USA > Pennsylvania > History of proprietary government in Pennsylvania > Part 9
Note: The text from this book was generated using artificial intelligence so there may be some errors. The full pages can be found on Archive.org (link on the Part 1 page).
Part 1 | Part 2 | Part 3 | Part 4 | Part 5 | Part 6 | Part 7 | Part 8 | Part 9 | Part 10 | Part 11 | Part 12 | Part 13 | Part 14 | Part 15 | Part 16 | Part 17 | Part 18 | Part 19 | Part 20 | Part 21 | Part 22 | Part 23 | Part 24 | Part 25 | Part 26 | Part 27 | Part 28 | Part 29 | Part 30 | Part 31 | Part 32 | Part 33 | Part 34 | Part 35 | Part 36 | Part 37 | Part 38 | Part 39 | Part 40 | Part 41 | Part 42 | Part 43 | Part 44 | Part 45 | Part 46 | Part 47 | Part 48 | Part 49 | Part 50 | Part 51
koaset alias Joe, have hereunto set their Hands and Seals at Stenton, the Seventh Day of September in the Year of our Lord, one Thousand Seven Hundred and thirty two, and in the Sixth year of the Reign of King George the Second over Great Britain, etc.
We the above named Sasoonan alias Allummapis, Elalapis, Ohopamen, Pes- queetamen, Mayemoe, Partridge, Tepakoaset, als Joe, Doe hereby acknowledge to have had and Received of and from the above named Thomas Penn, all and every the above mentioned parcells and quantities of Goods, and fifty pounds in money, being the full consideration for all and Singular the above Granted Lands and premises, and Doe acknowledge our Selves fully Satisfied and contented for the same, as
Witness our Hands,
Sealed and Delivered
by Sasoonan, Alala-
pis, Pesqueetom, Oho-
pamen, Mayemoe,
OHOPAMEN, his x mark.
Partridge & Tepakoa-
MAYEEMOE, his x mark.
set, in the presence of JAMES LOGAN,
PARTRIDGE, his x mark. TEPA X KOASET,
THOMAS FREAME,
mark.
ISAAC MORRIS, JunT.,
ROBT. CHARLES,
PETER LLOYD,
W. PLUMSTED,
JAMES HAMILTON,
MORD. LLOYD, JAMES STEEL.
Pa. Arch., Ist series, i, pp. 344-7.
SASOONAN alias ALLUMAPIS, his x mark. ALALAPIS, his x mark. PESQUEETOM, his x mark.
" Confirmed in July, 1754; Smith, Laws of Pa., ii, pp. 115, 116; Pa. Arch. Ist series, i, pp. 494, 498. Penn MSS., Offic. Corresp., vi; Gov. Morris to Sir William Johnson, Nov. 15, 1754.
IOI
IN PENNSYLVANIA
101]
the Delaware and the Susquehanna had been granted by Dela- ware chiefs, with an acknowledgment that the lands had been duly paid for, and that they had seen and heard read title deeds given under the hands and seals of their ancestors, by which the lands in question had been sold to William Penn. In this deed the indefinite language of early grants was avoided, and the northern limits were fixed at the Lehigh hills. Hence the northern limit of the " Walking Purchase," which would have extended beyond the Lehigh hills, was re- stricted to these hills. Ten years later, at a treaty held in Philadelphia, the entire deed was confirmed and the chiefs ad- mitted that they had been paid.1
It was contended by the opponents of the proprietary party in the province, that the territorial rights of the Six Nations were confined to the regions watered by the upper Susque- hanna and its tributaries, and as they claimed no lands on the Delaware, they could not convey any there. The tract sold in 1732 comprised none of the lands on the Delaware or its branches, and certainly none at the confluence of the Delaware and Lehigh. Granting the authenticity of the deed of 1686, it had never been " walked." The land at the junction of these two rivers, or " forks of the Delaware " as it was called, was moreover several miles north of the tract specified in the deed of 1718. The Delawares of course had rights there. Hence, August 25, 1737, the proprietors obtained from them another release of the " Walking Purchase." The Indians also desired that it should be walked.2 The walkers chosen by the proprie- tors were so expert that the Indians, who were unable to keep pace with them, complained of their rapidity. Furthermore a draft of the tract, made by the surveyor-general shortly after, included the best land in the " forks " of the Delaware. Hence the chiefs who signed the release of 1737 were unwilling to
