Sarah Haskins' Sections Question for 10/9-10/12
Remember for discussion this week we will talk about the William Penn biography and have a quiz over it, so be sure to read carefully. For this week's blog, here is your prompt: Which colonial leader would you rather follow: John Smith, John Winthrop, or William Penn? What would the pros and cons of this decision be? Take into account your own demographic background (age, sex, race, class, etc.) in making your choice. Use specific examples to support your argument.
EDIT: Food for thought for those of you who want to choose William Penn. Think back on the Penn biography. Was Penn well liked by other colonists in Pennsylvania? Why or why not? Try to think about what colonial leader you'd rather follow, not just what colony you'd like to live in. Also, think about what life as a Quaker would really mean as opposed to life as a Puritan colonist or Virginia colonist.
EDIT: Food for thought for those of you who want to choose William Penn. Think back on the Penn biography. Was Penn well liked by other colonists in Pennsylvania? Why or why not? Try to think about what colonial leader you'd rather follow, not just what colony you'd like to live in. Also, think about what life as a Quaker would really mean as opposed to life as a Puritan colonist or Virginia colonist.
posted by shask at 5:01 PM
37 Comments:
If I absolutely had to choose a leader to follow to American I would probably choose William Penn. While none of the colonies seem too ideal to live in I feel that living in Pennsylvania would have been much easier than the other colonies. John Smith’s colony of Virginia was heavily young, male, and unfree. I think it would be really harsh to live in his colony since most of the women there were indentured servants and treated very unfairly. Not to mention the fact that the colonists did not adjust too well at first and many died from starvation and disease. The people of the Virginia colony looked out for just themselves. There were not schools or even established cities. As for following Winthrop over, I would not want to live in the Puritan town what so ever. Although there were some benefits to living in the Massachusetts colony such as the fact that it was more family oriented, with middle to wealthy class citizens, they had the first public schools and higher education institutions such as Yale, and they also had very low rates of crime. However, I feel that the life of Puritans would have been too harsh for me. Not only did they not allow women to have very many rights, but there were tough rules and even tougher punishments. Although it was not a theocracy, religion was highly involved in the government and only a select few could vote or hold office. Although I may not agree with Quakerism or their way of life, I feel that the Pennsylvanian colony would have been much easier to live in. The colony allowed religious freedom to all and allowed others to practice different religions without being persecuted. The Quakers were also much kinder and tolerant to those around them. The Quakers also were opposed to slavery unlike those of the Virginia colony.
With respect to my own personal traits, I would choose to follow William Penn because I feel that I would prosper the most under his rule. The Quakers were very peaceful people, and William Penn was a great leader and a pioneer for the American way early on in the colonies. Penn brought the concepts of religious freedom, fair trials, elected representatives and protected the civil liberties of his neighbors. In Virginia with John Smith I probably would have died and died miserably in the terrible settlement known as Jamestown. Under Winthrop, I would have to live a “pure” life with the Puritans and try to become one of them in their inner circle, which is quite unlikely. Penn was a revolutionary thinker in the ways he ran his colony. Concepts like religious freedom were not common in European settings. This would have been a better place for anyone to live because it is most like the world we live in today with all the freedoms we have. Penn owned slaves but he treated them well and the Quakers were the first people who were known to try an abolish slaves. I think that my personality would fit well in to the Quaker world quite well. The Quakers were all about serving one another to make their society prosper, and for that they were remarkably successful.
First off, i think that Jamestown would of been a terrible environment to live in. First off you had to worry about getting diseases because they had no immunity to them. Many people died in that first winter as well so even if it were a good society the death rates were so high it wouldn't even of been worth it. The life expectencies were so low that you were basically expected to die at a very young age no matter who you were. Also as far as their overall society goes, that wasn't to good either. The communities were very dispersed. The church was weak, and there were very few educational outlets as well. And although i might of fit in, being a young male, i personally would not want to be considered 'unfree' and have barely any women around. As far as the massachusetts bay colony goes i think my overall social standing would fit very well. I am a upper middle class citizen who is family oriented and also attends college. Massachusets Bay did a very good job as far as educational institutions go so i would definitely like that as well. But i absolutely hate when people are persucuted for their religion. I am catholic but am very open minded about other religions and therefore would not want to live in a society in which if you don't choose their religion then you will be harshly punished. Also i do not think that having only a few people be able to even be members of the church is a good idea either. I think anyone should be able to join. And finally there is the Quaker way of life. I definetely agree with how liberal and open they are. I think that is very good. I also like how nice and kind they are to people no matter what they believe in. And even though i don't believe in denying the liturgies, sacrament, and ministers i would probably be the happiest in the Quaker way of life.
