This page has paths:
- 1 media/1717 first map showing Indiantown_edited-1.jpg 2017-04-09T15:37:38-07:00 Will Fenton 82bf9011a953584cd702d069a30cbdb6ef90650a Art Will Fenton 15 image_header 2021-11-07T12:23:29-08:00 Will Fenton 82bf9011a953584cd702d069a30cbdb6ef90650a
This page is referenced by:
Welcome to Digital Paxton. This site isn't only a digital collection dedicated to a massacre, but also a window into colonization, print culture, and Pennsylvania on the eve of the American Revolution.
The “Paxton” in Digital Paxton refers to a little-known massacre in colonial Pennsylvania.
In December 1763, a mob of settlers from Paxtang Township murdered 20 unarmed Susquehannock Indians in Lancaster County, Pennsylvania. A month later, hundreds of "Paxton Boys" marched toward Philadelphia to menace and possibly kill more refugee Indians who sought the protection of the Pennsylvania government. While Benjamin Franklin halted the march just outside of Philadelphia in Germantown, supporters of the Paxton Boys and their critics spent the next year battling in print.
The Paxton Boys accused the Conestoga Indians of colluding with the Ohio Country Lenape and Shawnee warriors who were attacking Pennsylvania's western frontier, a charge that had no basis in fact. Their opponents accused the Paxton Boys of behaving more savagely than the Indians they had killed.
The pamphlet war that followed in 1764 was not so different from the Twitter wars of today. Pamphleteers waged battle using pseudonyms, slandering opponents as failed elites and racial traitors. At stake was much more than the conduct of the Paxton men. Pamphleteers staked claims about colonization, peace and war, race and ethnicity, masculinity and civility, and religious association in pre-Revolutionary Pennsylvania.
Digital Paxton began in Spring 2016 when Will Fenton partnered with the Library Company of Philadelphia and the Historical Society of Pennsylvania to digitize both institutions' rich holdings related to the Paxton massacre. Originally conceived as a way to make those records freely accessible via the web, the site quickly expanded to include primary source materials from some two-dozen archives, research libraries, and cultural institutions; a dozen contextual essays from leading historians and literary scholars; and half a dozen lessons from secondary and post-secondary educators.
- Jump to Credits.
- Jump to the Digital Collection.
- Jump to Public Outreach.
- Jump to GHOST RIVER.
- Jump to Contact.
media/1717 first map showing Indiantown_edited-1.jpg
A History of Conestoga Indiantown
Darvin L. Martin
Conestoga Indiantown was at the forefront of Native American/Colonial relations in the eighteenth-century mid-Atlantic. The colonies of Pennsylvania, Maryland, and Virginia each signed treaties through Conestoga concerning a range of Native American issues that impacted the entire continent as Europeans traveled west.
In hundreds of accounts written between 1701 and its demise in 1763, Indiantown served as a reference point in the first surveys to determine the Pennsylvania/Maryland border 16 miles to the south (Colonial Records of Pennsylvania). The records indicate that as Europeans moved in, Indiantown was increasingly regarded as a reservation and its inhabitants made increasingly dependent on both the Pennsylvania government and their European neighbors for sustenance.
This essay will explore the history of Conestoga Indiantown, its people, and their displacement after the Paxton massacre.
The Susquehannock Nation
The Susquehannock Nation finds its roots in the Seneca Nation of western New York. Beginning in the early 1400s, Susquehannock peoples differentiated themselves from the Seneca, and migrated south-east, downstream along the river which now bears their name, to settle in what is now Lancaster County, Pennsylvania (Kent 13-18). By the mid-1500s, Susquehannock culture dominated trade along the Susquehanna River and established several cities along its eastern shore, both north and south of the confluence of the Conestoga River with the Susquehanna. They grew maize, beans, at least six species of squash, tobacco, paw-paw fruit, at least two species of chenopodium, marshelder and maygrass, and engaged in hunting, fishing, beadwork, weaving, flint knapping, construction, and trade through a network that extended at least from modern-day Louisiana to Quebec (Minderhout 30ff; Ward 231ff).
Captain John Smith referenced the Susquehannock in his account of exploration regarding the Chesapeake Bay in 1608 (Smith 58-61). Smith was surprised to find the Susquehannocks trading French goods from Quebec, a colony founded just a few years earlier. The Susquehannocks were also noted by the Swedish missionary Johannes Campanius, in 1645, when he described a fort located twelve Swedish miles (about 80 English miles) from New Sweden (now Wilmington, Delaware). “They came daily to trade with us…They live on a high mountain…there they have a fort, a square building surrounded with palisades…They have guns and small iron canon.” (Holm 157-158).
Due to colonial pressures and the traumatic effect of disease introduced by Europeans, however, the Native population soon declined precipitously. Europeans considered the effect as “divine providence,” the natural winnowing of a once powerful people (Carlisle and Golson 108ff). In the 1670s, the Susquehannocks, now possessing far lesser influence, moved to the west side of the Susquehanna River, which was claimed by the government of Maryland.
