From our intro Pennsylvania module, it is apparent that Quakers and Quakerism, a religion, was responsible for the founding of Philadelphia and Pennsylvania. That will be true also for Massachusetts which was established as a refuge for Separatists (Pilgrims) and Puritans. In one respect the primacy of religion in the formation and settlement of a new community in the new world makes its easier to search for those values and beliefs salient to the formation of a political culture, and to partially justify how those values underlie the political structures in the new policy system. That is the primary and core task of this module: to identify the relevant Quaker values/beliefs which underlie the policy system they created in the new world. That will be hard to do because Quakerism is a religion of few firm beliefs and commandments; it is, at least to me more a movement, like the 1960’s, whose message, spirit and tone was more a counter-culture alternative to the majority culture epitomized by the Church of England and its principal resistance, the Puritans.
Quakerism “took root in the lonely fens and dales of {England’s] north country, the most backward, lest educated, most Royalist, Roman Catholic, and still feudal part of the nation”[99] E. Digby Baltzell, Puritan Boston and Quaker Philadelphia: Two Protestant Ethics and the Spirit of Class Authority and Leadership (The Free Press, 1979), p.84. Hackett-Fisher, the authority of the origins of American Quakerism, calls the North Midlands, the Quaker Galilee”, the land later described in Wuthering Heights and Jane Eyre, which “in the seventeenth century had the reputation of being a dangerous place”, rural, thinly settled, and desperately poor”, its inhabitants the descendents of conquered Vikings who still practiced “the custom of moots or assemblies in the open” and of Norse customs of individual ownership of houses and fields–and a fierce opponent of Norman feudalism and their manor economy [99] David Hackett-Fischer, Albion’s Seed: Four British Folkways in America (Oxford University Press, 1989), pp. 445-6, and pp. 445-51.
Shepherds and farmers of the north thought of themselves as a race apart from their [Norman] overlords. Their religion was evangelical and Protestant. They felt themselves to be aliens from the schools, and churches, and courts, and political institutions of the region–all of which remained securely in the hands of the ruling few. This attitude entered into the theory of Quakerism, and profoundly shaped their social purposes. In some respects the Quaker culture was that of its native region; in others it was a reaction against it. The farmers and herdsmen of the region … ‘had a reputation for independence’ a custom of equality among themselves. The family and farmhands all ate together, at simple meals. They dressed alike in ‘homespun suits and dresses of a distinctive color called ‘hodden gray’. Their houses were sparsely furnished and their culture made a virtue of simplicity and plain speech. All of these folkways became a part of Quakerism [99] David Hackett-Fischer, Albion’s Seed: Four British Folkways in America (Oxford University Press, 1989), pp. 447-8.
These are people that took pride in being an “Average Joe” who could tolerate government so long as it benefited “ordinary people”, but otherwise is an “unwelcome intrusion” and whose political opinion is at best moderate, but if relatively satisfied is uninterested and apathetic in affairs political. This is, as Woodard summarises, the culture of today’s “Middle America” and the Heartland [99] Colin Woodard, American Nations (Viking, 2011), pp. 6-7. “Quakerism arose from an oppressed regional underclass which despised the foreign elite that exploited them. It also rejected the institutions of high culture that were visited upon them, and made virtues of simplicity and hard work in a hostile environment” [99] David Hackett-Fischer, Albion’s Seed: pp. 450-1
The topic has been explored by many, over a considerable period of time. For the most part our assessment will not deviate significantly from the consensus that has emerged. What we will do, not so much in this module, but in another that follows, is add to the Quaker political culture by drawing from it an aspect that has been underdeveloped, and which distinguishes them from their Puritan antecedents: the reality that Quakers were not composed of a predominant ethnic grouping from a relatively small English region. Instead, the Quakers that came to Pennsylvania were composed of English (from a relatively narrow regional area), but also Welsh, Scottish, Irish, and all sorts of Rhineland-based Germans, Swiss and Dutch. Woodard calls them “an ethnic mosaic”, p7.This was America’s most inclusive society (with the possible exception of Knickerbocker New York City). The English were predominantly Pennsylvania’s initial settlers. Quakers were (forgive me) de-ethnicized. or multi-ethnic, north western European. The same would be said for Pennsylvania, and Philadelphia which because of the Quaker spirit and policy system became a magnet so diverse it attracted the Scots-Irish in droves and Yankees such as Benjamin Franklin. By the time of the American Revolution, Pennsylvania was the only non-English majority state among the thirteen.
