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 recognized that the proprietary power implied in the Frame of 1701 made him responsible for managing expansion. In an address to the Assembly, he made clear that the authority to create a county was “wholly vested in the Proprietary” because it had to do with legal institutions. Nonetheless, he sought the approval of the Assembly because the new county would have representatives in that body. In a moment of accord between these two rival institutions, the legislature supported the new county, agreeing that it would provide more order.45
But the Assembly faced a dilemma. The Frame of 1701 did not outline a process for expanding its membership. With the addition of a new county in 1729, the Assembly had to determine how many members the new unit would send. Rather than grant them the same eight members that the original and more populous counties sent, the Assembly granted the county half of that. The reasons for this decision are not entirely clear, although there are a number of possible explanations. The Assembly was protective of its authority and membership, and the representatives from Lancaster could upset the status quo. Moreover, Lancaster County was needed because its residents appeared unruly, and so the Assembly may have been concerned that these people’s representatives would prove similarly destabilizing. Finally, there were far fewer colonists than in the original counties, which made some sort of proportional allocation sensible.
The success of this expanded arm of the colonial government became apparent soon after its establishment. At about the same time the county was created, Captain Civility, the chief of the Conestogas, alerted the governor to an illegal settlement by Edward Parnel “and several other familys who were settled on the west side of the [Susquehanna] river.” Pennsylvania officials with stronger tools at their disposal acted just as decisively in honoring their treaty promises as they had in prosecuting the Winter brothers. Gordon vacated Parnel’s group “by Governor’s Order” and used the levers of the law to make sure his decree was enforced, sending out officials from Lancaster to torch their buildings. Officials also promised Civility that “no person should settle on that side of the river without our consent.” As one nineteenth-century historian remarked with surprise, “It is difficult to believe that as late as 1731 what was called an official map was published fixing the river Susquehanna as the extreme and western boundary of the province of Pennsylvania.” The Conestogas were not the only Natives who expressed concern with expanding settlements. The Shawnees also expressed displeasure with the new western settlements. To help allay such discontent, the government moved to “dispossess all persons settled on that side of the [Susquehanna] river” so “that those woods may remain free to the Indians.” Gordon used the offices of the new county to implement these orders and, in the process, helped restrain colonial settlement, while also reinforcing the centrality of proprietary authority.46
While the county proved effective in curtailing unlawful expansion, in 1730, the institution faced a test reminiscent of the Winters’ murders. In the heat of late August 1730, word came to Joshua Lowe, the coroner for Lancaster County, that colonists had discovered three badly decomposed bodies near a small creek. Evidence suggested murder. Lowe went out to inspect. Though the bodies were hard to identify, he could tell that the dead were Indians who had had their skulls crushed. Lowe also knew that if colonists had killed these three people, then the tensions between Native and colonial society created by such an act could easily rekindle the fears of 1728.
Lowe
