BOOKS, FAITH, WORLD & MORE

IF LAND IS A GIFT
Reviews of The Storm Gathering, Friends and Enemies in Penn’s Woods, and Rethinking Holy Land

Daniel Hertzler

The Storm Gathering by Lorett Treese. Stackpole Books, 2002.

Friends and Enemies in Penn’s Woods, edited by William A. Pencak and Daniel K. Richter. The Pennsylvania State University Press, 2004.

Rethinking Holy Land by Marlin Jeschke. Herald Press, 2005.

Marlin Jeschke observes that land is a gift from God; he proposes Abraham as a model, a person who lived peaceably with his neighbors rather than seeking to drive them off their land as is generally done. "Abraham’s acceptance of the land as a gift . . . demonstrates a new way of coming into possession of territory—to receive it as a gift of God and to possess it peacefully" (31).

Jeschke’s book is particularly aimed at the conflict in Israel-Palestine, but he also generalizes more broadly. His thesis serves as commentary on the other two books, focused on land issues in Pennsylvania.

The first of these books recounts problems of the Penn brothers, who perceived that they had inherited Pennsylvania from their father William. The second fills in various details from the perspectives of the Native Americans and the Euro-Americans who struggled over the territory.

I have a stake in this story because my ancestor, Jacob Hertzler, bought land from the Penn family. I am here by virtue of the generosity of William Penn, who was given land by King Charles II in payment of a debt owed to Penn’s father.

There is a tradition that Penn did not consider this a gift without obligation and that he negotiated with Native Americans and paid them for land. It is also well known that he invited persecuted people from Europe to come to his land. The first Mennonites arrived in 1683, but my Amish ancestor did not appear until 1749, 31 years after William Penn’s death.

When William Penn died, the land he had been given was passed on to Thomas, John, and Richard Penn, sons of William’s second wife. The account describes how they and their descendants sought to manage and profit from this legacy—renting and selling and trying to deal with conflicts which arose. Although William was a Quaker, Treese reports that "Thomas and his brothers were drifting from their father’s faith" (1).

Thomas Penn came to Pennsylvania in 1732, more than 30 years after his father had been here. He stayed until 1741. Although he was welcomed when he arrived, by the time he left his popularity had waned. "In his mind he had justly asserted his family’s rights as landlords and proprietors over their tenants and dependents. . . . His goal appeared to be money" (11). His "tough new land policies and grasping nature had actually compromised the popularity of the Penns" (12).

The book describes a variety of problems which came to trouble the Penns. One issue was Ben Franklin’s campaign to have Pennsylvania taken from them so it could become a royal colony. Franklin’s efforts were not successful until the Revolution changed everything. Other concerns included periodic trouble with Indians and conflict regarding the western border.

Once the French were driven from Pittsburgh, there was a question of whether this area would become Pennsylvania or Virginia. There were also some Connecticut Yankees who squatted in the northeastern part of what were considered the Penn holdings. In addition a group of radicals called the Paxton Boys massacred a group of Conestoga Indians and even threatened Philadelphia.

All these woes were buildup to the problem with England. Although Philadelphia dealt with the "tea question" in a more reasonable manner than Boston, Pennsylvania became a key participant in the events leading up to and during the Revolution. Governor John Penn was exiled by the revolutionaries and not permitted to function officially again.

In 1779 the assembly passed a Divestment Act which took away 24 of the 29 million acres of land the Penns had considered theirs. However, "It allowed them to keep the private estates and proprietary manors that had been surveyed before 1776 plus the associated quitrents and rent arrears. The Penns would also receive a cash settlement of 130,000 pounds" (189).

In the end the payoff was less generous, but at least Thomas Penn’s son John was able to live as an English gentleman. "Most of the Penn compensation went to him, enabling him to take up the gentrified pursuit of politics, literature, and architecture" (200).

In the meantime, my ancestor, Jacob Hertzler, had bought land from the Penn family as recounted in Silas Hertzler’s The Hertzler-Hartzler Family History (1952). He named his farm "Contentment" and finished his life there. Although this Amish community later scattered, his grave on the farm has been a place for descendants to visit, and the Pennsylvania Historical Society has placed a marker in front of the house along old US 22. There, by the grace of God and the generosity of William Penn, he is buried.

Here in western Pennsylvania I live by the same grace. Also, my youngest grandson is named Jacob Miles Hertzler. His middle name recognizes his mother’s descent from the Pilgrims. Life goes on.

The second book serves to enhance our understanding of the conflicts which emerged as Europeans acquired land which Native Americans had used for generations. It shows that, while there was plenty of blame on both sides, there were also persons of goodwill who could have developed more equitable solutions if they had been allowed to prevail.

The introduction observes that the "historical memory of relations between Native Americans and Pennsylvania colonists" involves two "contrasting images." One is William Penn’s peaceful negotiation with the Indians in 1682 and the second the 1763 massacre of Conestoga Indians by the Paxton Boys. The book indicates that the second is more historical than the first and that it needs to be understood in context.

The book asserts that despite the myth of Penn’s generosity, the ultimate result of European and Native interaction has been that the present Native American population of Pennsylvania is the smallest percentage of the total population of any U.S. state: .01 percent compared to a .04 percent average in the other original colonies. The name of the state reflects its true nature. The intention of Europeans was to take the land. "Thus the Quaker legacy of peace did not erase the legacy of conquest" (62).