From the start, however, Pennsylvania like Quakerism itself, was a diverse religious movement, a movement that sustained an missionary program to convert others of all backgrounds, including North America. In its early years certainly, They came from several English regions, formerly rural , many had moved to urban centers. Hard-working many had prospered and the movement, while predominantly workers, artisans, rural husbandmen, as well as affluent and aristocracy (Penn, for example) were adherents as well. Bluntly, there was no common ethnic socialization that produced Quakers, rather what attracted its adherents were a shared set of beliefs, values, hoped-for-lifestyle and future expectations. In particular, they shared also an expectation that a new start in a new community was required to create the environment and atmosphere supportive of their values and beliefs. That was the essence of Penn’s Holy Experiment which in some respects could be compared to a very, very large commune, complete with its sect-leader, the sole proprietor, William Penn.
Labeled as free thinkers, there were a considerable element that could be described in the 1680’s as free spirits. Seemingly at odds with its sole proprietorship government, what they all shared, and what had consistently gotten them into chronic trouble and noticeable persecution and huge discrimination, was their volatile, instinctive and innate opposition to authority, social and political hierarchies, and the major cultures/religions. “Quakers by nature questioned order and tradition, refused deference to elites, reject formal religion and church hierarchies, and proclaimed salvation could only be found through individual study and revelation. Authority was unnecessary–left alone humans were all good and equal before God [99] Ronald Coan, A History of American State and Local Economic Development: As Two Ships Pass in the Night (Edward Elgar, 2017), p.34. As Digby Baltzell observed: “Whereas the Puritans were closer to Hobbes, the Quakers anticipated the tradition of Rousseau” [99] E. Digby Baltzell, Puritan Boston and Quaker Philadelphia: Two Protestant Ethics and the Spirit of Class Authority and Leadership (The Free Press, 1979), p.83. Historians and political scientists consistently have stress their “egalitarianism” as distinctive; during the Revolution they were to create what has been labeled as America’s most democratic state government. Philadelphia’s claim to be “homebed” of the American Revolution, contested of course by Boston, is not without legitimacy.
Penn shared this antipathy to authority and governmental order, stating in his 1682 Frame of Government (his charter to the citizens of Pennsylvania) “Meddle not with government, never speak of it; let others say and do what they please … I have said little to you about distributing justice, or being just in power or government, for I should desire you should never be concerned therein”[99] quoted in E. Digby Baltzell, Puritan Boston and Quaker Philadelphia: Two Protestant Ethics and the Spirit of Class Authority and Leadership (The Free Press, 1979), p369). Penn will not be confused with Lenin. Quakers would characteristically refuse to doff their hats to “superiors}, a convention of the day. This could be a simple expression of eggaliarianism but more likely it was a conscious refusal to acknowledge authority. We will not be shocked if this history reveals Penn’s heritage includes not only his all-powerful sole proprietorship, but his indifferent use of it. There was no militia, and a persistent criticism of Penn’s leadership was his lack of response to problems and the vicissitudes of Pennsylvania’s environment. The chief legacy of his managed rule we will later argue is his fragmentation of government authority, not its arbitrary use.
Another aspect that needs mention from the onset is that Quakerism was not excessively doctrine-laden. United by a few share beliefs, Inner Light for example, a core source (the Bible, both Old and New Testaments), and a common need to be left alone to think and practice their thoughts and live their values. Free speech, open speech more precise, masked the incredible diversity of opinions, doctrines, and individual credos that its members possessed and from time to time articulated. This was a movement that one could “follow”, hang around, accompany, but not necessarily share or act on a specific doctrine or action. Individuals entered and left, returning to membership as they felt.
What united them was each had stepped away from the dominant state church and in so doing were viewed as opponents of its policy system and governance. This would change within a generation or two, but in the beginning and formative years, hangers on were probably almost as numerous as doctrine-sharing Quakers. This tolerance for internal diversity and stress on individual inner lights was the complete opposite of their Puritan northern neighbors–and pretty much the 180 degree opposite of the Virginia royalist Church of England State Church. In any case this inclusiveness and tolerance for doctrinal ambiguity did require a “unique” (for the time) political and policy system.
