The Project Gutenberg EBook of The Fair Play Settlers of the West Branch
Valley, 1769-1784, by George D. Wolf
This eBook is for the use of anyone anywhere at no cost and with
almost no restrictions whatsoever. You may copy it, give it away or
re-use it under the terms of the Project Gutenberg License included
with this eBook or online at www.gutenberg.org
Title: The Fair Play Settlers of the West Branch Valley, 1769-1784
A Study of Frontier Ethnography
Author: George D. Wolf
Release Date: August 31, 2007 [EBook #22471]
Language: English
*** START OF THIS PROJECT GUTENBERG EBOOK FAIR PLAY SETTLERS ***
Produced by Greg Weeks, Stephen Blundell and the Online
Distributed Proofreading Team at http://www.pgdp.net
_The Fair Play Settlers
of the West Branch Valley,
1769-1784:
A Study of Frontier Ethnography_
BY
GEORGE D. WOLF
Commonwealth of Pennsylvania
THE PENNSYLVANIA HISTORICAL
AND MUSEUM COMMISSION
Harrisburg, 1969
THE PENNSYLVANIA HISTORICAL
AND MUSEUM COMMISSION
JAMES B. STEVENSON, _Chairman_
CHARLES G. WEBB, _Vice Chairman_
HERMAN BLUM MRS. FERNE SMITH HETRICK
MARK S. GLEESON MRS. HENRY P. HOFFSTOT, JR.
RALPH HAZELTINE MAURICE A. MOOK
THOMAS ELLIOTT WYNNE
DAVID H. KURTZMAN, _ex officio
Superintendent of Public Instruction_
MEMBERS FROM THE GENERAL ASSEMBLY
MRS. SARAH ANDERSON, _Representative_
PAUL W. MAHADY, _Senator_ ORVILLE E. SNARE, _Representative_
JOHN H. WARE, III, _Senator_
TRUSTEES EX OFFICIO
RAYMOND P. SHAFER, _Governor of the Commonwealth_
ROBERT P. CASEY, _Auditor General_
GRACE M. SLOAN, _State Treasurer_
ADMINISTRATIVE STAFF
SYLVESTER K. STEVENS, _Executive Director_
WILLIAM J. WEWER, _Deputy Executive Director_
DONALD H. KENT, _Director
Bureau of Archives and History_
FRANK J. SCHMIDT, _Director
Bureau of Historic Sites and Properties_
WILLIAM N. RICHARDS, _Director
Bureau of Museums_
_Preface_
In an Age when man's horizons are constantly being widened to include
hitherto little-known or non-existent countries, and even other planets
and outer space, there is still much to be said for the oft-neglected
study of man in his more immediate environs. Intrigued with the
historical tale of the "Fair Play settlers" of the West Branch Valley of
the Susquehanna River and practically a life-long resident of the West
Branch Valley, this writer felt that their story was worth telling and
that it might offer some insight into the development of democracy on
the frontier. The result is an ethnography of the Fair Play settlers.
This account, however, is not meant to typify the frontier experience;
it is simply an illustration, and, the author hopes, a useful one.
No intensive research can be conducted without the help and
encouragement of many fine and wonderful people. This author is deeply
indebted to librarians, archivists and historians, local historians and
genealogists, local and county historical societies, and collectors of
manuscripts, diaries, and journals pertinent to the history of the West
Branch Valley. A comprehensive listing of all who have assisted in this
effort would be too extensive, but certain persons cannot be ignored. My
grateful appreciation is here expressed to a few of these; but my
gratitude is no less sincere to the many persons who are not here
mentioned.
Librarians who have been most helpful in providing bibliographies,
checking files, and obtaining volumes from other libraries include Miss
Isabel Welch, of the Ross Library in Lock Haven; Mrs. Kathleen Chandler,
formerly of the Lock Haven State College library; and Miss Barbara Ault,
of the Library of Congress.
Archivists and historians who have been most generous in their aid are
the late Dr. Paul A. W. Wallace, of the Pennsylvania Historical and
Museum Commission; Mrs. Phyllis V. Parsons, of Collegeville; Dr. Alfred
P. James, of the University of Pittsburgh; and Mrs. Solon J. Buck, of
Washington, D. C.
Perhaps the most significant research support for this investigation was
provided by a local historian and genealogist, Mrs. Helen Herritt
Russell, of Jersey Shore.
Dr. Samuel P. Bayard, of the Pennsylvania State University, analyzed the
Fair Play settlers using linguistic techniques to determine their
national origins. This help was basic to the demographic portion of this
study.
Dr. Charles F. Berkheimer and Mrs. Marshall Anspach, both of
Williamsport, magnanimously consented to loan this author their copies,
respectively, of William Colbert's _Journal_ and the Wagner Collection
of Revolutionary War Pension Claims.
County and local historical societies which opened their collections for
study were the Clinton County Historical Society, the Lycoming
Historical Society, the Northumberland County Historical Society, the
Centre County Historical Society, the Greene County Historical Society,
and the Muncy Historical Society and Museum of History.
For his refreshing criticisms and constant encouragement, Dr. Murray G.
Murphey, of the University of Pennsylvania, will find me forever
thankful. Without him, this study would not have been possible.
The author would like to thank the members of the Pennsylvania
Historical and Museum Commission and its Executive Director, Dr. S. K.
Stevens, for making possible this publication; he would also like to
thank Mr. Donald H. Kent, Director of the Bureau of Archives and
History, and Mr. William A. Hunter, Chief of the Division of History,
who supervised publication; and members of the staff of the Division of
History: Mr. Harold L. Myers, Associate Historian and Chief of the
Editorial Section, who readied the manuscript for publication; Mrs. Gail
M. Gibson, Associate Historian, who prepared the index; and Mr. George
R. Beyer, Assistant Historian.
My sincerest thanks are also extended to Mrs. Mary B. Bower, who typed
the entire manuscript and offered useful suggestions with regard to
style.
Finally, for providing almost ideal conditions for carrying on this work
and for sustaining me throughout, my wife, Margaret, is deserving of a
gratitude which cannot be fully expressed.
GEORGE D. WOLF
_Introduction_
Between 1769 and 1784, in an area some twenty-five miles long and about
two miles wide, located on the north side of the West Branch of the
Susquehanna River and extending from Lycoming Creek (at the present
Williamsport) to the Great Island (just east of the present Lock Haven),
some 100 to 150 families settled. They established a community and a
political organization called the Fair Play system. This study is about
these people and their system.
The author of a recent case study of democracy in a frontier county
commented on the need for this kind of investigation.[1] Cognizant of
the fact that a number of valuable histories of American communities
have been written, he noted that few of them deal explicitly with the
actual relation of frontier experience to democracy:
No one seems to have studied microscopically a given area that
experienced transition from wilderness to settled community with the
purpose of determining how much democracy, in Turner's sense,
existed initially in the first phase of settlement, during the
process itself, and in the period that immediately followed.
This research encompasses the first two stages of that development and
includes tangential references to the third stage.
The geography of the Fair Play territory has been confused for almost
two centuries. The conclusions of this analysis will not prove too
satisfying to those who unquestioningly accept and revere the old local
legends. However, it will be noted that these conclusions are based upon
the accounts of journalists and diarists rather than hearsay. This
should put the controversial "question of the Tiadaghton" to rest.
A statistical analysis has been made as a significant part of the
demography of the Fair Play settlers. However, limitations in data may
raise some questions regarding the validity of the conclusions.
Nevertheless, the national and ethnic origins of these settlers, their
American sources of emigration, the periods of immigration, the reasons
for migration, and population stability and mobility have all been
investigated. The result offers some surprises when compared with the
trends of the time--in the Province and throughout the colonies.
The _politics_ of Fair Play is the principal concern of this entire
study--appropriately, it was from their political system that these
frontiersmen derived their unusual name. This was not the only group to
use the name, however. Another "fair play system" existed in
southwestern Pennsylvania during the same period, and perhaps a similar
study can be made of those pioneers and their life. As for the Fair Play
community of the West Branch, we know about its political structure
through the cases subsequently reviewed by established courts of the
Commonwealth. From these cases, we have reconstructed a "code" of
operation which demonstrates certain democratic tendencies.
In addition to studying the political system, an effort has been made to
validate the story of the locally-famed Pine Creek Declaration of
Independence. Although some evidence for such a declaration was found,
it seems inconclusive.
The West Branch Valley was part of what Turner called the second
frontier, the Allegheny, and so this agrarian frontier community has
been examined for evidence of the democratic traits which Turner
characterized as particularly American. This analysis is not meant to
portray a typical situation, but it does provide support for Turner's
evaluation. As this was a farmer's frontier, and as transportation and
communication facilities were extremely limited, a generally
self-sufficient and naturally self-reliant community developed as a
matter of survival. The characteristics which this frontier nurtured,
and the non-English--even anti-English--composition of its population
make understandable the sentiment in this region for independence from
Great Britain. This, of course, is supremely demonstrated in the
separate declaration of independence drawn, according to the report, by
the settlers of the Fair Play frontier.
Fair Play _society_ is, perhaps, the second-most-important facet of this
ethnographic analysis. An understanding of it necessitated an inquiry
into the social relationships, the religious institutions, the
educational and cultural opportunities, and the values of this frontier
community. The results, again, lend credence to Turner's hypothesis.
Admittedly, Turner's bold assertion that "the growth of nationalism and
the evolution of American political institutions were dependent on the
advance of the frontier" is somewhat contradicted by the nature of this
Pennsylvania frontier. Western lands in Pennsylvania were either
Provincial, Commonwealth, or Indian lands, but never national lands. As
a result, western land ordinances, and the whole controversy which
accompanied the ratification of the Articles of Confederation, had no
real significance in Pennsylvania. However, in subsequent years, the
expansion of internal improvement legislation and nationalism sustains
Turner's thesis, as does the democratic and non-sectional nature of the
middle colonial region generally.[2]
The _intellectual character_ which the frontier spawned has been
described as rationalistic. However, this was a rationalism which was
not at odds with empiricism, but which was more in line with what has
been called the American philosophy, pragmatism. Or, to put it in the
vernacular, "if it works, it's good." The frontiersman was a
trial-and-error empiricist, who believed in his own ability to fathom
the depths of the problems which plagued him. If the apparent solution
contradicted past patterns and interpretations, he justified his actions
in terms of the realities of the moment. It is this pragmatic
ratio-empiricism which we imply when we use the term "rationalistic."
An examination of the role of _leadership_, suggested by the Curti
study, presents the first summary of this type for the West Branch
Valley. Here, too, the limited numbers of this frontier population,
combined with its peculiar tendency to rely upon peripheral residents
for top leadership, prevents any broad generalizations. The nature of
its leadership can only be interpreted in terms of this particular group
in this specific location.
The last two chapters of this study are summary chapters. The first of
these is an analysis of democracy on one segment of the Pennsylvania
frontier. Arbitrarily defining democracy, certain objective criteria
were set up to evaluate it in the Fair Play territory. Political
democracy was investigated in terms of popular sovereignty, political
equality, popular consultation, and majority rule, and the political
system was judged on the basis of these principles. Social democracy
was ascertained through inquiries concerning religious freedom, the
social class system, and economic opportunity. The conclusion is that,
for this frontier at least, democratic tendencies were displayed in
various contexts.
The final chapter, although relying to a large extent upon Turner's
great work, is in no way intended to be a critical evaluation of that
thesis. Its primary objective is to test one interpretation of it
through a particular analytic technique, ethnographic in nature.
Frontier ethnography has proved to be a reliable research tool, mainly
because of its wide scope. It permits conclusions which a strictly
confined study, given the data limitations of this and other frontier
areas, would not allow.
Democracy, it is no doubt agreed, is a difficult thing to assess,
particularly when there are so many conflicting interpretations of it.
But an examination of it, even in its most primitive stages in this
country, can give the researcher a glimpse of its fundamentals and its
effectiveness. In a time when idealists envision a world community based
upon the self-determination which was basic in this nation's early
development, it is essential to re-evaluate that principle in terms of
its earliest American development. If we would enjoy the blessings of
freedom, we must undergo the fatigue of attempting to understand it.
Some seventy years ago, a great American historian suggested an
interpretation of the American ethos. Turner's thesis is still being
debated today, something which I am certain would please its author
immensely. But what is needed today is not the prolongation of the
debate as to its validity so much as the investigation of it with newer
techniques which, it might be added, Turner himself suggested. This is
the merit of frontier ethnography, and, perhaps, the particular value of
this study.
To me, Robert Frost implied as much in his wonderful "Stopping by Woods
on a Snowy Evening." Yes, the "woods" of contemporary history are
"lovely, dark and deep,
But I have promises to keep,
And miles to go before I sleep,
And miles to go before I sleep."
It is hoped that this investigation is the beginning of the answer to
that promise, but it is well-recognized that there are miles to go.
FOOTNOTES:
[1] Merle Curti _et al._, _The Making of an American Community: A Case
Study of Democracy in a Frontier County_ (Stanford, 1959), p. 3.
[2] _Frontier and Section: Selected Essays of Frederick Jackson Turner_,
intro. by Ray Allen Billington (Englewood Cliffs, N. J., 1961), pp.
52-55.
_Table of Contents_
PREFACE iii
INTRODUCTION v
I. FAIR PLAY TERRITORY: GEOGRAPHY AND TOPOGRAPHY 1
II. THE FAIR PLAY SETTLERS: DEMOGRAPHIC FACTORS 16
III. THE POLITICS OF FAIR PLAY 30
IV. THE FARMERS' FRONTIER 47
V. FAIR PLAY SOCIETY 58
VI. LEADERSHIP AND THE PROBLEMS OF THE FRONTIER 76
VII. DEMOCRACY ON THE PENNSYLVANIA FRONTIER 89
VIII. FRONTIER ETHNOGRAPHY AND THE TURNER THESIS 100
BIBLIOGRAPHY 113
INDEX 119
[Map]
CHAPTER ONE
_Fair Play Territory: Geography and Topography_
The Colonial period of American history has been of primary concern to
the historian because of its fundamental importance in the development
of American civilization. What the American pioneers encountered,
particularly in the interior settlements, was, basically, a frontier
experience. An ethnographic analysis of one part of the Provincial
frontier of Pennsylvania indicates the significance of that colonial
influence. The "primitive agricultural democracy" of this frontier
illustrates the "style of life" which provided the basis for a
distinctly "American" culture which emerged from the colonial
experience.[1]
While this writer's approach is dominantly Turnerian, this study does
not necessarily contend that this Pennsylvania frontier was typical of
the general colonial experience, nor that this ethnographic analysis
presents in microcosm the development of the American ethos. However, on
this farmer's frontier there was adequate evidence of the composite
nationality, the self-reliance, the independence, and the nationalistic
and rationalistic traits which Turner characterized as American.
In his famed essay on "The Significance of the Frontier," Turner saw the
frontier as the crucible in which the English, Scotch-Irish, and
Palatine Germans were merged into a new and distinctly American
nationality, no longer characteristically English.[2] The Pennsylvania
frontier, with its dominant Scotch-Irish and German influence, is a case
in point.
The Fair Play territory of the West Branch Valley of the Susquehanna
River, the setting for this analysis, was part of what Turner called the
second frontier, the Allegheny Mountains.[3] Located about ninety miles
up the Susquehanna from the present State capital at Harrisburg, and
extending some twenty-five-odd miles westward between the present cities
of Williamsport and Lock Haven, this territory was the heartland of the
central Pennsylvania frontier in the decade preceding the American
Revolution.
The term "Fair Play settlers," used to designate the inhabitants of this
region, is derived from the extra-legal political system which these
democratic forerunners set up to maintain order in their developing
community. Being squatters and, consequently, without the bounds of any
established political agency, they formed their own government, and
labeled it "Fair Play."
However, despite the apparent simplicity of the above geographic
description, the exact boundaries of the Fair Play territory have been
debated for almost two centuries. Before we can assess the democratic
traits of the Fair Play settlers, we must first clearly define what is
meant by the Fair Play territory.
The terminal points in this analysis are 1768 and 1784, the dates of the
two Indian treaties made at Fort Stanwix (now Rome), New York. The
former opened up the Fair Play territory to settlement, and the latter
brought it within the limits of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, thus
legalizing the _de facto_ political structure which had developed in the
interim.
