Moreover, in 1728, these imagined frontiers had a profound effect on unifying settlers in this crisis zone out of a shared sense of danger. Many historians have treated the ethnically diverse population of Pennsylvania as segregated, divided along lines of ethnicity, religion, and custom. Certainly, there were ethnic and other antagonisms within Pennsylvania, but these enmities fueled few, if any, acts of violence. The shared fear of invasion that these “frontier inhabitants” felt, however, brought them together. The spark that sent the Welshman Walter Winter on his murderous rampage came when he heard from a German man that Indians had killed “sundry Dutchmen.” Gordon had witnessed this unity upon his arrival. The petition for help he received from the people of Colebrookdale had signatures of men from many different ethnicities, with none other than John Roberts’s name at the top. In times of crisis, the all-encompassing “Indians” formed a coherent enemy that helped mute whatever ethnic tensions may have existed in times of peace. Indeed, the ease with which information flowed throughout the settlements and the shared support that followed shows how colonists regularly forged crosscultural ties. The foundation of fear that cemented their bond also escalated tensions between colonists and Indians during the frontier crisis of 1728, ultimately ending with a small but powerful group of “frontier inhabitants” killing a group of Indians indiscriminately.18
“Might Lawfully Kill Any Indian Whom They Could Find”
Before the Winters’ attack, many worried the colony was on the brink of full-scale war. Now some believed war inevitable. It fell to Patrick Gordon to change that. Gordon, as the proprietor’s representative and the captain-general charged with military matters and Indian relations, had to hew a fine line. He understood the stakes. Like most others in the region, he feared that “this piece of barbarity might stirr up the Indians to revenge it on our inhabitants in these parts.” The solution, he knew, was for the government to play a forceful role in implementing its policies and establishing its authority. Success, Gordon hoped, would keep the peace. In order to do so, he would have to use all of the implied powers the governor had.19
First, as the chief magistrate, he issued a hue and cry instructing all sheriffs, coroners, constables, and others to search “with horse and with foot” for the Winter brothers. That same day, word came that the manhunt had already ended in Philadelphia County. Andrew Hamilton and Edward Farmer, both justices of the peace, had apprehended the Winter brothers and Morgan Herbert in western Philadelphia County.20
Gordon and some justices of the peace interviewed the men, hoping to learn what had led them to murder. The Winters’ explanations revealed the dangerous logic used by people who believed they lived on a frontier, especially one formed against Native Americans. When the Winters defended their actions, they evoked the rules of war. They argued that after hearing of Indians murdering “some white men,” they felt that they “might lawfully kill any Indian whom they could find.” Indeed, they believed that they should have received a reward for their actions, as if they had captured an enemy. Officials showed no sympathy and confined the men. On May 15, Farmer and Hamilton sent the men under heavy guard to Chester County’s jail for trial. They also issued an arrest warrant for John Roberts.21
Gordon next shifted his role to chief diplomat and performed damage control with the colony’s Native allies. He ordered the coroner to dig up the bodies of the murdered Indians and give them “a decent burial.” He also provided the relatives of the slain with four valuable cloth blankets, called strouds, to lay upon the graves, in recognition of Indian custom, and gave strouds to the two surviving girls. He also found a resident willing to care for the girls’ wounds. These acts, he hoped, would show the respect the colony held for their Indian allies and their customs.22
Gordon also took the proactive step of sending messages to leaders of important Native American groups “to acquaint them with this unhappy accident.” He explained to them that colonists had heard “some stories … that there were many hundreds” of Indians approaching who were intent on invasion. The news “raised an alarm” among settlers as word spread. “An accident” followed in which “four wicked white men killed a peaceable good Indian Man and two women.” Gordon assured them that this singular act of a few bad men did not reflect the sentiments of the colony, for the murders “raised a horror in me and all the good people about me.” He promised that those accused of the murder would “suffer in the same manner as if they had killed so many white people, for that we make no difference.” Gordon hoped his actions and words would demonstrate the colony’s true values to both Native Americans and colonists.23
Gordon’s actions captured the contrast between the government’s policy toward Indians and the more hardened view held by the Winters and their many sympathizers in the west. As Pennsylvania expanded as a colony, as its relations with Indians became more complex, and as its population grew more dispersed and diverse, officials in charge of running the colony increasingly confronted the thorny issue of Native Americans’ legal status. They could easily make new immigrants subjects, but Indians were another matter. Since William Penn’s landing, colonial officials agreed that Native Americans were not subjects to the Crown nor were they Pennsylvanians, yet they also deserved the protection of government.
Solving this problem was fundamental to governing in colonial North America. Officials tasked with enforcing laws needed to determine who received the government’s protections. Pennsylvania had gone to great lengths to create naturalization codes to ensure that non-English immigrants from Europe would be loyal to the proprietor and Crown, in exchange for which they received the full rights and protections afforded British subjects. But Natives posed a different problem. William Penn had once imagined a judicial system with mixed juries in which Indians and colonists served as coequals. That never came to be, but the legislature had enacted codes that clarified the protections Indians could expect through the legal system.24
The law for regulating Indian-colonial interactions that was passed in 1715, for instance, provided greater clarity on Indians’ legal rights and revealed how Pennsylvania legislators thought of their Native neighbors. Moreover, the beliefs distilled in this law represented the underlying assumptions that drove Gordon’s actions. The law left little doubt as to the legal protections afforded allied Indians. Within the bounds of Pennsylvania, they would receive the same rights as any colonist. Presaging the words Gordon used to assuage Native Americans in 1728, the earlier law stated that any personal assault against an Indian by a colonist would be prosecuted by Pennsylvania “as if the said offense was committed against any natural born subject of Great Britain.” Conversely, the governor’s council dealt with all cases in which settlers accused Indians of violence. In that way, Pennsylvania’s colonial government claimed absolute sovereignty over all Euro-Americans and offered its protection to Natives against these newcomers.25
But the act created different means for punishing transgressions. Gone were the hopeful days of William Penn’s juries of both Indians and colonists. The Assembly realized that Indians might not have a fair trial if they had to face a jury of European settlers. Therefore, instead of integrating Indians within the traditional legal system of the colony, the law established an alternative legal framework to deal with colonists’ accusations against Indians: the Provincial Council would be the judge and jury. Giving the council, a proprietary institution, such power also reinforced its role in conducting diplomacy for the colony, since the trial of a Native person would undoubtedly affect Indian relations.26
Historians have used acts such as this one as windows into the broader cultural values of a past society. Often historians treat laws that formalize differences between groups as institutionalizing power relationships in which a dominant group restricts rights and opportunities for the minority group. Sometimes historians see in these distinctions the roots of racism. In 1715, the Pennsylvania Assembly created one system that applied to Euro-Americans who committed violence against Indians and another that applied to Native Americans who committed violence against colonists. But the 1715 Pennsylvania statute was not meant to be restrictive. In fact, its intent was the opposite. Although its authors recognized that colonists were unlikely to be impartial judges of Indians, the Pennsylvania code and others like it hoped