In May 1680, about 300 Susquehannocks were forcibly relocated from the lower village and placed in Maryland on a reservation 100 miles to the south near the first cataracts of the Potomac River (Maryland Archives). The reservation was rampant with disease and created systemic dependency, stripping the Susquehannocks of the ability to practice their culture and teach their children native values. Within two years scores of natives fled the reservation, and by any means possible, attempted to return to their homeland.
Between 1682 and 1685, this group had reconnected with others and settled just south of the 40th parallel on the east side of the Susquehanna, about four miles inland (Jennings 198-199). They numbered about 200 people, and assumed the name Conestoga, and are henceforth known as the Conestoga Indians.
They settled in the heart of what later became Penn’s Manor, and area of 16,000 acres initially restricted from colonial settlement (Kenny 21-22). William Penn allegedly visited the Natives at this location on his second visit to Pennsylvania in 1701. The 1717 Taylor survey of “Conestoga Manor” clearly shows “Indiantown” immediately north of John Cartledge’s 300 acre tract (PA 4:49).
After William Penn’s death in 1718, the established Manor was gradually broken up for European settlement. By the time a new survey was drawn up in 1737, 414 acres remained surrounding the native village of “Indiantown.” The 414 acres were bracketed by farms established by English Quakers and Swiss-German Mennonites.
In 1739, a Swiss-German neighbor by the name of Michael Bachman attempted to obtain the last of the Native lands—the very acres upon which the remaining Susquehannocks had settled. He went to Philadelphia and presented a request in which he claimed he could convince the Indians to remove themselves from the manor so that he could “purchase the spot where the old Indian town stands with the whole vacancy” (Taylor 147). James Logan denied the request, as the Indians of Conestoga were necessary as a listening post for broader Indian affairs.
Seven Years’ War
English frontiersmen turned against Conestoga Indiantown during the prologue leading into the French and Indian War. Gross atrocities occurred on both sides of the conflict brewing in the 1740s and exasperated into full scale guerilla warfare in the 1750s. However, Indiantown remained reclusive and largely peaceful.
Those joining the war effort left Indiantown for the front lines of battle to the north and west. The small band of Conestogas that remained on 414 acres in southern Manor Township became trapped within this “reservation.” They were fearful of carrying guns to hunt beyond their small acreage. Even traveling outside the reservation to sell handmade baskets and bowls aroused the suspicion of a local public, which grew discontent with the native presence, and sought to take over their lands.
Many of the Conestoga at Indiantown had converted to Christianity. They took on Christian names and named their children after their English and German neighbors. The local Lancaster government distanced itself from the administrative duties regarding Indiantown, and by default such responsibility rested squarely on the Quaker government in Philadelphia. Clinging to a three-generation old arrangement made by William Penn, Indiantown petitioned the Philadelphia government directly to settle its grievances. Quaker justice James Wright and German Mennonite Abraham Herr, who both lived near Indiantown, were appointed by the Pennsylvania government to supply them with flour and basic necessities (“Recollections”). Mennonite gunsmith Abraham Newcomer began to refuse serving the Natives at Conestoga Indiantown for fear that their guns and knives were being used against white frontiersmen (Dunbar 282).
In Colonial Records (Vol. 9, p.88) we find the last address from the Conestoga, dated November 30, 1763:
Pennsylvanian frontiersmen, particularly of Scots-Irish descent, festered increasing resentments against the Quaker-led Pennsylvanian government and its apparent sympathy for the Native people. The frontiersmen sought to defend their squatter properties from both Native American raids and the Pennsylvania Provincial Council. Suspicious that the peaceful natives of Conestoga Indiantown were providing aid and intelligence to the hostile natives on the frontier, these vigilantes formed their own militia with the goal of exterminating the local natives.
To the Honorable John Penn, esquire, lieutenant Governor and Commander-in-chief of the Province of Pennsylvania,
Brother: We (the Conestoga Indians) take the present opportunity, by Captain Montour, to welcome you into this Country by this string of Wampum and as we are settled at this place by an agreement of peace and amity established between your grandfathers and ours, we now promise ourselves your favor and protection, and as we have always lived in peace and quietness with our Brethren and neighbors round us during the last and present Indian Wars, we hope now, as we are deprived from supporting our families by hunting, as we formerly did, you will consider our distressed situation and grant our women and children some clothing to cover them this winter. The government has always been kind enough to allow us some provisions, and did formerly appoint people to take care of us, but as there is no person to take that upon him, and some of our neighbors have encroached upon the tract of land reserved here for our use, we would now beg our brother, the Governor to appoint our friend Captain Thomas McKee, who lives near us and understands our language, to take care and see Justice done us.
SOHAYS, his mark
CUYANGUERRYCOEA, his mark
SAGUYASOTHA (JOHN), his mark (Colonial Records 9:88)
Right of Conquest
The Paxtons’ intent to kill every Conestogan, every adult or child who could claim inheritance, furthered their goals to take control of Indiantown. Immediately following the massacre, the Paxtons cited “the right of conquest,” claiming themselves as victorious with the right to claim ownership of a conquered territory. However, the property had been effectively managed as a reservation for decades by the Pennsylvania government in Philadelphia. Following the massacre, the property’s management was assumed by Sir William Johnson, the British-commissioned superintendent of Indian affairs for the colonies. Johnson appointed Jacob Whisler, a Mennonite neighbor, as the property’s caretaker (PA 1:119).
