Who was William Penn?

[elvis]

Was he the first Quaker? Did he found Pennsylvania? Is he on the Quaker oats bucket?


Thanks.

 

[Diuretic]

He was a victim of the English criminal justice system. The Trial of William Penn is a classic of how corrupt the system was. He was charged with preaching in London.

The Trial of William Penn - U.S. Courts Educational Outreach

Trial of William Penn

 

[editec]

Thanks to a debt the British crown owed his recently departed father, William Penn accepted a land grant which gave him ownership of that the land which Penn called Sylvania, and which Charles insisted be called Pennsylvania.

It included parts of Maryland and New Jersey which had already been settled by the Dutch,Swedes and Finns. Penn granted those original settlers freedom of their religion

Penn founded and planned Philiadelphia as well as various other towns in eastern, PA as a refuge for Quakers and other people seeking freedom from religious persecution.

The first resident Catholic Priest in Philadelphia began preaching there in 1720. The first Jewish congregation was formed in 1745. The first Moravian Church was founded in 1749.

So who was William Penn, really?

He was a wealty 17th century hippie (AKA FRIEND) who made good in the New World thanks to the dough the British Crown owed his father, the Admiral.

And, thanks to Penn's committment to non violence, Penn signed peace agreements with the local AmerIndians such that the early PA was never plagued with Indian wars like so many other settlement in the new world went though, too.

He must have been a tough old bird, because he'd been imprisoned and sued and harrassed for his religion but somehow he maintained he dignity and established the most prosperous colony of the New World.

And he did it how?

Based on tolerance and diversity.

See?

The man really was a 17th century hippie scion, folks.

But unlike most of today's hippie scions, this guy actually put his money where his mouth was.

 

[Annie]

He was a victim of the English criminal justice system. The Trial of William Penn is a classic of how corrupt the system was. He was charged with preaching in London.

The Trial of William Penn - U.S. Courts Educational Outreach

Trial of William Penn

Yet, what rights have ever been 'given' to the people from the masters of government, without those willing to pay the price? As your own links show, eventually Penn's actions and persecutions, help found not only Pennsylvania eventually, but also create the court cases in England for habeas corpus and jury nullification.

From what I've read of Penn, pretty much he always knew what the reactions to his actions would be. He wasn't so much a victim in my opinion, as a true believer intent on setting precedents throughout his life. It's the reason all these years later, he's still studied and revered.

What 'free' country is absent such men standing up to the government, that always seeks to enhance its own powers while taking more than is fair? It would be grand if we had such today. Perhaps we do and don't see them?

 

[editec]

Penn was heroic, no doubt about it.

As were many Friends who died at the hands of Puritans, not only in England, but in the USA, too.

 

[Diuretic]

He was a victim of the English criminal justice system. The Trial of William Penn is a classic of how corrupt the system was. He was charged with preaching in London.

The Trial of William Penn - U.S. Courts Educational Outreach

Trial of William Penn

Yet, what rights have ever been 'given' to the people from the masters of government, without those willing to pay the price? As your own links show, eventually Penn's actions and persecutions, help found not only Pennsylvania eventually, but also create the court cases in England for habeas corpus and jury nullification.

From what I've read of Penn, pretty much he always knew what the reactions to his actions would be. He wasn't so much a victim in my opinion, as a true believer intent on setting precedents throughout his life. It's the reason all these years later, he's still studied and revered.

What 'free' country is absent such men standing up to the government, that always seeks to enhance its own powers while taking more than is fair? It would be grand if we had such today. Perhaps we do and don't see them?

England in the 17th Century wasn't a democracy, in fact it was near as damnit to an absolute monarchy, even allowing for the existence of parliament (this is post-Civil War of course). The little I know about Penn tells me the same things about him you've observed. A man of immense moral and physical courage. Not reckless, just courageous. The development of democracy in England is interesting, Penn was part of it.

 

[Annie]

He was a victim of the English criminal justice system. The Trial of William Penn is a classic of how corrupt the system was. He was charged with preaching in London.

