 |
 |
  |
|
|
To provide an overview of the Paxton Boys riots in the context of pre-Revolutionary Pennsylvania society. Key Questions: 1. What were some of the benefits and drawbacks associated with William Penn's decision to not have a colonial militia in Pennsylvania?
In the aftermath of the Seven Years' War, British and colonial relations with the native Indian tribes had degenerated to the extent that in 1763 a spontaneous uprising all along the frontier erupted in what is commonly mislabeled “Pontiac's Rebellion.” The unwillingness and inability of the government of Pennsylvania to cooperate with the British and safeguard its citizens along the frontier led to a general panic and resulted in thousands of refugees fleeing from what appeared to be a coordinated military and psychological offensive by the various Indian tribes. In response, frontiersmen reacted by banding together and venting their anger on “friendly” Indians clothed, housed, and protected by the Quaker dominated state government. The resulting massacres of 20 defenseless Indians by the “Paxton Boys” and their march on Philadelphia to eliminate a further group of Indians under government safeguard serve to demonstrate the growing political, social, and racial fissures that were developing within the “Quaker” colony and British North America as a whole.
William Penn, the founder and proprietor of Pennsylvania described the colony as a “holy experiment” and an “example to the nations.” Penn, a Quaker, had been the victim of persecution in England, allowed religious freedom and encouraged non-Quakers and non-Britons to emigrate to Pennsylvania which would be “a Free Colony for all Mankind.” Even prior to the formal founding of the colony in 1682, Penn encouraged his emissaries to treat the native Indians with respect and negotiate with them for their land. Penn recognized the Indians as the legitimate owners of the land and treated them with dignity. He told one gathering of chiefs “I am very sensible of the unkindness and injustices that hath been too much exercised toward you...I desire to enjoy with your Love and Consent, that we may always live together as Neighbors and Friends.” During the first fifty years of the colony's existence many Indians fled persecution and mistreatment in other regions to relocate in Pennsylvania. One Indian refugee explained “The people of Maryland do not treat the Indians as you and others do, for they make slaves of them and sell their Children for money.” Penn and his appointees very shrewdly settled these new Indians along the sparsely populated Susquehanna River to create a buffer or security screen along the western boundary of the colony. This allowed the pacifist Quaker majority to avoid the same brutal conflicts with the French and their Indian allies which bedeviled and often devastated other British colonies. The lack of a militia however left the colony without a foundation for defense, and led to a situation where the Indians were better armed and more militarily experienced than the colonists, thus necessitating good relations. With the frontier secure and aided by his fellow Quakers, Penn organized the quickest and most efficient colonial buildup in North America. During the eighteenth century, Philadelphia's merchants became the most successful and wealthiest in the colonies as they supplanted New England as the chief provider of supplies to the British Caribbean. As a Proprietary Colony, Pennsylvania was organized and managed by the Penn family and not the Royal Government. The Quakers dominated the colonial assembly through unfair representation policies which favored the city of Philadelphia and the three eastern counties, causing much resentment among new immigrants and also established non-Quakers. This expansion, though, came at the price of homogeneity, as a diverse mix of ethnic, religious, and linguistic mixes populated the colony, leading almost immediately to tension with the ruling Quaker elite. In 1704, William Penn wrote that the colonists needed “to be humbled and made more pliable; for...they opine too much.” Even, anti-Proprietary pundit Benjamin Franklin would complain openly of the Palantine (German)” boors.”