According to the treaty of 1768, negotiated by Sir William Johnson with
the Indians of the Six Nations, the western line of colonial settlement
was extended from the Allegheny Mountains, previously set by the
Proclamation of 1763, to a line extending to the mouth of Lycoming
Creek, which empties into the West Branch of the Susquehanna River. The
creek is referred to as the Tiadaghton in the original of the treaty.[4]
The question of whether Pine Creek or Lycoming Creek was the Tiadaghton
is the first major question of this investigation. The map which faces
page one outlines the territory in question.
Following the successful eviction of the French in the French and Indian
War, the American counterpart of the Seven Years' War, the crown sought
a more orderly westward advance than had been the rule. Heretofore, the
establishment of frontier settlements had stirred up conflict with the
Indians and brought frontier pleas to the colonial assemblies for
military support and protection. The result was greater pressure on the
already depleted exchequer. The opinion that a more controlled and less
expensive westward advance could be accomplished is reflected in the
Royal Proclamation of 1763.
This proclamation has frequently been misinterpreted as a definite
effort to deprive the colonies of their western lands. The very language
of the document contradicts this. For example, the expression "for the
present, and until our further pleasure be known" clearly indicates the
tentative nature of the proclamation, which was "to prevent [the
repetition of] such irregularities for the future" with the Indians,
irregularities which had prompted Pontiac's Rebellion.[5] The orderly
advancement of this colonial frontier was to be accomplished through
subsequent treaties with the Indians. The Treaty of Fort Stanwix in 1768
is one such example of those treaties.[6]
The term "Fair Play settlers" refers to the residents of the area
between Lycoming Creek and the Great Island on the north side of the
West Branch of the Susquehanna River, and to those who interacted with
them, during the period 1769-1784, when that area was outside of the
Provincial limits. The appellation stems from the annual designation by
the settlers of "Fair Play Men," a tribunal of three with
quasi-executive, legislative, and judicial authority over the residents.
The relevance of the first Stanwix Treaty to the geographic area of this
study is a matter of the utmost importance. The western boundary of that
treaty in the West Branch Valley of the Susquehanna has been a source of
some confusion because of the employment of the name "Tiadaghton" in the
treaty to designate that boundary. The question, quite simply, is
whether Pine Creek or Lycoming is the Tiadaghton. If Pine Creek is the
Tiadaghton, an extra-legal political organization would have been
unnecessary, for the so-called Fair Play settlers of this book would
have been under Provincial jurisdiction.[7] The designation of Lycoming
Creek as the Tiadaghton tends to give geographic corroboration for the
Fair Play system.
First and foremost among the Pine Creek supporters is John Meginness,
the nineteenth-century historian of the West Branch Valley. His work is
undoubtedly the most often quoted source of information on the West
Branch Valley of the Susquehanna, and rightfully so. Although he wrote
when standards of documentation were lax and relied to an extent upon
local legendry as related by aged residents, Meginness' views have a
general validity. However, there is some question regarding his judgment
concerning the boundary issue.
Quoting directly from the journal of Moravian Bishop Augustus
Spangenburg, who visited the West Branch Valley in 1745 in the company
of Conrad Weiser, David Zeisberger, and John Schebosh, Meginness
describes the Bishop's travel from Montoursville, or Ostonwaken as the
Indians called it, to the "Limping Messenger," or "Diadachton Creek,"
where the party camped for the night.[8] It is interesting to note that
the Moravian journalist refers here to Lycoming Creek as the Tiadaghton,
some twenty-three years prior to the purchase at Fort Stanwix, which
made the question a local issue. Yet Meginness, in a footnote written
better than a hundred years later, says that "It afterwards turned out
that the true _Diadachton_ or _Tiadachton_, was what is now known as
Pine Creek."[9]
Perhaps Meginness was influenced by the aged sources of some of his
accounts. It may be, however, that he was merely repeating the judgment
of an earlier generation which had sought to legalize its settlement
made prior to the second Stanwix Treaty. The Indian description of the
boundary line in the Fort Stanwix Treaty of 1768 may also have had some
impact upon Meginness. Regardless, a comparison of data, pro and con,
will demonstrate that the Tiadaghton is Lycoming Creek.
John Blair Linn, of Bellefonte, stood second to Meginness in popular
repute as historian of the West Branch Valley. However, he too calls
Pine Creek the Tiadaghton, though the reliability of his sources is
questionable. Unlike Meginness, whose judgment derived somewhat from
interviews with contemporaries of the period, Linn based his contention
upon the statements made by the Indians at the second Stanwix Treaty
meeting in 1784.[10]
At those sessions on October 22 and 23, 1784, the Pennsylvania
commissioners twice questioned the deputies of the Six Nations about the
location of the Tiadaghton, and were told twice that it was Pine
Creek.[11] In the first instance, Samuel J. Atlee, speaking for the
other Pennsylvania commissioners, called attention to the last deed made
at Fort Stanwix in 1768 and asked the question about the Tiadaghton:
This last deed, brothers, with the map annexed, are descriptive of
the purchase made sixteen years ago at this place; one of the
boundary lines calls for a creek by the name of _Tyadoghton_, we
wish our brothers the Six Nations to explain to us clearly which you
call the _Tyadoghton_, as there are two creeks issuing from the
_Burnet's Hills_, _Pine_ and _Lycoming_.[12]
Captain Aaron Hill, a Mohawk chief, responded for the Indians:
With regard to the creek called _Tyadoghton_, mentioned in your deed
of 1768, we have already answered you, and again repeat it, it is
the same you call _Pine Creek_, being the largest emptying into the
west branch of the _Susquehannah_.[13]
This, of course, was the "more positive answer" which the Indians had
promised after the previous day's interrogation.[14] It substantiated
the description given in the discussions preceding the Fort Stanwix
Treaty of 1768.[15] However, the map illustrating the treaty line,
although tending to support this view, is subject to interpretation.[16]
Regardless, this record of the treaty sessions provides the strongest
evidence to sustain the Pine Creek view.
There is little doubt that Meginness and Linn were influenced by the
record. This is certainly true of D. S. Maynard, a lesser
nineteenth-century historian, whose work is obviously based upon the
research of Meginness. Maynard repeated the evidence of his predecessor
from the account of Thomas Sergeant by describing the Stanwix Treaty
line of 1768 as coming "across to the headwaters of Pine Creek."
Maynard's utter dependence upon Meginness suggests that his evidence is
more repetitive than substantive.[17]
A more recent student of local history, Eugene P. Bertin, of Muncy,
gives Pine Creek his undocumented support, which appears to be nothing
more than an elaboration of the accounts of Meginness and Linn.[18] Dr.
Bertin's account appears to be better folklore than history.[19]
Another twentieth-century writer, Elsie Singmaster, offers more
objective support for Pine Creek, although her argument appears to be
better semantics than geography.[20]
Edmund A. DeSchweinitz, in his biography of David Zeisberger, errs in
his interpretation of the term "Limping Messenger" (Tiadaghton), used by
Bishop Spangenburg in his account of their journey to the West Branch
Valley in 1745. He notes that on their way to Onondaga (Syracuse) after
leaving "Ostonwaken" (Montoursville) they passed through the valley of
Tiadaghton Creek. They were following the Sheshequin Path. But he
identifies the Tiadaghton with Pine Creek. There was an Indian path up
Pine Creek, but it led to Niagara, not Onondaga.[21]
Aside from the designation by the Indians at the second Stanwix Treaty,
there is only one other source which lends any credibility to the Pine
Creek view, and that is Smith's _Laws of the Commonwealth of
Pennsylvania_. After the last treaty was made acquiring Pennsylvania
lands from the Indians, the legislature, in order to quell disputes
about the right of occupancy in this "New Purchase,"[22] passed the
following legislation:
And whereas divers persons, who have heretofore occupied and
cultivated small tracts of land, without the bounds of the purchase
made, as aforesaid, in the year of our Lord one thousand seven
hundred and sixty-eight, and within the purchase made, or now to be
made, by the said commissioners, have, by their resolute stand and
sufferings during the late war, merited, that those settlers should
have the pre-emption of their respective plantations:
_Be it therefore enacted by the authority aforesaid_, That all and
every person or persons, and their legal representatives, who has or
have heretofore settled on the north side of the west branch of the
river Susquehanna, upon the Indian territory, between Lycomick or
Lycoming creek on the east, and Tyagaghton or Pine creek on the
west, as well as other lands within the said residuary purchase from
the Indians, of the territory within this state, excepting always
the lands herein before excepted, shall be allowed a right of
pre-emption to their respective possessions, at the price
aforesaid.[23]
It may be worth observing, however, that legislation tends to reflect
popular demand rather than the hard facts of a situation. In this case
the settlers of the region prior to 1780 stood to benefit by this
legislation and formed an effective pressure group.
The contrary view in this long-standing geographical debate is based,
for the most part, upon the records of journalists and diarists who
traveled along the West Branch _prior_ to the first Stanwix Treaty and
who thus had no axe to grind.
That the Lycoming Creek was in fact the Tiadaghton referred to by the
Indians at Fort Stanwix in 1768 is strongly indicated by the weight of
evidence derived from the journals of Conrad Weiser (1737), John Bartram
(1743), Bishop Spangenburg (1745), Moravian Bishop John Ettwein (1772),
and the Reverend Philip Vickers Fithian (1775). In addition, the maps of
Lewis Evans (1749) and John Adlum (1792), the land applications of
Robert Galbreath and Martin Stover (1769), and a 1784 statute of the
Pennsylvania General Assembly all tend to validate Lycoming's claim to
recognition as the Tiadaghton. Each datum has merit in the final
analysis, which justifies the specific examination which follows:
Supporting evidence is found in Weiser's German journal, which was meant
for his family and friends, and translated into English by his
great-grandson, Hiester H. Muhlenberg. (Weiser also kept an English
journal for the Council at Philadelphia.) Weiser wrote: "The stream we
are now on the Indians call Dia-daclitu, (die berirte, the lost or
bewildered) which in fact deserves such a name."[24] (This is an obvious
misspelling of Diadachton.) Weiser was following the Sheshequin Path
with Shickellamy to Onondaga and this entry is recorded on March 25,
1737, long before there was any question about the Tiadaghton.
There seems to be some confusion over Bishop Spangenburg's use of the
term "Limping Messenger" in his journal for June 8, 1745. He too was
traveling the Sheshequin Path with David Zeisberger, Conrad Weiser,
Shickellamy, Andrew Montour, _et al._ He describes the "Limping
Messenger" as a camp on the "Tiadachton" (Lycoming), whereas
DeSchweinitz in his _Zeisberger_ interprets the term to mean Pine
Creek.[25]
Another traveler along the Sheshequin Path was the colonial botanist,
John Bartram. Bartram, in the company of Weiser and Lewis Evans, the map
maker, notes in his diary of July 12, 1743, riding "down [up] a valley
to a point, a prospect of an opening bearing N, then down the hill to a
run and over a rich neck lying between it and the Tiadaughton."[26]
Incidentally, the editor of this extract from Bartram's journal makes
the quite devastating point that Meginness did not know of Bartram's
journal, which was published in London in 1751 but which did not appear
in America until 1895.[27]
One of the Moravian journalists who visited the scenic Susquehanna along
the West Branch was Bishop John Ettwein, who passed through this valley
on his way to Ohio in 1772. He wrote of "Lycoming Creek, [as the stream]
which marks the boundary line of lands purchased from the Indians."[28]
Perhaps the most interesting and informative diarist who journeyed along
the West Branch was the Reverend Philip Vickers Fithian. Fithian came to
what we will establish as Fair Play country on July 25, 1775, at what he
called "Lacommon Creek." His conclusion was that this creek was the
Tiadaghton.[29] It is this same Fithian, it might be added, whose
Virginia journals were the primary basis for the reconstruction of
colonial Williamsburg.
The work of colonial cartographers also substantiates the claim that
Lycoming Creek is the Tiadaghton. Both Lewis Evans, following his 1743
journey in the company of Bartram and Weiser, and John Adlum, who
conducted a survey of the West Branch Valley in 1792 for the
Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, failed to label Pine Creek as the
"Tiadaghton" on their maps.[30] In fact, Adlum's map of 1792, found
among the papers of William Bingham, designates the area east of
Lycoming Creek as the "Old Purchase." Furthermore, as is the case with
Evans' map, Adlum does not apply the Tiadaghton label to either Pine
Creek or Lycoming Creek.[31]
Two applications in 1769 for land in the New Purchase show that the
Tiadaghton, or in this case "Ticadaughton," can only be Lycoming Creek.
The application of Robert Galbreath (no. 1823) is described as "Bounded
on one side by the Proprietor's tract at Lycoming." Martin Stover
applied for the same tract (application no. 2611), which is described as
"below the mouth of Ticadaughton Creek."[32] The copies of these two
applications, together with the copy of the survey, offer irrefutable
proof of the validity of Lycoming's claim.
Perhaps the final note is the action of the General Assembly of the
Commonwealth of Pennsylvania on December 12, 1784.[33] The legislators
affirmed the judgments of the frontier journalists, whose recorded
journeys offer the best proof that the Lycoming is the Tiadaghton. Prior
to this action, the Provincial authorities had issued a proclamation on
September 20, 1773, prohibiting settlement west of Lycoming Creek by
white persons. Violators were to be apprehended and tried. The penalties
were real and quite severe: £500 fine, twelve months in prison without
bail, and a guarantee of twelve months of exemplary conduct after
release.[34] Court records, however, fail to indicate any prosecutions.
Finally, the latest scholar to delve into the complexities of the
Stanwix treaties, Professor Peter Marshall, says that there was no
prolonged and close discussion about the running of the treaty line in
Pennsylvania (the Tiadaghton question), no discussion in any way
comparable to that which took place over its location in New York.[35]
In summary then, it appears that the Treaty of Fort Stanwix in 1768 was
responsible for opening the West Branch Valley to settlement, such
settlement being stimulated by the opening of the Land Office in
Philadelphia on April 3, 1769. James Tilghman, secretary of the Land
Office, published the notice of his office's willingness "to receive
applications from all persons inclinable to take up lands in the New
Purchase."[36] The enthusiasm generated by the opening of the Land
Office is shown by the better than 2,700 applications received on the
very first day. However, the question of the Tiadaghton came to be a
source of real contention. The ambiguity of the Indian references to the
western boundary of the first Stanwix Treaty led the eager settlers, who
were seeking to legitimize claims in the area between Lycoming and Pine
creeks, to favor Pine Creek. There was substance to the settlers' claim.
The significance of the boundary question to this study is better
understood when it is recognized that the so-called Fair Play system of
government in lands beyond the Provincial limits must have a definable
locale. It is this writer's firm conviction that Fair Play territory
extended from Lycoming Creek, on the north side of the West Branch of
the Susquehanna, to the Great Island, some five miles west of Pine
Creek. The foundation for the establishment of Lycoming Creek as the
Tiadaghton, and consequently, as the eastern boundary of the Fair Play
territory is apparent once all the evidence is examined. Aside from the
comments of the Indians at the treaty negotiations and Smith's _Laws of
the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania_, there are only secondary accounts
with little documentation to sustain the Pine Creek argument.
On the other hand, the Lycoming Creek claim is buttressed by such
primary sources as the journals of Weiser, Bartram, Spangenberg,
Ettwein, and Fithian, three of which were written before the location of
the Tiadaghton became a subject of dispute. Since none of these men was
seeking lands, they can be considered impartial observers. Furthermore,
the cartographic efforts of Lewis Evans and John Adlum followed actual
visits to the region and say nothing to favor the Pine Creek view.
Perhaps the Indians were merely accepting an already accomplished fact
at the meeting in 1784. Dr. Paul A. W. Wallace says that this would have
been expected from the subservient, pacified Indian. Regardless, the
Provincial leadership made no effort to settle the lands in what some
called "the disputed territory" until after the later agreement at
Stanwix; in fact, they discouraged it.[37] The simple desire for
legitimacy gives us very little to go on in the light of more than
adequate documentation of the justice of the Lycoming view.
This evidence might suggest changing the name of the long-revered
"Tiadaghton Elm" to the "Pine Creek Elm" and bringing to a close the
vexatious question of the Tiadaghton. However let us strike a note of
caution, if not humility. Indian place names had a way of shifting,
doubling, and moving, since they served largely as descriptive terms and
not as true place names. It is not at all unusual to find the same name
applied to several places or to find names migrating. The Tiadaghton
could have been Lycoming Creek to some Indians at one time, and Pine
Creek to others at the same or another time. Consider, for example, that
there were three Miami rivers in present Ohio, which are now known as
the Miami, the Little Miami, and the Maumee. It hardly makes any real
difference to the geography of the Fair Play territory, or to the
delimiting of its boundaries, which stream was the Tiadaghton. Actually,
it was the doubt about it which drew in the squatters and created Fair
Play. These settlers justified their contention that the Tiadaghton was
Pine Creek by moving into the territory and holding onto it. This may be
reason enough for calling the famous tree the Tiadaghton Elm, even if
early travelers and the proprietary officials said that the Tiadaghton
was Lycoming Creek.[38]
The topography of the region also influenced the delineation of what we
call Fair Play territory. The jugular vein which supplies the life-blood
to this region is undoubtedly the West Branch of the Susquehanna River.