1 Smith, Laws of Pa., ii, p. 113. 2 Pa. Arch., Ist Series, i, pp. 541-2.
IO2
PROPRIETARY GOVERNMENT [102
leave the lands, or to give quiet possession to those who came to take them up. They remonstrated, and threatened to defend their position by force. Accordingly, in 1741, a message was sent to the Six Nations urging them to compel the Delawares to relinquish possession of the "forks," and asserting that their coming to Pennsylvania was indispensable to the present peace of the colony.2
At this treaty, held with the Six Nations at Philadelphia in 1742, Gov. Thomas declared that, as they applied on all occas- ions to the Pennsylvania government to remove the white people who settled on lands before they were duly purchased, and in reference to such appeals proclamations had been issued to eject the intruders, they in turn should cause the Indians to remove from the locality named, and not give further dis- turbance to those now in possession. Canassatego, in the name of the rest, then severely censured the Delawares, stating that he had seen the deed signed by nine of their ancestors in 1686, as well as a release signed in 1737 by sixteen of them- selves, and desired to know how they, being conquered sub- jects of the Six Nations, dared to sell any land whatsoever. In fact they had long since been paid for it, and now they ap- peared to want it again. He sharply criticised their deceitfulness in not informing the Six Nations of the sale, and for such dis- honesty commanded them immediately to depart and abandon all claims to lands on this side of the river. They were bidden to go either to Wyoming or Shamokin, and never again to interfere in affairs concerning land. The command was
1 The walk extended from Wrightsville to Mauch Chunk, a little over 60 miles. From this point a line was run to the Delaware, not at the Water Gap, but at the mouth of Lackawaxon Creek. This, not the length of the walk, was what made the dissatisfaction. Hoyt, Syllabus of the Controversy between Connecticut and Pennsylvania, pp. 15-16. But the subsequent complaints of the Indians were due far more to the presence of squatters than to any supposed injustice on the part of the walkers. Hazard, Register of Pa., v, p. 339; vi, p. 209 et seq., P. 337 et seq.
. 2 Votes, iii, pp. 481-2.
103
IN PENNSYLVANIA
103]
obeyed, but the Delawares and Shawanese never forgot the disgrace they had suffered, and later wreaked a bloody ven- geance.I ·
In 1749 the proprietors for £500 purchased from the Six Nations all the territory beginning at the Kittatinny hills on the east side of the Susquehanna, which it will be remem- bered was the northern boundary mentioned in the deed of 1736, and running up the river by its course to the mouth of Mahanoy Creek, thence by a straight line to the Lehigh River, and thence to the mouth of Lackawaxon Creek. From this point the line verged eastward to the Delaware, and followed the river to the hills mentioned, and thence along the range of the hills, it returned to the place of starting .? At the Albany treaty, five years later, the proprietors for $400 purchased from the Six Nations all lands in Pennsylvania, extending north-west by west from the Kittatinny hills on the west branch of the Susquehanna to the limits of the province, thence southward to the southern boundary, thence by this boundary to the south side of the hills, and from that point to the place of beginning. In the deed it was also stipu- lated that whenever the region north and west of the Alle- ghany Mountains was settled, the Indians should receive an additional compensation. The purchase appears to have been fairly made, but it was undoubtedly one of the causes of the Indian revolt.3 The savages said that they did not under-
1 It seems clear that the French gained over the Indians by the promise to re- store to them their lands. Col. Rec., v, p. 519 et seq ; Votes, iii, p. 555, iv, pp. 492, 718 et seq .; Pa. Arch., Ist series, i, p. 629.