If I had the choice to follow a colonial leader, I would have to choose William Penn. William Penn was considered to be a man beyond his time. Many people considered him a “founding father.” William Penn was chosen because of my demographics, and because he was more well rounded than John Smith and John Winthrop. My family came over from Europe to gain religious freedom and start a new life. They settled in the Northeastern side of the United States. William Penn would have been in that area so, following William Penn’s colony would be a good fit. Penn believed in religious freedom and was one of the first to promote democracy among the new colonies in America. In his democratic system, Penn believe in freedom of religion, fair trials, and elected representatives in important positions. His major ideal was the concept of a union of all English colonies. This was way ahead of his time. The pros of William Penn’s colony was the ideal of freedom of religion, fair trials, and basically a democratic type of government. Even with the Indians, Penn did not fight them for it. Instead, he paid the Indians for their land. So the issue with the Indians was not as great as with John Smith. William Penn’s society is sort of like today’s society, which makes his colony sound better than the other two. The cons of Penn’s colony was during the beginning of the colony of Pennsylvania. The colony made no profit. That in turn, led Penn to be in debt. That meant that he could not travel back and forth to Europe and Pennsylvania. He was in lots of trouble in England. I think part of the reason that his colony struggled was because Penn only stayed there for two years. If he stayed in Pennsylvania, then things would have been different. William Penn would be my choice, partly because it’s sort of like us today. A democracy and freedom of religion.
If I were to choose a colonial leader to follow during American colonization, I would pick William Penn without any regrets. William Penn was definitely the most easy going leader in America during the time he ruled. Being a Quaker, he didn’t believe in predestination, like the puritans and more specifically John Winthrop did. Although the Quakers went to America in order to pursue their own religious beliefs, William Penn allowed freedom of religion in Pennsylvania, which was very radical for the time. He also built a society that seemed to get along with the Indians fairly peacefully, practically eliminating the risk of death in a battle against Indians. This does not coincide with how John Winthrop or John Smith would deal with Indians. John Winthrop, being a puritan, would not allow for the peaceful interactions with Indians, unless it was to convert them. I feel that this lax society would be where I would assimilate best, as well as have the greatest chances for survival.
Being that Williams Penn's quaker way of life is most closely related to a democracy as we know and somewhat tend to love, I assume that I would've wanted to reside with Penn. Jamestown was a dirty town with the average life expectancy of a resident of Hiroshima right before the bomb hit. They wanted to cheat the indians out of what they had and rightfully owned, and they also had hardly any women :( Winthrop would've told me that I had to remain pure and perfect, and that would've lasted until the next day I'm sure. So that settles the "debate" of what colony I would've preffered to live in. Penn's quaker society was so much more open minded about everything and allowed people to express themselves and be who they really were without having to conform to what a few important people considered to be the correct way to live.
If I were to follow my beliefs and choose a leader based on my demographic background I would have to choose to follow William Penn. Not only was William Penn a great leader and a revolutionary thinker, I think the Quaker way of life would fit my lifestyle the best out of these choices. One reason I would choose the Quaker way of life is because of their belief in religious freedom. Another reason why I would choose to live in this society is because they were the first to try and abolish slavery, and often they would kick people out of their society if they continued to keep slaves. I would also like to live in the Quaker community because of the kindness they showed towards each other.
In a few cases following Winthrop, and living in the Puritan society looks decent, but overall I could not ultimately live in this society. Some of the good traits Massachusetts colony had were that it was family oriented. Another positive of living in this community was that it contained higher education opportunities. Even with these good traits there are some major factors that would keep me from wanting to live here. Their lack of freedom of religion would keep me from wanting to live in the Massachusetts Bay colony. There also was a lack of rights for women, and many tough laws to live by. Although there were a few good points of living in this society the downside outweighs them, which would keep me from wanting to live in this society.
Following John Smith and living in Jamestown does not appeal to me at all. The horrible living conditions are what would keep me from living here. When they first came to America they had a very high death rate. This was due to them not being prepared to live in the cold weather, and also there was a high rate of catching diseases.
Due to William Penn’s remarkable innovations and ideas, and the Quakers way of living, I
believe living in Pennsylvania would be the best choice for me.
I would have to say I would most definitely go with following William Penn above all the rest of the choices. When considering following John Smith, that was a very man oriented and ruled colony, Jamestown was pretty much a disaster at first with everyone dyeing of disease and from freezing to death with the first winter. The whole Virginia colonies were very much unwilling to help the other colonies around them and in that were not very family, community, or worried about education development in Jamestown. Especially with me being a young women, I would have absolutely no say in anything that is going on and basically be treated as a slave; that is no way I want to live. Then you have John Winthrop and following him and the Puritan way. Yes, it would have probably been a lot easier to live in Massachusetts at the time especially with this being the colony that was most developed with their education system and thoughts of bettering the community and its very family friendly way of life. For being a young women though I would have probably been better off too but, the main thing on why I could never live there is because I would have to conform completely to their Puritan beliefs or else. There was no such thing as freedom of religion and if you thought to even second guess the Puritan beliefs, there would be a very harsh punishment. I am sure I wouldn’t last that long at all. So that leaves me with William Penn and the Quakers in Pennsylvania, even though I do not agree with their way of life sometimes. I totally agree and all for freedom of religion and being kind to others around you no matter what they believe. The Quakers were also against slavery unlike the other colonies; even though William Penn had slaves for himself they were treated immensely better compared to most other slaves. I think it living in Pennsylvania would have been my best bet, with their open mindedness and ways of free religion I would have survived much longer.