The Trial of William Penn - U.S. Courts Educational Outreach

Trial of William Penn

Yet, what rights have ever been 'given' to the people from the masters of government, without those willing to pay the price? As your own links show, eventually Penn's actions and persecutions, help found not only Pennsylvania eventually, but also create the court cases in England for habeas corpus and jury nullification.

From what I've read of Penn, pretty much he always knew what the reactions to his actions would be. He wasn't so much a victim in my opinion, as a true believer intent on setting precedents throughout his life. It's the reason all these years later, he's still studied and revered.

What 'free' country is absent such men standing up to the government, that always seeks to enhance its own powers while taking more than is fair? It would be grand if we had such today. Perhaps we do and don't see them?

England in the 17th Century wasn't a democracy, in fact it was near as damnit to an absolute monarchy, even allowing for the existence of parliament (this is post-Civil War of course). The little I know about Penn tells me the same things about him you've observed. A man of immense moral and physical courage. Not reckless, just courageous. The development of democracy in England is interesting, Penn was part of it.

But it was better than anywhere else in Europe. It's the reason he could site the Magna Carta, could speak in court to challenge the jurors, who also went along. Times were a changing, but wouldn't without men like him.

 

[editec]

But it was better than anywhere else in Europe.

Not really.

The Magna Carta was a law which in theory protected only the peers of the realm. The peasants had the rights of feudal peasants if they were living on an estate, and whatever rights they gained from being residents of a city, if they live in those.

It's the reason he could site the Magna Carta, could speak in court to challenge the jurors, who also went along. Times were a changing, but wouldn't without men like him.

Well Penn was a peer of the realm, so yes, he did have the rights to a judgement by his peers that the average Englishman did not.

England was a not, at that time, the shining beacon of European enlightenment, you have been lead to believe it was, Annie.

When it comes to issues of religious freedom and individual rights, it was often a later comer to the party, in fact.

Religious freedom, for example, kept breaking out in Europe, and then being repressed all over Europe, too. Most noteably in Sicily in 1200 or so, Poland in 1264 (that's why ther e were so many Jews in Poland in 1939, BTW) and Transylvania granted complete religious freedom in 1568.

Henry VIII's famous break from the Catholic Church was more a break from the Roman Catholic Church than the religion, itself.

Why do you think Guy Fawkes tried to blow up Paliment in 1605?

Depending specifically on what date you happen to be talking about, it could cost you you life to be a Puritan, a Quaker, a Baptist, or a Catholic.

 

[elvis]

Thanks to a debt the British crown owed his recently departed father, William Penn accepted a land grant which gave him ownership of that the land which Penn called Sylvania, and which Charles insisted be called Pennsylvania.

It included parts of Maryland and New Jersey which had already been settled by the Dutch,Swedes and Finns. Penn granted those original settlers freedom of their religion

Penn founded and planned Philiadelphia as well as various other towns in eastern, PA as a refuge for Quakers and other people seeking freedom from religious persecution.

The first resident Catholic Priest in Philadelphia began preaching there in 1720. The first Jewish congregation was formed in 1745. The first Moravian Church was founded in 1749.

So who was William Penn, really?

He was a wealty 17th century hippie (AKA FRIEND) who made good in the New World thanks to the dough the British Crown owed his father, the Admiral.

And, thanks to Penn's committment to non violence, Penn signed peace agreements with the local AmerIndians such that the early PA was never plagued with Indian wars like so many other settlement in the new world went though, too.

He must have been a tough old bird, because he'd been imprisoned and sued and harrassed for his religion but somehow he maintained he dignity and established the most prosperous colony of the New World.

And he did it how?

Based on tolerance and diversity.

See?

The man really was a 17th century hippie scion, folks.

But unlike most of today's hippie scions, this guy actually put his money where his mouth was.

Oh you mean Lennon singing "imagine no possessions" from the Great Room of his mansion on his 99 acre estate wasnt authentic

 

[Annie]

But it was better than anywhere else in Europe.

