[lit-ideas] Re: What about those Quakers?
- From: Scribe1865@xxxxxxx
- To: lit-ideas@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
- Date: Wed, 21 Apr 2004 01:05:54 EDT
In a message dated 4/21/2004 12:09:34 AM Eastern Daylight Time,
omarkusto@xxxxxxxxx writes:
Was the legitimacy of self-defense the
only moral dilemma they had occasion to face ?
It was a tricky deal William Penn pulled. As a result of Penn's trick,
self-defense might be interpreted as more than self defense.
He made a pact with the Indians for all the land to the north that a man
could run in one day. The Indians accepted, thinking one man might run
twenty-five
miles. However Penn stationed teams of runners along the route to the Blue
Mountains.
One man ran full speed for a mile or two then tagged another man, who ran
full speed for a mile or two. In one day, this tag-team assembly had run to the
Blue Mountains, about two hours' drive north of Philadelphia.
Penn subsequently claimed all this land as his. Like the Treaty of Versailles
or any other unfair treaty, this later caused more trouble than it was worth.
In addition to the unfair deal, the settlers were also dealing with groups of
Indians who had never heard of the treaty but who felt that whatever they
could seize and pillage was theirs. Double trouble: Indians who felt cheated by
the treaty with Penn and also Indians who were less settled and felt whatever
they could take was theirs.
As for the settlers themselves, they were probably not great colonizers, out
to grab all the land they could. The Pennsylvania Dutch, my father once told
me, are exceedingly honest and easily contented. That's why there will never be
a Pennsylvania Dutch President. So far, he's been right.
Eric
------------------------------------------------------------------
To change your Lit-Ideas settings (subscribe/unsub, vacation on/off,
digest on/off), visit www.andreas.com/faq-lit-ideas.html
Other related posts:
