Paxton Boys And The Regulator Movement Analysis

Before the American Revolution, there were social and economic changes which upset frontiersmen. They became agitated due to their social situation with Indians and their failing local government. In response to these annoyances, frontiersmen chose to use violence to achieve their demands. During this period of civil unrest, two attempted revolutions in particular made national headlines: The March of the Paxton Boys and The Regulator Movement. The movements differed because the Paxton Boys demanded social change while the Regulator Movement called for economic change. Both revolutions were similar because they used violence as a way to achieve their demands. The Paxton Boys rallied around the concept of retaliation against Indians; The

Regulator Movement rallied around the idea of unjust taxation. Although both revolutions were considered to be unsuccessful, they still created tensions between farmers and social groups significantly impacting the development of America.
The French and Indian War, which took place from 1754 to 1763, left frontiersmen with uneasy feelings toward Indians.

Tensions between Americans and Indians rose due to the passive stance America courts took when dealing with hate crimes against Indians. Rumors centered around the idea of Indians encroaching on colonists’ land were widespread. Although fabricated, the gossip quickly escalated the already high tensions between the two cultures. Pennsylvania colonists discovered their precious tax dollars went towards providing aid to the many Indians who lived amongst them. Paxton, a village located in Pennsylvania, became the hotspot for disgruntled, committed radicals wanting to attack neighboring Indian tribes. The village of Paxton was primarily occupied by pacifist Quakers, so it was easy for the radicals to overpower the town. (Who Were the Paxton Boys?... 1). This city provided an organized meeting spot where radicals could conjugate and discuss plans. In December of 1763, men from the village of Paxton took up arms and raided a small tribe of Conestoga Indians (John H.

Brubaker).
The raid of the Conestoga Indian tribe resulted in the death of twenty innocent Indians, young and old.

The tribe only focused on cultivating the land, and had no weapons to protect themselves. With no weapons, the attackers had an overwhelming victory. After the attack, no charges were pressed against the men of Paxton, largely due to the fact that Pennsylvanians sympathized with them. Neighboring Indian tribes, along with the few who survived the Conestoga raid, fled to the town of Lancaster for protection from the aggressive Paxton men. The Indians however, received no protection. The Paxton men, along with fellow frontiersmen, went to Lancaster in search of these Indians. The Paxton men gathered the helpless Indians and butchered them (A Narrative of the Late Massacres 1). To this day, it is unclear if local authorities attempted to prevent this act of terror. The mob left no witnesses, so nobody could prove their guilt. Benjamin Franklin responded to the event by writing a letter in 1764 addressing the men. The letter stated, “[the] barbarous Men … then mounted their Horses, huzza'd in Triumph, as if they had gained a Victory, and rode off-unmolested!” (Benjamin Franklin, "An Account ..” 1). This letter told portrayed to the nation that America will not stand for such hateful acts and that the authorities will go after the men responsible. Taking a National stance against the men turned the movement not only against the Indians, but against America’s

government and forced the Paxton men to change their focus onto the government. The failure to disciple the Paxton men resulted in others thinking their actions were “okay” and could be practiced without a penalty. This can be seen through the large number of frontiersmen who joined the movement. Since the group began to grow in size, the authorities attempted to control the movement by punishing the guilty. Colonial authorities in Pennsylvania demanded that the killers face justice in hopes to jail the movement’s leaders, but this made even more frontiersmen rally behind the Paxton men. The number of people backing the Paxton Boys’ actions proved the hatred towards Indians wasn’t just localized, but statewide. Local authorities had no choice but to gather a militia for protection. Neither the Paxton men nor the local government made an attempt to call for a trial, or even a meeting to discuss the issues. Six hundred frontiersmen marched to the capital demanding relief from taxation, protection from Indians, representation within their local government (Paxton Boy’s 1). The representation was a key demand because, as stated in a January/April newspaper article titled The Pamphlet War Over the Paxton Boys, “ had the western counties been adequately represented in the first place the legislature would not have been able to ignore frontier demands for protection” (Alison Olson). This quote describes how if the frontiersmen had a say in their local government, this whole demonstration would never have occurred. In response to the demands, officials asked the frontiersmen to formulate a formal petition, hoping this would give them time to gather and organize an army. With the two sides aggressive and armed, a fight was sure to come. Thankfully, this potentially disastrous situation was set to rest when Benjamin Franklin approached the leaders of the Paxton movement. The meeting ended with the disbandment of the frontiersmen. The frontiersmen were able to negotiate with officials and convince them to declare that their actions against the Conestoga tribe was justified. They were also able to arrange a speech given by two local officials to the townspeople stating that the violence used by the Paxton movement was legitimate and should not be punished. The two Pennsylvania officials who gave the speech were Matthew Smith and James Gibson. They proclaimed that, “it grieves us to the very heart to see such of our frontier inhabitants as have escaped savage fury with the loss of their parents, their children, their wives or relatives ... and exposed to the most cruel poverty and wretchedness while upwards of 120 of these savages, who are with great reason suspected of being guilty of these horrid barbarities ... have procured themselves … and are now maintained at the public expense” (United States History 1). Even though the men from Paxton and the frontiersmen were at fault, they were given a free pass from authorities, exonerating them of their crimes. Now that the officials were on their side, the Paxton movement seemed acceptable, which spread the use of violence against Indians. Since the Paxton Boys were never punished, Indians and those siding with the Native Americans became upset. This feeling of hatred towards the two parties created more tension which went unresolved until the government removed the Indians from their land in the mid 1800s (Primary Documents in American History 1).
The Paxton Boys’ actions had significant, long-lasting, repercussions. First, the actions of the Paxton Boys displayed how much anger and tension existed between the Native Americans and the frontiersmen. The revolt was also an example of regional and social tension; it set a precedent for future cases between the two groups. Kevin Kenny, Professor of History at Boston College, stated, “William Penn’s Peaceable Kingdom disintegrated over the course of the eighteenth century under the pressure of colonial expansion” (Desperation, Zeal, and Murder... 1). William Penn’s peaceable kingdom was community focused around tolerance and peace. Penn founded Pennsylvania on these principles. (William Penn's Peaceable Kingdom 1). Kenny wrote about how these founding fundamental principles became disregarded due to the pressures of colonial expansion. This ties into the fact that the Paxton Boys was a movement fueled by a rumor of Indians taking their land; the frontiersmen did not want to lose their land. Furthermore, the deaths of the Indians during the movement’s time contributed in the destruction of the principle of peace (Andrew Kirk).