On March 12, 1764, Whisler wrote an urgent letter to Surveyor General William Peters, in which he said that two men came to his home to inform him that nine or ten Paxton families intended to settle the town by right of conquest. In April, Whisler wrote again, informing the authorities that two families were already living on the land and a third was plowing it. When approached by Whisler, the squatters claimed they would defend their rights for the conquered land to the death. Whisler identified the families as that of Richard Meloon and Robert Bow (Brubaker 131).
The Lancaster Magistrate Edward Shippen also reported to governor Penn that settlers were building new log houses on the Indian land and that an elderly couple named Magginty was living in one of the existing “Indian Wigwams.” However, both Edward Shippen and Thomas Barton, the rector at St. James Episcopal Church, issued pamphlets defending the acts of the Paxton militia. Shippen’s influence in 1763 was extensive. With the Philadelphia government demanding the identity and detention of the killers, the Paxton Boys could not have evaded arrest without the help of Shippen.
Four years later, the land was still occupied. On January 13, 1768, the Pennsylvania assembly, through speaker Joseph Galloway, addressed the governor, reiterating that the respected colonial general Thomas Gage (later Governor of Massachusetts) and Sir William Johnson were dissatisfied with the management of Indiantown and that the perpetrators who murdered “a number of Seneca and other Indians,” had “eluded the hands of justice” (Colonial Records 9:409). The assembly gave voice to a concern among the continental governing authorities that the Indian lands were settled without the consent of the Indians themselves, namely the Seneca nation. A plan was developed to insure that Conestoga Indiantown was “officially” returned to the Pennsylvania government, and no Indian could ever lay claim to it again.
Treaty of Fort Stanwix
On November 5, 1768, Johnson signed a treaty with the Six Nations of the Iroquois at the strategic Fort Stanwix (present-day Rome, New York). In the treaty the Iroquois relinquished lands beyond their scope, extending the British boundary from the Alleghenies west through the full course of the Ohio River to the Tennessee River. The treaty effectively granted all of Pennsylvania south of the West branch of the Susquehanna, and all of modern-day West Virginia and Kentucky south of the Ohio River. And here, near the end of the verbiage of the treaty, specifically by name, the commissioners presented 500 dollars to the Seneca and Cayuga peoples “in full satisfaction of the ‘Conostoga Lands,’ which by the death of that People became vested in the Proprietaries.” The treaty stated that Pennsylvania “freely gave this sum as a farther Proof of the regard of that Province, for them, and of their concern for the unhappy fate of the Conostogas” (Marshall; full text available here). The payment was not made in standard British currency, but in dollars, presumedly the popular Spanish silver dollar of the time. The approximate exchange of four Spanish dollars equaled one British pound.
Many of the Shawnee, Lenape, Cherokee, and various other tribes who lived throughout the lands negotiated in the treaty, did not acknowledge or agree to the terms and conditions. And as we find later, both Seneca and Cayuga Peoples challenged the claim to Conestoga Indiantown.
Meanwhile, the Philadelphia government considered the Lancaster magistrate responsible for arresting a detaining the perpetrators of the Conestoga massacre. No one was arrested, but instead, after the treaty was signed, Jacob Whister was dismissed from his appointment as caretaker of the property. That responsibility instead was handed to Thomas Barton, the Episcopalian rector who earlier issued a pamphlet condemning Benjamin Franklin’s remarks about the massacre and justifying the actions of the Paxton boys (Myers).
Barton almost immediately moved from his parsonage to Indiantown, and rebuilt the fences, constructed a barn and planted an apple orchard inside 50 acres of cleared land. In December 1770, he wrote a letter to Edmund Physick, the Penns’ land agent and suggested that occupying the land was not solely his idea or Johnson’s. He said his friends and he made the decision, that the governor endorsed such a decision to occupy the land, exactly as Whisler had done. Barton told Physick that he improved the property. At the time he moved there (1768) the fences were decayed, and the property was without “house, barn, nor stable, except two cabins erected by the Paxton people” (Brubaker 140-141).
In May of 1775, eight Cayuga Indians journeyed down the Susquehanna to Conestoga to petition their own claim to Indiantown. They proceeded to Philadelphia, where a council was held with them on May 16th. Three of the eight claimed to be the closest living survivors of Sohays, who lived at Conestoga. One claimed to be Sohays’ brother. The Governor revealed a copy of the Stanwix Treaty and described that the land had already been paid. He claimed that a value in goods equal to “200 pounds York money” was paid to Togaiato, the Cayuga Chief, to be distributed as he saw fit. However, for their trouble and journey, the Governor granted the claimant party of eight a total of 300 dollars. The Cayuga accepted the payment and signed the back of the treaty forfeiting their claim to Indiantown (Mombert 280ff). As before, the Pennsylvania government negotiated with the Indians using Spanish dollars.