Not really.

The Magna Carta was a law which in theory protected only the peers of the realm. The peasants had the rights of feudal peasants if they were living on an estate, and whatever rights they gained from being residents of a city, if they live in those.

It's the reason he could site the Magna Carta, could speak in court to challenge the jurors, who also went along. Times were a changing, but wouldn't without men like him.

Well Penn was a peer of the realm, so yes, he did have the rights to a judgement by his peers that the average Englishman did not.

England was a not, at that time, the shining beacon of European enlightenment, you have been lead to believe it was, Annie.

When it comes to issues of religious freedom and individual rights, it was often a later comer to the party, in fact.

Religious freedom, for example, kept breaking out in Europe, and then being repressed all over Europe, too. Most noteably in Sicily in 1200 or so, Poland in 1264 (that's why ther e were so many Jews in Poland in 1939, BTW) and Transylvania granted complete religious freedom in 1568.

Henry VIII's famous break from the Catholic Church was more a break from the Roman Catholic Church than the religion, itself.

Why do you think Guy Fawkes tried to blow up Paliment in 1605?

Depending specifically on what date you happen to be talking about, it could cost you you life to be a Puritan, a Quaker, a Baptist, or a Catholic.

Sigh. Did I say perfect? No. Were there very good reasons so many wanted to come to 'the New World'? Yes. However thanks to people like Penn, following the Civil War in England, the emerging middle class was gaining rights, relatively quickly. Not quickly enough as many chose to leave.

Where was it better in mid-1600's? A century from the Dark Ages?

 

[Diuretic]

But it was better than anywhere else in Europe. It's the reason he could site the Magna Carta, could speak in court to challenge the jurors, who also went along. Times were a changing, but wouldn't without men like him.

I must admit to not having a very good understanding of European history (apart from the usual knowledge of battles and who won and the dates), so I have to take your point. But I also have to point out that it took another couple of hundred years for male suffrage in Britain and of course universal suffrage didn't happen until the early 20th Century. I do believe that the US after it won the right to exist offered greater freedom to its citizens than did England at the same time. It took a long time after Penn's journey to America for his countrypersons to win their rights.

 

[Annie]

But it was better than anywhere else in Europe. It's the reason he could site the Magna Carta, could speak in court to challenge the jurors, who also went along. Times were a changing, but wouldn't without men like him.

I must admit to not having a very good understanding of European history (apart from the usual knowledge of battles and who won and the dates), so I have to take your point. But I also have to point out that it took another couple of hundred years for male suffrage in Britain and of course universal suffrage didn't happen until the early 20th Century. I do believe that the US after it won the right to exist offered greater freedom to its citizens than did England at the same time. It took a long time after Penn's journey to America for his countrypersons to win their rights.

Well I can't argue that American colonists didn't have greater freedoms than the middle and lower classes in England, at least until after the French and Indian War, 1763. But not about suffrage and such, that would come later. If memory serves, women in England beat Americans regarding the vote, (1919)? However, the average person in America was not tied to class and certainly not primogeniture like anywhere in Europe. That is where we've always been different. Certainly being born into more wealthy family helps, but the opportunities are present for anyone with the ability and drive. As my mom said her mom told her, 'America is hard. You really can't know where you belong, not like in Ireland. You're really never done, it just keeps you trying or defeats you.' I think there's a lot of truth in that.

As for civil rights and such, it's always easier to mouth freedom, equality and such. Europe freed slaves earlier than America. Certainly the North did here, before the South. It's been the basis for feelings of superiority from the beginning. However, could it be argued that minorities today have it better in Europe than America? In American North than South? I really doubt it, based upon the readings of 'rioting youths', religious hate crimes, segregation, the actions and words just don't match up.

 

[Diuretic]

But it was better than anywhere else in Europe. It's the reason he could site the Magna Carta, could speak in court to challenge the jurors, who also went along. Times were a changing, but wouldn't without men like him.