If I had the choose of following John Smith, John Winthrop, or William Penn over to the New World, I would follow William Penn. In this decision a few key elements in both beliefs and practices made me choose William Penn. First and foremost, religious freedom runs strong in Penn’s colony in Pennsylvania. This is seen in William Penn’s biography when John Moretta says, “The majority of emigrants were naturally Quakers but Penn had granted religious toleration to all Christians…..” For me, my non-catholic religion would lead me searching for a place to practice my faith like Penn’s religiously tolerant colony. Along with religion, the majority Quaker community compared to the life of a Puritan colonist or Virginia colonist would be so much better. The Quaker community as Moretta states, “[Is] gentle, for retaliation, especially the use of physical force, was not the Quaker way.” All in all, the life of a Quaker and the life that Penn established for his colony would better suit me then Smith or Winthrop’s colonies.
In considering William Penn himself, as a colonial leader, I feel that he would be a very important and prominent man to follow. Due to his father, he is well liked and connected in England with the King and the King’s brother (who later becomes King himself). Although this posses problems for colonist, it also has advantages. If he is need of money or land, the King usually sides in favor of Penn. Although this relationship forces Penn to teeter between sides, I feel that while the colony is establishing itself, it needs strong connections that Penn has in order to flourish. I would much rather follow Penn to the New World then John Smith or John Winthrop.
Out of the three given colonial leaders I would rather follow William Penn. Penn has proved to be a very positively influential man through almost every aspect of his life. His values of religion, government, and life in general are very similar to that which I posess.As far as religion, though the denomination is different, Penn's religious callings were similar to mine. His faith affected how he lived his life and his purpose in life.As with me, God called me out of a life of no purpose and no meaning into one where it is found in abundance in Christ Jesus. I was directed by the "inner-light" that Penn also experienced at the age of 22(Moretta pg. 34), except my conversion was at the age of 15.I also admire Penn and would be most willing to follow him because of his obedience to God and doing his will, no matter where it would end up taking him and what consequences doing so would have.Penn spent a total of over 2 years in jail for his faith.(Henretta 72)That is faith!Still, Penn kept his faith and followed it to America, where he would carry out what he believed to be God's will.Penn believed that he couldn't further the Quaker movement in England where all the persecution was taking place, so using his resources as a wealthy son of the Admiral Sir William Penn, he was able to obtain a colonial province in Western New Jersey in 1677 (Henretta 71).Penn even made pamphlets showing what all this new settlement would have to offer for his Quakers back home in England(Henretta 72)in order to influence his people to migrate there.Penn's determination to establish a place where his people could live and practice their faith free from persecution is something that I admire.This is another reason I would choose to follow Penn.Also reflected in many of Penn's acts, he was a peaceful man. Quakers shunned violence. He never physically fought back at the law which constantly was out to get him.Instead he used his resources again and his faith to counter those acts.In regards to his dealings with the Native Americans, Penn showed this peace.Unlike the explorer,John Smith, who eventually resorted to violence against Chief Opechancanough, Penn believed in gaining the land in a fair manner. In 1771, Penn met with the Lenni Lenape Indians of eastern, modern day Pennsylvania(Moretta 132),and negotiated a purchase of land from them. He felt that if he was going to get the land, that he was going to pay them for it and not take it by force like other settlers tried to do.This was very admirable.However, if I had to pick out one con of the decision to follow Penn's ways, I do not endorse slavery as he did.Not to make it seem better than what it was, but even though Penn had slaves, he took care of them well, however, I still don't believe in slavery.Penn was also seen as somewhat of a hypocrite because he lived lavishly(Moretta 121) when his faith as a Quaker called him to a plain and simpler lifestyle.I don't hold this against him so much though because no one is perfect and he was very generous towards others and in some senses shared his wealth. For example, when he sold plots of land to people, he didn't charged extremely high prices.Penn was fair and even somewhat leaniant in his pricing, realizing that not everyone could afford to pay normal price for the land.Penn wasn't all about the money.He wanted to attract people from home to join him in the new, abundant life he was establishing in modern day America.Overall, Penn's outlook of peace and devotion to his faith and country made me choose him as one I would follow.Penn's influence on this country was more than the other two colonial leaders to the extent that he is said that "no Englishman did more to preestablish the structure and functioning of government than William Penn."(Moretta 138).This really tells us how highly looked upon William Penn was and still is to this day.
If I had a choice between following John Winthrop, John Smith, or William Penn, I would choose William Penn. Through the readings that we have had, I perceive William Penn as a daring and courageous man who was afraid of almost nothing. Young men can read and study this man and be inspired. Penn was accepting of all things and was not judgmental to others who did not hold the same beliefs that he did. Some of things he did were very brave. He was very well liked among the Indians because he was not forceful and did not carry weaponry. The Indians also respected him because he could often outrun Indian chiefs on foot. As we look back at him now he is considered an American icon.