This branch of the great river, which drains almost fifty per cent of
the State, follows a northeasterly course of some forty miles from the
Great Island, which is just east of present Lock Haven, to what is now
Muncy, then turns southward.[39]
The West Branch of the mighty Susquehanna, which has plagued generations
of residents with its spring floodings, was the primary means of ingress
and egress for the area. Rich bottom lands at the mouths of Lycoming,
Larrys, and Pine creeks drew the hardy pioneer farmers, and here they
worked the soil to provide the immediate needs for survival. Hemmed in
on the north by the plateau area of the Appalachian front and on the
south by the Bald Eagle Mountains, these courageous pioneers of frontier
democracy carved their future out of the two-mile area (more often less)
between those two forbidding natural walls. With the best lands to be
found around the mouth of Pine Creek, which is reasonably close to the
center of this twenty-five-mile area, it seems quite natural that the
major political, social, and economic developments would take place in
close proximity--and they did.[40]
Thus, an area never exceeding two miles in width and spanning some ten
miles (presently from Jersey Shore to Lock Haven) was the heartland of
Fair Play settlement. Lycoming Creek, Larrys Creek, and Pine Creek all
run south into the West Branch, having channeled breaks through the
rolling valley which extends along the previously defined territory.
"The land was ours before we were the land's," the poet said, and it
seems apropos of this moment in history.[41] Fair Play territory,
possessed before it was owned and operated under _de facto_ rule, would
be some time in Americanizing the sturdy frontiersmen who came to bring
civilization to this wilderness.
FOOTNOTES:
[1] Carl L. Becker, _Beginnings of the American People_ (Ithaca, N. Y.,
1960), p. 182.
[2] Turner, _Frontier and Section_, p. 51.
[3] Frederick Jackson Turner, _The Frontier in American History_ (New
York, 1963), p. 9.
[4] E. B. O'Callaghan, _Documentary History of the State of New York_
(Albany, 1849), I, 587-591.
[5] Henry Steele Commager, _Documents of American History_ (New York,
1958), I, 49.
[6] An earlier twentieth-century historian misinterprets the first
Stanwix Treaty in much the same manner as earlier colonial historians
erred in their judgments of the Proclamation of 1763. Albert T.
Volwiler, _George Croghan and the Westward Movement, 1741-1782_
(Cleveland, 1926), p. 250, really overstates his case, if the Fair Play
settlers are any example, when he claims that the Fort Stanwix line, by
setting a definite boundary, impeded the western advance. Establishing
friendships with the Indians and then persuading them to sell their
lands proved valuable to more than speculators, whose case Volwiler
documents so well, as West Branch settlements after 1768 will attest.
[7] The extension of Provincial authority to Pine Creek would have taken
in three-fourths of what we have labeled Fair Play territory.
[8] John F. Meginness, _Otzinachson: A History of the West Branch Valley
of the Susquehanna_ (Williamsport, 1889), p. 106. The full passage from
the Bethlehem Diary (now in the Moravian Archives) was translated by the
late Dr. William N. Schwarze for Dr. Paul A. W. Wallace, historian of
the Pennsylvania Historical and Museum Commission, as follows: "In the
afternoon [June 8, New Style] our brethren left that place [beyond
Montoursville] and came in the evening to the Limping Messenger on the
Tiadachton Creek, where they spent the night." In the _Pennsylvania
Magazine of History and Biography_, II (1878), 432 (hereafter cited as
_PMHB_), Zeisberger's account is translated in this manner: "In the
afternoon we proceeded on our journey, and at dusk came to the 'Limping
Messenger,' or Diadachton Creek [a note identifies this as Lycoming],
and encamped for the night." Here the error is in identifying the
Limping Messenger with the stream. Meginness, of course, repeated the
error in his _Otzinachson_ (1889), p. 106. Referring the passage to
Vernon H. Nelson of the Moravian Archives, through Dr. Wallace, resulted
in a clarification of the translation and the affirmation of the
"Limping Messenger" as a camp on the stream. In the Bethlehem Diary,
under June 8, 1754, the sentence appears as follows: "des Nachm.
reissten unsre Brr Wieder von da weg u kamen Abends zum hinckenden Boten
an der Tiatachton Creek, u lagen da uber Nacht." In the original travel
journal the passage reads: "des Nachm. reissten wir wieder von da weg, u
kamen Abends zum _hinckenden Boten_ an der Tiatachton Crick u lagen da
uber Nacht." De Schweinitz in his _Zeisberger_ further confused the
issue in his description of the journey. He takes the adventurers
(Zeisberger, Spangenburg, Conrad Weiser, Shickellamy, and Andrew
Montour) through the valley of the Tiadaghton Creek on the Sheshequin
Path to Onondaga (Syracuse). There was an Indian path up Pine Creek, but
it led to Niagara, not Onondaga.
[9] Meginness, _Otzinachson_ (1889), p. 106. This is an added note of
Meginness' commentary upon the citation noted above.
[10] John Blair Linn, _History of Centre and Clinton Counties,
Pennsylvania_ (Philadelphia, 1883), p. 468. Linn also deals with the
Tiadaghton question in his "Indian Land and Its Fair Play Settlers,"
_PMHB_, VII (1883), 420-425. Here he simply defines Fair Play territory
as "Indian Land" encompassing the Lycoming-Pine Creek region.
[11] _Minutes of the First Session of the Ninth General Assembly of the
Commonwealth of Pennsylvania ..._ (Philadelphia, 1784), Appendix,
Proceedings of the Treaties held at Forts Stanwix and McIntosh, pp.
314-322.
[12] _Ibid._, Oct. 23, p. 319.
[13] _Ibid._
[14] _Ibid._, Oct. 22, p. 316.
[15] E. B. O'Callaghan, _Documents Relative to the Colonial History of
the State of New York_, VIII (Albany, 1857), 125. In the discussions
preceding the Fort Stanwix Treaty of 1768, the Indians' description of
the boundary line could be interpreted as favoring Pine Creek: "... to
the Head of the West Branch of Susquehanna thence down the same to Bald
Eagle Creek thence across the River at Tiadaghta Creek below the great
Island, thence by a straight Line to Burnett's Hills and along the
same...." The juxtaposition of Bald Eagle Creek, the Great Island, and
"Tiadaghta" Creek makes this conclusion plausible.
[16] _See also ibid._, Guy Johnson's map illustrating the treaty line,
opposite p. 136.
[17] D. S. Maynard, _Historical View of Clinton County, From Its
Earliest Settlement To The Present Time_ (Lock Haven, 1875), p. 8. The
line is given by Maynard as follows: "... and took in the lands lying
east of the North Branch of the Susquehanna, beginning at Owego, down to
Towanda, thence up the same and across to the headwaters of Pine Creek;
thence down the same to Kittanning...."
[18] Eugene P. Bertin, "Primary Streams of Lycoming County," _Now and
Then_, VIII (1947), 258-259.
[19] Dr. Bertin, former associate secretary of the Pennsylvania State
Education Association, adds nothing to the Meginness and Linn accounts,
his probable sources. He speaks of settlements as early as 1772, whereas
it is a matter of record that Cleary Campbell squatted in what is now
north Lock Haven sometime shortly after 1769. He refers to the
establishment of homes, properly, but then goes on to add churches and
schools. The source for his "Children and elders met together
periodically to recite catechism to the preacher, who was a travelling
missionary, one being Phillip Fithian," was J. B. Linn. But Fithian, an
extremely accurate diarist, fails to mention the occasion during his
one-week visit to this area in the summer of 1775. However, the real
value of this article is the editorial note by T. Kenneth Wood on the
Tiadaghton question. In it he refers to John Bartram's journal of 1743,
twenty-five years before the Stanwix Treaty at Rome, N. Y., with the
Iroquois, which recounts his travels with the Oneida Chief Shickellamy
and Conrad Weiser. Lewis Evans was also in the party, making notes for
his map of 1749. The party, on its way to Onondaga (Syracuse), was
approaching Lycoming Creek at a point just south of Powys, via the
Sheshequin Indian path. Bartram, the first American botanist, who wrote
in his journal nightly after checking with his two guides, gives this
account, T. Kenneth Wood (ed.), "Observations Made By John Bartram In
His Travels from Pennsylvania to Onondaga, Oswego and the Lake Ontario
in 1743," _Now and Then_, V (1936), 90: "Then down a hill to a run and
over a rich neck of land lying between it and the Tiadaughton." No
contact was made with Pine Creek. Dr. Wood contends in his note to the
Bertin article, and this writer is inclined to agree, that the Indian of
1743 and the Indian of 1768 were telling the truth and that the white
settlers of 1768, and for sixteen years thereafter, were wrong, either
through guile and design or ignorance. He says, "The original Indian
principals signing the treaty had retreated westward and sixteen years
of fighting over the question (and possibly a few bribes) had settled it
to the white man's satisfaction. The Indians always had to yield or get
out." This is essentially the point which Dr. Wallace made to me in his
letter of Feb. 16, 1961.
[20] Elsie Singmaster, _Pennsylvania's Susquehanna_ (Harrisburg, 1950),
p. 87. Her Pine Creek description (while describing tributaries of the
Susquehanna) speaks of the gorge as the upper course of Pine Creek,
which is now part of Harrison State Park. Here, she says, "The rim is
accessible by a paved highway, and from there one may look down a
thousand feet and understand why the Indians called the stream
Tiadaghton or Lost Creek."
[21] Edmund A. DeSchweinitz, _The Life and Times of David Zeisberger_
(Philadelphia, 1871), p. 133. Further evidence of DeSchweinitz'
confusion is found in his Geographical Glossary in the same book. On
page 707, he calls the Great Island, Lock Haven; on page 709, he calls
Long Island, Jersey Shore; and on page 713, he refers to Pine Creek as
the Tiadaghton, "also called Diadaghton."
[22] The term "New Purchase" was frequently used, both officially and
otherwise, to designate the area on the north side of the West Branch of
the Susquehanna from Lycoming Creek to the Great Island, although in
actuality the purchase line terminated at Lycoming Creek.
[23] Charles Smith, _Laws of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania_
(Philadelphia, 1810), II, 274.
[24] Paul A. W. Wallace, _Conrad Weiser, Friend of Colonist and Mohawk_
(Philadelphia, 1945), p. 81.
[25] Wallace mistakenly attaches the appellation "Limping Messenger" to
"a foot-sore Indian named Anontagketa," _ibid._, p. 220. However, this
error was corrected in a letter to this writer, August 24, 1962.
[26] Wood (ed.), "Observations Made By John Bartram," p. 90.
[27] _Ibid._, p. 79.
[28] Meginness, _Otzinachson_ (1889), p. 411.
[29] Robert Greenhalgh Albion and Leonidas Dodson (eds.), _Philip
Vickers Fithian: Journal, 1775-1776_ (Princeton, 1934), pp. 69-76.
[30] Hazel Shields Garrison, "Cartography of Pennsylvania before 1800,"
_PMHB_, LIX (1935), 255-283. Information on Adlum's maps was obtained
from [T. Kenneth Wood], "Map Drawn by John Adlum, District Surveyor,
1792, Found Among the Bingham Papers," _Now and Then_, X (July, 1952),
148-150.
[31] [Wood], "Map Drawn by John Adlum," pp. 148-150.
[32] Bureau of Land Records, Harrisburg, Pennsylvania, New Purchase
Applications, Nos. 1823 and 2611, April 3, 1769.
[33] _Pennsylvania Archives_, First Series, XI, 508.
[34] _Colonial Records_, X, 95.
[35] In a letter to this writer, May 19, 1962, Professor Marshall
states: "It was my opinion that the treaty marked, in one aspect, a
bargain between Johnson and the Six Nations. I do not accept
Billington's charge of betrayal of their interests. But it does seem to
me that this meant hard bargaining in New York, when the state of Indian
and colonial lands was precisely known to both sides, and indifference
and ignorance beyond this point.... As far as I am aware, there was no
prolonged and close discussion about the running of the line in
Pennsylvania in the least comparable to that which took place over its
location in New York." _See_ Peter Marshall, "Sir William Johnson and
the Treaty of Fort Stanwix, 1768," _The Journal of American Studies_, I
(Oct., 1967), pp. 149-179.
[36] Meginness, _Otzinachson_ (1889), p. 340.
[37] Helen Herritt Russell, "Signers of the Pine Creek Declaration of
Independence," _The Northumberland County Historical Society Proceedings
and Addresses_, XXII (1958), 1-15.
[38] The fame of this historic elm stems from the fact that it is
reputed to be the site of a local declaration of independence made the
same day as the adoption of Jefferson's draft in Philadelphia, July 4,
1776. The author is indebted to Donald H. Kent, Director of the Bureau
of Archives and History, Pennsylvania Historical and Museum Commission,
for the idea and some of the expression in this paragraph.
[39] Paul A. W. Wallace, _Pennsylvania: Seed of a Nation_ (New York,
1962) p. 3. This delightful book in the "Regions of America" series,
edited by Carl Carmer, contains an excellent chapter on the significance
of Pennsylvania's "Three Rivers."
[40] Gristmills--meeting places of the Fair Play tribunal--a school, and
a church would all be found in this Pine Creek region. However, the
church (Presbyterian) would not be built until the territory became an
official part of the Commonwealth following the second Stanwix Treaty in
1784.
[41] Robert Frost, _Complete Poems of Robert Frost_ (New York, 1949), p.
467. This poem somehow characterizes the experiences of the settlers of
this frontier and many frontiers to come.
CHAPTER TWO
_The Fair Play Settlers: Demographic Factors_
James Logan, president of the Proprietary Council of Pennsylvania,
1736-1738, once declared that "if the Scotch-Irish continue to come they
will make themselves masters of the Province."[1] His prediction, which
was to be generally proven in the Province during the French and Indian
War, was to be demonstrated particularly in the West Branch Valley
during the Revolutionary period. The Scotch-Irish were the dominant
national or ethnic group in the Fair Play territory from 1769 to 1784.
This dominance is demonstrated in Chart 1, which indicates the national
origins of eighty families in the Fair Play territory.
CHART 1
National Origins of Fair Play Settlers[2]
Expressed in Numbers and Percentages
Total Scotch-Irish English German Scots Irish Welsh French
====================================================================
80 39 16 12 5 4 2 2
% 48.75 20 15 6.25 5 2.5 2.5
--------------------------------------------------------------------
Not only were the Scotch-Irish the most numerous national stock among
the Fair Play settlers of the West Branch Valley, but they also
represented a plurality and almost a majority of the entire population.
The significance of this finding in terms of the "style of life" of the
Fair Play settlers cannot be over-emphasized. It influenced the
politics, the religion, the family patterns, and thus the values of this
frontier society.
Several other important conclusions can be drawn from this chart. In
contrast to the population of Pennsylvania in general and the
assumptions regarding frontier areas in particular, the English, rather
than the Germans, were the second most numerous national stock group.
The Germans, however, made up the third-largest segment of the West
Branch Valley population. The Scots, Welsh, Irish, and a few French
inhabitants formed the remaining sixteen per cent of the population.
Obviously, this was a dominantly Anglo-Saxon Protestant area of
settlement.
The impact of this Scotch-Irish hegemony upon the religion, politics,
family life, and social values in general will be dealt with in a later
chapter. However, it can be noted at this juncture that the
strong-willed individualism which characterized these sturdy people was
as much influenced by their national origin as by their experience on
the American frontier. Furthermore, Presbyterianism influenced and was
influenced by a developing democratic political system, which paralleled
the American Presbyterian system of popular rather than hierarchical
church government.[3] A prominent immigration historian has pointed out
that "the theory of Presbyterian republicanism, as a matter of church
policy, could easily be reconciled with demands of the more radical
democrats of 1776."[4] Finally, the social life and customs and, hence,
the values of this frontier society were governed for the most part by
this majority group. Thus, dogmatic faith, political equality, social
and economic independence, respect for education, and a tightly-knit
pattern of family relationships express appropriately the institutional
patterns by which the Scotch-Irish of the West Branch operated.