2 Smith, Laws of Pa., ii, pp. 119, 126; Pa. Arch., Ist series, ii, p. 33.
3 In an address to Gov. Denny in June, 1757, the assembly stated that the In- dian hostilities in great measure were due to exorbitant and unreasonable pur- chases made or supposed to be made from the Indians, and the manner of making them. Votes, iv, p. 718 et seq .; N. Y. Col. Doc., vii, pp. 18, 130, 169, 276.
If the Indians had had good cause for complaint against the proprietors, they would have made it at the preliminary meeting with the Six Nations at Carlisle in October, 1753. But the three Commissioners, Richard Peters, Isaac Norris and
104
PROPRIETARY GOVERNMENT [104
stand the points of the compass, and if the line was run so as to include the west branch of the Susquehanna, they would never agree to it. Observation was made that the Connecti- cut claimants were then attempting to make surveys above Shamokin, and that this deed was intended to prevent their interference. But the only parts of the province apparently left open to the natives were either mountainous, or claimed by the Connecticut intruders. The territory sold included the hunting grounds of the Delawares, Shawanese, Nanticokes, Tutelas, and Ohio Indians. As a result, several of the tribes thus deprived of their lands joined the French, and the next year Braddock's defeat showed their resentment. Sir William Johnson then wrote to the Board of Trade, declaring that to surrender the deed of sale, and to settle the boundaries with the Indians, would be for the public service. To this the pro- prietors agreed, on condition that the Indians should not grant the lands to any one else.' They felt that their claims should be made good, but not at the expense of encroachment on what was viewed as Indian property. They also believed that, before the boundary line of any purchased tract was run, the Indians should appoint some of their own number to be pres- ent. Therefore at a treaty held at Easton in October, 1758, they gave up all claims to the region about the Ohio, north and west of the Alleghanies, and the Indians on their part
Benjamin Franklin, sent by the assembly to investigate the Indian grievances, made no mention in their report of any complaint by the Indians that they had been defrauded. Indeed, it is certain that no regular complaint against the proprietors ever was made by an Indian council. Some of the stragglers, when they wanted more rum, would find fault, asserting that they had been cheated. "This would always be the case as long as there were any Indians and as long as they could get rum." Such was the opinion of an interpreter thor- oughly acquainted with the Indian character, and assuredly ought to have great weight in forming a judgment of the above transaction. Col. Rec., vi, pp. 724-6, vii, p. 245; Pa. Arch., Ist series, iii, p. 313, Conrad Weiser to Gov. Denny.
1 P. L. B., v, T. P. to Johnson, March 12, 1757; to Peters and Weiser, Nov. 7, 1757.
105
IN PENNSYLVANIA
105]
agreed to settle the boundaries of the remainder. Indeed, so cautious were the proprietors not to offend the savages, that explicit instructions to this end were sent to the deputy sur- veyors.I
We have seen from the record of Indian purchases that the lands whose possession was disputed by the savages, had been repeatedly bought by the proprietors. But the Delawares and Shawanese were still dissatisfied. Strenuous efforts were made to pacify them. In 1756 and 1757, conferences were held with their chiefs. Teedyuscung, one of the most prominent of the Delawares, claimed that the sale of 1737 was made with the un- derstanding that the lands should be bounded by a line parallel to the course of the Delaware; but he asserted that instead the proprietors had had a straight line run with the compass. As by this act they were enabled to take possession of twice the quantity which the Indians intended to convey, he charged them with fraud, because they had altered and violated the terms of the deed. The proprietors immediately sent a com- mission to several persons to establish their innocence, and ordered the complaints of the Indians to be laid before the king. The assembly also sent a petition from Teedyuscung to the king, and Franklin the agent of the assembly at the time laid it before the Board of Trade.2 The proprietors were called before that body to make their defence, and after all the evidence had been presented, the Board advised the king to refer the affair to Sir William Johnson.3 Orders to this effect were accordingly sent to Johnson. But Teedyuscung was displeased, for he was more inclined toward Gov. Hamilton whose public character was unimpeachable. A Delaware
1 No warrants were to be granted until such a line was properly ascertained ; and applications for lands near this line were marked " Quaere- if in the purchase." Smith, Laws of Pa., ii, p. 122 . N. Y. Col. Doc., vii, pp. 377, 388; Penn MSS., T. P. to Peters, May 26, 1758, Jan. 9, 1761.