As far as William Penn’s politics go, He ran a democracy in which the people rule. This was somewhat strange in that day and age. These were the days of absolute monarchy and divine rights of kings. I think William Penn had a vision for the future. His leadership skills back then could be seen as out of the ordinary but today they are highly esteemed. His political mindset is similar to our countries today. Even nearly two centuries before the Civil War in the States, Penn was already against it. In his “Preface to the Frame of Government of Pennsylvania,” Penn said, Liberty without obedience is confusion and obedience without liberty is slavery. Overall, I think William Penn saw the big picture of the future of our country possessing the leadership skills to relate to people.
Nathan Stonner
If I were to enter colonial America, I would without a doubt choose William Penn over John Smith and John Winthrop to be my leader. Penn alowed the colonists of Pennsylvania to be more free and independent whereas Smith and Winthrop tried to force their own beliefs onto everyone. Penn knew what it was like to be held back by a government so he did not want to put his colonists into that situation.
Being a young male who believes in religious freedom without persecution, Pennsylvania would suit me best. The quakers treated all people with respect and did not question or try to alter others' beliefs. Colonists of Jamestown and Massachusettes Bay Colony were forced to believe in a certain religion or they would be punished. They also believed that the Indians were backward and stupid and they forced their religion on them. However the quakers respected the Indians and remained on peaceful terms with them.
The main reason I would choose Penn over Smith and Winthrop is he wasn't selfish and power hungry. Winthrop and Smith were both worried about their legacies and how they were going to be remembered. On the contrary, Penn worried about himself and the freedom of his colonists. Penn would stand up for his people where the other two could care less.
I would choose to follow William Penn as a colonial leader out of the three choices for the simple fact that he is a better choice than the other two. Granted, Penn was not seen as a “model leader” and was resented by many of his Quaker brethren, he remains the best choice out of the three possibilities. John Smith was very arrogant and an egotist, concerned mainly with his own financial gain and building of his reputation. The Virginia colony suffered massive failures until the introduction of tobacco and was not a safe place to live (let’s not forget the disappearances at Roanoke). John Winthrop and I have very different religious beliefs (he a Calvinistic Puritan, I am a strong Protestant), so early Massachusetts does not appeal to me. We would have most likely clashed, mainly because I would not fit into his Puritan society based on their intolerance for religions outside their own. Penn preached “liberty of conscience” (for he himself endured relentless religious persecution), so even though he was a devout Quaker, he allowed men of all religions to practice their faith in Pennsylvania. Also, Philadelphia was a hub for economic activity and commerce, being the second largest city in the British colonies during the late 1600’s and early 1700’s. Living in Pennsylvania is a smarter choice religiously (for a Protestant), economically (for anyone, including yeoman farmers), and even politically. Pennsylvania had an assembly that had representatives made of common people, and by the early 18th century had full legislative power. The sky was the limit in Pennsylvania. As a leader, Penn is the best choice as well. He was a zealous religious and political leader. Personally, I would have had no problem with him ruling Pennsylvania from England, because if you read his doctrines and Frame of Government you will find that he was concerned for his colonists’ well-being. All he asked for in return was the paying of quitrents and to not be overly greedy at the concept of having so much land to possess. Follow these rules and being loyal to his proprietary would have lead to great prosperity. Is Penn the ideal leader? Absolutely not, but he is a better (not by much) and safer choice than John Smith or John Winthrop.
If I had to choice one of the following colonial leaders, I would have to choose William Penn. He seems like the best leader of all of them. If I were in Virginia with John Smith I would probably die of some dieses, which many people did die in the first winter. The women in his colony were treated very unfairly, most of them were servants. It would have been a very harsh place to live. They also did not have church or forms of religion. They were also not free and over all very young. I like William Penn he seems very well rounded to me and Pennsylvania is much nicer than the other colonies. People say that he was the founding father; he was also a good pioneer. William Penn brought form of religious freedom and freedom to the people in his colony. The Quakers way of like seem the most peaceful of them all. They were very liberal and open in a lot of ways. The people were good to you and you didn’t have to worry about being forced a certain way; if that was religiously or with your political thoughts. Over all William Penn would be the ideal leader, he is much better than John Smith or John Winthrop.
Based on my knowledge, I am partial to William Penn. Maybe I am biased because he is who I know the most about, but Penn seems like the most logical person to follow. Sure, he had the majority of people he encountered disagree with him, but who says you have to be liked by everyone? That is almost impossible to achieve. I personally do not care if I am well-liked or not. Penn believed that he was doing good for his followers and for the world and that was all that was important. He got arrested time after time for ridiculous reasons yet he still pursued his beliefs. I find this to be an admirable quality. I am similar in this way. If i strongly believe in something, I will fight for it 110% and not give up when I am faced with hardships. As a woman, I would feel most comfortable under the direction of William Penn as well. I would not be treated like a piece of dirt. Penn's colonization is appealing to me because of how valent a man he was.
I would like to follow William Penn. Even though a Quaker’s life was very pious and rigid I still feel I would rather live like that than in a world of inequality. Penn insisted women deserve equal rights with men. I, being a female, also believe women deserve equal rights with me and that would be the colony I would want to live in. Penn also encouraged the right and liberties of other races and religions. I believe in equality of man (or woman) and I would prefer to live an environment that felt the same way. Penn was also one to negotiate peaceful purchases with the Indians. This is another pro to living in Pennsylvania. If Penn negotiated peacefully then chances for wars with Indians would decrease. I would not want to live in a stressful warring environment like the one John Smith created. I would not like to fear every night I went to sleep that a tribe of Indians may attack my home and abduct me. Although there are cons for living under the ideas of Penn, I still much rather live under his command.