The Deed is Done
On September 16, 1780, an official deed was created for Indiantown. The deed mentioned the original Jacob Taylor Survey of 1717, which partitioned 16,000 acres as Penn’s Manor, including Indiantown by name. The deed also mentioned the treaty at Fort Stanwix, declaring that the next of kin to the murdered Natives forfeit all “right, title and interest to said Indian Town and the lands thereto belonging.” Finally, the deed stipulated 414 ¾ undivided acres, owned in fourths. John Musser, the Mennonite land agent of Lancaster, was granted one-fourth for the sum of 1,244 pounds 5 shillings lawful money of Pennsylvania in gold or silver. The remaining three-fourths were sold to Robert Morris, esquire of Philadelphia, for 3,750 pounds (Deed Book BB-28-38).
The amount that the Philadelphia government paid in 1768 (500 Spanish dollars or 125 pounds) increased forty-fold when the government sold the tracts twelve years later. Over the same time period the farms adjacent to Indiantown significantly decreased in monetary value due to the American Revolution.
Pennsylvania purposely did not pay a fair price to the Indians for these lands. This is a common theme we find throughout this tragic history. While written on September 16, 1780, the deed was not recorded until November 16, 1784. There is no record detailing what happened to the property between 1780 and 1784. It is probably during this period that squatters were removed. The deed would not have been finalized until the land was cleared of potential claims and could be subdivided for new settlement.
John Musser acted as the local representative of Robert Morris’ land speculation. Morris represented Pennsylvania in the Second Continental Congress from 1775 to 1778, and extensively financed the American Revolution, giving one million pounds to pay the Continental troops under Washington. Morris owned numerous ships that carried cargo from Cuba and the West Indies to France, Spain, and Italy. He engaged in profiteering and seized illegal cargo in the West Indies, which is quite possibly why the Pennsylvania treasury paid Indians in Spanish dollars (Rappleye). The new United States Congress appointed Morris as the United States superintendent of finance from 1781 to 1784.
John Musser took the first steps to divide up Indiantown a year after the deed was recorded. He sold 63 acres and 63 perches to the neighbor to the south, James Pratt on January 1, 1786 for 1,014 pounds (Deed Book EE-543). Pratt later transferred this property to his son William. Thirty days later, on Jan 31, 1786, Musser paid Morris for the remainder of Indiantown (Morris’s ¾ investment), for 7,000 pounds (Deed Book FF-122). After this, Musser continued to divide up Indiantown.
Today, Chief’s Hill (also known as Indian Round Top) is the wooded patch inside property #19. The top of the mound is located where the western corner of property #20 is adjacent to the wooded patch. This mound is named for Togodhessah (Chief Civility), who as a young chief, addressed the Philadelphia government council on October 15, 1714, saying, “our Old Queen (Conguegos) is in the Indian mound, the aged warriors are dead; we are young buds of the old tree; we never saw our Great Father (Connoodaghtoh), but we shall keep the peace as long as the waters run or the sun continues to shine” (Colonial Records 2:574).
This essay was derived from Darvin Martin’s “The Case for Conestoga Indiantown” (2015). To learn more about Martin, visit the Creators page.
- Jack Brubaker. Massacre of the Conestogas: On the Trail of the Paxton Boys in Lancaster County. History Press, 2010.
- Rodney P. Carlisle and J. Geoffrey Golson, eds. Native America from Prehistory to First Contact. ABC-CLIO, 2006.
- Colonial Records of Pennsylvania, Vol. 2 & 9. Harrisburg, Printed by T. Fenn & Co. 1831-1853.
- Deed Book BB-28-38, EE-543, and FF-122. Lancaster, Pennsylvania.
- John R Dunbar. The Paxton Papers. The Hague: Martinus Nijhof, 1957.
- Thomas Campanius Holm. Description of the Province of new Sweden, now called by the English, Pennsylvania in America. Pennsylvania: McCarty & Davis, 1834.
- Francis Jennings. The Ambiguous Iroquois Empire. New York: W.W. Norton & Co., 1990.
- Kevin Kenny. Peaceable Kingdom Lost: The Paxton Boys and the Destruction of William Penn’s Holy Experiment. New York: Oxford University Press, 2009.
- Barry C. Kent. Susquehanna’s Indians. Harrisburg: Pennsylvania Historical and Museum Commission, 2001.
- Peter Marshall. “Sir William Johnson and the Treaty of Fort Stanwix, 1768.” Journal of American Studies 2 (1967): 149-179.
- Maryland Archives, Vol. 15, p. 280, dated May 12, 1680.
- David J. Minderhout, ed. Native Americans in the Susquehanna River Valley, Past and Present. Lewisburg: Bucknell University Press, 2013.
- Jacob Isidor Mombert. An Authentic History of Lancaster County. Lancaster: J. E. Barr & Company, 1869.
- James P. Myers Jr. “The Rev. Thomas Barton’s Authorship of The Conduct of the Paxton Men, Impartially Represented (1764),” Pennsylvania History 61 (Apr. 1994): 155-84.
- Pennsylvania State Archives, Vol. 1 & 9.
- Charles Rappleye. Robert Morris: Financier of the American Revolution. New York: Simon & Schuster, 2010.
- John Smith. The Generall Historie of Virigina, New England and the Summer Isles, Book 3, 1624.
- Isaac Taylor. Dec 3, 1739, Papers Read Before the Lancaster County Historical Society. Lancaster, 1896.
