William Penn

[Ernie]

https://apnews.com/article/william-penn ... 1f94ecd477

Did William Penn attempt "conquest through treaty"? If "yes", was this wrong?

[RZehr]

https://apnews.com/article/william-penn ... 1f94ecd477

Did William Penn attempt "conquest through treaty"? If "yes", was this wrong?

So the modern liberal position towards immigration ethics is what exactly? What Penn did was "conquest through treaty"? So using todays formula, he should have simply shown up, and brought all his friends and other Europeans, and then asked the Indians to accommodate them in ways such as providing services in the Europeans native language, e.g. "press 1 for Lenape, press 2 for English"?

I mean are we supposed to judge the past and current issues by what is currently in vogue, or by some objective timeless principle? What would these academics prefer?

[Neto]

Ethnocentrism, but probably without any mal-intent, or consciousness of what he was doing. In other words, I suspect that he did it in ignorance.

[ken_sylvania]

https://apnews.com/article/william-penn ... 1f94ecd477

Did William Penn attempt "conquest through treaty"? If "yes", was this wrong?

If what William Penn did was "conquest through treaty" then I suppose that is what virtually every property owner engages in, as well as every merchant who "conquests goods through treaty" and then sells them on at a markup.

I'm not in favor of whitewashing the past and pretending people like Christopher Columbus were saints, but the attempts by some folks to make every prominent historical figure into a scoundrel is nonsense.

[Ken]

https://apnews.com/article/william-penn ... 1f94ecd477

Did William Penn attempt "conquest through treaty"? If "yes", was this wrong?

If what William Penn did was "conquest through treaty" then I suppose that is what virtually every property owner engages in, as well as every merchant who "conquests goods through treaty" and then sells them on at a markup.

I'm not in favor of whitewashing the past and pretending people like Christopher Columbus were saints, but the attempts by some folks to make every prominent historical figure into a scoundrel is nonsense.

Well, I would suggest that what William Penn really did was more like eminent domain. The government coming in and telling you they were going to take your land for some other purpose but that they would negotiate a "fair" settlement for your property.

The King of England granted William Penn title to all of Pennsylvania in exchange for debts the king owed to Penn's father.

William Penn then negotiated with the various tribes already on the land to vacate and move further west to make room for William Penn to carve out landholdings to then sell to European settlers.

The fact that he did this in a more fair and humane manner than colonial governments further south is to his credit. He generally didn't drive Indians off their land at gunpoint or through massacres as was the more common method. But it also wasn't a negotiation between equals. He was claiming the land for white settlement. It was simply a question of methods.

By the standards of his time he was a pretty good guy. By 21st century standards, not so much. Imagine the outcry if some current government said: "We are going to take Ohio and dedicate it to settlement by foreign immigrants." All you Ohioans are going to have to pack your bags and go. We will negotiate fair settlement for your lands but you have to leave and move to Missouri or Washington or someplace further west. That part is non-negotiable.

[Josh]

Imagine the outcry if some current government said: "We are going to take Ohio and dedicate it to settlement by foreign immigrants."

For a more practical example, consider if the current government declared they are going to take the south side of Chicago and dedicate it to settlement by foreign immigrants. But with no treaty negotiations first, nor offering to help resettle the people already there further westward.

[ken_sylvania]

https://apnews.com/article/william-penn ... 1f94ecd477

Did William Penn attempt "conquest through treaty"? If "yes", was this wrong?

If what William Penn did was "conquest through treaty" then I suppose that is what virtually every property owner engages in, as well as every merchant who "conquests goods through treaty" and then sells them on at a markup.

I'm not in favor of whitewashing the past and pretending people like Christopher Columbus were saints, but the attempts by some folks to make every prominent historical figure into a scoundrel is nonsense.

Well, I would suggest that what William Penn really did was more like eminent domain. The government coming in and telling you they were going to take your land for some other purpose but that they would negotiate a "fair" settlement for your property.

The King of England granted William Penn title to all of Pennsylvania in exchange for debts the king owed to Penn's father.

William Penn then negotiated with the various tribes already on the land to vacate and move further west to make room for William Penn to carve out landholdings to then sell to European settlers.

The fact that he did this in a more fair and humane manner than colonial governments further south is to his credit. He generally didn't drive Indians off their land at gunpoint or through massacres as was the more common method. But it also wasn't a negotiation between equals. He was claiming the land for white settlement. It was simply a question of methods.