The Quakers established a well organized and structured living style under the guidance of William Penn. The system of government they established worked out well, especially for men. Women however were thought of as inferior and were subjugated to stereotypical women jobs such as wool spinning and cooking. I'm fairly supportive of gender equality, but i could definantly let my beliefs slide considering the alternatives. There is no way I would ever live in a Puritan society under Winthrop. My religous views are borderline athiest so a society where the law is based off of God's will would not bode well for me. Quaker's also were flexible with the religions and didn't persecute certain peoples for their beliefs. I'm also very supportive of race equality so the quaker's views on slavery would have coincided with my beliefs. I also am a fan of the Quaker's pacifist nature which was another key deciding factor in my decision to follow William Penn. John Smith was too aggressive in his pursuit with the Indians and I don't like how him and his merchant buddys handled relations with the indians. I don't like how William Penn tricked the Indians out of their land which ended up in war, but the good of William Penn and his Quaker society outweights the bad.
If I were to choose a leader to follow it would most likely be William Penn. I wouldn't want to live in John Smith's settlement of Jamestown because I'd probably die because of the diseases that killed nearly half the population in the first year. My health is pretty poor, so it probably wouldn't be the best idea to go to a land of disease and death. Also, there was no higher education, and education is something that is important to me. Finally, women were treated as inferiors and that would be bad since I am a woman. I wouldn't want to be an indentured servant, as many of the women were. Following John Winthrop wouldn't be terrible because his society had low rates of crime and valued education. However, I don't think I could live in a Puritan society because it sounded very restricting and judgemental. People were given letters for their sins that they had to wear around town so everyone would know what sin they had committed and dissenters and radicals were cast out from the society. I wouldn't want to be judged all the time by my neighboors and I would like to have the option of not being a Puritan, which the Massachusettes Bay settlers did not. William Penn's Pennsylvanian colony would have been ideal for me to live in because women were allowed more freedom, such as being able to preach, and because the Quaker religon is closest to my own. Unlike the Puritans, the Quakers practiced religous tolerance, which is what I believe in. Also, I like the fact that the Quakers were peaceful and bought all their land from the Natives rather than just taking it.
I feel like I am rocking the boat a little with wanting to live with the Quakers in Pennsylvania. I mean I sure would not want to be fighting the Indians, starving, cold, and dieing of diseases in Jamestown. Nor would I wish to be told to follow Puritan laws and only the Puritan way of life.
Rather, having freedom and being in a family orientated colony would suit me best. Who would not want to be living under a man who goes to jail for equality and religious freedom, and who seems very well connected to get away with creating his own governing rules (which was not of popular opinion back home)? If William Penn can stand up to the crown, he can stand up for the little guy, the average person who is living in his colony as a Quaker.
Peter Wiegert
There is no doubt that I would much rather follow William Penn than John Winthrop or John Smith. There are several reasons that account for this decision. One thing is the relations with Indians. Wars with the Natives broke out in Virginia with the Powhatans, as well as in Massachusetts with the Wampanoags and King Philip. Penn brought the idea of truly befriending the Native Americans for the benefit of both parties which led to peaceful relations between both. Another reason for my decision to follow William Penn is that Penn and his Quaker ideology was far more open to diversity and the “liberty of conscience”, especially more than the strict nature of John Winthrop and the Puritans from which dissenters such as Roger Williams and Anne Hutchinson were exiled for their “heresies.” Also, Penn and Pennsylvania was much better equipped than the other two colonies as many things could be learned from the mistakes of the Virginia Colony and the Massachusetts Bay Colony. In turn, one’s chances of survival were much higher than that of Massachusetts and especially Virginia where one would be considered very lucky to live past 30. There were also several more opportunities in Pennsylvania especially when it came to education compared to Virginia. Massachusetts did have some colleges/universities started there, but in Virginia, education was an afterthought. In Virginia, people were very spread out, and most of them were male. I would much rather live in an area of a better gender ratio. The only reason I would choose not to follow William Penn is because he was rarely in the actual colony itself which would make me feel as though he really didn’t care about my well-being but rather his own. However, most of the time that Penn was away, he would be fighting for mine and my fellow Pennsylvanians’ right to govern ourselves as well as our freedom. He may have not have been there in body, but he was there in spirit fighting and standing up for us.
