Troubled Experiment: Crime and Justice in Pennsylvania, 1682-1800 (review)

Book Reviews Troubled Experiment: Crime and Justice in Pennsylvania, 1682-1800. By Jack D. Marietta and G. S. Rowe. Philadelphia: University ofPennsylvania Press, 2006. ? + 353 pp. Charts, tables, notes, and index. $59.95. Troubled Experiment: Crime and Justice in Pennsylvania, 1682-1800, by Jack Marietta and G. S. Rowe, thoroughly dispels one powerful myth dear to many historians ofQuakerism and Pennsylvania, even as it perpetuates another. The first myth is that Pennsylvania under Quaker governance was perpetually humane and lenient in its laws and punishments, and the colony was always peaceful and relatively free ofcrime. The work updates and elucidates in painstaking and sometimes-shocking detail the claim initiallymadebyHarryElmerBarnesthattheHolyExperimentwas a"failure" ofpolicy (The Evolution ofPenology in Pennsylvania, 1927). Moreover, it finds that Pennsylvania was the most crime-ridden ofthe colonies. Using evidence from their extensive and meticulous examination of crime records, as well as public and personal writings about crime, the authors divide Pennsylvania history into three eras. The first, from the founding of the colony in 1682 to 1717, is the origin of the leniency and peace myth. Indeed, they argue that this was a remarkably orderly time, noting the astounding fact that there were only two executions, both for murder (35). But the foundation for the myth ends in 1717. Denying conventional wisdom, the authors argue that from this point, Pennsylvania was exceptional not for its safety and tranquility, but for the volume and violence of its crime. During this time, the realities of heavy immigration and ethnic pluralism, as well as expectations of the Crown, compelled Friends to abandon their gentle policies and adopt codes and punishments commensurate with those of Britain. While punishments were still relatively light, the authors demonstrate that Friends became less concerned with public morality and rehabilitation and more concerned with major transgressions ofthe law. In the third era, beginning in 1786, some things changed, while others remained the same. Where leaders expected violence and disorder from the abolition of slavery, there was none; where they anticipated a decrease in property-related crimes, these remained the highest inthe country. Overall, the authors findthatwhenthere was more liberty, there was more abuse ofit. In short, Marietta and Rowe argue persuasively that Pennsylvania was indeed "troubled." Ironically, however, to debunkthis firstmyth, theyrely on a second. They claimthatthe excessive crime inPennsylvaniawas because QuakerPennsylvaniawas "liberal" andQuakers were "liberalreformers" (264). They assume thatboth the leniency ofthe early years and the subsequent abandonment of the enforcement ofpublic morality laws were based on a secular policy of 70Quaker History laissez-faire. In otherwords, Quakerpolicywas thatinhabitants ofPennsylvania were free to "do their own thing," as modem liberals would say, without interference from government as long as they didnot disturb the peace. But a "liberal" society as we know it and a laissez-faire conception of government was no part ofthe early modern worldview. There is therefore a whiggish tilt to the argument when the authors write that "Pennsylvanians anticipated modern Americans" (4). The behavior ofthe masses may have, but individualism was an unintended consequence of Quaker policies. Friends' "liberal" attitudes were not based on a secularunderstanding ofthe right of the individual to be left alone by government to do whatever he chose, but rather the right ofthe individual to be free to find God. In other words, the assumption that Quakers were unconcerned about the spiritual well-being oftheir constituents is faulty. Liberty ofconscience, the foundational liberty of Pennsylvania, was not purely a "negative" liberty, as Marietta and Rowe maintain (4); it was in important ways a positive liberty, the intent ofwhich was to help people towards right religion. While Friends certainly sacrificed their peaceful principles for order, this adaptation does not equate to a policy of laissez-faire; nor did Quakers abandon their mission entirely. Alan Tully has argued convincingly that the "civil Quakerism " thatwas enforced at the highest levels ofgovernment also permeated the population, indicating a concern that the Quaker ethic be perpetuated as much as circumstances would permit {Forming American Politics:Ideals, Interests, and Institutions in Colonial New York and Pennsylvania, 1994). Its interpretive shortcoming notwithstanding, this book is immensely valuable. Readers shouldbe alert to the anachronism in the idea ofa "liberal" Pennsylvania, but as problematic as this assumption...