By the standards of his time he was a pretty good guy. By 21st century standards, not so much. Imagine the outcry if some current government said: "We are going to take Ohio and dedicate it to settlement by foreign immigrants." All you Ohioans are going to have to pack your bags and go. We will negotiate fair settlement for your lands but you have to leave and move to Missouri or Washington or someplace further west. That part is non-negotiable.

Is that what happened? He told them they were going to have to leave whether or not they wanted to?

[Ken]

Is that what happened? He told them they were going to have to leave whether or not they wanted to?

The history is more complicated than that, but that was essentially what happened, although it was Penn's sons who ended up doing most of the evictions.

Penn initially needed the Lenape Indians as allies to cement his northern and southern borders against New York and Maryland. And the Lenape were also seeking a European alliance to protect them against the Iroquois who also claimed the land. But as time passed they were eventually forced west to accommodate white settlement. In the context of the times, William Penn was the best deal the Lenape were going to get. Here is one short history: https://philadelphiaencyclopedia.org/es ... 1681-1753/

[RZehr]

https://apnews.com/article/william-penn ... 1f94ecd477

Did William Penn attempt "conquest through treaty"? If "yes", was this wrong?

If what William Penn did was "conquest through treaty" then I suppose that is what virtually every property owner engages in, as well as every merchant who "conquests goods through treaty" and then sells them on at a markup.

I'm not in favor of whitewashing the past and pretending people like Christopher Columbus were saints, but the attempts by some folks to make every prominent historical figure into a scoundrel is nonsense.

Well, I would suggest that what William Penn really did was more like eminent domain. The government coming in and telling you they were going to take your land for some other purpose but that they would negotiate a "fair" settlement for your property.

The King of England granted William Penn title to all of Pennsylvania in exchange for debts the king owed to Penn's father.

William Penn then negotiated with the various tribes already on the land to vacate and move further west to make room for William Penn to carve out landholdings to then sell to European settlers.

The fact that he did this in a more fair and humane manner than colonial governments further south is to his credit. He generally didn't drive Indians off their land at gunpoint or through massacres as was the more common method. But it also wasn't a negotiation between equals. He was claiming the land for white settlement. It was simply a question of methods.

By the standards of his time he was a pretty good guy. By 21st century standards, not so much. Imagine the outcry if some current government said: "We are going to take Ohio and dedicate it to settlement by foreign immigrants." All you Ohioans are going to have to pack your bags and go. We will negotiate fair settlement for your lands but you have to leave and move to Missouri or Washington or someplace further west. That part is non-negotiable.

Did the Indians know it was non-negotiable? Or did they feel like they were treated fairly? Did the Indians recognize the authority of the King of England?

I could grant anyone the right to colonize the Warm Springs Indian Reservation, but it wouldn’t do them any good. Because the Warm Springs Tribes don’t recognize my authority. But if I granted someone the right to colonize it, and they went and made a deal with the Tribes who don’t recognize my authority in any way, then how exactly is it pertinent that I granted anyone anything?

[steve-in-kville]

Well, I would suggest that what William Penn really did was more like eminent domain. The government coming in and telling you they were going to take your land for some other purpose but that they would negotiate a "fair" settlement for your property.

The King of England granted William Penn title to all of Pennsylvania in exchange for debts the king owed to Penn's father.

William Penn then negotiated with the various tribes already on the land to vacate and move further west to make room for William Penn to carve out landholdings to then sell to European settlers.

The fact that he did this in a more fair and humane manner than colonial governments further south is to his credit. He generally didn't drive Indians off their land at gunpoint or through massacres as was the more common method. But it also wasn't a negotiation between equals. He was claiming the land for white settlement. It was simply a question of methods.

By the standards of his time he was a pretty good guy. By 21st century standards, not so much. Imagine the outcry if some current government said: "We are going to take Ohio and dedicate it to settlement by foreign immigrants." All you Ohioans are going to have to pack your bags and go. We will negotiate fair settlement for your lands but you have to leave and move to Missouri or Washington or someplace further west. That part is non-negotiable.

How Ken describes it is how I always understood it.

Fun fact: apparently my dad's side of the family has native American blood in them. Someone married an indian girl. There is very little record of this, though.