The western Pennsylvania frontier was mainly settled by the Ulster Scotch (commonly called the Scotch-Irish). These immigrants were part of a great mass migration encompassing over a quarter of a million people from the border regions of Great Britain who settled in colonial North America from the beginning of the eighteenth century up until the Revolution. Most entered through the ports of Newcastle, Delaware and Philadelphia and were encouraged by the Quakers and other established groups to settle the frontier regions where they could serve as a buffer against Indian troubles and where their “audacious and disorderly manner” would, hopefully, cause less trouble. These settlers unhinged the delicate balance of Indian and Proprietary relations which had existed since the founding of the colony. Most of these settlers, used to living in a violent, tumultuous society and fiercely independent, had no qualms about settling illegally on Indian lands west of the Susquehanna River against the wishes of the colonial government and Royal representatives. The inability of the colony to control the “Settlement of those vast numbers of poor but presumptuous people” undermined the delicate balance of Indian relations and if not dealt with, would most likely lead to a disastrous war for the colony. The solution, pushed by James Logan, previously the Secretary of the colony and now the richest man in Pennsylvania, was to ignore the independent tribes and accept the claims of the Iroquois Federation as the sole voice of the Indians. The Iroquois were the only tribe in the British sphere of influence which had the ability to coerce the weaker tribes into accepting new treaties and also was able to act as a powerful ally to offset the French and their Indian cohorts. Thus, the colony postponed conflict with their Indian neighbors at the cost of alienating them. The outbreak in North America of the Seven Years' War in 1754 showed the inadequacy of Pennsylvania's policies. The undefended frontier bore the wrath of the French allied Indian raids for over two years as the colony dithered in making military decisions and the ones made were poorly executed. During the time it took the Royal government and the combined assets of Britain's North American colonies to mobilize and push back the hostile tribes and French auxiliaries over 500 settlers were killed with many more taken hostage. The frustration of the frontiersmen and their families are summed up in the following report from 1756: “There may be seen horror and desolation, populous settlements deserted, Villages laid in Ashes, Men, Women, and Children cruelly...massacred...crying for vengeance against their murderers, and yelling at the negligence & insensibility of the Administration, to whose inactivity there are so many sacrifices.”
British victory in the Seven Years's War did not placate the settlers who were now in the process of rebuilding their lives and homesteads. The frontiersmen were extremely bitter over their lack of representation in the assembly and the actions during the war of the Quaker “Friendly Association” which had assisted and cooperated with Indian tribes. The colonial and Royal perception in the aftermath of the war was that the Indians had been decisively beaten. This led to new British policies with the Indians which went against previous native experiences with both the French and British colonial authorities and stirred much resentment and anger by the natives who collectively did not feel they had been defeated militarily by the British or Provincial forces who were perceived as “old Women.” The Indian uprisings known collectively as “Pontiac's Rebellion” began on May 9th, 1763 as Fort Detroit was besieged by Ottawa Indians attempting to teach the British a lesson. This isolated incident sparked a series of other attacks by tribes throughout the Ohio Valley which captured every British Atlantic seaboard frontier post except Detroit and Fort Pitt. As the “rebellion” spread to the Pennsylvania frontier settlements, the colonial assembly once again failed to act decisively to protect the settlers and their property, with the result that the frontier was ravaged even worse than in 1754-1757. In mid-June Indians commenced attacks on the re-occupied western Pennsylvania frontier. Six weeks later there were over fourteen hundred refugees in Shippensburg “many of whom were obliged to lie in Barns, Stables, Cellars, and under old leaky sheds, the Dwelling houses being all crowded.” A report from Maryland states “never was Panic more general or forcible than that of the Back Inhabitants, whose terrors at this time, exceed what followed on the Defeat of General Braddock.” As thousands of terrified settlers escaped the carnage by moving east the government of Pennsylvania did not assist or provide aid to the refugees, while at the same time authorities were housing, feeding and clothing “anglicized” Indians with state funds. The northern Pennsylvania frontier, inhabited mostly by German immigrants, escaped attack until October, when Delaware raiding parties, eager for a chance at revenge against those who had “stolen” their land began. These raids were particularly brutal, with the intent to depopulate the region so that the Indians could return. In contrast to regular Indian warfare, which stressed the value of hostages instead of killing, attacks in this region took an especially vicious turn as the Indians practiced a primitive form of psychological warfare in order to sow fear and terror. One woman's body was found “roasted and had two Hinges in her Hands, supposed to be put in red hot; and several of the Men had awls through their Eyes, and Spears, Arrows, Pitchforks, &c. sticking in their bodies.” Neither the eastern dominated government nor the western frontiersmen supported General Amherst's or Colonel Bouquet's call for troops in any meaningful way during the crisis. Bouquet's victory over the Indians at Bushy Run and as their warmaking supplies ran out helped to minimize incursions along Pennsylvania's frontier, however, the lack of Indian activity allowed the settlers to dwell upon what had happened and their frustrations and anger became focused on the Quaker dominated eastern elite and the “friendly” Indians living in their midst. The first sign of collective civil unrest occurred in mid-October when a group of frontiersmen, calling themselves the “Irish Volunteers” attempted to seek revenge by attacking a group of pacifist Delaware Indians in Nazareth. They were dissuaded from their task after being convinced that the Indians had not participated in any of the recent attacks. This incident served to highlight the rise of Indian hating among the colonists in which the common opinion forming was that “if good Indians did not harm white people, then the best Indians must be those who could do no harm, for all eternity.” This was not the first incident of Indian hating, as the new settlers had a history of dealing roughly with the natives and unpunished acts of violence and murder were not uncommon..