It is interesting to contrast the national stock groupings of this
Susquehanna frontier with the results of a study of national origins of
the American population made by the American Council of Learned
Societies and published in 1932:[5]
CHART 2
Classification of the White Population into Its National
Stocks in the Continental United States and Pennsylvania:
1790; and in the Fair Play Territory: 1784 (Expressed in Percentages).
Scotch-Irish English German Scots Irish Welsh French Other
=========================================================================
Conti-
nental
United
States 5.9 60.1 8.6 8.1 3.6 0 2.3 10.6
Penn-
sylva-
nia 11.0 35.3 33.3 8.6 3.5 0 1.8 6.5
Fair
Play
Terri-
tory 48.75 20 15 6.25 5 2.5 2.5 0
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
From this comparison it can readily be seen that the national origins of
the Fair Play settlers in no way conform to either the national pattern
or the State pattern of just a few years later. Although this limited
frontier area can be recognized as having its own individual ratio of
component stocks, it is representative rather than unique in its culture
and values. The reaction of those of other national stocks to the
frontier experience buttresses the conclusion that their values were
influenced more by the frontier than by national origin. It is this
common reaction to the problems of the frontier which gives rise to the
conclusion that this West Branch Valley environment was characterized by
and that its inhabitants held values which Turner evaluated as
democratic. The nature of those democratic values is, however, dealt
with in greater detail in subsequent chapters.
The American sources of emigration form the next question to be
considered in examining the origins of the Fair Play settlers. Lacking
adequate statistical data for a complete picture of migration in terms
of percentages, the following chart indicates only the probable origins
of the three most numerous national stock groupings in the Fair Play
territory:
CHART 3
American Sources of Emigration[6]
National Percentage of
Stock Population American Source of Emigration
===============================================================
Scotch-Irish 48.75 Chester, Cumberland, Dauphin,
Lancaster counties
English 20 New Jersey, New York, southeastern
Pennsylvania (Philadelphia and
Bucks counties)
German 15 Chester, Lancaster, Philadelphia,
and York counties
Total 83.75
---------------------------------------------------------------
Obviously, the primary sources for the West Branch settlements were the
lower Susquehanna Valley and southeastern Pennsylvania. However, an
appreciable number of English settlers appear to have come originally
from New Jersey to settle in what they called "Jersey Shore,"
immediately east of the mouth of Pine Creek. One explanation for the
migration of the dominant stock, the Scotch-Irish, is probably the fact
that the Provincial government refused to sell more lands in Lancaster
and York counties to the Scotch-Irish. In effect, they were driven to
use squatter tactics in the Fair Play territory.[7]
The internal origins of sixteen of these settlers can be verified in
either Meginness or Linn. Four came from Chester County, three each from
the Juniata Valley and Lancaster County, two each from Cumberland County
and New Jersey, and one each from Dauphin County and from Orange County
in New York. Nine of these settlers, incidentally, were Scotch-Irish.
Although these data are insufficient for any valid generalization, they
do conform to the characteristic migratory trends indicated in Chart 3.
In analyzing the migration of settlers into the West Branch Valley
beyond the line of the "New Purchase," it becomes apparent that the
Scotch-Irish came from the fringe areas of settlement, whereas the
English and Germans tended to migrate from more settled areas.
Furthermore, the English migrants often came from outside the Province
of Pennsylvania, either from New Jersey or New York. In fact, if one
were to construct a pattern of concentric zones, with the core in the
southeastern corner of the Province and the lines radiating in a
north-westerly direction, the English would be found at the core, the
Germans in the next zone, and the Scotch-Irish in the outlying area.
This zoning offers no real contradiction of the usual pattern of
Pennsylvania migrations. However, when one combines the data of internal
movements with those of external origins, certain contradictions do
appear. The most noteworthy of these is, of course, the prominence of
English settlers on this Fair Play frontier vis-à-vis the Germans.
Since the Pennsylvania frontiersmen of the Wyoming Valley were of
English stock, and immigrated from New England, it might have been
assumed that some of these Connecticut settlers came into the West
Branch Valley. Here, however, all evidence points to the fact that
Connecticut settlers did not migrate west of Muncy, which is located at
the juncture of Muncy Creek and the West Branch of the Susquehanna River
(where the bend in the river turns into a directly western pattern).
Thus the Connecticut boundary dispute of 1769-1775, which erupted into
the Pennamite Wars, did not involve the Fair Play settlers.[8]
Nevertheless, at least one Fair Play settler looked forward to the
possibility of an advance of the Connecticut settlement along the West
Branch.[9]
The impact of events upon the settlement of the Fair Play territory is
particularly apparent when one examines the periods of immigration to
and emigration from the region. Three events seemed to have had the
greatest influence upon the immigration: the Treaty of Fort Stanwix in
1768, which extended the Provincial limits to Lycoming Creek in this
region, and the resultant opening of the Land Office for claims in the
"New Purchase" on April 3, 1769;[10] the almost complete evacuation of
the territory in the "Great Runaway" of the summer of 1778, which was
prompted by Indian attacks and the fear of a great massacre comparable
to the "Wyoming Valley Massacre" of that same year;[11] and finally, the
Stanwix Treaty of 1784, which brought the Fair Play area within the
limits of the Province.[12]
The first Stanwix Treaty, made by Sir William Johnson with the Six
Nations in November of 1768, extended the legitimate line of English
colonial settlement from the line established by the Proclamation of
1763 to a point on the West Branch of the Susquehanna River at the mouth
of Lycoming Creek (the Tiadaghton, as it was so ambiguously
labeled).[13] This extension, ostensibly for the purpose of providing
lands for the colonial veterans of the French and Indian War, became a
boon to speculators and an inducement to the Scotch-Irish squatters who
took lands beyond the limits of this "New Purchase" in what was to
become the Fair Play territory.
In the summer of 1778 the war whoop once again caused the settlers of
the West Branch Valley to flee from their homes for fear of a repetition
of the Wyoming Massacre. The peril of the moment is vividly described in
this communication to the Executive Council in Philadelphia from Colonel
Samuel Hunter, commander of Fort Augusta:
The Carnage at Wioming, the devastations and murders upon the West
branch of Susquehanna, On Bald Eagle Creek, and in short throughout
the whole County to within a few miles of these Towns (the recital
of which must be shocking) I suppose must have before now have
reached your ears, if not you may figure yourselves men, women, and
children, Butchered and scalped, many of them after being promised
quarters, and some scalped alive, of which we have miserable
Instances amongst us.... I have only to add that A few Hundreds of
men well armed and immediately sent to our relief would prevent much
bloodshed, confusion and devastation ... as the appearance of being
supported would call back many of our fugitives to save their
Harvest for their subsistence, rather than suffer the inconveniences
which reason tells me they do down the Country and their with their
families return must ease the people below of a heavy and
unprofitable Burthen.[14]
Robert Covenhoven, who lived at the mouth of the Loyalsock Creek and who
fled to Sunbury (Fort Augusta) also, described the flight:
Such a sight I never saw in my life. Boats, canoes, hog-troughs,
rafts hastily made of dry sticks, every sort of floating article,
had been put in requisition, and were crowded with women, children,
and plunder. There were several hundred people in all.... The whole
convoy arrived safely at Sunbury, leaving the entire range of farms
along the West Branch to the ravages of the Indians.[15]
In this eighteenth-century Dunkirk, the West Branch Valley was
practically cleared of settlers.
The Indians, it is true, proved troublesome to the entire advancing
American frontier; but unlike the French, whose menacing forts had been
removed in the recent wars, the Indians were unable to halt the westward
penetration. An expedition under the leadership of Colonel Thomas
Hartley was sent out expressly for the purpose of boosting morale in the
West Branch Valley following the Wyoming Massacre and the Great Runaway.
Colonel Hartley's letter to Thomas McKean, chief justice of Pennsylvania
and a member of the Continental Congress, gives bitter testimony to the
conditions which he observed in September of 1778:
You heard of the Distresses of these Frontiers they are truly
great--The People which we found were Difident and timid The Panick
had not yet left them--many a wealthy Family reduced to Poverty &
without a home, some had lost their Husbands their children or
Friends--all was gloomy.... the Barbarians do now and then attack an
unarmed man a Helpless Mother or Infant....
The colonel indicated, however, that strong militia support and some
offensive action would restore confidence and cause the people to return
to the valley. His interpretation of the significance of his mission is
quite clearly stated in the conclusion of his letter: "We shall not have
it in our Power to gain Honour or Laurels on these Frontiers but we have
the Satisfaction to think we save our Country...." Hartley's solution to
the Indian problem, which had driven off the settlers, was to expel them
"beyond the Lakes" excepting only the more civilized Tuscaroras and
Oneidas.[16]
Despite the danger from the Indians, the Fair Play settlers began
trickling back to their homes, or what was left of them, toward the end
of the Revolutionary War. Once the war was ended and the Fair Play
territory was annexed by subsequent purchase, the mass movement of
settlers to the West Branch Valley resumed.
Incidentally, Dr. Wallace in his _Conrad Weiser_ assesses one John Henry
Lydius with the major responsibility for the Indian massacres in central
and northeastern Pennsylvania. Wallace notes that Lydius' Connecticut
purchase from the Indians in 1754 caused "war between Pennsylvania and
Connecticut and ... [precipitated] the Massacre of Wyoming in 1778."
This massacre, as West Branch historians know, had its subsequent impact
on the West Branch Valley in the Great Runaway, although the Winters
Massacre of June 10, 1778, which prompted the evacuation of the valley,
actually preceded the Wyoming affair.[17]
Finally, the purchase of the remaining Indian lands in Pennsylvania
(except for the small corner of the Erie Triangle) was made on October
3, 1784, in a second Stanwix Treaty. This accession ended the
Pennsylvania boundary dispute with the Six Nations; and it also ended
the need for any extra-legal system of government in the West Branch
Valley, for this new treaty encompassed the Fair Play territory.[18]
However, this treaty raised the troublesome Tiadaghton question once
again, a question only partly resolved by the Legislature's designation
of Lycoming Creek as the Tiadaghton and the recognition of the
squatters' right of pre-emption to their settlements along the West
Branch of the Susquehanna.[19] The land office was opened for the sale
of this purchase July 1, 1785; by 1786 fifty heads of families were
listed for State taxes in Northumberland County.[20] Approximately fifty
per cent of these taxables had been in the area earlier.
Perhaps the only significant nationality trend to be noted in this
important sequence of events is the tenacity of the Scotch-Irish and the
subsequent increase of English and German settlers following this last
"New Purchase."[21] Over half of the taxables in Pine Creek Township,
the new designation for much of the Fair Play territory after it became
an official part of the Province, were Scotch-Irish. As a result, these
Scots from the north of Ireland continued to maintain their position of
leadership even after the area was included in the Commonwealth.
The reasons for migrating to the West Branch Valley in this fifteen-year
period from 1769 to 1784 were varied and numerous. For the most part,
the various nationality groups which emigrated from Europe came for
economic opportunity and because of religious and political
persecutions. Their movement to the frontier regions was prompted by
similar problems. In fact, much the same as the earlier settlers of
Jamestown and Plymouth, the squatters of the West Branch Valley came for
gain and for God. Furthermore, the promise of Penn's "Holy Experiment,"
in which men of diverse backgrounds could live together peacefully in
religious freedom and political equality, encouraged them to come to
Pennsylvania. However, once the dominant group of the Fair Play
frontier, the Scotch-Irish, arrived in Pennsylvania, they found
themselves unsuited to the settled areas. The natural enemy of the
English, who had oppressed them at home, these settlers soon found
themselves repeating the Old World conflicts. In addition, the German
Pietists caused them further embarrassment in their new homes. Their
Calvinism, fierce political independence, and earnest desire for land
and opportunity soon made them _personae non gratae_ in the established
areas. Hence, they migrated to the frontier areas and even beyond the
limits of Provincial interference and control.[22]
The paucity of population data makes impossible any extensive analysis
of the stability and mobility of the Fair Play settlers. However, the
tax lists, both in the published archives and in the files of the county
commissioners in Northumberland County, offer limited evidence for the
early years, though they provide ample data for the years after 1773.
Prior to the Great Runaway in 1778, tax lists are available for the
entire county of Northumberland; the lists simply indicate the taxable's
township, acreage, and tax. Records in the Northumberland County
courthouse give the assessments for 1773, 1774, 1776, and 1778.
Due to the fact that the Fair Play territory was outside the Provincial
limits until after the purchase of Fort Stanwix in 1784, the assessment
lists give only those persons residing within Northumberland County. As
a result, there were only six to twelve settlers who associated with the
Fair Play men who were included in the lists for 1773-1778. Chart 4
indicates the names, national origins, and years listed for those
settlers.
CHART 4
Fair Play Settlers on the Tax Rolls 1773-1778.[23]
Name National Origin 1773 1774 1776 1778
==============================================================
James Alexander Scotch-Irish x x
George Calhoune Scotch-Irish x x x x
Cleary Campbell Scotch-Irish x
William Campbell, Jr. Scotch-Irish x x x x
William Campbell, Jr. Scotch-Irish x x
John Clark English x
Thomas Forster English x x x x
James Irwin Scotch-Irish x x x x
John Jamison English x
Isaiah Jones Welsh x
Robert King German x x x
John Price Welsh x x
--- --- --- ---
Totals 6 8 7 7
--------------------------------------------------------------
From these limited data one obviously concludes that the Scotch-Irish
were not only the most numerous but also the most persistent of these
frontiersmen. Also, nine of these men, that is all except Clark, Jones,
and King, appear on the tax lists for Northumberland County for the year
1785.[24] Interestingly enough, six of these nine were Scotch-Irish; and
although our sample is limited, it is readily apparent that the stalwart
Scots had a way of "hanging on." It would be presumptuous to conclude
that seventy-five per cent of the residents before 1778 returned by
1785; but it is fact that some forty families had made improvements in
the area by 1773 when William Cooke was sent out by the Land Office to
"Warn the People of[f] the unpurchased Land."[25] Furthermore, as
indicated earlier, some fifty families appear on the assessments for
1786, more than half of whom had been in the region before.
Any effort to analyze the population in terms of stability and mobility
runs head-on into the creation of new townships in the 1780's, the
inability to establish death rates for this frontier, and the inadequacy
of probate records. The result is that the data are intuitively rather
than statistically sound. Chart 5 offers a comparison of tax lists over
a period of nine years as the basis for some conclusions regarding the
stability and mobility of the Fair Play settlers.
CHART 5
Population Stability and Mobility
Based Upon a Comparison of Tax Lists
For the Period From 1778 to 1787.[26]
1778-80 1781 1783-84 1786 1787
==========================================================
Number of residents
assessed 27 29 34 40 68
Number appearing on
previous assessments 6 19 21 14 33
----------------------------------------------------------
Except for the 1783-84 figures, all of the tax data are for State taxes.
The exception is the listing for the federal supply tax in 1783-84. The
steady growth rate of the area is easily recognizable both in raw
figures and in percentages. Beginning with an increase of a little more
than seven per cent between the first two listings, we find a seventy
per cent increase in the final figures. The tremendous increase in the
last two assessments may be due to the purchase of 1784 and the
subsequent legitimizing of claims through the establishment of
pre-emption rights.
The stability of the population is particularly noted in the
consistently high percentage of residents with some tenure in the
valley. Furthermore, the apparent contradiction of this statement by the
decline to fourteen residents in the 1786 listing who had once left and
then returned is offset when one examines the neighboring township
assessments for that same year. Here fourteen additional names of former
Fair Play settlers are to be found which would sustain the
characteristic pattern of tenure. The statistical problem is complicated
by the creation of new townships following the purchase of 1784. Pine
Creek and Lycoming were the new designations for the former Fair Play
territory, Pine Creek running from the creek of that same name west, and
Lycoming extending from Pine Creek east to Lycoming Creek.
Petitions from the area in 1778, 1781, and 1784 give a similar picture.
Almost half of the names which are found on the tax lists appear on two
or more of these appeals. These include a distress petition in June of
1778, and petitions asking recognition of pre-emption rights in 1781 and
1784.[27] The signatures on the petitions range in number from
thirty-nine to fifty-one, and at least twenty-four of these settlers
signed two or more of these documents. The very nature of these
petitions, particularly the later ones, indicates the tremendous desire
on the part of these sturdy pioneers to remain in or return to their
homes in the West Branch Valley. Here too, however, this tenacity of
purpose is not strictly confined to the Scotch-Irish.