All this need for a supportive policy system congruent with their inclusivity, tolerance and doctrinal diversity is amazingly and shockingly at ends with the Movement’s view of, and priority afforded to, politics and political involvement. Again, this distinguished them from their Yankee Puritans, who if anything were hyper-politicized. Quakers so disregarded government, to the point of treating it with disrespect, that while disdaining authority hierarchies, left their church matters to those few inclined to assume responsibility: the “elders”. They would do the same to the policy system created for them in the new world. In this respect, Penn’s sole proprietorship corporate government was ideal, at least for the Quaker believers, and assuming Penn himself was up to the task to deliver responsible and effective governance. One must not forget, seventeenth century Quakers identified government as the source of most of their persecution and discrimination (along with established churches, of course); they were not inclined to use public power to achieve their aims or advance their values–preferring instead on relying on individual Inner Light.
For most Quakers the best policy system was one that protected their freedoms, their individual lifestyle and tolerated their personal thought–and left them alone. It wasn’t simply a matter of limited government and low taxes, it was a simple unwillingness, a lack of interest in the affairs of government, in favor of their personal inner light and private ambitions. Their principal motivation to involve themselves in politics and some level of political action was their perceived need to do so in order to restore “normalcy” whereby they could withdraw from politics thereafter. Does all this seem vaguely familiar to many readers–“deplorable” as it may be? This aspect of the Quaker culture was less pronounced in its early seventeenth century years, than it became when Pennsylvania promoted immigration of vast (relative to its size) numbers of German-speaking migrants.
By the first half of the eighteenth century the Quaker culture warped into a hybrid Quaker-German political culture–with the two elements working our a very distinctive politics and policy system. The reality of this culture by that time was noted by no less than the founder of our nation, George Washington–a leader not especially noted for his “political culture” observations:
Pennsylvania is a large state; and from the policy of its founder, and the government since, and especially from the celebrity of Philadelphia, has become the general receptacle of foreigners from all countries and of all descriptions, many of whom soon take an active part in the politics of the tate; and coming over full of prejudice against their government–some against all governments–you will be enabled without any comment of mine to draw your own inference of their conduct [99] Quoted in Joseph E. Illick, Colonial Pennsylvania: a History (Charles Scribner’s Sons, 1976), p. xvii.
Washington was no doubt talking as much about Scots-Irish which arrived during after 1720, and particular after 1760, the Whiskey Rebellion, as Quaker-Germans, but he correctly observes the state’s sustained diversity in ethnicity and attitudes, but calls attention to their shared anti-governmentalism. Colin Woodard renames this culture “the Midlands”; his opening paragraph in his description of it makes evident why this particular culture is so critical and relevant to us in today’s Contemporary Era:
The most proto-typically American of the [political cultures] was one of the last to be founded. From its inception in the 1680’s the Midlands was a tolerant, multicultural, multilingual civilization populated by families of modest means–many of them religious–who desired mostly that their government and leaders leave them in peace. Over the past three centuries Midland culture has pushed westward from its hearth in and around Philadelphia, jumped over the Appalachians, and spread across a vast swath of the American heartland, but it has retained these essential qualities. It is Middle America, the most mainstream of the continent’s national cultures, and for much of our history, the kingmaker in national political politics. [99] Colin Woodard, American Nations (Viking, 2011), p. 92.