- H. Trawick Ward. “The Susquehannock Connection.” Excavating Occaneechi Town: Archaeology of an Eighteenth-Century Indian Village in North Carolina. Chapel Hill: University of North Carolina, 1998.
An Interview with the Paxton Boys
Montgomery Wolf and Eleanor Andersen
This assignment is intended to be completed in-class over two 45-minute classes or one 90-minute class. Unfinished work may be assigned as homework. This lesson will inculcate students with the skills needed for civic involvement in a participatory democracy as described by Barton & Levstik (2001).
- 8.1.12.A through 8.1.12.D
- CC.8.5.11-12.A through CC.8.5.11-12.I
- CC.8.6.11-12.A through CC.8.6.11-12.I
- How do settlers justify acts of violence?
- How do we evaluate sources?
- Students will demonstrate comprehension of the motivations and justifications of historical actors.
- Students will engage in critical dialogue with primary sources.
- Students will translate historic discourse into a contemporary media format (a podcast recording) in order to identify similarities and differences between eighteenth and twenty-first century discourses.
Primary Source Materials
Secondary Source Materials
- Google Drive or other file sharing service
- Laptops or smartphones equipped with Internet access and audio recording app (e.g. Voice Recorder & Audio Editor for iOS or Voice Recorder for Android)
Download a printable version of this background information.
Listening for Voices: The Fall and Rise of the Conestoga
This unit introduces students to the massacre of the Conestoga people in Pennsylvania (1763) through the examination of related primary sources and a close reading of Ghost River: The Fall and Rise of the Conestoga. This graphic novel blends history based on primary documents with indigenous history. Rather than a linear retelling of the past, the graphic novel's time is cyclical, moving between the past, present, and future.
This unit contains three main components (accessible below Contents):Quality Teaching for English Learners (QTEL) framework. Because students may have limited background knowledge of the Conestoga massacres and eighteenth-century Pennsylvania, they will connect to their prior knowledge and acquire background knowledge before reading Ghost River: The Fall and Rise of the Conestoga. Background knowledge is the focus of "Preparing the Learner." Students will engage with the core text—Ghost River—during "Interacting with Texts." The unit concludes with "Extending Understanding," which asks student to apply what they have learned and to generate new understandings.
- Students will understand and compare information from historic maps to achieve shared knowledge.
- Students will analyze historic paintings by interpreting the point of view to build a shared knowledge.
- Students will collaboratively interpret the graphic novel by analyzing the text and images and the cyclical presentation of time.
- Students will collaboratively make a claim supported with evidence.
- How might a people survive and grow in the face of evil and injustice?
- Why are multiple voices and perspectives important when learning about history?
- Should frontiers or borderlands be walls to keep people out or places for people to meet?
- Is history complicated? Is violence simple? (paraphrasing quote from Ghost River)
- Grade 6-11
- English Learner levels 1.5 - 2
- CC.8.5.9-10.D: Determine the meaning of words and phrases as they are used in a text, including vocabulary describing political, social, or economic aspects of history/social science.
- CCSS.ELA-LITERACY.RI.9-10.1: Cite strong and thorough textual evidence to support analysis of what the text says explicitly as well as inferences drawn from the text.
- CCSS.ELA-LITERACY.RI.9-10.3: Analyze how the author unfolds an analysis or series of ideas or events, including the order in which the points are made, how they are introduced and developed, and the connections that are drawn between them.
- CCSS.ELA-LITERACY.RH.9-10.1: Cite specific textual evidence to support analysis of primary and secondary sources, attending to such features as the date and origin of the information.
- C3 D2. His.1.9-12. Evaluate how historical events and developments were shaped by unique circumstances of time and place as well as broader historical contexts
In 1701, William Penn promised a diverse group of Native Americans (Susquehannock, Seneca, Delaware, and Shawnee) that they would have a home in Pennsylvania. The agreement with the people who became known as the Conestoga included 500 acres along the Susquehanna River in southwestern Lancaster County. That territory came to be known as Conestoga Manor (sometimes called "Conestoga Indiantown"). Some sixty years later, on December 14, 1763, the "Paxton Boys," a group of former militiamen, rode to the territory and murdered six Conestoga people and burned their longhouses. The local government moved the survivors to a workhouse (also called the "poor house") for protection. Instead, on December 27, the Paxton men returned and killed the remaining 14 Conestoga men, women and children. In early 1764, several hundred Paxton men marched east toward Philadelphia. They were met by Benjamin Franklin in Germantown, just north of Philadelphia, who convinced them to return home. None of the "Paxton Boys" were arrested or tried for the massacre of the Conestoga. The massacre led to an extensive debate amongst European-descended Pennsylvanians, some critical of the Paxton Boys and others quite sympathetic.
- Andrew Newman, "Treaty of Shackamaxon," Encyclopedia of Greater Philadelphia
- Daniel Richter, Facing East from Indian Country: A Native History of Early America. Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 2003.
- Timothy Shannon, "Native American-Pennsylvania Relations, 1754-89," Encyclopedia of Greater Philadelphia
- Patrick Spero, Frontier Country: The Politics of War in Early Pennsylvania. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press, 2016.