What conclusions can be drawn from this analysis of the demographic
factors in the Fair Play settlement? Particularly evident is the
dominance of the Scotch-Irish, who numerically composed the greatest
national stock group in the population. This dominance, as we have
already noted, greatly influenced the political and social institutions
of the area. Secondly, one might consider the numbers of English
settlers, as compared with the number of Germans, surprising. As a
matter of fact, if one adds the numbers of Scots and Welsh inhabitants
to the English and Scotch-Irish, the result is an "English" percentage
of seventy-seven and one half for the entire population. Thus it is
quite logical to assume that English customs and language would prevail,
and they did. Incidentally, it should be added that the "English" nature
of the population, combined with the Scotch-Irish plurality, meant that
the Scotch-Irish were more representative of this frontier than they
were innovators of its customs and values.
If a majority of the Fair Play settlers came from the British Isles,
from where did they emigrate in America? Here it is quite clear that
these frontiersmen were predominantly from the lower Susquehanna Valley
and southeastern Pennsylvania. Pennsylvania was to them a land of
liberty and opportunity;[28] and when they failed to find these
privileges in the settled areas, they moved out on the frontier where
they could make their own rules, that is to say, establish their own
familiar institutions. The result was the Fair Play system.
Although the Fair Play settlers came to America and central Pennsylvania
for the usual political, economic, and social reasons, the two Stanwix
treaties and the Indian raids of 1778 had the most influence on
population fluctuations. The pioneers came into the territory
over-reaching the limits of the "New Purchase" of 1768. They were driven
out, almost to a man, in the Great Runaway of 1778. And finally, they
returned after the second "New Purchase" in 1784, which resulted in the
recognition of their pre-emption claims for their earlier illegal
settlements. It is interesting to note that pre-emption claims were
recognized in the West Branch Valley some forty-five years prior to
federal legislation to that effect.[29]
Despite fluctuations in the population, the Scotch-Irish were able to
maintain their hold over the valley and thus influence the pattern of
development for this frontier outpost. Horace Walpole, addressing the
English Parliament during the American Revolution, said, "There is no
use crying about it. Cousin America has run off with a Presbyterian
parson, and that is the end of it."[30] The Scotch-Irish with their
Presbyterianism had run off with the West Branch Valley as well; and
their independent spirit would see them in the foreground of the
"noblest rupture in the history of mankind." That independent spirit and
leadership is particularly noted in the political system which they
established along the West Branch of the Susquehanna River. Their "Fair
Play system" is the primary concern of the next chapter.
FOOTNOTES:
[1] E. Melvin Williams, "The Scotch-Irish in Pennsylvania," _Americana_,
XVII (1923), 382.
[2] This chart was compiled by making a list of eighty names appearing
in an article on the genealogy of the Fair Play men, Helen Herritt
Russell, "The Documented Story of the Fair Play Men and Their
Government," _The Northumberland County Historical Society Proceedings
and Addresses_, XII (1958), 16-43. Mrs. Russell is genealogist of the
Fort Antes chapter of the Daughters of the American Revolution in Jersey
Shore, Pa. The names were checked in Meginness and Linn for possible
national origin. Approximately one-fourth were verified in these
sources. Although this writer questioned the validity of the geographic
conclusions of Meginness and Linn, both have ample documentation for
their findings regarding genealogy and national origins. These findings
can be validated in the published archives. The entire sample of names
was submitted to Dr. Samuel P. Bayard, a folklore specialist and
professor of English at the Pennsylvania State University, whose
determination was made on the basis of linguistic techniques.
[3] Popular control was an American rather than a Scottish influence
necessitated by the absence of sufficient numbers of ministers. In
Scotland, the minister chose his elders and thus dominated the session;
in America, the selection was made by the congregation. _See_ James G.
Leyburn, _The Scotch-Irish: A Social History_ (Chapel Hill, 1962), p.
150.
[4] Carl Wittke, _We Who Built America_ (Cleveland, 1963), p. 57.
[5] American Council of Learned Societies, "Report of Committee on
Linguistic and National Stocks in the Population of the United States,"
_Annual Report of the American Historical Association for the Year 1931_
(Washington, 1932), I, 124.
[6] This summary has been prepared from three main sources: Wayland F.
Dunaway, _The Scotch-Irish of Colonial Pennsylvania_ (Hamden, Conn.,
1962), pp. 89-91; Meginness, _Otzinachson_ (1889), pp. 161-167; and John
B. Linn, _History of Centre and Clinton Counties, Pennsylvania_
(Philadelphia, 1883), pp. 447, 481-482.
[7] Williams, "The Scotch-Irish in Pennsylvania," p. 382.
[8] Wayland F. Dunaway, _A History of Pennsylvania_ (Englewood Cliffs,
N. J., 1948), pp. 131-137. According to John Bacon Deans, "The Migration
of the Connecticut Yankees to the West Branch of the Susquehanna River,"
_The Northumberland County Historical Society Proceedings and
Addresses_, XX (1954), 34-35, eighty-two Yankees came to Warrior's Run
in September of 1775, but none went farther west.
[9] Wyoming Historical and Geological Society, Wilkes-Barre, Pa., The
Zebulon Butler Papers, Jonas Davis to Zebulon Butler, March 16, 1773.
[10] Meginness, _Otzinachson_ (1889), p. 340.
[11] Linn, _History of Centre and Clinton Counties_, p. 475; Meginness,
_Otzinachson_ (1889), pp. 508-511.
[12] Linn, _History of Centre and Clinton Counties_, p. 477; Meginness,
_Otzinachson_ (1889), p. 666.
[13] O'Callaghan, _Documentary History of the State of New York_, I,
587-591.
[14] Meginness, _Otzinachson_ (1889), p. 509. This July 12, 1778,
communication from Colonel Hunter did not fall on deaf ears, for Colonel
Thomas Hartley was ordered to the area with his regiment before the
summer was out.
[15] Linn, _History of Centre and Clinton Counties_, p. 475.
[16] Richmond D. Williams, "Col. Thomas Hartley's Expedition of 1778,"
_Now and Then_, XII (1960), 258-259.
[17] Wallace, _Conrad Weiser_, pp. 362-363. Lydius had gotten the
Indians drunk following the settlement at Albany between the Six Nations
and the Proprietaries. This boundary line (Albany) "crossed the West
Branch below the Big Island," p. 374.
[18] _Pennsylvania Archives_, First Series, XI, 508.
[19] Meginness, _Otzinachson_ (1889), p. 667.
[20] Linn, _History of Centre and Clinton Counties_, p. 477.
_Pennsylvania Archives_, Third Series, XIX, 711-713.
[21] The ambiguity of the term "New Purchase" becomes apparent once it
is recognized that territorial acquisitions of both Stanwix treaties
adopted that appellation.
[22] Dunaway, _The Scotch-Irish of Colonial Pennsylvania_, pp. 28-49.
[23] Northumberland County Courthouse, Sunbury, Pa., Penns & C.
1782-1811 Tax Assessments, Cabinet #1. This book, found in the cellar of
the courthouse, also contains the Pine Creek assessment for 1789.
[24] _Pennsylvania Archives_, Third Series, XIX, 618-622.
[25] _Pennsylvania Archives_, First Series, XII, 286-287. The squatters,
apparently warned in advance, had practically all vacated the premises.
However, neighbors across the river willingly gave their names.
[26] _Pennsylvania Archives_, Third Series, XIX, 437, 468, 557, 711,
790.
[27] _Pennsylvania Archives_, Second Series, III (1875), 217, 518-522.
The original petitions of 1781 and 1784 are located in the State
Archives, Harrisburg.
[28] Penn's colony was well advertised, and the emphasis upon liberty of
conscience, when contrasted with the restrictions of the Test Act, gives
ample support for the significance of liberty as a motivating factor.
However, economic causes predominated.
[29] Ray Allen Billington, _Westward Expansion_ (New York, 1960), p.
380. Billington refers here to the distribution-pre-emption measure of
1841, whereas Congress actually recognized squatters' rights in the act
of 1830.
[30] Williams, "The Scotch-Irish in Pennsylvania," p. 382.
CHAPTER THREE
_The Politics of Fair Play_
The political system of these predominantly Scotch-Irish squatters in
the Susquehanna Valley, along the West Branch, offers a vivid
demonstration of the impact of the frontier on the development of
democratic institutions. Occupying lands beyond the reach of the
Provincial legislature, with some forty families of mixed national
origin in residence by 1773, these frontier "outlaws" had to devise some
solution to the question of authority in their territory.[1] Their
solution was the extra-legal creation of _de facto_ rule historically
known as the Fair Play system. The following is a contemporary
description of that system:
There existed a great number of locations of the third of April,
1769, for the choicest lands on the West Branch of Susquehanna,
between the mouths of _Lycoming_ and _Pine creeks_; but the
proprietaries, from extreme caution, the result of that experience,
which had also produced the very penal laws of 1768, and 1769, and
the proclamation already stated, had prohibited any surveys being
made beyond the _Lycoming_. In the mean time, in violation of all
law, a set of hardy adventurers, had from time to time, seated
themselves on this doubtful territory. They made improvements, and
formed a very considerable population. It is true, so far as
regarded the rights to real property, they were not under the
protection of the laws of the country; and were we to adopt the
visionary theories of some philosophers, who have drawn their
arguments from a supposed state of nature, we might be led to
believe that the state of these people would have been a state of
continual warfare; and that in contests for property the weakest
must give way to the strongest. To prevent the consequences, real
or supposed, of this state of things, they formed a mutual compact
among themselves. They annually elected a tribunal, in rotation, of
three of their settlers, whom they called _fair play men_, who were
to decide all controversies, and settle disputed boundaries. From
their decision there was no appeal. There could be no resistance.
The decree was enforced by the whole body, who started up in mass,
at the mandate of the court, and execution and eviction was as
sudden, and irresistible as the judgment. Every new comer was
obliged to apply to this powerful tribunal, and upon his solemn
engagement to submit in all respects, _to the law of the land_, he
was permitted to take possession of some vacant spot. Their decrees
were, however, just; and when their settlements were recognized by
law, and _fair play_ had ceased, their decisions were received in
evidence, and confirmed by judgments of courts.[2]
The idea of authority from the people was nothing new; in fact, it is as
old as the Greeks. Nor is the concept of a "social compact," here
implied, particularly novel to the American scene. The theory was that
people hitherto unconnected assembled and gave their consent to be
governed by a certain ruler or rulers under some particular form of
government.[3] Theoretically justified by John Locke in his persuasive
defense of the Glorious Revolution, it had been practiced in Plymouth,
Rhode Island, Connecticut, and New Hampshire, where practical necessity
had required it for settlements occasionally made outside charter
limits. The frontier, whether in New England or in the West Branch
Valley, created a practical necessity which made popular consent the
basis of an actual government.
They were not "covenanters" in the Congregational sense of having
brought an established church with them to the Fair Play territory. But
the Fair Play settlers understood and subscribed to the principle of
popular control, which was fundamental to such solemnly made and
properly ratified agreements. Separated from the authority of the crown,
detached from the authority of the hierarchy of the church by the
Protestant Reformation, possessing no American tradition of extensive
political experience, these settlers could only depend upon themselves
as proper authorities for their own political system.
Furthermore, the great majority of the settlers who came to the Fair
Play territory came from families who had left their homes in the old
country to escape political, economic, and social restrictions, only to
be made unwelcome in their new homes in the settled areas of
Pennsylvania. Displaced persons in a new country, they were forced by
lives of conflict to seek better opportunity by moving to undeveloped
lands. As a result, they settled along the West Branch of the
Susquehanna, beyond the authority of the crown and outside the pressures
of the Provincial legislature.
If man is a predatory beast in his natural state, a belief some
expressed in the eighteenth century, then it follows naturally that
every society must have some agency of authority and control. The
universally standardized solution to the problem of social control is
government. The Fair Play system was the answer on this Susquehanna
frontier to the need for some legitimate agency of force.[4] This system
vested authority in the people through annual elections of a tribunal of
three of their number. The members of the tribunal were given
quasi-executive, legislative, and judicial powers over all the settlers
in the West Branch Valley "beyond the purchase line."[5]
Although no record of any of these elections has been preserved, the
composition of the Fair Play tribunal in 1776 has been established and
verified by subsequent reviews of land claims in the county courts.[6]
Also, two of the members of the tribunal of 1775 are identified in a
pre-emption claim made before the Lycoming County Court in 1797.[7] It
is interesting to note that among these five men are represented the
three most prominent national stock groups in the area, with the
Scotch-Irish, as our earlier sample demonstrated, in the majority.
Lacking returns of the annual elections of the tribunal and minutes of
its actual meetings, we have only Smith's _Laws of the Commonwealth of
Pennsylvania_, petitions from the Fair Play settlers, and the subsequent
review of land questions by the Northumberland and Lycoming County
courts to evaluate the tribunal, its members, and its procedures.
However, these data are more than adequate in giving us a picture of
this _de facto_, though illegal, rule, which existed in the West Branch
Valley until the Treaty of Fort Stanwix in 1784 brought the territory
under Commonwealth jurisdiction. The composition of the electorate
varied with the fluctuations in population caused by the two Stanwix
treaties, the Revolution, and the Great Runaway.
Since property and religious qualifications were the primary
prerequisites to voting at this time, it seems logical to assume that a
similar basis for suffrage operated in the West Branch Valley.[8] Having
no regular church--the first, a Presbyterian, was not organized until
1792--property qualifications appear to have been the basis for what, in
this area, was practically universal manhood suffrage. Due to the fact
that the entire settlement consisted of squatters, practically all of
the heads of households were property holders, regardless of the
questionable legality of their holdings. The tax lists indicate holdings
of some 100 to 300 acres on the average for residents, so it is
particularly difficult to know whether or not a minimum holding
requirement prevailed. The Provincial suffrage requirement in this
period was generally fifty acres of land or £50 of personal property.[9]
Although this study encompasses a fifteen-year period from 1769 to 1784,
it appears that the Fair Play system functioned for about five years,
from 1773 to 1778. This is due to the fact that only "fourty
Improvements,"[10] meaning forty family settlements, existed in the area
by 1773, and that following the Great Runaway of 1778, the territory was
almost devoid of settlers. The void was filled, however, when settlers
began returning toward the end of the Revolution and following the
accession of the territory in the second Stanwix Treaty, in 1784. Thus,
for all practical purposes, the functioning of the Fair Play system was
confined to this more limited time. Furthermore, the system was
supplemented in 1776 by the introduction of the Committee of Safety, and
later that year by the Council of Safety.[11]
As is indicated in Smith's _Laws_, annual meetings were held to select
the governing tribunal of three for the ensuing year. Generally convened
at some readily accessible place, these sessions were presumably held in
the open or at one of the frontier forts erected in the area: Fort
Antes, across the river from Jersey Shore; or Fort Horn, located on the
south side of the Susquehanna about eight miles west of Jersey Shore.
There were frontier forts in the vicinity of the present Muncy--Fort
Muncy--and Lock Haven--Fort Reed; but Fort Muncy was some twenty-odd
miles east of the Fair Play territory and Fort Reed was beyond the Great
Island at its western extremity. As a result, these outposts were
unlikely meeting places for the tribunal or for its election.[12]
Unfortunately, there is no recorded evidence of a specific meeting of
the Fair Play men.
The authority of the Fair Play tribunal extended across the entire
territory from Lycoming Creek to the Great Island on the north side of
the West Branch of the Susquehanna. However, most of the disputed cases,
which can be verified by subsequent court reviews in either
Northumberland or Lycoming counties, seem to have involved land claims
in the area between Lycoming and Pine creeks. The tribunal accepted or
rejected claims for settlement in the area and decided boundary
questions and other controversies among settlers.[13] As to a specific
code of laws, there is none of record. However, the cases subsequently
reviewed in the established county courts refer to some of their regular
practices. For example, any man who left his improvement for six weeks
without leaving someone to continue it, lost his right to the
improvement;[14] any man who went into the army could count on the Fair
Play men (the tribunal) to protect his property;[15] any man who sought
land in the territory was obliged to obtain not only the approval of the
Fair Play men but also of his nearest potential neighbors;[16] and the
summary process of ejectment which the Fair Play men exercised was real
and certain and sometimes supported by the militia.[17]
The specific membership of the Fair Play tribunal is rather difficult to
ascertain due to its failure to keep minutes of its proceedings and the
absence of any recorded code. However, as indicated earlier,[18] the
existence of the tribunal between the years 1773 and 1778, and its
actual composition in 1775 and 1776, have already been established from
the review of its decisions by the Circuit Court of Lycoming County.
