Frontier Country. Patrick Spero

was that they were in but not of Pennsylvania and the British Empire. Pennsylvania did not claim to exert its authority over Indian-on-Indian violence or relations between Indian groups (though it certainly had an interest in and influence over both). The authority of the colonial government, instead, extended only to violence between colonists and Indians, and especially to violence that happened within areas that were part of the established jurisdiction of the colony and not “the woods”—a term that often meant areas of crosscultural interaction beyond official colonial settlement. Thus, all colonists were squarely under the dominion of their colony no matter where they roamed, but Indians only fell under Pennsylvania’s jurisdiction when it came to contact involving colonists. Such a status comported with Indians’ views in which they wanted to be independent of Pennsylvania but allied to it, as their preference for diplomacy over legal trials suggested. Indians’ status may not have been clear, but its ambiguity during these years was effective in practice nonetheless.³⁷

      After the governor received the Indians’ message, some of his advisers pulled him aside. They noted that many of the colonists who had assembled to watch the proceedings were those who lived closest to Indian groups and most feared an Indian war. They told Gordon to “press the Indians to declare to him if they suffered any grievances or hardship from this government, because several reports had been industriously spread abroad as if they had some just cause of complaints.” Gordon followed their advice. The Indians responded: “They had no cause of complaint, that William Penn and his people had still treated them well, and they had no uneasiness.” Their direct statement eased the anxiety of the populace by rejecting the rumors that circulated.³⁸

      The treaty was a smashing success. The colony rejoiced from the banks of the Susquehanna to the shores of the Delaware. Word of the speeches reached Philadelphia before Gordon did, and Philadelphians cheered what they heard. When Gordon approached the city, a large crowd awaited him. The American Weekly boasted that the welcoming “cavalcade” was “a far greater number than has ever been known to meet together on such an occasion at any time before in this province.” Gordon’s reception in Philadelphia shows the public’s widespread awareness that the colony’s distinctive history of peace was threatened by this frontier crisis. The treaty preserved Pennsylvania’s tradition.³⁹

      The reception in Indian Country mirrored that of colonial society. Leaders of allied Indian groups who were unable to attend the treaty sent messages of support after hearing the speeches. One did add a hint of concern to his otherwise supportive words, noting that he hoped “the back inhabitants may be cautioned not to be so ready to attack the Indians as they were at that time.” It was a subtle critique of the government as much as it was of the people. The Indians expected Pennsylvania’s government to better enforce its authority within its own populace.⁴⁰

      With the crisis averted, proprietary officials resolved to improve their ability to maintain order. The rumors of Indian war showed the power of the spoken word, and officeholders used the institutions at their disposal to combat the uncertainty fueled by loose talk. The lessons of the crisis continued to reverberate at a Court of Quarter Sessions held in Philadelphia a couple of weeks after the murders. The judges took advantage of the opportunity to tell the jurors who had come from all over to disseminate the government’s message. Before adjourning, the court noted that “it is true something has happened which raised the notice and concern not only of the government but of every good man; but it is really surprising to hear of the many, idle groundless and lying stories which have been bruited and thrown out to alarm and disturb the people, some of which have risen from ignorance and fear.” The jurors were then instructed that as they “dispersed in several parts of the country, you may as occasion offers in all conversations endeavor to quiet the minds of the people.” They ended their instruction with a striking observation: “The truth is, that the Indians are more calm and prudent than some of our people.”⁴¹

      Proprietary officials did more than just offer proclamations and apologies. They also acted on the colony’s promise of justice. If Pennsylvania was to assert its monopoly on the legitimate use of violence, it needed to punish the murderers who challenged this monopoly. The Winters were tried in court in June. The trial was, in effect, a contest between official policy toward Indians and the powerful anti-Indian sentiment of colonists beyond Philadelphia. The jurors in Chester County, likely composed of Quaker settlers who still dominated its eastern parts, found the accused guilty on June 19. On July 3, the brothers were hung (Morgan Herbert was given a reprieve), a clear symbol that Pennsylvania’s government still abided by William Penn’s promise. The council even set the execution date at a time convenient for Indians so they could witness justice being served. This execution was the first in four years, and another would not happen for three more; it was so significant that two newspapers in Boston reported on it.⁴²

      As the murderous events of 1728 made clear, expansion posed a threat to peace with friendly Indians and to the colony itself, in large part because interactions between colonists and Indians could quickly turn violent. New towns in western regions turned into “frontiers,” and the existence of such frontiers posed challenges to both the colonial government and to the overarching ideological foundation of the colony. The emergence of these frontiers in the geopolitical imagination of western colonists forced government officials to act by strengthening the government’s claims of sovereignty and power over its people. All totaled, Gordon’s invitation for settlers to witness the treaty, the creation of commissions for defense, the proclamations, the court orders, and the final execution of the Winter brothers represented a colonial government establishing itself by asserting its authority in newly settled and distant regions. Notably, nearly all of these actions came from proprietary officials or through institutions the proprietor controlled.

      “Bringing Those Who Too Frequently Fly Thither for Refuge, Under the Same Subjection to the Laws with the Rest of His Majesty’s Subjects”

      Although officials were able to ease tensions in 1728, colonists continued to push west, beyond the traditional center of Philadelphia and the three original counties. Squatters and runaway servants began crossing the Susquehanna River, raising the ire of Native groups who objected to their presence. Reports of violence and disorder became commonplace.⁴³

      Officials realized that they needed to adapt further to deal with this new growth. County creation became the logical outcome. As the colony expanded, so too should its government. A county centralized government authority in areas of recent colonial settlement by extending legal institutions to enforce laws and restrain settlers. Officials also hoped the county would have a positive influence on colonial development by creating a series of administrative offices that would better serve the needs of colonists.

      The founding of Lancaster County in 1729 established a general protocol for the future. First, colonists in the underserved area sent a request for a new county. In this case, prominent and well-connected settlers James Wright, the justice at the center of the Wright murder in 1727, and Samuel Blunston organized a petition asking for greater government because of their desperate situation. The signers made clear that they expected a new county would help institute what this region so desperately needed: order. To that end, they promised to build a courthouse to enforce the law. Gordon concurred that such a division would “greatly conduce not only … the peace, good Order, and Ease of those Inhabitants in particular, but also to the Security of the whole Government, by bringing those who too frequently fly thither for Refuge, under the same Subjection to the Laws with the rest of his Majesty’s Subjects.”⁴⁴

      Lancaster County may have solved the problem settlers in the western region faced, but it also exposed a fundamental problem of the Frame of 1701. The earlier frames of government, especially Penn’s first Frame, described a means for political expansion to occur. In the earlier Frame, the Provincial Council, the elected upper house, controlled the development of new land. Representation also shifted in the original Frame as populations changed, a process Penn devised to ensure that no area amassed too much political power. The Frame of 1701, however, left all of these issues unaddressed. In the final version, the Provincial Council as an independent legislative unit was abolished, and representation in the Assembly referred only to the original counties, with each of these receiving the same number regardless of population.

      Gordon