I must admit to not having a very good understanding of European history (apart from the usual knowledge of battles and who won and the dates), so I have to take your point. But I also have to point out that it took another couple of hundred years for male suffrage in Britain and of course universal suffrage didn't happen until the early 20th Century. I do believe that the US after it won the right to exist offered greater freedom to its citizens than did England at the same time. It took a long time after Penn's journey to America for his countrypersons to win their rights.

Well I can't argue that American colonists didn't have greater freedoms than the middle and lower classes in England, at least until after the French and Indian War, 1763. But not about suffrage and such, that would come later. If memory serves, women in England beat Americans regarding the vote, (1919)? However, the average person in America was not tied to class and certainly not primogeniture like anywhere in Europe. That is where we've always been different. Certainly being born into more wealthy family helps, but the opportunities are present for anyone with the ability and drive. As my mom said her mom told her, 'America is hard. You really can't know where you belong, not like in Ireland. You're really never done, it just keeps you trying or defeats you.' I think there's a lot of truth in that.

As for civil rights and such, it's always easier to mouth freedom, equality and such. Europe freed slaves earlier than America. Certainly the North did here, before the South. It's been the basis for feelings of superiority from the beginning. However, could it be argued that minorities today have it better in Europe than America? In American North than South? I really doubt it, based upon the readings of 'rioting youths', religious hate crimes, segregation, the actions and words just don't match up.

Britain is still in thrall to a class system that Americans couldn't possibly understand (for good reason - it doesn't exist there). But I just wonder if Americans aren't just a bit confused. I read much about the American "middle class" and nothing about the American "working class". Does America have an identifiable "working class"?

 

[Annie]

I must admit to not having a very good understanding of European history (apart from the usual knowledge of battles and who won and the dates), so I have to take your point. But I also have to point out that it took another couple of hundred years for male suffrage in Britain and of course universal suffrage didn't happen until the early 20th Century. I do believe that the US after it won the right to exist offered greater freedom to its citizens than did England at the same time. It took a long time after Penn's journey to America for his countrypersons to win their rights.

Well I can't argue that American colonists didn't have greater freedoms than the middle and lower classes in England, at least until after the French and Indian War, 1763. But not about suffrage and such, that would come later. If memory serves, women in England beat Americans regarding the vote, (1919)? However, the average person in America was not tied to class and certainly not primogeniture like anywhere in Europe. That is where we've always been different. Certainly being born into more wealthy family helps, but the opportunities are present for anyone with the ability and drive. As my mom said her mom told her, 'America is hard. You really can't know where you belong, not like in Ireland. You're really never done, it just keeps you trying or defeats you.' I think there's a lot of truth in that.

As for civil rights and such, it's always easier to mouth freedom, equality and such. Europe freed slaves earlier than America. Certainly the North did here, before the South. It's been the basis for feelings of superiority from the beginning. However, could it be argued that minorities today have it better in Europe than America? In American North than South? I really doubt it, based upon the readings of 'rioting youths', religious hate crimes, segregation, the actions and words just don't match up.

Britain is still in thrall to a class system that Americans couldn't possibly understand (for good reason - it doesn't exist there). But I just wonder if Americans aren't just a bit confused. I read much about the American "middle class" and nothing about the American "working class". Does America have an identifiable "working class"?

Nearly all American 'workers' classify themselves as middle class, whether they make $25k or $300k. Seems we all like the middle. I suppose if one were to classify a 'working class', it would be divided more by lack of college or even not high school grads. Retail industry workers, not management. Restaurants, non-master trade workers, service sectors. The 'tough' part of these classifications, they are not necessarily the lowest paying positions. Sanitation workers make over $60k, one doesn't need to speak English, just be able to drive the trucks. Depending on location and economy, waiters/waitresses can make very good money.

 

[indago]

Does America have an identifiable "working class"?

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3XGJq8wrw5I]NEW WORKING CLASS[/ame]

 

[editec]

Not really.

