Quaker Nation

And Here Come my Ancestors! Indian Hunters of Pennsyltucky! Seriously though, the Quakers weren't as pure as driven snow. The reason the Quakers were ousted out of power in Pennsylvania was because of those Indians. When the tribes were killing Germans on the frontier, the government wouldnt sent out any help to the settlers. The Quaker towns were all in the east around Philly so they didn't do anything while the Germans were being burnt out of their homes. Eventually us Scotsmen had to be called in to clear out the Indians and we did. It severely damaged the relationship between the Germans and the Quakers and is the real reason for the capital of Pennsylvania being in Harrisburg, the Germans wanted the state focus away from the Quakers.

Well the Quakers weren't as pure as driven snow, but your example thereof is pretty terrible. The Penn family encroachments on Indian lands up the Delaware would have been a much better example, or the interlude in which they were involved in the slave trade. Your actual argument amounts to "Group A was nonviolent, Group B was violent, so thank heaven Group C was there to kill them."

If we assume you are 100% correct on the facts, all that does is indicate the impracticality of nonviolence. One group gives up violence, and neighboring groups incompletely follow suit. Okay. It is hardly news. That's the default opinion of most people in the world. It certainly isn't an indication of "impurity."

However, where are these "facts" coming from? You make it sound like the Scots-Irish were waiting off in the wings, then came in to save the day once the Quakers - slouching in their ivory tower while helpless Germans were slaughtered - had clearly failed.

In point of fact the Scots-Irish were already living further out on the frontier than the Germans, in part because they already wanted no part of the Quakers enlightened policies. In fact, they were initiating some of the conflicts with the tribes that were then spilling further into the province to burn those German homes. And much of the violence they were not responsible for might have been avoidable if they had been toeing the line - certainly Indian attacks were not a problem from the more easterly tribes that were treated according to Pennsylvania's admittedly weird Indian policy.

I'm curious. Would you consider the "clearing out" of Lancaster in 1763 as being part of the necessary good work the Scotsmen did to protect Pennsylvania's Germans? Is the march on Philadelphia to demand that the government offer bounties on Indian scalps something you would justify? And if it was about the Germans rejecting the Quakers, how would you explain the fact that those marchers were Scottish with a leavening of Englishmen? Why did much of the province's Germans abandon all participation in government once the Quakers lost power, and why do their ancestors still largely abstain from politics?

And every province suffered Indian attacks, but because they also happened in Pennsylvania this was a sign the Quakers were at fault? Why did Pennsylvania on several occasions go free of Indian attacks (or nearly so) while the same tribes were raiding adjacent provinces during the early Anglo-French wars?

I've got nothing against you or anyone valuing Scotch-Irish heritage. But when it comes to "It was a good thing we were their to get rid of the native peoples," I can't help but disagree. And when you ignore the role the Quakers had in minimizing frontier violence (ultimately a failure, I admit) as well as the role that the frontier folk had in exacerbating it....

Well, it's not a very honest standard of debate.
 
That's sick that you would think "clearing" the Native Americans like some sort of Einstatsgrupen unit during WWII, basically participating in genocide against native Americans is something to have pride in. Makes it especially ironic that as you say it was on behalf of ze Germans.
 
Probably motives. The various states using Christianity or Buddhism were foremost states and took their authority from their ancestors and might. Or the leadership of their king or whatever. Not sure how it worked with all the Lamas. As for the Quakers, it joule likely be that the state would be formed as a religious experiment first and foremost, though if they did not reign back their thing with tolerating all and welcoming others in they might find themselves swamped. I am all for immigration and religious tolerance of course, but it would be difficult for a state wanting to stay of one religious denomination to keep control if they ever got elections outside of those held by the local churches.

Historically, the Pennsylvania pacifists kept power (and later, influence) well after sheer numbers might suggest by voting as a bloc on all relevant issues, where other denominations' members tended to be divided. Which is to say, probably the most successful version of this I can imagine (speaking in terms of the long-term) is a state with rather conventional attitudes but a huge pacifist voting bloc, mostly Quaker. By not being the government, there would be less of the normal compromise of principles by people in power, but they'd be strong enough to influence the government's policies. You might end up with a very unique entity as a result.

No doubt you'd still have a Nixon or two, though.
 
Top