As for the Paxton Boys, they are described as frustrated patriarchs. The Indian wars of the 1700s caused panic on the frontier. The European fathers considered it their responsibility to protect their farms and families and expected the headquarters in Philadelphia to do the same. When this did not seem to be happening, they began to take things into their own hands.

Disregarding the fact that many of them were squatting on land that actually belonged to the Indians, they began to stereotype the Indians. "Indeed, many were convinced that members of the various communities of Christian Indians, who publicly professed pacifism and loyalty to the British, were really spies or supporters of those who pursued war against Pennsylvania" (213).

Some Quakers organized a "Friendly Association" which supported Indians in efforts to find peaceful solutions. "For their efforts, the Quakers earned the undying animosity of Euro-American settlers. Indeed, the Paxton Boys listed Quaker leaders among their enemies when they marched on Philadelphia" (215).

The book observes that the spirit of the Paxton Boys inspired European settlers as they moved westward. "The Paxton Boys bequeathed the legacy of a frontier associated with the violent defense of white patriarchy against a racialized Native American enemy. . . . The march toward the Paxton Boys during the Seven Years’ War was one starting point for the progress of Manifest Destiny across the continent" (219-220).

Yet many in Pennsylvania did better than the Paxton Boys. Settlers and Native Americans interacted on the frontier, often supporting each other. "Some squatters acknowledged Indians’ occupancy and approached them for permission to remain on the land or tried to purchase it from them without the authorization of proprietary leaders" (181).

William Penn himself is reported to have stayed overnight in a Conestoga long house. "His willingness to lodge in a traditional Indian home made him unusual for a man of his stature" (77). Other Quakers and Moravians "were among the few people in English America who both extended hospitality to native people and accepted native generosity toward them" (79).

Indian women were another group with a positive influence on intercultural relationships. The Europeans were surprised to have native women involved in negotiations, because in their experience diplomacy was men’s work. "But in traditional Indian societies, women were an integral part of the decision-making process, and women continued to attend treaty conferences into the eighteenth century despite the objections by some colonial officials" (63).

Women helped to keep relationships more peaceful. "As long as women remained deeply involved at every level of social interaction, there was peace; as women disappeared or were forced from such interaction, there was war" (65).

The state of Pennsylvania, which developed on land wrested from the Native Americans, became prosperous through agriculture, mining, and industry. Today all of these are impacted by outside pressures. Family farms, for example, are under threat from corporation farming and food imported from other states and countries.

The three-mile road on which my wife and I live once had six or more residential farms. Today the farming is done by farmers living off our road. Today Pennsylvania depends on military bases for employment and is seeking to expand gambling as a source of revenue.

Jeschke indicates that his book is addressed "primarily to North American Christians" in the hope that we might "discover the biblical paradigm of how to possess land. It is an invitation to examine salvation geography" (21). More specifically, "What does it mean to receive the promise of land, to inherit it, to be exiled from it, to return to it, to steward it, above all to sanctify it" (23).

He reviews the Hebrew conquest of the land under Joshua and finds him a less desirable model than Abraham. He suggests that the Jews actually came into their own during the Babylonian captivity. Jeremiah urged them to "seek the welfare of the city where [the Lord has] sent you into exile" (Jer. 29:7). In the exile, Jeschke observes, the Jews developed a new vision. "Pushed beyond the horizons of the nation’s borders, Israel increasingly emphasized the truth of God as God of all the earth and of all the people, a God concerned for all the world’s salvation" (73).

Christians, he observes, have been slow to learn the lesson of the exile. "Christianity allied itself with nation-states and endorsed all too many national wars of conquest and defense." Then he comes to the American story, in relation to which he quotes Roy H. May: "‘Pilgrims viewed the New World as the New Canaan. They were God’s chosen people headed for the Promised Land’" (116).

Jeschke finds one example of colonizers who settled peacefully: Mennonites moving into the Paraguayan Chaco. "Although three Mennonites lost their lives in contact with the Indians, the settlers refused to retaliate or resort to violence. Instead, this immigrant community organized and developed a mission to the Indians, a program to employ Indians on Mennonite farms and industries, and also to settle Indians on farms themselves and offer them education and medical services." No paradise, here, all agree, "but they are committed to a style of life I call salvation geography" (146).

He acknowledges that it usually does not work out like this. Violence is the common practice, and many will say he is naïve to propose an alternative. But, he asserts, "Predict and expect failure from the outset and that is exactly what we will get" (153). So his concept "salvation geography" is one to ponder.

My wife and I hold title to a small slice of land in Westmoreland County. It was not a gift, but the price was right. We were able to get a house erected on it, and we have room for a lawn, a garden, an orchard and even a small woodlot. We do not know how the land was originally obtained, but we live near Jacobs Creek, said to be named after an Indian chief. We can imagine there could have been some unpleasantness involved, but we have no clear record.

But we try to live responsibly and take care of the land with a view to sometime passing it on to others who will cherish it. If land is a gift from God, we can do no less.

—Daniel Hertzler, Scottdale, Pennsylvania, a longtime editor and writer, contributes a monthly column to the Daily Courier (Connellsville, Pa.).