The murders galvanized the colonial government to action in ways that the Indian raids had not. The Assembly and Governor John Penn, put aside their differences and passed legislation authorizing one thousand troops for frontier defense and requesting the apprehension of the murderers. All attempts to gather specific information on the ringleaders of the Paxton Boys and others who had participated in the murders were frustrated by the frontier inhabitants and demonstrated the eastern dominated government's inability to exercise control of the disputatious western counties. As early as November, the authorities had begun relocating Christianized natives centrally at Province Island in the Delaware River, with the ultimate goal of settling them outside of the colony. Even in Philadelphia, the vast majority of the population was openly hostile to the Indians and one eyewitness exclaimed “The rage of the people in Philadelphia is indescribable” and it seemed as if the only non-hostile elements towards the Indians were the Quakers and British Royal troops. Attempts to relocate the Indians to New York or New Jersey were rejected by the royal Governors of those colonies who did not want the “rogues, and thieves” in their jurisdictions. After a frustrating journey to New Jersey the Indians, escorted by Royal troops, were settled into the military barracks in Philadelphia where they would be protected from further harm from the citizens of the city who were not averse to the actions of the Paxton Boys. Even though their actions had served to rid the frontier by murder and intimidation of the “friendly” Indians, the Paxton Boys now set their sights on the Indians in Philadelphia and in late December frontiersmen “made boast how they had gotten so many scalps they would go to Philadelphia and the Quakers should share the same fate.” January was rife with tension as the colonial government was unable to restore control of the western counties and rumors were constantly circulating that “fifteen hundred Men would come down in order to kill the said Indians, and that if Fifteen hundred were not enough, Five thousand were ready to join them.” The threatened march finally materialized on February 4th, as a group of frontiersmen, numbering over five hundred, approached the city. Lacking a militia law and with no established military organizations, the governor and assembly passed an emergency “riot act” which authorized the temporary formation of voluntary “associations” to help protect the government from the approaching mob. Enthusiasm for the Association was far from widespread as many of the cities poorest and immigrant population sympathized with the plight of the frontiersmen, as long as they only heaped their wrath on Indians and not fellow citizens. Overall, nearly a thousand citizens (including some pacifist Quakers) took up arms to stand beside the regulars and support the government. The rioters stopped their march in Germantown, outside of Philadelphia, where they acted out their frustration and complaints as they “uttered hideous outcries in imitation of the war whoop, knocked down peaceable citizens, and pretended to scalp them.” Governor Penn sent a delegation led by Benjamin Franklin to attempt to resolve the dispute without resorting to force. The ensuing negotiations resulted in the Paxton Boys agreeing to disperse peaceably if allowed to voice their grievances before the assembly and governor who promised speedy consideration.
As the majority of the rioters departed and the Associators turned in their weapons, the conflict evolved to one of propaganda in what is termed the “Pamphlet War.” Both the pro-Paxton and pro-Quaker elements published pamphlets and broadsides in an attempt to influence public and government opinion. The Paxton Boys representatives presented to the assembly and governor their Declaration of Grievances and Remonstrance whereby they stated their case and awaited action to be taken on their behalf. They would not have long to discover that neither the assembly nor the governor had any intention of addressing their main complaint; the disproportionate representation in the colony. As the Indian threat to the frontier receded, even defense issues dropped from the agenda as the colony began the task of rebuilding. The riots led to increased calls by many to have the “Proprietorship” status of Pennsylvania revoked and the colony made a “Royal” one due to the weakness and inability of the government to put down the insurrection without the use of “extra-legal” militia organizations. The Indians housed in Philadelphia, after suffering from a smallpox epidemic which killed one third of their number, were finally relocated in 1765 to Wyalusing, Pennsylvania where they attempted to live in peace with their neighbors. In spite of the Paxton Boys claims that among their number were those wanted for murder no evidence was ever provided to back up these accusations. None of the Paxton Boys was ever brought up on charges and in fact violence against all Indians by frontiersmen escalated in the aftermath of the incident. Colonial and Royal authorities proved unable to enforce their will on the frontier and similar incidents in South and North Carolina led the British to view the colonies as ‘unstable' and in need of stronger oversight and military force to ensure civil stability.