Student Materials (in order of application):
- Penn's Treaty with the Indians (1771-72)
- Penn Wampum Belt (1682 Shackamaxon treaty)
- Conestoga Manor (1717)
- A Map of Philadelphia and Parts Adjacent (1753)
- A Map of the Province of Pennsylvania (1756)
- To the Honorable Thomas Penn and Richard Penn (1770)
- A Plan of the City and Environs of Philadelphia (1777)
- Conestoga Indian Town Historical Marker (1924)
This unit was created during the 2019 Gilder Lehrman Institute of American History Teacher Seminar, "Native Peoples, Settlers, and European Empires in North America, 1600-1840" (July 28-August 3, 2019). Printable versions of materials are available on respective pages. You may also download the entire unit.
Ghost River Meets the Spirits of the Conestoga
LéAnn Murphy Cassidy
This multi-part lesson will focus on the theme of historical Continuity and Change through the analysis of primary and secondary sources related to the Conestoga massacres (1763). Students will compare text and images from the graphic novel Ghost River: The Fall and Rise of the Conestoga with excerpts from two of the earliest plays written in America, The Paxton Boys, A Farce and A Dialogue between Andrew Trueman and Thomas Zealot. This lesson is intended for block periods, and it may be taught over multiple days, dependent upon scheduling.
Grade Levels: Grades 6-8
Standards: From the C3 Frameworks
- D2.Civ.10.6-8. Explain the relevance of personal interests and perspectives, civic virtues, and democratic principles when people address issues and problems in government and civil society.
- D2.His.1.6-8. Analyze connections among events and developments in broader historical contexts.
- D2.His.6.6-8. Analyze how people’s perspectives influenced what information is available in the historical sources they created.
When William Penn established the colony of Pennsylvania, he envisioned a pluralistic and peaceful colony. In establishing alliances with the local Native Peoples, Penn made a series of treaties, beginning with the Great Treaty, the Treaty of Shackamaxon (1682), in pursuit of his "peaceable kingdom." From the Native Peoples' perspective, they had established kinship relationships making them friends and "brothers." A wampum belt was created, recording the terms of this treaty. Diplomacy was vital to the trade alliances between Native Peoples in the Susquehanna Valley and the colonial Pennsylvanians.
On December 14, 1763, the Paxton Boys, a group of vigilantes from the Paxtang Township, massacred six Conestoga Indians on rumors that they had aligned with other groups who planned to attack the colonists. This was not true, but it did not stop the Paxton Boys from searching out the Conestoga away from their village. The remaining 14 Conestoga were moved to the Lancaster Workhouse (often referred to in the documents as the “Goal” or jail) for their protection. However, on December 27, the Paxton Boys broke into the workhouse and brutally murdered the remaining and defenseless men, women, and children.
Materials (in order of application):
- Warmup Sheet
- Journaling Sheet
- Lee Francis, Weshoyot Alvitre, and Will Fenton, Ghost River: The Fall and Rise of the Conestoga. Albuquerque: Red Planet Books and Comics, 2019.
- A Dialogue between Andrew Trueman and Thomas Zealot (Page 3 and Analysis Sheet)
- The Paxton Boys, A Farce (Page 8 and Analysis Sheet)
- Ghost River (Excerpts with Analysis Sheet)
- Exit Slips (Part 1 and Part 2)
- Image Analysis Sheet (Extension Activity)
- A Dialogue Between Andrew Trueman, and Thomas Zealot. Digital Paxton.
- Lottie Bausman, "Massacre of the Conestoga Indians, 1763: Incidents and Details." Lancaster County Historical Society.
- "Conestoga Indian Town Historical Marker." Pennsylvania Historical & Museum Commission.
- "Conestoga Massacre Marks 248th Anniversary.” WGALTV, 27 Dec. 2011.
- "The History of the Fulton." Fulton Theatre.
- Rick Kearns, "Ethnic Cleansing in Pennsylvania: The 1763 Massacre of the Conestoga." Indian Country Today, 3 Jan. 2014.
- Lee Francis, Weshoyot Alvitre, and Will Fenton, Ghost River: The Fall and Rise of the Conestoga. Albuquerque: Red Planet Books and Comics, 2019.
- The Paxton Boys, A Farce. Digital Paxton.
- Daniel Richter, Facing East from Indian Country a Native History of Early America. Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 2003.
- Warmup: As students enter the room, project the Warmup Sheet with the caption, "History is Complicated. Violence is simple." Ask students to record responses.
- Small-Group Discussion: Have students discuss their responses in small groups.
- Class Discussion: Ask several students to share what their small groups discussed. Discuss the cover artwork of Ghost River. Have students consider the symbolism of the artwork and brainstorm predictions for the story.
- Read-Aloud: Read aloud of the full graphic novel with the students. If possible, display the digital pages on a Smartboard as it is read aloud. Upon completion, have students record reactions on the Journaling Sheet and share thoughts in pairs or small groups.
- Analysis: Break students into small groups and have them analyze excerpts from two plays written about the Conestoga massacres using the analysis sheets (above). Then have them analyze excerpts from Ghost River using its image analysis sheet.