2 Penn MSS., T. P. to Peters, Sept. 8, 1758, Feb. 10, 1759, and May 19, 1759.
8 Ibid., June 7. 1759.
106
PROPRIETARY GOVERNMENT [106
chieftain would naturally question the justice of a man whose interest lay particularly with the Six Nations, and whose in- fluence over them was paramount. Nor were the Penns enthusiastic over the action of the home government. They felt that free and open conference was the best way to win con- fidence, and that it was not proper for Johnson to arbitrate between themselves and Indians who lived within the bounds of their province. But this could not prevail against the policy of the home government, which was then favorable to the as- sumption by itself of all control of Indian affairs as a depart- ment of defense. After several conferences at which Johnson presided, and in which various deeds and affidavits were pro- duced, Teedyuscung admitted that he had received a portion of the purchase money for the land, though most of it had been given to the Six Nations." He then withdrew the charge of forgery against the proprietors, but insisted that the "walk " had not been properly conducted. Still on June 28, 1762, he agreed to sign a release for all the lands in dispute.2 On the other hand, no special reservation had been men- tioned in the records and documents describing the property of the Delawares, but at their own request they were allowed to remain upon the land at Wyoming so long as they choose to occupy it. But in case they wished to depart, the proprietors reserved the right immediately to grant it to white settlers. In fact the proprietors had no desire to force the Indians to leave, and were willing to reserve for them at a suitable dis- tance from the settlements of the whites land sufficient in quantity for hunting or cultivating.3 The last purchase made by the proprietors from the Indians, took place at Fort Stanwix
' The proprietors were assuredly not obliged to ascertain what other claimants existed after the principals had been satisfied ; but they thought the Six Nations ought to have been more generous in their apportionment. Ibid., Feb. 10, 1759.
2 Ibid., Aug. 10 and Sept. 10, 1762; Pa. Arch., Ist Series, iv, p. 85.
$ Ibid., Feb. 10, 1759.
107
IN PENNSYLVANIA
107]
in 1768. Here for a consideration of $10,000, they obtained from the Six Nations all of Pennsylvania, not hitherto pur- chased, nearly as far west as the Ohio, but within minutely specified bounds. At the same time they gave $500 for the lands of the Conestogoe Indians, who had been murdered by frontier ruffians several years before.I
This concludes the sketch of the actual purchases from the Indians. We see how the proprietors repeatedly bought the same territory. As a general rule also their officers did not grant lands beyond the limits of the tracts purchased.2 Hence all insinuations about unfair practices on their part were without foundation.
Let us now consider the management of Indian affairs as more particularly affecting the regulation of Indian trade, the encroachment of the whites and the settlement of boundaries. At the outset Penn had refused a very lucrative offer for the monopoly of the Indian trade, because he feared that his kindly treatment of the savages would not be imitated by the traders.3 But he recognized the necessity for some regulation of the traffic. Several laws on the subject were passed, but as a rule attempts to check by legislation the sale of rum, the debauch- ing of the Indian women, and other excesses were ineffectual. This was mainly due to the reckless conduct of the traders, and to the natural weakness of the Indians for spirituous liquors, although it is true that the Indian chiefs not in- frequently complained of the indiscriminate sale of rum.4 Con- siderable uncertainty prevailed, however, as to the wisdom of allowing the savages the use of liquor in limited quantities. Penn himself was accustomed to give the chiefs a small quan- tity whenever he held a treaty with them, and was not unwill- ing that the Indians should buy liquor, provided they would
1 N. Y. Col. Doc., viii, pp. 126, 133. 2 I Binney's Reports, p. 248,
3 Hazard, Annals of Pr., p. 522.
+ Pa. Arch., Ist series, i, pp. 425, 549-552.
