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 to address potential power imbalances by giving Indians certain rights and protecting them against the prejudices that regular colonists might hold against them. Even if this law captured a gloomy reality of everyday Indian–white relations, perhaps even tacitly acknowledging the racial antagonisms of common settlers, it also showed the government’s continued attempt to offer Indians the protection of the colonial government.27
In the spring of 1728, however, war now seemed possible, if not imminent. Gordon hoped to maintain Pennsylvania’s tradition of peace, but he had to prepare for the potential for war as well. Before he left for Philadelphia, he used his powers as the captain-general to create a “commission” that would “gather the inhabitants together and put them in a posture of defence” after the murders in case of retaliation. By creating an official authority to oversee militias and defenses, Gordon hoped to take the power away from unofficial and unregulated volunteer militias that could inadvertently start war—that indeed may have just thrown the colony headlong into its first war—and place official authority in the hands of commissioners he knew and trusted.28
“A Strong League and Chain of Friendship”
Gordon returned to Philadelphia on May 15. Upon his return, he decided to make clear the colony’s position toward its Indian neighbors and allies. Gordon had seen firsthand the virulence of anti-Indian feelings, and he used the power of proclamation to counter such sentiments and enforce Pennsylvania policy. In a series of decrees that were posted throughout communities and read to and by settlers, he reiterated Pennsylvania’s policy of peace with Natives with whom the colony had “a firm alliance and sincere friendship.” Gordon identified specific Indian groups as allies and explained Pennsylvania’s policy of friendship toward them. Settlers were told to treat “the Delawares, Conestogoes, Ganawese, Shawanese, Mingoes or those of the Five Nations, or any other coming and demeaning themselves peaceably amongst us … with the same civil regard they would an English subject.”29
Proclamations would only go so far. Gordon also had to demonstrate Pennsylvania’s intentions to Indians and colonists. He began preparing a grand treaty ceremony—perhaps the largest the colony had held—on the banks of the Susquehanna. He wanted to meet with the Indians who seemed poised for war and to reaffirm Pennsylvania’s peaceful intentions, and he wanted to calm settlers whose nerves were on edge.30
At that point, the Assembly got involved for the first time. They agreed that war was a real possibility and that a treaty was the most likely way to avoid it. After some minor squabbling, they gave Gordon £100 for diplomatic gifts. At that time, £100 was not a paltry sum: with this money the government was able to buy twenty-five coats, twenty blankets, twenty duffels, twenty-five shirts, one hundred pounds of gunpowder, two hundred pounds of lead, five hundred flints, fifty knives, and foodstuffs. Moreover, the materials the government intended to give the Indians—ammunition and arms—signaled the government’s view that these Indians were not threats. This singular act was the only role the Assembly played in the entire affair, evidence of both the small part this institution played in problems dealing with expansion and the prominent role proprietary institutions played in the lives of colonists and Indians alike.31
On May 26, the treaty ceremony began. The official records state that fifteen Indian delegates sat around the treaty fire with many more watching. Representatives came from the Conestogas, Delawares, Ganaweses (also Conoys or Piscataways), and Shawnees. The Indians and Pennsylvanians had three interpreters each because of the many different languages spoken. In addition to the large Indian presence, over two hundred settlers, many of whom feared war with these Indian groups, came to witness the treaty. The large attendance reflected the stakes.32
All eyes were on Gordon. Recent events were