Assuming the principle of rotation from a contemporary description,
some eighteen settlers held the positions of authority during the years
noted.[19] The cases reviewed reveal the names of five of these
eighteen. Recognizing the limitations of our twenty-eight per cent
sampling, however, it is interesting to note that the three major
national stocks are represented in this restricted sample. Furthermore,
as was mentioned previously,[20] the Scotch-Irish settlers, being in the
majority, enjoyed the majority representation on the tribunal. An
analysis of leadership in the territory, to be developed more fully
later, leads one to conclude that the Scotch-Irish, in the main, were
the political leaders of the area.[21]
A diligent search of some sixty cases in the Court of Common Pleas in
both Northumberland and Lycoming counties yielded some documentary
evidence regarding the procedures of the Fair Play tribunal.[22] Three
cases in Lycoming County and one from Northumberland County contain
depositions which describe the activities of the Fair Play men in some
detail. One case, _Hughes_ vs. _Dougherty_, was appealed to the Supreme
Court of the Commonwealth. All of the cases deal with the question of
title to lands in the Fair Play territory following the purchase of
these lands at the Treaty of Fort Stanwix in 1784. The depositions taken
in conjunction with these cases indicate the processes of settlement and
ejectment, in addition to the policies regarding land tenure. The
fairness of the Fair Play decisions is noted by the fact that the
regular courts concurred with the earlier judgments of the tribunal.[23]
An anecdote involving one of the Fair Play men, Peter Rodey, illustrates
the nature of this frontier justice. According to legend, Chief Justice
McKean of the State Supreme Court was holding court in this district,
and, curious about the principles or code of the Fair Play men, he
inquired about them of Peter Rodey, a former member of the tribunal.
Rodey, unable to recall the details of the code, simply replied: "All I
can say is, that since your Honor's coorts have come among us, _fair
play_ has entirely ceased, and law has taken its place."[24]
The justice of "fair play" and the nature of the system can be seen from
an analysis of the cases reviewed subsequently in the established
courts. As mentioned previously, these cases describe the procedures
regarding settlement, land tenure, and ejectment. Although no recorded
code of laws has been located, references to "resolutions of the Fair
Play men" regularly appear in the depositions and summaries of these
cases.[25] According to Leyburn, a customary "law" concerning settlement
rights operated on the frontier, particularly among the
Scotch-Irish.[26] This "law" recognized three settlement rights: "corn
right," which established claims to 100 acres for each acre of grain
planted; "tomahawk right," which marked off the area claimed by
deadening trees at the boundaries of the claim; and, "cabin right,"
which confirmed the claim by the construction of a cabin upon the
premises. If the decisions of the regular courts are at all indicative,
Fair Play settlement was generally based upon "cabin right." However,
the frequent allusion to "improvements" implies some secondary
consideration to what Leyburn has defined as "corn right."
In the case of _Hughes_ vs. _Dougherty_, the significance of
"improvements," or "corn rights," vis-à-vis "cabin rights" is
particularly noted.[27] The following summary of that case, found in
_Pennsylvania Reports_, emphasizes that significance, in addition to
defining a Fair Play "code" pertaining to land tenure:
THIS was an ejectment for 324 acres of land, part of the Indian
lands in _Northumberland_ county.
The plaintiff claimed under a warrant issued on the 2d _May_ 1785,
for the premises, and a survey made thereon upon the 10th _January_
1786. The defendant, on the 20th _June_ 1785, entered a caveat
against the claims of the plaintiff, and on the 5th _October_
following, took out a warrant for the land in dispute, on which he
was then settled. Both claimed the pre-emption under the act of 21st
_December_ 1784,[28] and on the evidence given the facts appeared to
be:
That in 1773, one _James Hughes_, a brother of the plaintiff,
settled on the lands in question and made some small improvements.
In the next year he enlarged his improvement, and cut logs to build
an house. In the winter following he went to his father's in
_Donegal_ in _Lancaster_ county, and died there. His elder brother
_Thomas_ was at that time settled on the Indian land, and one of the
"Fair Play Men," who had assembled together and made a resolution,
(which they agreed to enforce as the law of the place,) that "if any
person was absent from his "settlement for six weeks he should
forfeit his right." [Quotation marks as published.]
In the spring of 1775 the defendant came to the settlement, and was
advised by the Fair Play Men to settle on the premises which
_Hughes_ had left; this he did, and built a cabin. The plaintiff
soon after came, claiming it in right of his brother, and aided by
_Thomas Hughes_, took possession of the cabin; but the defendant
collecting his friends, an affray ensued, in which _Hughes_ was
beaten off and the defendant left in possession. He continued to
improve, built an house and stable, and cleared about ten acres. In
1778 he was driven off by the enemy and entered into the army. At
the close of the war, both plaintiff and defendant returned to the
settlement, each claiming the land in dispute.
The warrant was taken out in the name of _James Hughes_, (the father
of the plaintiff who is since dead,) for the benefit of his
children.
After argument by Mr. _Charles Smith_ and Mr. _Duncan_ for the
plaintiff, and Mr. _Daniel Smith_ and Mr. _Read_ for the defendant,
Justice _Shippen_ in the charge of the court to the jury, said--
The dispute here, is between a first improvement, and a subsequent
but much more valuable improvement. But neither of the parties has
any legal or equitable right, but under the act of the 21st
_December_ 1784. The settlement on this land was against law. It was
an offence that tended to involve this country in blood. But the
merit and sufferings of the actual settlers cancelled the offence,
and the legislature, mindful of their situation, provided this
special act for their relief. The preamble recites their "resolute
stand and sufferings," as deserving a right of pre-emption. The
legislature had no eye to any person who was not one of the
occupiers after the commencement of the war, and a transient settler
removed, (no matter how,) is not an object of the law. This is our
construction of the act. _James Hughes_ under whom the plaintiff
claims, died before the war, the other occupied the premises after,
and in the language of the act, "stood and suffered." If this
construction be right, the cause is at an end.
Besides, the plaintiff claims as the heir of _Thomas_, who was the
heir of _James_, the first settler. I will not say that the fair
play men could make a law to bind the settlers; but they might by
agreement bind themselves. Now _Thomas_ was one of these, and was
bound by his conduct, from disputing the right of the defendant.
This warrant it seems, is taken out in the name of the father, and
it is said, as a trustee for his children. It is sometimes done for
the benefit of all concerned. If this be the case, it may be well
enough; but still it is not so regular, as it might have been[.]
With these observations, we submit it to you.
Verdict for the defendant.[29]
This case, although originated in the Northumberland County Court in
1786, was appealed to the State Supreme Court, where the lower court
decision was affirmed in 1791. The summary runs the gamut of Fair Play
procedures from settlement, through questions of tenure, to ejectment.
Its completeness indicates its usefulness. Partial and occasional
depositions in the other cases cited help to round out the picture of
the Fair Play "code."
For example, the right of settlement included not only the approval of
the Fair Play men, but also the acceptance of the prospective
landholder by his neighbors. Allusions to this effect are made in the
Coldren deposition as well as in the Huff-Latcha case. Eleanor Coldren's
deposition, made at Sunbury, June 7, 1797, concerns the disputed title
to certain lands of her deceased husband, Abraham Dewitt, opposite the
Great Island. Her comments about neighbor approval demonstrate the
point. She says, for instance, that
... in the Spring of 1775, Henry Antes and Cookson Long, two of the
Fair-Play Men, with others, were at the deponent's house, next below
Barnabas Bonner's Improvement, where Deponent's Husband kept a
Tavern, and heard Antes and Long say that they (meaning the
Fair-Play Men) and the Neighbors of the Settlement had unanimously
agreed that James Irvin, James Parr, Abraham Dewitt and Barnabas
Bonner should ... have their Improvement Rights fitted....
She speaks of the resolution of the claims problem "as being the
unanimous agreement of the Neighbors and Fair-Play Men...."[30]
William King, who temporarily claimed part of the land involved in the
dispute between Edmund Huff and Jacob Latcha, also refers to neighbor
approval in his deposition taken in that case. He said, "I first went to
Edmund Huff, then to Thomas Kemplen, Samuel Dougherty, William McMeans,
and Thomas Ferguson, and asked if they would accept me as a
neighbor...."[31]
Land tenure policy is noted by this same William King in the case of
_James Grier_ vs. _William Tharpe_. Repeating what we have already
pointed out in the case of _Hughes_ vs. _Dougherty_, King testified that
"there was a law among the Fair-play men by which any man, who absented
himself for the space of six weeks, lost his right to his
improvement."[32] In the Huff-Latcha case, King recounts the case of one
Joseph Haines who "had once a right ... but had forfeited his right by
the Fair-play law...."[33]
The forfeiture rule was tempered, however, in cases involving military
service. Bratton Caldwell's deposition in _Grier_ vs. _Tharpe_ is a case
in point. Caldwell, one of the Fair Play men in 1776, declared that
"Greer went into the army in 1776 and was a wagon-master till the fall
of 1778.... In July, 1778, the Runaway, John Martin, had come on the
land in his absence. The Fair-play men put Greer in possession. If a man
went into the army, the Fair-play men protected his property."[34]
Meginness mentions a similar decision in the case of John Toner and
Morgan Sweeney.[35] Sweeney had attempted to turn a lease for
improvements in Toner's behalf to possession for himself, but the
Northumberland County Court honored the Fair Play rule concerning
military service and decided in favor of Toner.
The summary process of ejectment utilized by the Fair Play men,
occasionally with militia support, is evident from William King's
deposition in the Huff-Latcha case. King, having sold his right to one
William Paul, recounts the method as follows:
William Paul went on the land and finished his cabin. Soon after a
party b[r]ought Robert Arthur and built a cabin near Paul's in which
Arthur lived. Paul applied to the Fair-play men who decided in favor
of Paul. Arthur would not go off. Paul made a complaint to the
company at a muster at Quinashahague[36] that Arthur still lived on
the land and would not go off, although the Fair-play men had
decided against him. I was one of the officers at that time and we
agreed to come and run him off. The most of the company came down as
far as Edmund Huff's who kept Stills. We got a keg of whisk[e]y and
proceeded to Arthur's cabin. He was at home with his rifle in his
hand and his wife had a bayonet on a stick, and they threatened
death to the first person who would enter the house. The door was
shut and Thomas Kemplen, our captain, made a run at the door, burst
it open and instantly seized Arthur by the neck. We pulled down the
cabin, threw it into the river, lashed two canoes together and put
Arthur and his family and his goods into them and sent them down the
river. William Paul then lived undisturbed upon the land until the
Indians drove us all away.[37] William Paul was then (1778) from
home on a militia tour.[38]
Although land disputes offer documentary evidence of the Fair Play
system, it seems quite likely that the tribunal's jurisdiction extended
to other matters. A few anecdotes, obviously based quite tenuously upon
hearsay, will suffice to illustrate. Joseph Antes, son of Colonel Henry
Antes, used to tell this story: It seems that one Francis Clark, who
lived just west of Jersey Shore in the Fair Play territory, gained
possession of a dog which belonged to an Indian. Upon learning of this,
the Indian appealed to the Fair Play men, who ordered Clark's arrest and
trial for the alleged theft. Clark was convicted and sentenced to be
lashed. The punishment was to be inflicted by a person decided by lot,
the responsibility falling upon the man drawing the red grain of corn
from a bag containing grains of corn for each man present. Philip Antes
was the reluctant "winner." The Indian, seeing that the decision of the
"court" was to be carried out immediately, magnanimously suggested that
banishment would serve better than flogging. Clark agreed and left for
the Nippenose Valley, where his settlement is a matter of record.[39]
Another anecdote, if true, gives further testimony to the justice of
Fair Play. In this instance, a minister and school teacher named Kincaid
faced the Fair Play tribunal on the charge of abusing his family. Tried
and convicted, he was sentenced to be ridden on a rail for his
offense.[40] Here again, the tale, though legendary, is made plausible
by the established fact of Kincaid's residence in the area.[41]
Doubtless the most notable political action of the Fair Play settlers is
their declaration of independence, which Meginness calls "a remarkable
coincidence" because "it took place about the same time that the
Declaration was signed in Philadelphia!"[42] Aware, as were many of the
American colonists in the spring and summer of 1776, that independence
was being debated in Philadelphia, these West Branch pioneers decided to
absolve themselves from all allegiance to the Crown and declare their
own independence. Meeting under a large elm on the west bank of Pine
Creek, mistakenly known as the "Tiadaghton Elm," the Fair Play men and
settlers simply resolved their own right of self-determination, a
principle upon which they had been acting for some time. Unfortunately,
no record of the resolution has been preserved--if it was actually
written. However, the names of the supposed signers, all bona fide Fair
Play settlers, have been passed down to the present.[43]
As every careful historian knows, no declaration was signed in
Philadelphia on July 4, 1776, except by the clerk and presiding officer
of the Continental Congress. Consequently, the Pine Creek story arouses
justifiable skepticism. However, there does seem to be some evidence to
substantiate this famous act.
First of all, Fithian's _Journal_ gives insight into the possible
motivation for such independent action. In an entry for Thursday, July
27, 1775, he writes of reviewing "the 'Squires Library," noting that
"After some Perusal I fix'd in the Farmer's memorable Letters."[44]
Fithian was reading John Dickinson's _Letters from a Farmer in
Pennsylvania_, which he had come across in the library of John Fleming,
his host for a week in the West Branch Valley. Dickinson's dozen
uncompromising epistles in opposition to the Grenville and Townshend
programs both inspired and incited liberty-lovers. Furthermore, Fleming
himself was a leader among the Fair Play settlers, and may have been
aroused to action by the eloquence of Dickinson's expression. Every idea
is an incitement to action and the ideas of _Letters from a Farmer_,
which made Dickinson the chief American propagandist prior to Thomas
Paine, reached into the frontier of the West Branch Valley.
The best contemporary evidence in support of the Pine Creek declaration
is found in the widow's pension application of Anna Jackson Hamilton,
daughter-in-law of Alexander Hamilton, who was one of the early settlers
and a prominent leader along the West Branch of the Susquehanna. Mrs.
Hamilton, whose pension application and accompanying statement were
made in 1858, lived within one mile of the reputedly historic elm. In
her sworn statement she says, "I remember well the day independence was
declared on the plains of Pine Creek, seeing such numbers flocking
there, and Independence being all the talk, I had a knolege of what was
doing."[45] Her son John corroborates this in his statement that "She
and an old colored woman are the only persons now living in the country
who remembers the meeting of the 4th of July, 1776, at Pine Creek. She
remembers it well."[46] Mrs. Hamilton was ninety years old at the time
of her declaration, which was made some eighty-two years after the
celebrated event.[47]
Following the outbreak of the Revolution and the meeting of the Second
Continental Congress, the Fair Play system of the West Branch Valley was
soon augmented by another extra-legal organization, the Committee of
Safety. Ostensibly created for the purpose of raising and equipping a
"suitable force to form Pennsylvania's quota of the Continental Army,"
it soon exercised executive authority dually with the assembly.[48] The
Council of Safety was instituted as the successor to the Committee of
Safety by a resolution of the Provincial Convention of 1776, then
meeting in Philadelphia to draw up a new constitution for Pennsylvania.
It was continued by an act of the assembly that same year. It functioned
from July 24, 1776, until it was dissolved on December 6, 1777, by a
proclamation of the Supreme Executive Council.[49] Locally, however,
the township branches continued to function and were still referred to
as "committees."
It appears from the resolutions and actions of the local committee that
the Fair Play men maintained jurisdiction in land questions, but that
all other cases were within the range of the committee's authority. In
fact, a resolution dated February 27, 1776, asserted that "the committee
of Bald Eagle is the most competent judges of the circumstances of the
people of that township."[50] This resolution was made in conjunction
with an order from the county committee to prevent the loss of rye and
other grains which were being "carried out of the township for
stilling."[51] Although cautioned against "using too much rigor in their
measures," the committee was advised to find "a medium between seizing
of property and supplying the wants of the poor."[52] The county
committee even went so far as to recommend the suppression of such
practices as "profaning the Sabbath in an unchristian and scandalous
manner."[53] In April of 1777, the county committee required an oath of
allegiance from one William Reed, who had refused military service for
reasons of conscience.[54]
Although Bald Eagle Township did not, at this time, extend into Fair
Play territory,[55] it is interesting to note that the local committee,
whose three members frequently changed, often included settlers from
that territory or those who were in close association with the Fair Play
men.[56] The Revolution apparently gave a certain quasi-legality to the
claims of the "outlaws" of the West Branch Valley.