108
PROPRIETARY GOVERNMENT [108
submit to the usual penalties for drunkenness.1 At a session of the provincial council in 1701, at which Penn was present, the project of forming a company to take charge of the Indian trade was broached. It was suggested that the traders in their transactions should set the Indians a good example, and that care should be taken to instruct the savages in the prin- ciples of Christianity. It was also agreed that no rum should. be sold, except to the Indian chiefs, and then only in limited quantities.2 But the project failed at that time. Then com- plaints arose that persons from other provinces traded with the Indians, and, by making them intoxicated, succeeded in fraudulently depriving them of the very means of existence. Thereupon a law was passed in the same year forbidding non- residents to trade with Indians in the province, and at the re- quest of several chiefs, it was further provided under heavy penalties, that no rum should be carried into the Indian vil- lages. As proofs of such private dealings were often wanted, the statement of one professed Christian was deemed sufficient.3 But the trade with the Indians continued to be carried on by the most abandoned part of the community. The great quantity of liquor consumed by the savages rendered them intractable and quarrelsome. The traders, living as they did beyond the restraints of law, by their own intemperance, by the frauds they practiced, and by their other irregularities con- tributed much to estrange the Indians. To guard against these abuses, and to promote a continuance of the friendship Penn had established, a law was passed in 1715, providing that persons who had injured a peaceable Indian should be subject to the same penalties as if the injury had been com- mitted against a white man. On the other hand, offenses com- mitted by the Indians were similarly dealt with. Furthermore, persons who, on the testimony of credible Indians, were con-
1 Charter and Laws of Pa., p. 169. 2 Col. Rec., ii, pp. 19-21.
$ Bradford, Laws of Pa.
109
IN PENNSYLVANIA
109]
victed of spreading false news tending to alienate the savages, or to create fear among them, were subject to fine and impris- onment. No one was to be allowed to trade with the Indians, unless he was recommended by the county court to the gov- ernor for a yearly license, and furnished security for his repu- table conduct and observance of the laws of the province. Free- holders, however, were permitted to buy goods from the Indians, but only for private use. As the debauchery among the savages did not seem to be much lessened, in 1722 it was enacted that trade with the Indians should be carried on within a settled township, and at the house of the trader. Not more than one gallon of rum should be carried beyond the settled portions of the province, and none should be sold ex- cept under the somewhat absurd condition, that a half gill might be given to an Indian by any person within his own home once every twelve hours. At treaties, however, the governor and council could do as they saw fit.1 As these acts were of brief duration, but little good could be expected from them. Then, as the influence of the Quakers waned, those who were sent to enforce the laws readily connived at fraud and deceit. The proprietors believed that all measures of reform must fail, unless people of excellent character were alone permitted to settle near the Indians. They also recom- mended that trading should continue to be carried on under licenses from the governor, and that missionaries should be sent among the savages. They were somewhat interested financially in the trade, but they forbade their officers to en- gage in it. But little regard, however, was paid to these sug- gestions, since by the middle of the eighteenth century, the Indians had come to despise the government of the province because of its apparent weakness, and only a display of authority could awe them into submission.2
1 Bradford, Laws of Pa.
2 Penn MSS., Supp. Proc., T. P. to Peters, Feb. 20, 1748, May 13, 1750, March 18, 1752; Correspondence of the Penn Family, R. Hockley to T. P., June 26, 1756.
IIO
PROPRIETARY GOVERNMENT
[IIO
The assembly by that time saw the necessity for govern- mental control of the Indian trade, and in 1758 a law was passed appointing nine commissioners for Indian affairs. They were made accountable to the assembly, and were given a percentage on the transactions. Agents at specified locali- ties conducted the trade, subject to the directions of the com- missioners, who were forbidden to engage in it either personally or in behalf of others. They supplied the agents with goods out of a capital stock appropriated by the assembly, and were empowered to borrow further sums in case the trade should prove lucrative. But if the profits were insufficient to pay salaries and interest, a provincial tax should be levied to meet the deficiency. When the goods were sold, the prices should be so regulated as to defray only the necessary ex- penses of the traffic, and the support of Protestant school- masters and missionaries ; but any surplus that might accrue should be disposed of by the assembly. Finally, stringent measures were enacted against the sale of liquor to the savages, and private persons were restricted to trade conducted exclu- sively at their homes. The following year the capital stock and percentages were increased. But in 1763 the commis- sioners were ordered by the assembly to sell the stock, as trade was impossible on account of Indian hostilities. Seven years later, however, commissioners were appointed to confer with delegates from the neighboring colonies for the purpose of agreeing upon a general plan for the regulation of the Indian trade. The advent of the Revolution of course prevented any such plan from being carried into execution.