In respect to my demographic background I would choose to follow William Penn. Me being a female in the New World, I would live a more meaningful life in the Pennsylvania Colony. The roles of women in the Virginia Colony were simply indentured servants; they took no part in society. Despite the family oriented and higher education opportunities, I would not want live in the Massachusetts Colony. I would not want to be apart of a community that persecutes people because of their choice of religion. William Penn developed a society in which people had the freedom of religion. He was one of the first to organize a government of elected representatives. Penn’s way of life was unlike Smith’s and Winthrop’s. From the lack of organization and equality, the Virginia Colony was not very successful. However, the Massachusetts Colony prospered, but I don’t agree with the Puritans’ way of life. Puritanism is too strict and doesn’t allow you to have your own opinions. The people of the colony were molded into “pure” Puritans, which taught them what was right and wrong. William Penn’s colony allowed people to be individuals and live the life they choose. They were considered “free” for the first time. Even though Penn once had slaves, he treated them kindly and was one of the first to let them be free. Even though I don’t agree with everything consisted in the Quaker’s way of life, I would definitely choose to live in that colony rather than the Virginia and Massachusetts Colonies.
Out of the three leaders, I would choose to follow William Penn. First all because out of the three his intentions were the ones that I would get along with best. John Smith was more about exploring and conquoring, where as William Penn was more about just making a life in the new world. Being a girl is another reason I would follow Penn. Women already didn't have a lot of freedom and if I lived in a Puritan colony I would be limited even more. I also like the idea of being able to choose how I would like to worship and it looks like I would have a better opportunity at doing that with William Penn. I know there would be things in this colony as well that I would not agree with but it seems like this one would be easier for me to live in than any of the others.
To me William Penn would have been the best colonial leader to follow, as Quakers treated both women and men with respect as you could become a citizen by being 21 years of age and possess 100 acres of land. As I am approaching 21 years of age I would be looking forward to becoming a citizen.
Being a middle class white man life would not have been terrible. It was a simple way of life that I would have to work hard for which I would enjoy. This society was the most accepting of everyone as long as you were a Christian as I am. The above would be some of the upsides to the colony.
While the downsides would be that some of the rules enforced would have been strict on what was allowed. This would limit what the community structure would be like. It would be a rigid structure that would not be conducive to a tight knit community. Other than that the colony was looked down upon as illegal trade was conducted and the colony was looked at as treasonous to the crown of England.
The Quaker colony with William Penn as the leader would be the most productive for me and would be more accepting of me than any other colony. It would be a new concept for a colony that would offer a challenge that I would willingly accept. It would be the most appealing of the colonies around at this time and period.
If I were a colonist I would follow William Penn’s society because of their way of life along with Penn’s leadership. The way the Quakers were able to live their lives greatly out did anything the Johns could do. The fact that freedom of religion and expression were allowed was way ahead of the times compared to the tough laws and Puritan views of John Winthrop. Not only is freedom of religion and race a great concept for the people but it helped Pennsylvania to prosper. The Quaker view allowed them to easily purchase land from Indians and be able to peacefully negotiate and trade with them as well. By trading and befriending the Indians the Quakers were able to make more money with Indian goods and live a safer lifestyle without worry of Indian attack compared to the life expectancy of almost sure death for the followers of John Smith. William Penn actually had the colony’s well being and prosperity in mind when he set the values, not only religious beliefs. As a result of Penn’s leadership with the people in mind he was able to keep life expectancy higher and lead the Quakers to prosperity and freedom.
William Penn would be my choice. As a woman who believes in equal rights, William Penn was definitely an activist for women’s equality. Not only that, but he also supported different races and religions. The Quakers seemed to be a peaceful group of people. I fully support peace as well. Instead of being the typical settlers in the seventeenth century, defending themselves with guns and other weapons, Penn traveled unarmed and made peaceable purchases with the Indians. He made valuable contributions to the “New World” along with the “Old World.” If I had lived during this period and witnessed the Catholic and Protestant rivalry and been affected by the Catholic domination over my religion and my values, I’m sure I would have generally shifted to Penn’s side whether I had been on it in the first place or not. I like to think I’m an open-minded person and from what I’ve read and studied, Penn seems to have that in common with me. Penn is definitely the leader I would want to follow.
Like the overwhelming responses on this page, I too would choose to follow William Penn as my leader into the new world. Penn's religious beliefs and tolerance towards others is one of the major deciding points for me. While John Smith did colonize before Penn, his adventure was the first of its kind and was full of obstacles and danger. John Winthrop was the governer of the Massachusetts Bay colony, and though he did offer escape from Europe to fellow Puritans, their beliefs morally and otherwise are very strict and do not fit well with my religious belief. Penn was Quaker, and helped construct a colony that would survive for a long time through tolerance and structure. Another reason William Penn would be my first choice is because the Quakers provided much more freedom to women, who had limited roles in society, especially during these times (and especially in Puritan communities).
This comment has been removed by the author.
While Penn would seem like an obvious choice, I think I'd choose to follow John Smith. William Penn was nice and all for his religious freedom and fair trials. I don't think I'd care that much about religion, and just go with the flow on that issue, so it wouldn't matter whether I had religious freedom or not. As for the fair trial, I'd just hope I didn't get in trouble, I suppose. The equality wouldn't be of extreme importance for me, since I'm a white male. A main reason for following John Smith would be his reasons for coming to the new world. Instead of trying to find a place free from religious persecution, John Smith wanted to explore the new world. And really, I've always thought it would be fun to explore things. I know it'd be a hard, dangerous life, but I think it'd be enjoyable.