One further political note is worthy of mention. After Lexington and
Concord and the formation of the various committees of safety, the
civil officers of Bald Eagle Township, that is to say the constable,
supervisor, and overseers, were often chosen from among settlers on the
borders of, or actually in, Fair Play territory.[57]
The politics of fair play then was nothing more than that--fair play. It
was a pragmatic system which the necessities of the frontier experience,
more than national or ethnic origin, had developed. The "codes" of
operation represented a consensus, equally, freely, and fairly arrived
at--a common "law" based upon general agreement and practical
acceptance. There were subsequent appeals to regular courts of law, but,
surprisingly enough, in every instance the fairness of the judgments was
sustained. No Fair Play decision was reversed. Furthermore, the
frequency of elections and the use of the principle of rotation in
office were additional assurances against the usurpation of power by any
small clique or ruling class. Popular sovereignty, political equality,
and popular consultation--these were the basic elements of fair play.
FOOTNOTES:
[1] _Colonial Records_, X, 95. The Fair Play settlers were outlawed by a
proclamation of the Council signed by Governor John Penn on Sept. 20,
1773. The proclamation was issued "strictly enjoyning and requiring all
and every Person and Persons, already settled or Residing on any Lands
beyond the Boundary Line of the Last Indian Purchase, immediately to
evacuate their illegal Settlements, and to depart and remove themselves
from the said Lands without Delay, on pain of being prosecuted with the
utmost rigour of the Law." The "Last Indian Purchase" referred to here
is, of course, the Stanwix Treaty of 1768.
[2] Smith, _Laws_, II, 195.
[3] Richard W. Leopold and Arthur S. Link (eds.), _Problems in American
History_ (Englewood Cliffs, N. J., 1957), p. 22. The entire first
problem in this excellent text deals with the question of authority in
American government.
[4] This Fair Play system was certainly not unique, for other frontier
societies employed the same technique, even down to the ruling tribunal
of three members. See Solon and Elizabeth Buck, _The Planting of
Civilization in Western Pennsylvania_ (Pittsburgh, 1939), pp. 431, 451.
However, it must be pointed out that the Bucks' "Fair Play" reference is
based on Smith, _Laws_, II, 195, which Samuel P. Bates used in "a
general application of the practice to W. Pa. areas after 1768," in his
_History of Greene County, Pennsylvania_ (Chicago, 1888). This was the
interpretation given in a letter from Dr. Alfred P. James to the author,
July 17, 1963. Dr. James also says that "It is possible that there are
evidences of Fair Play Men titles in the court records of Washington and
Greene Counties."
[5] This designation was often employed to classify those settlers who
took up lands beyond the limits of the Treaty of Fort Stanwix in 1768,
that is to say, west of Lycoming Creek on the north side of the West
Branch of the Susquehanna.
[6] Russell, "Signers of the Pine Creek Declaration of Independence," p.
5. Mrs. Russell, whose historical accuracy can be verified through her
indicated sources, refers to old borough minutes of Jersey Shore as her
source for the names of the tribunal of 1776, namely, Bartram Caldwell,
John Walker, and James Brandon. Upon discussing the matter with her, I
learned that a clipping from an old Jersey Shore paper, now lost, which
described the minutes, was her actual source. However, adequate
documentation and meticulous research characterize her work.
Furthermore, Bratton Caldwell (he signed his name Bartram) is also
labeled a Fair Play official by Linn, "Indian Land and Its Fair Play
Settlers, 1773-1785," p. 422. Linn's identification comes in the case of
_Greer_ vs. _Tharpe_, Greer's case being a pre-emption claim on the
basis of military service.
[7] "Eleanor Coldren's Deposition," _Now and Then_, XII (1959), 220-222.
The deposition reads "That in the Spring of 1775, Henry Antes and
Cookson Long, two of the Fair-Play Men, with others, were at the
deponent's house...."
[8] Oscar T. Barck, Jr. and Hugh T. Lefler, _Colonial America_ (New
York, 1958), pp. 258-260. Although Barck and Lefler indicate in this
section on "The Colonial Franchise" that universal suffrage did not
prevail in the colonies, they do note the significance of "free land,"
of which Fair Play territory was an excellent example.
[9] _Ibid_, p. 260.
[10] William Cooke to James Tilghman, _Pennsylvania Archives_, First
Series, XII, 286-287.
[11] _Pennsylvania Archives_, Fourth Series, III, 545-546.
[12] _Report of the Commission to Locate the Site of the Frontier Forts
of Pennsylvania_ (Harrisburg, 1896), I, 390, 392, 394-418.
[13] Smith, _Laws_, II, 195.
[14] Linn, "Indian Land and Its Fair-Play Settlers," p. 424. This six
weeks provision is noted in the deposition of John Sutton in the case of
_William Greer_ vs. _William Tharpe_, dated March 13, 1797.
[15] _Ibid._, 422. Bratton Caldwell, one of the Fair Play men, indicates
this practice in his deposition in the _Greer_ vs. _Tharpe_ case.
[16] "Eleanor Coldren's Deposition," pp. 220-222.
[17] Linn, "Indian Land and Its Fair-Play Settlers," pp. 422-424.
William King, in his deposition taken March 15, 1801, in _Huff_ vs.
_Satcha_ [sic], in the Circuit Court of Lycoming County, notes the use
of a company of militia, of which he was an officer, to eject a settler.
Linn errs in his reference to the defendant as "Satcha." The man's name
was Latcha, according to the Appearance Docket Commencing 1797, No. 2,
Lycoming County.
[18] _See_ nn. 6 and 7, p. 33.
[19] Smith, _Laws_, II, 195. _See also_, pp. 31 and 32, this chapter, in
which the excerpt from this source is quoted verbatim.
[20] _Supra_, p. 33.
[21] _Infra_, Chapter Six. The question of leadership in conjunction
with the problems of this frontier is discussed in Chapter Six.
[22] The Appearance Dockets and Files were checked for Northumberland
County from 1784 to 1795 and for Lycoming County from 1795 to 1801.
These records, obtained in the offices of the respective prothonotaries,
produced thirty-seven cases in Northumberland and twenty-two in Lycoming
County dealing with former Fair Play settlers. Unfortunately, only four
were reviews of actual Fair Play decisions.
[23] Northumberland County originated in 1772 and Lycoming County in
1795. Clinton County was not created until 1839.
[24] Meginness, _Otzinachson_ (Philadelphia, 1857), p. 172.
[25] The cases referred to here are: _Hughes_ vs. _Dougherty_, _Huff_
vs. _Satcha_, and _Grier_ vs. _Tharpe_. They were located in the
Appearance Dockets of Lycoming and Northumberland counties in the
respective prothonotaries' offices. _Hughes_ vs. _Dougherty_ appears in
the Northumberland County Docket for November, 1783, to August, 1786, in
the February term of the Court of Common Pleas, file 42. Both the Huff
and Grier cases were found in the Lycoming County Docket No. 2,
commencing 1797, court terms and file numbers indicated as follows:
_Huff_ vs. _Satcha_, February, 1799, #2, and _Grier_ vs. _Tharpe_, May,
1800, #41. A partial deposition by Eleanor Coldren, _Now and Then_, XII
(1959), 220-222, was also employed. Although the case appears to be
_Dewitt_ vs. _Dunn_, I could not locate it in the Appearance Dockets.
Depositions taken in the Huff and Grier cases were published in Linn,
"Indian Land and Its Fair-Play Settlers," pp. 422-424.
[26] Leyburn, _The Scotch-Irish_, p. 205.
[27] Jasper Yeates, _Pennsylvania Reports_, I (Philadelphia, 1817),
497-498.
[28] Smith, _Laws_, II, 195.
[29] Yeates, _Pennsylvania Reports_, I, 497-498.
[30] "Eleanor Coldren's Deposition," pp. 220-222.
[31] Linn, "Indian Land and Its Fair-Play Settlers," p. 422.
[32] _Ibid._
[33] _Ibid._
[34] _Ibid._
[35] Meginness, _Otzinachson_ (1889), p. 469.
[36] Now Linden, in Woodward Township, a few miles west of Williamsport.
[37] King refers here to the Great Runaway of 1778.
[38] Linn, "Indian Land and Its Fair-Play Settlers," p. 423-424.
[39] Meginness, _Otzinachson_ (1889), p. 470.
[40] _Ibid._, p. 471.
[41] D. S. Maynard, _Historical View of Clinton County_ (Lock Haven,
1875), pp. 207-208. Maynard has reprinted here some excerpts from John
Hamilton's "Early Times on the West Branch," which was published in the
Lock Haven _Republican_ in 1875. Unfortunately, recurrent floods
destroyed most of the newspaper files, and copies of this series are not
now available. John Hamilton was a third-generation descendant of
Alexander Hamilton, one of the original Fair Play settlers.
[42] Meginness, _Otzinachson_ (1857), p. 193.
[43] _Ibid._ An alleged copy of the declaration published in _A Picture
of Clinton County_ (Lock Haven, 1942), p. 38, is clearly spurious. The
language of this Pennsylvania Writers' project of the W.P.A. is
obviously twentieth-century, and it contains references to events which
had not yet occurred.
[44] _Fithian: Journal_, p. 72.
[45] Muncy Historical Society, Muncy, Pa., Wagner Collection, Anna
Jackson Hamilton to Hon. George C. Whiting, Commissioner of Pensions,
Dec. 16, 1858.
[46] _Ibid._, John Hamilton to Hon. George C. Whiting, Commissioner of
Pensions, May 27, 1859.
[47] The veracity of the witness is an important question here.
Meginness, in his 1857 edition, devotes a footnote, p. 168, to this
remarkable woman who was in full possession of her faculties at the
time. The Rev. John Grier, son-in-law of Mrs. Hamilton and brother of
Supreme Court Justice Robert C. Grier, wrote to President Buchanan on
Nov. 12, 1858, (Wagner Collection), stating that "Mrs. Hamilton is one
of the most intelligent in our community." Buchanan then wrote an
affidavit in support of Grier's statements to the Commissioner of
Pensions, Nov. 27, 1858, (Wagner Collection). Aside from the
declarations of Mrs. Hamilton and her son, the only other support, and
this is hearsay, is found in the account of an alleged conversation
between W. H. Sanderson and Robert Couvenhoven, the famed scout. W. H.
Sanderson, _Historical Reminiscences_, ed. Henry W. Shoemaker (Altoona,
1920), pp. 6-8. Here again, the fact that the reminiscences were not
recorded until some seventy years after the "chats" raises serious
doubts.
[48] _Pennsylvania Archives_, Fourth Series, III, 545.
[49] _Ibid._, p. 546.
[50] Linn, _History of Centre and Clinton Counties_, p. 473.
[51] _Ibid._
[52] _Ibid._
[53] _Ibid._
[54] _Ibid._ _See also_ John H. Carter, "The Committee of Safety of
Northumberland County," _The Northumberland County Historical Society
Proceedings and Addresses_, XVIII (1950), 44-45.
[55] _See_ map of the Fair Play territory in Chapter One.
[56] Linn, _History of Centre and Clinton Counties_, p. 469. _See also_,
Carter, "The Committee of Safety," pp. 33-45, for a full account of the
activities of the Committee. Carter notes that the county committee
consisted of thirty-three members, three from each of the eleven
townships chosen for a period of six months.
[57] _Ibid._, pp. 472-474.
CHAPTER FOUR
_The Farmers' Frontier_
The economy of the West Branch Valley was basically agrarian--a farmers'
frontier. The "new order of Americanism"[1] which arose on this frontier
was in part due to the cultural background of its inhabitants, the
knowledge and traditional values which they had brought with them. It
was further influenced by the frontier status of the region itself--an
area of virgin land in the earliest stages of development. And finally,
it was affected by the physical characteristics of the territory,
particularly the mountains which separated these settlers from the more
established settlements. It has been said that "many of the enduring
characteristics of the American creed and the American national
character originated in the way of life of the colonial farmer."[2] The
Fair Play territory was typical of this development.
The early pioneer, particularly if he was Scotch-Irish, generally came
into the area from the Cumberland Valley, the "seed-plot and nursery" of
the Scotch-Irish in America, the "original reservoir" of this leading
frontier stock, via the Great Shamokin Path.[3] Since there were no
roads, only Indian trails, the frontier traveler customarily followed
the Indian paths which had been cleared along the rivers and streams.
The Great Shamokin Path followed the Susquehanna from Shamokin (now
Sunbury) to the West Branch, then out along the West Branch to the
Allegheny Mountains.[4] Loading his wife and smaller children on a pack
horse, his scanty possessions on another horse, the prospective settler
drove a cow or two into the wild frontier at the rate of about twenty
miles a day.[5] This meant that a trip of approximately two days brought
him from Fort Augusta to the Fair Play country.
Indian paths were the primary means of ingress and egress, although
supplemented by the waterways which they paralleled. In addition to the
Great Shamokin Path, there were paths up Lycoming Creek (the Sheshequin
Path), and up Pine Creek, besides the path which followed Bald Eagle
Creek down into the Juniata Valley. These trails and adjoining water
routes were usually traveled on horseback or in canoes, depending upon
the route to be followed. However, the rivers and streams were more
often passages of departure than courses of entry.
Established roads, that is authorized public constructions, were not to
reach the West Branch region until 1775, although the Northumberland
County Court ordered such construction and reported on it at the October
term in 1772.[6] Appointments were made at the August session of 1775
"to view, and if they saw cause, to lay out a bridle road from the mouth
of Bald Eagle Creek to the town of Sunbury."[7] It was not until ten
years later that extensions of this road were authorized, carrying it
into the Nittany Valley and to Bald Eagle's Nest (near Milesburg, on the
Indian path from the Great Island to Ohio).[8]
Travel was usually on horseback or on foot. Canoes and flatboats, or
simply rafts, were used on the rivers and creeks where available.
Wagons, however, appeared after the construction of public roads and
were seen in the Great Runaway of 1778.[9]
The problem of communication between the frontier and the settled areas
was a difficult one compounded by the natural geographic barriers and
the fact that post and coach roads did not extend into this central
Pennsylvania region. As a result the inhabitants had to depend upon
occasional travelers, circuit riders, surveyors, and other Provincial
authorities who visited them infrequently. Otherwise, the meetings of
the Fair Play tribunal, irregular as they were, and the communications
from the county Committee of Safety were about the only sources of
information available. Of course, cabin-building, cornhusking, and
quilting parties provided ample opportunities for the dissemination of
strictly "local" news.
Newspapers were not introduced into the upper Susquehanna Valley until
around the turn of the century. The _Northumberland Gazette_ was
published in Sunbury in 1797 or 1798.[10] The first truly West Branch
paper was not circulated until 1802, when the _Lycoming Gazette_ was
first published in Williamsport.[11] On the eve of the Revolution there
were only seven newspapers available in the entire Province, none of
which circulated as far north as the Fair Play territory.[12] As a
matter of fact, there were only thirty-seven papers printed in all
thirteen colonies at the beginning of the Revolution.[13]
The Fair Play settler was an "outlaw," a squatter who came into this
central Pennsylvania wilderness with his family and without the benefit
of a land grant, and who literally hacked and carved out a living. The
natural elements, the savage natives, and the wild life all resisted
him; but he conquered them all, and the conquest gave him a feeling of
accomplishment which enhanced his independent spirit.
If the story of the Great Plains frontier can be told in terms of
railroads, barbed-wire fences, windmills, and six-shooters,[14] then the
cruder tale of the West Branch frontier can be told in terms of the
rifle, the axe, and the plow. The rifle, first and foremost as the
weapon of security, was the basic means of self-preservation in a wild
land where survival was a constant question.[15] The axe, which Theodore
Roosevelt later described as "a servant hardly standing second even to
the rifle,"[16] was the main implement of destruction and construction.
It was used for clearing the forest of the many trees which encroached
upon the acreage which the settler had staked out for himself, and for
cutting the logs which would provide the rude, one-room shelter the
pioneer constructed for himself and his family. The crude wooden plow
was the implement which made this frontiersman a farmer, although its
effectiveness was extremely limited. However, the soil was so fertile,
and the weeds so sparse, that scratching the earth and scattering seeds
produced a crop.[17]
A contemporary description of squatter settlements in Muncy Hills, some
twenty-odd miles east of the Fair Play territory, but in the West Branch
Valley, gives a vivid picture of the nature of these early
establishments:
They came from no Body enquires where, or how, but generally with
Families, fix on any Spot in the Wood that pleases them. Cut down
some trees & make up a Log Hut in a Day, clear away the underweed &
girdle.... The Trees they have no use for if cut down after their
Hut is made. They dig up & harrow the Ground, plant Potatoes, a Crop
which they get out in three Months, sow Corn, etc., (& having sown
in peace by the Law of the Land they are secured in reaping in
peace) & continue at Work without ever enquiring whose the Land is,
until the Proprietor himself disturbs & drives them off with
Difficulty.[18]
This experience was duplicated in the Fair Play territory where there
were no immediate neighbors whose permission was necessary for
settlement, or until a dispute was carried to the tribunal for
adjudication. This procedure was detailed in the last chapter.