Whenever the Indians sold land, it was understood that the whites should not settle or encroach upon their hunting grounds. In fact, every attempt to settle on such lands was attended with complaint and uneasiness on the part of the savages. William Penn of course never allowed any land to be settled until it had been purchased from the Indians, and we have seen that his sons, so far as possible, followed this
III
IN PENNSYLVANIA
III]
policy. Indeed, by an act passed in 1700 private persons had been forbidden to buy lands from the savages without the permission of the proprietor. But it was a common practice for private individuals to settle not only on land which had not been purchased from the Indians, but on that for which they held no title from the Penns; also to take land on lease from the savages, or to bargain with them for the pasturage,. timber, and mines. In an act passed in 1729 the practice was strongly condemned as unjust to the proprietors, and danger- ous to persons who were properly entitled to take up land. Hence it was enacted that the law of 1700 should be rigidly enforced according to the rules prescribed in the English statutes concerning forcible entries and detainers. But the frontiersmen were not readily driven from their settlements .. Consequently, the proclamations of governors, and the reso- lutions of the assemblies, that "for the peace of the country it was just that the Indian grievances should be removed," were often no more effective than the paper on which they were printed. The settlers continued to encroach, and gradually made their way to the fertile region in the "forks" of the Delaware. In 1728 the neighboring Indians prepared for war. Thereupon the proprietary officers desired them not to injure the settlers, but to wait until the matter could be adjusted. The savages submitted, but the encroachments continued, and they renewed their complaints.
The representatives of the Six Nations in 1742 remarked that the lands of the proprietors did not extend beyond the Kittatinny hills, but that white people had settled there and spoiled the hunting. They therefore asked that the squatters be ejected. Though Gov. Thomas stated that officers had been sent to stop such illegal proceedings, the Indians de- clared that these officers did not properly attend to their duties, and that, so far from ejecting the offenders, they made surveys for themselves, and were in league with the trespass- ers. They demanded that more effectual means and more.
A
II2
PROPRIETARY GOVERNMENT [112
honest men should be employed. They asserted, moreover, that they had given the land bordering on the river Juniata to the Delawares, Shawanese, and Nanticokes, as a hunting ground, and requested that the squatters in that region also should be immediately expelled. Again, at a meeting of depu- ties from the Six Nations held in 1749, Gov. Hamilton was told to remove the trespassers from this territory, or disastrous results might follow." Thereupon directions were speedily sent to check the evils, but as usual, owing to the strength of the frontiersmen, little was accomplished .? It was generally understood that the Six Nations should be consulted on all business that concerned the Indians. A meeting was there- fore held at Carlisle in 1753. Many of the sachems attached to the British interest were dead, while the chief sachem at the conference was known to be inclined toward the French. Again the deputies censured the government because of its de- lay in taking effective measures to stop illicit settling. The following year under orders from the king, the famous confer- ence with the Six Nations was held at Albany, and extraordi- nary efforts were made to preserve the friendship of the Indians. The Board of Trade at this time also recommended that, if practicable, all the provinces should be comprised in a general treaty to be made in the king's name; for, it declared, the conclusion of separate treaties by the individual provinces was improper, and likely to be attended with great inconven- ience to the royal service. Moreover, the Board viewed the separate negotiations by the assemblies with the Indians as a distinct usurpation of the prerogative of the crown.3
Need help finding more records? Try our genealogical records directory which has more than 1 million sources to help you more easily locate the available records.