- Assessment: Distribute Exit Slips (Part 1 and Part 2). Have students work independently to answer the question: How do the text and visual representations of the event differ in their perspectives? Students should explain and defend their answers with evidence.
- Further Inquiry: Have students analyze the final image from Ghost River. After that warmup, have students generate research questions for further inquiry centered on the resiliency and humanity of Native Peoples in North America using Image Analysis Sheet (Extension Activity). In small groups or as a class, have students discuss the cyclical cycle of the story and how it lends itself to the continuation; Native Peoples still inhabit "Turtle Island" (Earth).
- Future Lessons: Students will be able to the connections among historical events relevant to the location(s) of the Conestoga massacres. For example, students can explore history of the site of the second massacre, from the Lancaster Jail ("Goal") to the Fulton Opera House. NB: A ghost light is left on an empty stage. Each night the light at the Fulton Opera House lets us know that the spirit of the Conestoga Peoples endures in Lancaster today. Additional Resource: Fulton Opera House application for National Landmark recognition.
Extension Standard (Change, Continuity and Context):
- HIST 8.1: Analyze connections among events and developments in historical contexts.
- HIST 8.2: Classify series of historical events and developments as examples of change and/or continuity.
This lesson was created during the 2019 Gilder Lehrman Institute of American History Teacher Seminar, "Native Peoples, Settlers, and European Empires in North America, 1600-1840" (July 28-August 3, 2019). You may also download a printable version of this lesson.
media/brubaker cover iamge.jpg
Murder on the Frontier: The Paxton Massacres
Ron Nash and John McNamara
This unit is one of the Gilder Lehrman Institute's Teaching Literacy through History™ resources, designed to align to the Common Core State Standards. The lessons can also be modified to conform to the C3 Framework. These units were developed to enable students to understand, summarize, and evaluate original documents of historical significance. Students will learn and practice the skills that will help them analyze, assess, and develop knowledgeable and well-reasoned viewpoints on these source materials.
The title of this unit refers to a little-known massacre in colonial Pennsylvania. Over the course of three lessons, students will attempt to understand how a vigilante group justified its role in murdering twenty Native Americans. The primary source evidence will allow students to analyze questions related to claims about colonization, peace and war, race and ethnicity, masculinity and civility, the use of violence as a political weapon, and religious association. Most of the primary sources referenced here are available in Digital Paxton.
Ultimately, students will demonstrate what they have learned through an analysis of the various primary source materials by writing a response to essential questions posed for the unit, participating in whole-class and small-group discussions, and engaging in a news conference simulation.
- Analyze both primary and secondary source documents using close-reading strategies
- Interpret, analyze, and demonstrate understanding of visual materials
- Draw logical inferences and summarize the essential message of a work of art
- Compose summaries of the major points in written primary sources
- Compare and contrast the viewpoints and perspectives of different writers
- To what extent did fear of Native Americans develop into racial hatred in colonial Pennsylvania?
- To what extent can the rhetoric of fear incite a population to violence?
- To what extent did fear and racism shape colonial perceptions of neighboring Native Americans?
- How did the living conditions on the frontier contribute to confrontation and conflict between Native Americans and colonists?
- To what extent did the actions of the Paxton Boys disrupt or destroy William Penn's Peaceable Kingdom?
Number of Class Periods: 4
Grade Level: Grades 7-12
Common Core Standards
- CCSS.ELA-Literacy.RH.11-12.2: Determine the central ideas or information of a primary or secondary source; provide an accurate summary that makes clear the relationships among the key details and ideas.
- CCSS.ELA-Literacy.RH.11-12.6: Evaluate authors' differing points of view on the same historical event or issue by assessing the authors' claims, reasoning, and evidence.
- CCSS.ELA-Literacy.SL.11-12.1: Initiate and participate effectively in a range of collaborative discussions (one-on-one, in groups, and teacher-led) with diverse partners on . . . topics, texts, and issues, building on others' ideas and expressing their own clearly and persuasively.
- CCSS.ELA-Literacy.W.11-12.1: Write arguments to support claims in an analysis of substantive topics or texts, using valid reasoning and relevant and sufficient evidence.
- CCSS.ELA-LITERACY.RI.9-10.6: Determine an author's point of view or purpose in a text and analyze how an author uses rhetoric to advance that point of view or purpose.
media/brubaker cover iamge.jpg
Revisiting the Massacre at Lancaster
Paul R. Clementi
Two core historical core historical thinking skills of the AP US History curriculum are properly sourcing documents and understanding change and continuity of topics over time. Students must demonstrate both skills by contextualizing and analyzing primary source documents and responding in the College Board exam. This exercise is envisioned as part of the final preparation for the exam, though it could also be used as a mid-term review or as a review at the conclusion of Period 4 (1800-1848).
The lesson first asks students to source Massacre of the Indians in Lancaster (1841). It requires they locate the image in context of both 1763 and 1841 and answer the essential question of how the attitudes towards native peoples and understanding of the incident may have changed in the intervening period. It then asks them to extrapolate this understanding by formulating their own AP short answer or essay prompt questions which they will peer-answer.
- Students will source an image by assessing the historical context, point of view of the lithographer, the lithographer's intended audience, and the intended purpose.
