him. He began his opening speech by evoking the memory of William Penn as a way to rekindle a common bond. Penn, he recounted, had entered into “a strong league and chain of friendship” that had made the two groups “as one people,” a common phrase used in these treaties to denote a close alliance. Gordon, as the governor appointed by Penn’s heirs, stood before the Indians at the treaty “in their stead.” His charge, he told his counterparts, was “to love all the Indians as their brethren.”33
He then outlined the principles and protocols that held this alliance together. He recited nine rules, each representing a link in the chain of friendship. Indians and Pennsylvanians were to keep all paths clear and open between Indian territories and Pennsylvania, a literal and metaphoric statement that meant both groups should travel and trade freely and keep clear communication. Another stated that Pennsylvanians and Indians were to welcome one another into their homes and treat them “as their friends,” not enemies. Finally, he addressed the dangers rumors posed to this peace. Neither Indians nor colonists should believe rumors, he said. When stories of strife between the two sides spread, he advised that both colonists and Indians should seek out leaders for the truth before acting rashly. Then he apologized for the violence. “There are wicked people in all nations,” Gordon said, and he promised to try and execute the Winters for violating the foundation of trust that cemented this alliance.34
The Indians reacted with enthusiasm. Tawenna, a Conestoga delegated to respond to Gordon’s speech, said that they “greatly rejoyced [in] their hearts that they have had no such speech made to them since the time that the great William Penn was amongst them, all was good and nothing was amiss.” Tawenna spoke from experience. He had heard William Penn speak at the 1701 treaty where the Conestoga formalized their alliance with Penn by giving Pennsylvania sole rights to lands on the banks of the Susquehanna in exchange for Pennsylvania’s promise to preserve a small plot for the Conestoga and to provide the Conestoga with protection from both European and rival Indian nations. Tawenna’s reference to Penn living among them also suggests that he was present when Penn made his celebratory visit to their town.35
Since the time of this earlier treaty, Tawenna had seen the colony grow. He had seen the effects of colonists pushing further west and had witnessed the violence between Indians and colonists engendered by this expansion. But he was hopeful that the foundation of peace laid by that earlier treaty was still firm. The two groups were, he said, evoking Penn’s principles, truly “one people … one body and one heart.” He then told Gordon not to “grieve too much” over the Winters’ murder of the Delaware because they recognized it as “rash inconsiderate actions” of individuals behaving independent of the colony. Tawenna then addressed the murder of Thomas Wright, the colonist killed by Indians in a drunken melee the previous fall and an issue Gordon had raised in the course of his speech to show that both sides were not without guilt. Tawenna explained that the guilty Indians belonged to “the Menysincks [Delawares], who are of another nation, and therefore they can say nothing to it.” In so doing, Tawenna laid out the expectations Indians had for dealing with such intercultural violence. Indian groups expected to be treated as distinct groups, not an amalgamated whole. Gordon recognized this distinction in his response, noting “that since the Indian, who killed the Englishman … is not of their nation, he would demand Justice from that Nation to which he belonged.”36
The discussion of Wright and the Winters exposed the unclear and yet pragmatic legal status of Indians in Pennsylvania. On a practical level, Indians’ legal status was never entirely coherent nor was it ever explicitly explained. Indians and colonial officials had come to a mutual understanding through ad hoc mediations and diplomacy. What was clear was that Indians as individuals within Pennsylvania had some legal rights, but Indians were not entitled to the same legal system as colonists because they were not British subjects and there was no naturalization path for them (nor, of course, did they seek such a path). As Gordon noted in his reply to Tawenna, the government recognized that individual Indians belonged to specific groups—in Gordon’s word, “nations”—and that while these groups might be held liable for the actions of their members, they should not be expected to police other Indian “nations.” Individual Indians were thus clearly not members of the colony, but they were affiliated with it. Indeed, keeping Indians separate from the colony was important for Pennsylvania’s expansionist aims. By recognizing Indian groups as separate polities that collectively owned the land, the proprietors could legally secure their title in the eyes of the British Empire.
Perhaps the best way to summarize how Pennsylvania treated Indians as both individuals and groups 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
