The £5,000 That Wasn't About Money: Pennsylvania, 1747
In 1747 the Pennsylvania Assembly, elected by property-owning men, holds 36 seats; 26 are held by Quakers whose religious principles forbid bearing arms. Raids on frontier settlements in Cumberland County have driven roughly 300 families east, and the royal governor - appointed by the Penn family rather than chosen by the assembly - demands £5,000 for forts, rangers, and a militia law. The assembly votes the full £5,000 but attaches conditions: the money may be spent only "for the King's use," no militia law may be passed, and the governor must accept an elected commissioner to oversee spending. Frontier members call the conditions a death warrant for their counties. The governor calls them a usurpation of the crown's prerogative.
1. Identify the underlying constitutional conflict, and explain why the same £5,000 can satisfy both sides' principles while satisfying neither side's politics.
Read the worked answer
The conflict is constitutional, not fiscal. Both sides accept the same sum; they disagree about who designates its purpose and who audits the spending. The governor's claim rests on prerogative - defense and appointments belong to the crown's representative. The assembly's claim rests on the power of the purse, the one lever a colonial legislature reliably holds.
Watch what the conditions actually do: they convert a defense appropriation into a precedent that the governor cannot spend money the assembly has not shaped. That is why a frontier member can be genuinely frightened and still be right that the fight is about authority.
The Quaker majority supplies the votes, but the commissioner clause is broader than pacifism - members of any faith might demand an elected auditor. A useful test: if the governor offered £5,000 with a militia law and an appointed auditor, would the assembly's non-Quaker members accept? If not, theology is not the real sticking point.
2. A frontier member charges that the assembly is putting theology above lives. Evaluate the charge using the evidence in the scenario.
Read the worked answer
Partly true, mostly incomplete. For the charge: 26 of 36 seats are held by Quakers; the assembly refuses a militia law while 300 families have already fled; and the burden falls on counties with the thinnest representation in that chamber.
Against the charge: the assembly votes the entire sum, and money "for the King's use" could still pay rangers under crown command. The oversight commissioner is a demand any frontier member might make.
The best judgment is that pacifism sets the outer limit of what the majority will vote for, while the purse dispute sets the form the vote takes. That distinction matters for prediction. If the refusal were purely theological, nothing short of a militia law would end the dispute. If it is constitutional, a formula - conditional appropriation with an auditor - can eventually be found, and the frontier member's outrage, though real, misidentifies the obstacle.
3. Predict how the assembly's position will change if fighting reaches the colony's own borders, and identify what evidence would confirm your prediction.
Read the worked answer
Prediction: once raids reach settled counties, the assembly appropriates money with an explicit military purpose, and the Quaker bloc either loses seats or withdraws from the chamber rather than block it.
Confirming evidence: a fall in the Quaker share of seats after the next election; appropriations whose stated purpose is armed defense; and - critically - the governor still holding the appointment power. That last point shows the change came from electoral pressure rather than from any conceded constitutional principle, which is what the purse theory predicts.
Disconfirming evidence: a militia law passed with the Quaker majority intact and no turnover, or an appropriation that leaves the appointed governor in full control of spending. Either would mean the earlier refusal was tactical and the theological explanation was doing less work than it appeared to.