[This is a piece I wrote for IH faculty, 2/2000. Please note two themes in particular: a) the close relationship between Locke and William Penn and b) the importance of "Whig" values in early Pennsylvania]
One of the great thrills of teaching IH 52 for me was the opening it provided into the later 17th century. In the early days of IH there was considerable latitude for exploration, and the 51-52 link was assisted by building from Galileo (and Kepler!) in 51 to Newton in 52, even if the Newton part was handled anecdotally and allusively. The Newton-Locke connection, detailed by Westfall and others (a shared interest in alchemy, of all things, joined them together, along with Boyle, and placed both at some risk with the authorities).
Another Locke connection was with our own William Penn. It is a bit of cliché that Penn and Locke knew each other: Locke reviewed Penn's plans for the Pennyslvania colony and generally approved, though universal education struck him as a bad idea. Penn may have played a role in securing a pardon from Locke and other Whigs from James II.
Only this week did I pick up one of the classics of early Pennsylvania history, Meeting House and Counting House by Fred Tolles--a name still remembered fondly out at Swarthmore Collge. Published in 1948 and republished since (Norton), this volume describes the "Quaker Merchants of Colonial Philadelphia 1682-1763," the period of the "holy experiment" that ended under the pressure of French-English rivalries for the Ohio Valley and the accompanying ratcheting up of hostile Indian activity.
Tolles' lucid and capacious prose provides the tip of the iceberg characteristic of a certain kind of history-writing. Summarizing some works, glancing at others, hinting at a solid study of colonial documents without breaking the butterfly of history upon the rack of data, Tolles gives the reader a decent sense, in 15 pages or so, of the key stages of change in the politics of this period, of the social class and provenance of the immigrants who flooded into Philadelphia, and of the conditions they left in England. One interesting feature of this narrative is the continued presence of our own John Locke.
Locke figures in this book in ways that are pertinent to our course. Most important, I think, is Tolles' argument that the founding principles of Pennsylvania were not only Quaker but Whig, with emphasis particularly on 'three fundamental rights of Englishmen (p.13):'
propertyThis language in fact is taken from Penn's pamphlet defending the Whig Algernon Sidney (1679). Penn's basic principles for the colony were those of a "Whig and a Dissenter, who had felt the heavy hand of royal absolutism." His belief that the power of one man should not "hinder the good of the whole country" was paradoxical in the "vast semi-feudal barony" he in fact founded, and was one cause of the "irreconcilable conflicts" that began with his embarkation for England in 1684; by 1688 the settlers were already turning their Whiggism against the government he had imposed, and the conflict continued through the 1700s, especially when aimed at Penn's Anglican sons.
representative government
trial by jury
Within Pennsylvania, there was a further split between two key Whig values also prominent in the Second Treatise:
property
and
liberty
The city merchants espoused the former and the farmers the latter.
These few hints are about all that Tolles provides to the Locke fan until the final chapters of the book, when he reviews the library holdings of prominent settlers. Locke's name is omnipresent: not just the Treatises but the Letter upon Toleration and Filmer's Patriarch. Reading through this section, the reader realizes how important Lockean thought was to this group of colonists. James Logan, Isaac Norris and others had the various works of Locke in their homes.
***
Questions for the class:
What is a Whig?
What did Tolles mean when he referred to Penn's colony as a "vast semi-feudal barony"? Be sure you can define the words used here.
What is "paradoxical" about Penn's Whig belief that "the power of one man should not 'hinder the good of the whole country'"?