An Anti-Quaker Defense of the Paxton BoysFrom [David James Dove], The Quaker Unmask'd, or, Plain Truth (Philadelphia: Andrew Steuart, 1764), reprinted in John R. Dunbar, ed., The Paxton Papers (The Hague: Martinus Nijhoff, 1957), 208-09. After murdering the Conestoga Indians in the Lancaster workhouse, the Paxton Boys marched on Philadelphia, threatening to kill any Indians taking refuge among the Quakers there. A number of pamphlets appeared in Philadelphia in support of the Paxton Boys, accusing the Quakers of treason for harboring Indians who had made war against Pennsylvania's frontier inhabitants. WHEN the Indian Incursions last Summer laid waste a considerable Part of our Frontier, by which near a thousand Families were drove from their Places, reduced to the utmost Poverty, and thrown upon the Public-Charity for the Support of their miserable Lives.–How did these meek, merciful, compassionate Quakers (who would seem to monopolize Christian Charity, and all the Tenderness of human Nature amongst themselves) behave on so melancholy an Occasion?–To their immortal Infamy be it known, that when every other religious Society in the City, even the Roman-Catholicks, whom they so much despise, (tho' saddled at the Time with the heavy Expence of building a Chapel) were sensibly affected with the Distresses of the poor unhappy Sufferers, and promoted very generous and liberal Contributions for their Relief and Support. These compassionate and merciful Christians [the Quakers], so easily affected with Pity for Indians, would not grant a single Farthing (as a Society) for the Relief of their Fellow Subjects. Tho' Justice requires we should exempt from this Odium a few worthy Individuals in the City, who contributed on the Occasion; as also a few others in the Town and Neighbourhood of Lancaster, who raised about Thirty Pounds for the same Purpose.WHEREAS when their Good Brethern the Indians (some of whom were well known by Officers now in the City, to have been in the Battle against Col. BOUQUET, and others at the Siege of Fort Pitt, during the Summer) seem'd to be in Danger of receiving their just Deserts from the Hands of a bereft and injured People, no Toils or Fatigues by Night or Day are thought too great, nor no Expence too much to protect those Bosom Friends. Nay, their very fundamental Principles of Non-Resistance [i.e., the Quakers' commitment to non-violence], which would never before bend in Defence of King or Country, are cheerfully sacrificed on the interesting Occasion, as a Compliment to perfidious Savages.THE PAXTON PEOPLE'S coming down armed, in a seemingly hostile Manner, is also justly to be condemned,–But whilst we condemn particular Facts, let us not misrepresent the general Characters of these People.Let it be considered, that they had, long before, sent several Petitions to the Governor and Assembly, which, its suppos'd, have been conceal'd by some ill designing persons: And tho' his Honour never receiv'd these Remonstances, yet the distress'd People believ'd he had, and look'd upon themselves as utterly neglected, and their sufferings despis'd by the Government. . . . WHAT these People intended by their coming down arm'd let themselves declare. I only observe, that the Manner of their Behavior when they came, did them Honour; as it shew'd them to be brave, loyal and discreet.