The Magna Carta was a law which in theory protected only the peers of the realm. The peasants had the rights of feudal peasants if they were living on an estate, and whatever rights they gained from being residents of a city, if they live in those.



Well Penn was a peer of the realm, so yes, he did have the rights to a judgement by his peers that the average Englishman did not.

England was a not, at that time, the shining beacon of European enlightenment, you have been lead to believe it was, Annie.

When it comes to issues of religious freedom and individual rights, it was often a later comer to the party, in fact.

Religious freedom, for example, kept breaking out in Europe, and then being repressed all over Europe, too. Most noteably in Sicily in 1200 or so, Poland in 1264 (that's why ther e were so many Jews in Poland in 1939, BTW) and Transylvania granted complete religious freedom in 1568.

Henry VIII's famous break from the Catholic Church was more a break from the Roman Catholic Church than the religion, itself.

Why do you think Guy Fawkes tried to blow up Paliment in 1605?

Depending specifically on what date you happen to be talking about, it could cost you you life to be a Puritan, a Quaker, a Baptist, or a Catholic.

Sigh. Did I say perfect? No. Were there very good reasons so many wanted to come to 'the New World'? Yes. However thanks to people like Penn, following the Civil War in England, the emerging middle class was gaining rights, relatively quickly. Not quickly enough as many chose to leave.

Where was it better in mid-1600's? A century from the Dark Ages?

No, and neither did I suggest that you siad it was perfect.

You said

But it was better than anywhere else in Europe.

And I responded to that by suggesting that it wasn't.

So sigh me no sighs, Annie.

 

[editec]

I must admit to not having a very good understanding of European history (apart from the usual knowledge of battles and who won and the dates), so I have to take your point. But I also have to point out that it took another couple of hundred years for male suffrage in Britain and of course universal suffrage didn't happen until the early 20th Century. I do believe that the US after it won the right to exist offered greater freedom to its citizens than did England at the same time. It took a long time after Penn's journey to America for his countrypersons to win their rights.

Well I can't argue that American colonists didn't have greater freedoms than the middle and lower classes in England, at least until after the French and Indian War, 1763. But not about suffrage and such, that would come later. If memory serves, women in England beat Americans regarding the vote, (1919)? However, the average person in America was not tied to class and certainly not primogeniture like anywhere in Europe. That is where we've always been different. Certainly being born into more wealthy family helps, but the opportunities are present for anyone with the ability and drive. As my mom said her mom told her, 'America is hard. You really can't know where you belong, not like in Ireland. You're really never done, it just keeps you trying or defeats you.' I think there's a lot of truth in that.

As for civil rights and such, it's always easier to mouth freedom, equality and such. Europe freed slaves earlier than America. Certainly the North did here, before the South. It's been the basis for feelings of superiority from the beginning. However, could it be argued that minorities today have it better in Europe than America? In American North than South? I really doubt it, based upon the readings of 'rioting youths', religious hate crimes, segregation, the actions and words just don't match up.

Britain is still in thrall to a class system that Americans couldn't possibly understand (for good reason - it doesn't exist there). But I just wonder if Americans aren't just a bit confused. I read much about the American "middle class" and nothing about the American "working class". Does America have an identifiable "working class"?

I suppose that would be the 80%( 240,000,000 Americans) who collectively only own about 15% of the nations assets.

 

[Diuretic]

Interesting. No defined working class means no working class consciousness. Sorry, I'm going way off topic here.

 

[William Joyce]

Real name was "De La Penne", and he was originally of Norman stock. Under his curly brown wig he had the thin, wispy blonde hair of the Germanics.

I guess he was a qausi-Quaker and he took some blows for that, but he was too rich and too connected to do any real suffering.

Penn's support of "religious freedom" is misunderstood. He didn't mean you should be free to believe whatever you want, he meant that you should be "free" to achieve Christian salvation, through various means. Atheists were excluded from his colony.

Penn did not believe in equality. "Tho' God has made of one blood all nations, he has not ranged or dignified them upon the Level, but in a sort of subordination or dependency."