- Students will recall and explain the historical context of the massacre of the Conestoga.
- Students will recall and explain the historical context of the 1840s, specifically the cultural forces of Manifest Destiny, the Indian Removal Act, and antebellum reform movements.
- Students will distinguish how the social forces of the 1840s may or may not be reflected in the lithographer's point of view and intended purpose.
- Students will analyze the extent of change and continuity in attitudes of White Americans towards Native Peoples in the intervening period between 1763 and 1841.
- Students will extrapolate historical questions related to the same essential question and provide historical evidence to support analytical answers to those questions.
Grade Level: AP US History and Grades 10-12
Duration: Two 40-minute class periods or one 80-minute block.
- CCSS.ELA-Literacy.RH.11-12.1: Cite specific textual evidence to support analysis of primary and secondary sources, connecting insights gained from specific detail to an understanding of the text as a whole.
- CCSS.ELA-Literacy.RH.11-12.2: Determine the central ideas or information of a primary or secondary source; provide an accurate summary that makes clear the relationships among the key details and ideas.
- CCSS.ELA-Literacy.RH.11-12.3: Evaluate various explanations for actions or events and determine which explanation best accords with textual evidence.
- CCSS.ELA-Literacy.WH.6-8.1 (b): Support claim(s) with logical reasoning and relevant, accurate data and evidence that demonstrate an understanding of the topic or text, using credible sources.
- CCSS.ELA-Literacy.WH.11-12.1 (e): Provide a concluding statement or section that follows from or supports the argument presented.
1763 marked the end of the Seven Years' War which left the British as the dominant European power in North America. This destabilized the native peoples delicate strategy of playing the French and British off of each other diplomatically and economically contemporaneous with British policy abandonment of the gift-giving and ceremonial negotiations. Inspired by Neolin vision of a pan-nativism response, Native Peoples responded with violence in what became known as Pontiac's War. To assert royal authority over the Ohio Valley, the British crown introduced the Proclamation Act of 1763, restricting white settlement west of the Alleghanies, which was met with derision and non-compliance of white settlers. In this milieu, a group of white settlers from in central Pennsylvania attacked a group of peaceable Native People at Conestoga Indiantown, killing six and razing their homes under the pretense that they were defending against an attack on their settlements. While charged for murder, these "Paxton Boys" were not held accountable. Instead, they were hailed by other white settlers as heroes who challenged "Indian" aggression and the feckless Quaker government in Philadelphia.
Throughout the early-1800s conflicts between Native Peoples and settlers continued with the southern and western expansions of the era. Driven by Jacksonian policy, the story of Indian removal from the eastern half of the North America became the central event of the 1830s 1840s. Yet the era of the 1830-1840s also saw the emergence of the social reform movements, particularly the abolitionists. The question in sourcing the document is one of both point of view and purpose. While Massacre of the Indians in Lancaster was engraved in a period of virulent violence against Native Peoples, aspects of the image may promote a more compassionate memory of the Conestoga. This lithograph was also produced in Lancaster, where abolitionists sentiments ran strong. Sourcing of this document therefore requires students to consider these various social forces and account for change and continuity in this complicated relationship.
- James Wimer, Massacre of the Indians in Lancaster (Lancaster, 1841).
- Sourcing a Document or Image (AP US History Format)
- Will Fenton, Historical Overview
- Theda Purdue, "Indian Removal," Gilder Lehrman Institute of American History.
- Joyce Appleby, "National Expansion and Reform," Gilder Lehrman Institute of American History.
- Teacher frames key question: How did attitudes of white settlers change towards the native people in the period from the end of period 2 to end of period 4 of the APUSH curriculum? (3 minutes)
- Distribute copies of the Massacre of the Indians in Lancaster and the Sourcing a Document or Image Handout.
- Student complete step 1 of the Sourcing a Document worksheet. (5 minutes)
- Students complete step 2 of the Sourcing a Document worksheet. (7 minutes)
- Teacher facilitated discussion. (20 minutes)
- Survey initial responses to the key question.
- Assess understanding and recall of the historical context of Conestoga massacre.
- Socratic discussion of point of view: Who is artist? When did he engrave the image? What is his perspective on the Paxton Boys?
- Socratic discussion of audience and purpose. Who is artist trying to reach? Why?
- Assess understanding and recall historical context of publication date (1841).
- Revisit point of view/audience/purpose in light of 1840s historical context.
- Poll: Students propose theories of point of view and purpose. Take a class poll.
- Reveal research finding: The image was included Events in Indian History, authored and published by James Wimer in Lancaster, Pennsylvania. It was one of multiple reviews of "Indian" history, which were popular because of the significant discussion of Indian removal policies. It features the massacre as it probably was a key event in local history. As such, the image and book should be seen as informative—albeit problematic. While the image may project a compassionate view of defenseless Conestoga being killed, it is worth noting that the Paxton men are portrayed in the clothing of Jacksonian supporters and therefore could be perceived as endorsing a Paxtonian agenda. (10 minutes)
- Students develop their own APUSH short-answer questions based on the College Board format.
Assessment and Extensions: Students answer a question prepared by a peer.
You may also download a printable version of this lesson.