If I had to, I would choose William Penn. I do not necessarily agree with the Quaker’s religious doctrine but I do agree with the ideas of “freedom of conscience” and unimportance of social class or political status. Quakers accepted anyone and didn’t judge people based on how they dressed or how much money they had. I also like how Penn was a radical nonconformist for his time. I think there are a lot of similarities between William Penn and Mahatma Gandhi. Both Penn and Gandhi had sincere passion for all human life and used social disobedience to challenge authority rather than violence and coercion. I also think that Penn possessed exceptional leadership to go along with his skills in rhetoric and writing. Penn was very passionate about his cause and spent a lot of time either in jail for his beliefs or using his political influence to help fellow Friends who were being persecuted. It seems like Penn truly cared about the colonists because he was “obsessed” with the idea of the colony in the New World. The Quaker’s racial tolerance helped them in the New World because it allowed them to have good relations with the American Indians that they interacted with. They were able to glean knowledge and goods to trade from the Indians in addition to having protection from their attack. Because of my religious and social ideas, I would not bode well with John Winthrop and the Puritans who allowed for little social deviance.
I would also choose to follow William Penn as my colonial leader. As a catholic, I agree with Penn's idea of religious toleration. I do not understand why England believed that religious freedom would lead to civil war and rebellion in their country. While I do not necessarily agree with the Quaker faith, I do believe that religious freedom is essential in order for a country to prosper and grow. Another reason why I would choose William Penn would be because of his leadership skills. Throughout his time in London and various parts of Europe, Penn experienced harse punishment for his faith. Preaching in the streets and worshipping his "Inner Light", Penn meant no harm to the people of England. He simply wanted to spread his faith, but did not force others to believe. Many colonial leaders of the time would have given up after being arrested numerous times like Penn. Although faced with filthy conditions in jail and long sentence terms, Penn yet was determined to let his faith be known. It also helped that Penn had connections with the royal family. I would not mind being released from jail just because my leader knew Charles II. By exhibiting his dedication to the Quakers, Penn became the "star" of the Quaker people. It is a shame that William Penn is often forgotten when it comes to colonial leaders.
If I had to pick one colonial leader to follow, I would probably follow John Smith. Even though the settlement of Jamestown was a failure, in the end, John Smith was a strong leader who negotiated (and for the most part peacefully) with the natives to get food for the settlement. I like the idea that he took care of the people that followed him and went out of his way to work with the native people. He knew the right people to talk to in order to survive, Smith didn’t take the male superior role of trying to overtake the land. He worked with what he was given in order to do the best for his people. I most likely wouldn’t have been at Jamestown since I am a woman. Jamestown was all males (at least at first), who had no experience and were unprepared and unwilling to work for anything but gold and getting rich. Over time, they realized they weren’t prepared for the new environment. John Smith pulled these men together and made them work for the survival of the colony, it wasn‘t at all times very comfortable living conditions, but a strong leader is one in which I would be interested in following. Winthrop led the Massachusetts Bay colony. This was a strict Puritan colony where the Bible was the law and only men who were a part of the church could vote or hold office. White men were considered the “fathers of the towns,” leaving little to no room for female authority. There was a very strict and limited church membership, for example members were chosen by an examination and even non-members were forced to pay taxes in which benefited the church. Harsh puritan penalties were a large part of the Massachusetts Bay Colony. As a woman, this would have given me no power in the colony. William Penn lead the Quaker colony. While this would probably have been the best colony to live in, Penn would not have been my ideal leader. The Quaker beliefs can be compared to those of modern day Liberals, those of which I usually do not follow. The “Inner Light” seems a little too spiritual and spontaneous for my own personal beliefs. This was a very plain colony; in the sense of clothing, language and actions. I believe in individualism and the right for people to be able to stand up for what they believe in, not just conform with the rest.
If I had to pick one colonial leader to follow, I would probably follow John Smith. Even though the settlement of Jamestown was a failure, in the end, John Smith was a strong leader who negotiated (and for the most part peacefully) with the natives to get food for the settlement. I like the idea that he took care of the people that followed him and went out of his way to work with the native people. He knew the right people to talk to in order to survive, Smith didn’t take the male superior role of trying to overtake the land. He worked with what he was given in order to do the best for his people. I most likely wouldn’t have been at Jamestown since I am a woman. Jamestown was all males (at least at first), who had no experience and were unprepared and unwilling to work for anything but gold and getting rich. Over time, they realized they weren’t prepared for the new environment. John Smith pulled these men together and made them work for the survival of the colony, it wasn‘t at all times very comfortable living conditions, but a strong leader is one in which I would be interested in following. Winthrop led the Massachusetts Bay colony. This was a strict Puritan colony where the Bible was the law and only men who were a part of the church could vote or hold office. White men were considered the “fathers of the towns,” leaving little to no room for female authority. There was a very strict and limited church membership, for example members were chosen by an examination and even non-members were forced to pay taxes in which benefited the church. Harsh puritan penalties were a large part of the Massachusetts Bay Colony. As a woman, this would have given me no power in the colony. William Penn lead the Quaker colony. While this would probably have been the best colony to live in, Penn would not have been my ideal leader. The Quaker beliefs can be compared to those of modern day Liberals, those of which I usually do not follow. The “Inner Light” seems a little too spiritual and spontaneous for my own personal beliefs. This was a very plain colony; in the sense of clothing, language and actions. I believe in individualism and the right for people to be able to stand up for what they believe in, not just conform with the rest.
