irish remained culturally distinct.  Quaker culture and German culture will “smush” remaining distinct yet interweaving into a reasonably coherent fused political culture, referred today as the Midlands. Contemporary America has many “political cultures (nations if you follow Colin Woodard), but Pennsylvania will be homeland for one (Midlands), and formative to others (Woodward’s Greater Appalachian). Say it another way, the reader might be sensitive to the outsized role these two groups played in history of political culture.