The Midland political culture evolved into a coherent culture over more than half a century. The initial Quaker contribution, the core of its most fundamental shared beliefs and values, is what we describe in this module. The other elements arrived in numbers after the Quakers set up the colony, and founded Philadelphia. The initial political structures of Pennsylvania, and the motivation behind the initial Philadelphia policy system were infused by Penn’s Quakerism, and by the reaction of Quakers to it. Quakers themselves would evolve over time. Hackett-Fischer speculated that there were four distinct phases in Quaker history: “the first was the seedtime of a revolutionary sect (1646-66), when Quakerism tended to be radical, primitive, militant, aggressive, evangelical, and messianic; the second state (1666-1750) was the time of flowering, when the Society of Friends became increasingly institutional, rational, progressive, optimistic, enlightened, liberal, moderate, political, and actively engaged in the world …; the third stage (1750-1827) was an era when Quakers turned inward upon themselves, and grew increasingly sectarian, exclusive, quietist, and perfectionist. A fourth stage [followed] of denominational division and maturity…. Of the four stages, the most important for American history was the second era … when the cultural institutions of the Delaware Valley were created [99] David Hackett-Fischer, Albion’s Seed (Oxford University Press, 1989), p. 428
To the Extent Seventeenth Century Quakers Held to Doctrines, it was the Bible and Inner Light
Quakers were, if anything, not Puritans or Royalist Church of England. They all read the Bible, upon which their Protestantism was based. But Hackett-Fischer observes they focused much on the New Testament whose vision and image of God was more loving, and embracive. Resistant to predestination, they saw mankind as fundamentally good, and the human endeavor as noble and satisfying. “The Puritans worshipped a very different Deity–one who was equally capable of love and wrath–a dark mysterious power who could be terrifying in his anger and inscrutability. Anglicans on the other hand knelt before a great and noble Pantocrator [ruler over all, almighty and all-powerful, but distant and who acts according his His plan] who ruled firmly, but fairly over the hierarchy of his creatures“. As a logical follow up to their loving God, Quakers “always maintained an official hostility fo formal doctrine and never required subscription to a creed”. This is why they always attracted “hangers on”, lots of those who did not call themselves Quakers, but reveled in their presence and felt comfortable in their communities. In this they departed from the “Five Points of Calvinism, in favor of a God of “Love and Light”: “God is love and light. Fullness of Pleasure, Joy and Great Delight“. In no way is this “Sinners in the hands of an angry God” [99] David Hackett-Fischer, Albion’s Seed, p. 452
To the extent Quakerism held a doctrine, it was that each person possessed an “inner light” (a little piece of God himself” divine goodness and virtue passed from Jesus into every human soul”. This ultimately why Friends were pacifist; violence toward others was suppressing Inner Light in others. It was this inner light that lit the path to personal salvation to any that followed their light and Friends put few barriers in the path to personal salvation. Tolerance for different opinions, values, views and lifestyles was how inner light was best expressed in practice. Freedom of religion was a first order policy priority. If any religion was rooted in modern pluralism, it was the seventeenth century Quakers. They stood out in comparison with the established religions, and naturally the policy system they created revolved around pluralist values and law. This “tolerance” would not last forever among Quakers, but it certainly characterized them during their Golden Years period.
Indians had Inner Light, as did none’s neighbors. Not believing in original sin, children were not raised harshly or authoritarian because they did not need instilled civilization/morality to overcome its ill effects. Quakers raised their children with a gentleness and egalitarianism not unlike our contemporary standards. Penn himself wrote that parents “Love [their children] with Wisdom. Correct them with Affection: Never strike in Passion, and Suit the Correction to their Age”. Probably the group which benefited most from Inner Light were women. Women could preach, leave the household on their own terms, and independent women could more easily find a place in the Quaker community. Given their multi-ethnic composition, they were also open to different ethnic groups as well–indeed their missionary messaihism, their evangelical forms of worship opened them to all sorts of people, as converts or neighbors.
They rejected any sense of a “chosen people”, and while they saw their city as a “holy experiment”, it was never meant to be the “city on the hill” that Winthrop and Puritans aspired. Philadelphia is the “City of Brotherly Love”–as translated from Greek. Their Seventeenth century egalitarianism was less prescriptive than permissive. Congruent with this is their opposition to slavery. Slavery was permitted and did exist in early Pennsylvania and Philadelphia, but toleration of it disintegrated by the American Revolution. More than Boston or New England, abolitionism grew out of Pennsylvania Quakerism.Quakers, wherever prevalent, were the leaders of anti-slavery sections of Revolutionary War state constitutions, and Pennsylvania Quakers led the resistance to slavery in the American Constitution, and in the first years of the Washington Administration.
With these observations in mind, the best way to describe the Penn-Quaker political culture is to describe the policy system he created prior to his departure from England–and which he attemtped to install once he arrived in Pennsylvania. It is likely the reader will expect religious toleration and ethnic tolerance will be high priorities, but what we have not yet venture into is Penn’s and the Quaker reaction to economics, profit, and early capitalist-mercantilist economic activities. One might expect a rather harsh regard for profit and economic elites, for land speculation or economic entrepreneurism and innovation, but if so, such expectations will be very quickly dashed.