An Account of the Paxton Boys' Murder of the Conestoga IndiansFrom [Benjamin Franklin], A Narrative of the Late Massacres, in Lancaster County, of a Number of Indians, Friends of this Province, By Persons Unknown. With some Observations on the same (Philadelphia, 1764), reprinted in Leonard W. Labaree, Papers of Benjamin Franklin, volume 11 (New Haven: Yale University Press, 1967), 11:50-53. Benjamin Franklin was one of the Pennsylvanians critical of the Paxton Boys' murderous rampage against the Conestoga Indians. He published this anonymous tract to decry the brutality of the “White Savages of Paxtang” who endangered Pennsylvania's security by attacking Indians indiscriminately.On Wednesday, the 14th of December, 1763, Fifty-seven Men, from some of our Frontier Townships, who had projected the Destruction of this little Common-wealth [Conestoga], came, all well-mounted, and armed with Firelocks, Hangers and Hatchets, having traveled through the Country in the Night, to Conestogoe Manor. There they surrounded the small Village of Indian Huts, and just at Break of Day broke into them all at once. Only three Men, two Women, and a young Boy, were found at home, the rest being out among the neighbouring White People, some to sell the Baskets, Brooms and Bowls they manufactured, and others on other Occasions. These poor defenceless Creatures were immediately fired upon, stabbed and hatcheted to Death! The good Shehaes [a Conestoga] among the rest, cut to Pieces in his Bed. All of them were scalped, and otherwise horribly mangled. Then their Huts were set on Fire, and most of them burnt down. When the Troop, pleased with their own Conduct and Bravery, but enraged that any of the poor Indians had escaped the Massacre, rode off, and in small Parties, by different Roads, went home.The universal Concern of the neighbouring White People on hearing of this Event, and the Lamentations of the younger Indians, when they returned and saw the Desolation, and the butchered half-burnt Bodies of their murdered Parents, and other Relations, cannot well be expressed.The Magistrates of Lancaster sent out to collect the remaining Indians, brought them into the Town for their better Security against any further Attempt, and it is said condoled with them on the Misfortune that had happened, took them by the Hand, comforted and promised them Protection. They were all put into the Workhouse, a strong Building, as the Place of greatest Safety. . . . . . . those cruel Men again assembled themselves, and hearing that the remaining fourteen Indians were in the Work-House at Lancaster, they suddenly appeared in that Town, on the 27th of December. Fifty of them, armed as before, dismounting, went directly to the Work-House, and by Violence broke open the Door, and entered with the utmost Fury in their Countenances. When the poor Wretches saw they had no Protection nigh, nor could possibly escape, and being without the least Weapon for Defence, they divided into their little Families, the Children clinging to the Parents; they fell on their Knees, protested their Innocence, declared their Love to the English, and that, in their whole Lives, they had never done them Injury; and in this Posture they all received the Hatchet! Men, Women and little Children–were every one inhumanly murdered!–in cold Blood!The barbarous Men who committed the atrocious Fact, in Defiance of Government, of all Laws human and divine, and to the eternal Disgrace of their Country and Colour, then mounted their Horses, huzza'd in Triumph, as if they had gained a Victory, and rode off–unmolested!The Bodies of the Murdered were then brought out and exposed in the Street, till a Hole could be made in the Earth, to receive and cover them.But the Wickedness cannot be covered, the Guilt will lie on the whole Land, till Justice is done on the Murderers. THE BLOOD OF THE INNOCENT WILL CRY TO HEAVEN FOR VENGEANCE.
http://www.explorepahistory.com/odocument.php?docId=39 http://www.explorepahistory.com/odocument.php?docId=279
Fischer, David Hackett. Albion's Seed: Four British Folkways in America. New York: Oxford Univeristy Press, 1989. Hindle, Brook. “The March of the Paxton Boys,” The William and Mary Quarterly, 3rd Ser., Vol. 3, No. 4 (Oct, 1946), pp. 461-486. Martin, James Kirby. “The return of the Paxton Boys and the Historical State of the Pennsylvania frontier, 1764-1774,” Pennsylvania History, Vol. 38 (1971), pp. 117-133. Newland, Samuel. The Pennsylvania Militia: The Early Years, 1669-1792. Annville, PA: Pennsylvania National Guard Association, 1997. Olsen, Alison. “The Pamphlet War Over the Paxton Boys,” Pennsylvania Magazine of History and Biography, Vol. CXXII, No. 1/2 (Jan/Apr 1999), pp. 31-55. Vaughan, Alden T. “Frontier Banditti and the Indians: The Paxton Boy's Legacy, 1763-1775,” Pennsylvania History, Vol. 51 (Jan. 1984), No. 1, pp. 1-29. Ward, Matthew C. Breaking the Backcountry: The Seven Years' War in Virginia and Pennsylvania, 1754-1765. Pittsburgh: University of Pittsburgh Press, 2003.
Grievances of the Paxton Volunteers: http://www.hsp.org/files/grievances.jpg Apology of the Paxton Volunteers: http://www.hsp.org/files/apology.jpg 1841 etching of the Paxton Boys: http://www.explorepahistory.com/displayimage.php?imgId=661 The Paxton Expedition: http://www.explorepahistory.com/displayimage.php?imgId=2451 1756 Pennsylvania Map: http://www.mapsofpa.com/18thcentury/1756kitchin.jpg Quaker Friendly Association: http://www.hsp.org/files/friendlyassoc.jpg Iroquois Warrior: http://www.historydetroit.com/pics/Iroquois-Warrior.jpg Indian hostages: http://www.holychildrye.org/faculty/rwong/LA%20images/mary%20jemison.jpg
|
 |
| Sam Houston State University | History Department |