I would rather follow William Penn. The advantages of being a Quaker would be a high tolerance of people and other religions. You learn to accept others and are not judgmental even if you are looked down upon. A Quaker is also one to help in times of need regardless of race, sex, age, etc. This was apparent during the great plague when Quakers were the only one who would go into “the doors marked with red X’s” to feed the ill and take care of them. Following Penn you would learn a lot of about yourself and grow spiritually.
There are several disadvantages of following William Penn. The first obvious downfall would be going to jail time after time for assembling in public. Another negative would be all of the fines Quakers had to pay to the government. The view others had of Quakers would also be a disadvantage because you had to deal with scrutiny from followers of more widely accepted religions. There for your “friends” would be the only people besides your family that you would associate with. Either choice would have its positives or negatives but the best choice for me would be following William Penn.
If I had to choose which colonial leader to follow out of John Smith, John Winthrop, or William Penn I would choose to follow William Penn. After reading John A. Moretta’s William Penn and the Quaker Legacy, I have found myself in agreement with many of Penn’s ideas and values. Though his persona of being “temperamental, petty, tactless, [and] vindictive” may not have been one that I necessarily respect or would agree with, his characteristics are nothing short of impressive. According to Moretta, Penn was “a man of intense action, incredible tenacity, of boundless intellectual curiosity, imagination, and creativity…”
Unlike Puritans, who “strived for social homogeneity and religious uniformity,” Penn was devoted to creating a community that accepted differences in “birth, background, and belief.” Growing up overseas my whole life and attending international schools for my entire education thus far, I have been exposed to many cultures, religions, and values throughout my life. These different cultures have had an influence on my life; considering this, I feel that I have the strongest connection to the ideas of William Penn and the ideals of the Quakers.
I would follow William Penn, but I would not be a Quaker, I would enjoy the freedom that he set up for his colonists; however I would most likely live in Pennsylvania as a Christen (my religious beliefs today). The Quakers had a peaceful way of life and this is very attractive to me, but if a stranger was in my home and threatened me, or my family I would take the necessary measures to remove that threat. I do like Penn’s Frame of government, I really though that there was a check of power. This kept anyone from gaining too much power. Penn set up a s system that staggered terms for councilors. I feel that a compulsory rotation of offices cares and burdens should be kept to those individuals who understand the job, and role so there would be a knowledgeable individual in control and overseeing the jobs done by the average Joe. I thought that the reduction of the death penalty was a very smart move in Penn’s planning. The death penalty can still be used in cases of Treason and Murder, however in less destructive situations the perpetrator can sit in prison. In Pennsylvania there was an “enlightened judicial system and a penal code” (page 114). This gave colonists the right to “have their day in court”, and anyone could plea their own case. Penn also gave suffrage to all men and women over the age of 21 with 100 acres of land. This amazed me; I feel that if a colony was to take the public’s opinion through voting, the colony with the largest diversity of people would lead to the strongest economy. I feel that the restrictions on many fun activates such as playing cards limit the amount of safe activities (smoking, drinking) in the colony. Penn was well liked by the King of England, and I would know that if Penn’s colony would be struggling he had the resources (King’s assistance) to dig his people out of any ditch. Pennsylvania was one of the fastest growing colonies in America, and this growth rate leads to success. In the end I feel that my family would be safe in Penn’s colony and it would be a very strong
Out of the three men, I would choose to follow William Penn. Because I am a female, is another reason why I would follow Penn. Women were limited on what they could do but follow Penn livesytle, women could choose how they would like to worship. Penn and his people believed in th freedom of most things like assembling in public.
John Smith went on adventures that were challenging and dangerous. He was more of an out-going leader and took risk. I would rather follow someone, like William Penn, because of the freedom he give his people to speak and assemble together. I would rather follow someone who was calm and still spoke his opinion instead of someone who took dangerous risks.
I would follow William Penn. At that time (17~18 Century), only Penn followed after freedom, and fair life. He also pursued peaceful and free life. Because he got suffering of religion, he wanted to make peaceful world. Therefore, he chased freedom of religion in Pennsylvania, even though he had great faith as Quaker, because he knew what is the most necessity of human beings life; freedom. In Europe, there was not perfect freedom. Most country did monarchial system, and sometimes religions were really important in politics, so there was no freedom of religion. Accordingly, he admitted the other religions and made fair rules which were “frame of government” for peaceful world. Frame of government was inspiration of United States Constitution. He also emphasized equality of sexes and human races. Women’s level was upgraded, and Indian contracted with American about ownership of lands. He also did fair trial to Indian. This freedom is most similar situation comparing with present freedom.
Puritan pursued patriarchy system, but William Penn pursued equality between women and men. Puritan wanted to control Indian, but William Penn wanted to live together with Indian using fair rules. Therefore, William Penn’s ideal was opposite to Puritan.
Post a Comment
<< Home