William Penn is enshrined in the U.S. Capitol as one in a series of sculptural tableau that sit above the entrances of the Rotunda.
William Penn appears in the Capitol in the context of his famous treaty
with the
Delaware. In Gavelot's panel he is iconocized not for his Quakerism, or
even
for founding of Pennsylvania, but rather for the manner in which these
two
issues converged in his dealings with Indians. Though Penn received much
attention for the former qualities, he won greatest acclaim for his 1682
'Great
Treaty'. Legend has Penn meeting the Leni Lenape (Delaware) chiefs at
the
village of Shackamaxon under a broad and leafy elm, and there forging a
friendly, loving agreement to exchange land for goods and money.
Granted, he
sought essentially the same thing--land-- as the Pilgrims or Daniel
Boone.
However, rather than forcibly removing the Natives, "Penn employed 'the
even
scales of justice and mild Persuasion of Christian love. . . [to sway]
the mind'"
(Fryd 30).
Gavelot may have picked Penn as his subject, rather than have him
assigned
by the Architect of the Capitol, Charles Bulfinch. He was the only
French
sculptor used for the series, and may have been influenced by Voltaire's
popular description of the 'good savage' and the 'good Quaker', detailed
in his
1734 Lettres Philosophiques. (Fryd 18, 31). Voltaire noted that this
treaty was
the "first public contract which connected the inhabitants of the Old and
New
World together" and "the only one that had never been broken" (Fryd, 18).
He
also predicted later interpretations by claiming that "the inhabitants
were
conquered by the force of Christian benevolence." (18) Voltaire, though
mostly
correct, glossed over the more 'worldly' ambitions of Penn and
Pennsylvania
colonists. While the depictions of the treaty show an agreement among
equals,
an agreement predicated on equal conceptions of legal contracts and
private
property, in reality the situation was somewhat more complicated.
However, the
real power of the image, one that iconocizes "the most glorious of any
annals of
he world", is that there existed a peaceful, 'Christian' way of
separating the
Indians from their land. What the other panels convey is that Christians
(of
various kinds) were superior to the Indians, that 'enlightened' Indians
like
Pocahontas knew this, and that those who refused to acknowledge this fact
could suffer the fate of the sword. And yet Penn shows that the Indian
war was
only one possible means of subjugation, even if, as Richard Slotkin
suggests, it was the prevalent mode of contact.
Gavelot's relief shows Penn and the Delaware chief in mid-handshake, eyes locked. Between the two, stands another Indian who faces away from Penn and seems to be speaking with his compatriot. In his left hand, Penn grasps (with index finger pointing) the "Treaty of 1682", while the Indian chief holds his peace pipe. The handshake "functions as an iconographic reference to peace" (Fryd, 31) and is further legitimated by the 'equivalent' pipe and treaty. Later this symbolic gesture would adorn 'peace medals' presented at the signing of treaties. To reinforce this peaceful motif, Gavelot has place two facing (kissing?) doves in the elm tree. They are clearly visible and in a direct line perpendicular line from the grasped hands. As well, they are further indicated by the center Indian's upward pointing finger. The figures of the men are of equal size and physique--the Indians do not cower or grimace as in the other panels, but appear on equal footing with Penn.
The panels capture both sides of the highly contested questions of how best to deal with the Indians. They had to be 'dealt with' primarily because they wanted, or at least used, land that White Americans also desired. The two basic modes of removing them from this land were to do so forcibly, killing them if necessary, or to try to incorporate them into White culture by converting them to Christianity and changing their hunter/gatherer way of life (which required huge amounts of land) to one of the yeoman farmer. The latter view predominated in the 18th century; Quakers were prime proponent of this method, as were 'enlightened' men such as Thomas Jefferson, who wanted the Indians to "do better with less land" (Fryd 38). James Monroe's Indian Civilization Act of 1819 codified this sentiment by calling for Indians to be provided with general education and instruction in agriculture. However, the 19th century politician generally favored more violent means of removal. This was the case especially after Andrew Jackson, who called Indians 'savage dogs', ignored the Supreme Court's ruling in favor of the Georgia Cherokee's right to their land. He insisted they be moved to the Indian territory of Oklahoma on a route that became known as 'the trail of tears', as one quarter of their population died on the forced march.
So by the 1830s only a few derided the blatantly imperialistic tone of the panels. One such person was Henry Wise, a congressman from Virginia who saw the Penn relief as depicting the White-man cheating the Indian; " We give you corn, you cheat us of our lands: we save your life, you take ours" (Fryd, 35) was the message any Native would take from viewing the sculpture. His was minority opinion though--as Fryd points out, most viewers lauded the panels that depicted Indians as 'savages', praising the Boone tableau for its "contrast between the bloodthirsty 'savages' and the self-possessed, clearheaded pioneer" (35). The Penn frieze disturbed viewers for the very reason that it portrayed the White and the Indian on the same footing. The Indian is not the huge, grotesque savage, but the well-proportioned equal to William Penn, who greets them with his firm handshake. One congressman from Pennsylvania, Samuel Ingham, criticized Penn as 'ludicrously' appearing as a 'dwarf'.(Fryd 36). Apparently, the White man could not look eye to eye with the Indian without reducing his stature considerably. Conversely, Daniel Boone, who appears considerably smaller than the 'savage' he is fighting, is raised in height by his bravery in subduing such a demonic foe. Thus, to paraphrase General Sherman, "the only 'big' Indian was the (soon to be) dead Indian."
Even as Gavelot's celebration of Penn's treaty was not approved of by many 19th century observers, the event depicted was generally taken at face value. The scene was hardly unknown, especially after Benjamin West recreated it in his famous William Penn's Treaty with the Indians, (1771). Engravings and copies of this painting, as well as books by such myth-makers as 'Parson' Weems, helped the story permeate American memory. However, we have no direct record that this meeting ever took place. Penn's dealings with the 'Indians', or more specifically the Leni Lenape, the Iroquois, and the Susquehannock, deserves further investigation.
Forward | Back | Home |
---|