Having selected a site, preferably on or near a stream, and obtained
approval from the Fair Play men and his neighbors, the prospective
settler was faced with the long and tedious work of clearing the land
for his home and farm. This was an extended effort for he could clear
only a few acres a year. In the meantime, his survival depended upon the
few provisions he brought with him--some grain for meal, a little flour,
and perhaps some salt pork and smoked meat. These supplies, combined
with the wild game and fish which abounded in the area, served until
such a time as crops could be produced. It was a rigorous life
complicated by the fact that the meager supplies often ran out before
the first crop was brought in. The first month's meals were too often
variations on the limited fare of water porridge and hulled corn, as
described by a later pioneer.[19]
Homes in the Fair Play territory were built "to _live_ in, and not for
_show_...."[20] The following description, by the grandson of one of the
original settlers, illustrates the cooperative nature of the enterprise,
in addition to giving a clear picture of the type of construction which
replaced the early lean-to shelter with which the frontiersman was first
acquainted:
Our buildings are made of hewn logs, on an average 24 feet long by
20 wide, sometimes a wall of stone, a foot or more above the level
of the earth, raised as a foundation; but in general, four large
stones are laid at the corners, and the building raised on _them_.
The house is covered sometimes with shingles, sometimes with
clapboards. [The latter required no laths, rafters, or nails, and
was put on in less time.] ... The ground logs being laid
saddle-shaped, on the upper edge, is cut in with an axe, at the
ends, as long as the logs are thick, then the end logs are raised
and a "notch" cut to fit the saddle. This is the only kind of tie or
binder they have; and when the building is raised as many rounds as
it is intended, the ribs are raised, on which a course of clapboards
is laid, butts resting on a "butting pole." A press pole is laid on
the clapboards immediately over the ribs to keep them from shifting
by the wind, and the pole is kept to its berth by stay blocks,
resting in the first course against the butting-pole. The logs are
run upon the building on skids by the help of wooden forks. The most
experienced "axe-man" are placed on the buildings as "cornermen;"
the rest of the company are on the ground to carry the logs and run
them up.[21]
In this fashion, the frontier cabin was raised and covered in a single
day, without a mason, without a pound of iron, and with nothing but dirt
for flooring. The doors and windows were subsequently cut out of the
structure to suit the tastes of its occupants.
In this one-room cabin lived the frontier settler and his family, who
might be joined by guests. Small wonder, then, that additions to this
construction took on such significance that they were items of mention
in later wills.[22]
Once having cleared a reasonable portion of his property, raised his
cabin, and scratched out an existence for his first few months of
occupation, the pioneer was now ready to get down to the business of
farming. Working around the stumps which cluttered his improvement, the
frontier farmer planted his main crops, which were, of course, the food
grains--wheat, rye, with oats, barley, and corn, and buckwheat and corn
for the livestock. Some indication of the planting and harvesting
seasons can be seen from this account:
I find Wheat is sown here in the Fall (beging. of Septr.) Clover &
timothy Grass is generally sown with it. The Wheat is cut in June or
beginning of July after which the Grass grows very rapidly & always
affords two Crops. Where Grass has not been sown they harrow the
Ground well where the Wheat is taken off & sow Buck Wheat which
ripens by the beginning & through September is excellent food for
Poultry & Cattle & makes good Cakes.[23]
The amazing fertility of the soil, as noted by more than one journalist,
eased the difficulties of the crude wooden implements which were the
farmer's tools. Reference is made to "one [who] plowed the same spot ...
for eight years ... [taking] double Crops without giving it an Ounce of
Manure."[24] Scientific farming had not yet come to the West Branch
Valley, although the Philadelphia area had been awakened to its
possibilities through the publications of Franklin's American
Philosophical Society.
Fertile soil was practically essential when one considers the crude
implements with which the frontier farmer carried on his hazardous
vocation. In addition to the crude wooden plow, which we have already
mentioned, the agrarian pioneer of the West Branch possessed a
long-bladed sickle, a homemade rake, a homemade hay fork, and a grain
shovel.[25] All of these items were made of wood and were of the crudest
sort.[26] As time went on, he added a few tools of his own invention,
but these, and his sturdy curved-handled axe, constituted the essential
instruments of the farmer's craft.
July was the month of harvest for the mainly "subsistence" farmers
scattered along the West Branch. The uncertainties of the weather and
the number of acres planted had some influence upon the harvesting, so
that it was not unusual to see the wheat still swaying in the warm
summer breezes in the last week of July. However, if possible, the grain
was generally cut the first part of the month in order that buckwheat,
or other fodder, might be sown and harvested in the fall.
Harvesttime was a cooperative enterprise and whole families joined in
"bringing in the sheaves." The grain had to be cut and raked into piles,
and the piles bundled into shocks tied together with stalks of the grain
itself. This took "hands" and the frontier family was generally the only
labor force available. In time, however, field work was confined to the
men of the family among the Scotch-Irish, who attached social
significance to the type of work done by their women.
Fithian's _Journal_ reveals, however, that class-consciousness was not
yet apparent in the division of labor on this frontier. On two occasions
he describes daughters of leading families engaged in other than
household tasks. Arriving at the home of Squire Fleming, with whom he
was to stay for a week, Fithian notes on July 25, 1775, that Betsey
Fleming, his host's daughter, "was milking."[27] The very next day, upon
visiting the Squire's brother, who had "two fine Daughter's," this
Presbyterian journalist found "One of them reaping."[28] If Leyburn's
comment that social status among the Scotch-Irish depended in part upon
the work done by the women of the family, then these examples attest to
the fact that "status" was a luxury which the Fair Play settlers could
not yet afford.[29]
Threshing was either done by hand with flails, or, if the family had a
cow or two (and the tax lists indicate that they did), the grain was
separated by driving the livestock around and around over the unbundled
straw. Finally, the chaff was removed by throwing the grain into the air
while the breeze was flowing. The grain was then collected and readied
for milling.
Gristmills were available in the West Branch Valley almost from the
outset of settlement due to the many fine streams which flowed through
the territory. As a result, few farmers had to travel more than five
miles, generally on horseback, to carry their bags of grain to the mill.
If the farmer had no horse, he had to carry his sack of grain on his
shoulder. If the settler lived on or near a stream, he put his sacks of
grain in a canoe and paddled downstream to the nearest mill. In the
early days before the mills, the grain was pounded into meal by using a
heavy pestle and a hollowed-out stump, a crude mortar which served the
purpose.
In time, the gristmill owners also operated distilleries, converting the
pioneer's wheat, rye, and barley into spirited beverages which were
freely imbibed along this and other frontiers. By the time of the
Revolution, distilling was so common as to cause the Committee of Safety
to take action to conserve the grain.[30] "Home brew," however, was
quite the custom, and it was not long before most farmers operated their
own stills.
Self-sufficiency was both a characteristic and a necessity among these
Scotch-Irish, English, and German settlers of central Pennsylvania.
Bringing their agrarian traditions with them from the "old country,"
where they had operated small farms, they were bound to a "subsistence
farming" existence by the inaccessibility of markets to the frontier.
One diarist found this conducive to a "perfect Independence" which made
a "Market to them, almost unnecessary."[31] This economic independence
carried over into frontier manufacturing, if it can be called that,
because the industry, except for the gristmills and their distilleries,
was strictly domestic.
It has often been said that the frontier farmer was a "jack-of-all
trades," and the West Branch settler of the Fair Play territory was a
typical example. With no market of skilled labor, or any other market
for that matter,[32] he was his own carpenter, cooper, shoe-maker,
tailor, and blacksmith. Whatever he wanted or needed had to be made in
his own home. Thus, frontier industry was of the handicraft or domestic
type, with tasks apportioned among the various members of the family in
accordance with their sex and talent. It was truly a "complete little
world" in which the pioneer family supplied its every demand by its own
efforts.[33]
Although the role of the women was to take on status significance as the
frontier areas became more stable, in the earlier years of settlement
their tasks were extensive and varied. Though they were busy with
household duties such as churning butter, making soap, pouring candles,
quilting, and weaving cloth for the family's clothing, it was not
uncommon for the women to join the men in the field at harvesttime. The
domesticity of the American housewife may be one impact on American life
made by the Germans.[34]
The children, too, were important persons in the economic life of the
frontier family. Their labors lightened the load for both father and
mother. With no available labor market from which to draw farm hands and
household help, it was both necessary and useful to give the boys and
girls a vocational apprenticeship in farming or homemaking. The girls'
responsibilities were usually, although not exclusively, related to the
hearth; the efforts of the boys were generally confined to the field and
the implements employed there, although they did service too as
household handymen, hauling wood, making fires, and the like.[35]
In addition to their farming and domestic industry, the other economic
activities of these agrarian pioneers included the care of their
livestock and the exploitation of the available natural resources in
their subsistence pattern of living. The tax lists for Northumberland
County indicate the possession of two or three horses and a like number
of cows for each head of a household.[36] There were also "various
Breeds of Hogs" although they were not listed by the tax assessor.[37]
Mr. Davy's comment that "Sheep are not well understood ... often
destroyed by the Wolves ... few ... except [those] of good Capital keep
them" may explain their absence from these same assessments.[38]
Maple syrup provided the sugar supply, a fact noted by land speculators
who touted this "Country Abounding in the Sugar Tree."[39] Anti-slave
interests later thought that maple sugar would replace the
slave-produced cane sugar.[40] Mr. Davy described the process as he
observed it at Muncy:
The Maple Trees yield about 5 w of Sugar each on an average
annually, some give as much as 15 ws but these are rare. It is drawn
off in April & May by boring holes in the Tree into which Quills &
Canes are introduced to convey the Juice to a Trough placed round
the bottom of it. This juice is boiled down to Sugar & clarified
with very little trouble & is very good.[41]
Honey also existed in great quantities in the area and was used
extensively. Apparently the "sweet tooth" of the West Branch settlers
was well satisfied by the ample resources for saccharine products.
The trade and commerce of the West Branch Valley were strictly confined
to its own locale. Mountain barriers, limited transportation facilities,
and insufficient contact with the settled areas of the Province only
served to heighten the essential self-sufficiency of the Fair Play
settlers. The result was an economic independence which doubtless had
its political manifestations.[42]
Economic conditions have their political implications, but it was the
total impact of the frontier and not simply the commercial restrictions
of some outside authority which made the Fair Play settlers self-reliant
and independent "subsistence" farmers. The farmers' frontier did not
result from the impact of any particular national stock groups, for
Scotch-Irish, English, and German settlers reacted similarly. As the
most recent historian of the Scotch-Irish, the most numerical national
stock on this frontier, suggests, "authentically democratic principles,
when the Scotch-Irish exhibited them in America, were rather the result
of their experiences on colonial frontiers than the product of the
Scottish and Ulster heritage."[43] The farmers' frontier with its
characteristics of individualistic self-reliance was a product of the
frontier itself.
FOOTNOTES:
[1] Turner, _The Frontier in American History_, p. 18.
[2] Henry Bamford Parkes, _The American Experience_ (New York, 1959), p.
44.
[3] Dunaway, _The Scotch-Irish of Colonial Pennsylvania_, p. 59.
[4] Paul A. W. Wallace, _Indian Paths of Pennsylvania_ (Harrisburg,
1965), pp. 66-72, includes two maps.
[5] Chester D. Clark, "Pioneer Life in the New Purchase," _The
Northumberland County Historical Society Proceedings and Addresses_, VII
(1935), 18.
[6] Meginness, _Otzinachson_ (1889), p. 400.
[7] _Ibid._, p. 401.
[8] Linn, _History of Centre and Clinton Counties_, p. 472.
[9] Meginness, _Otzinachson_ (1889), p. 401.
[10] Meginness, _Otzinachson_ (1857), p. 454.
[11] _Ibid._, p. 458
[12] Carl and Jessica Bridenbaugh, _Rebels and Gentlemen: Philadelphia
in the Age of Franklin_ (New York, 1962), p. 76.
[13] Barck and Lefler, _Colonial America_, p. 409.
[14] Walter Prescott Webb, _The Great Plains_ (New York, 1931), pp.
238-244.
[15] Herbert H. Beck, "Martin Meylin, A Progenitor of the Pennsylvania
Rifle," _Papers Read Before The Lancaster County Historical Society_,
LIII (1949), 33-61.
[16] Clark, "Pioneer Life in the New Purchase," p. 19.
[17] Lewis E. Theiss, "Early Agriculture," _Susquehanna Tales_ (Sunbury,
1955), p. 89.
[18] Norman B. Wilkinson (ed.), "Mr. Davy's Diary," _Pennsylvania
History_, XX (1953), 261.
[19] James W. Silver (ed.), "Chauncey Brockway, an Autobiographical
Sketch," _Pennsylvania History_, XXV (1958), 143.
[20] Maynard, _Historical View of Clinton County_, p. 11.
[21] _Ibid._
[22] The probate records of Northumberland and Lycoming counties, found
in the respective offices of the Register of Wills and Recorder of
Deeds, contain entries leaving to the widow the "best room in the
house," or, "her choice of rooms." No doubt, the simplicity of the
earlier home accentuated the value of the additions.
[23] "Mr. Davy's Diary," p. 259.
[24] _Ibid._, p. 341. The Reverend Philip Vickers Fithian notes the
richness of the land in the journal of his one-week visit to the area in
the summer of 1775. He was also surprised to find that "many have their
Grain yet in the Field," a notation for the 26th of July. _Fithian:
Journal_, p. 71.
[25] Theiss, _Susquehanna Tales_, p. 88.
[26] The Museum of the Muncy Historical Society contains examples of
these early farm implements and offers vivid evidence of their
crudeness.
[27] _Fithian: Journal_, p. 71.
[28] _Ibid._, p. 72.
[29] Leyburn, _The Scotch-Irish_, p. 262.
[30] Linn, _History of Centre and Clinton Counties_, p. 469.
[31] "Mr. Davy's Diary," p. 258.
[32] Dunaway, _The Scotch-Irish of Colonial Pennsylvania_, p. 171. Even
in the more settled areas of the Susquehanna Valley markets were slow to
develop as this note from "Mr. Davy's Diary," p. 338, reported on Oct.
3, 1794: "At present there is no Market here but if many English
Families settle this will soon follow as there is an excellent supply of
every necessary & even Luxury in the Neighbourhood."
[33] J. E. Wright and Doris S. Corbett, _Pioneer Life in Western
Pennsylvania_ (Pittsburgh, 1940), p. 74.
[34] Arthur W. Calhoun, _A Social History of the American Family_ (New
York, 1960), I, 202.
[35] Wright and Corbett, _Pioneer Life in Western Pennsylvania_, pp.
86-92.
[36] _Pennsylvania Archives_, Third Series, XIX, 405-805.
[37] "Mr. Davy's Diary," p. 265.
[38] _Ibid._
[39] _Ibid._, pp. 263-264.
[40] _Ibid._, p. 264.
[41] _Ibid._, p. 263.
[42] One student of the commerce of the Susquehanna Valley made sweeping
generalizations about its significance which can hardly be
substantiated. _See_ Morris K. Turner, _The Commercial Relations of the
Susquehanna Valley During the Colonial Period_ (Ph.D. Thesis, University
of Pennsylvania, 1916). This dissertation, although claiming to deal
with the Susquehanna Valley, never gets much beyond Harrisburg and
seldom reaches as far north as Fort Augusta. Its accounts of roads,
navigation improvements, and trade fail to reach the Fair Play settlers.
This lends further support to their independent and self-sufficient
existence. Turner's concluding paragraph is, however, a gem of economic
determinism and bears repeating in full. Found on page 100, it reads as
follows:
"If then, the commercial relations of the Susquehanna Valley were so far
reaching affecting as they did in the pre-Revolutionary period the
attitude of the people on all the questions, practically, of the day it
is only fair to say that it was these relations which promoted the
Revolution in the Province and drove the old government out of
existence. The political issues were aided and abetted, yes, were
created, were born from the womb of the neglected commercial relations
of the Province and no other section at the time had such extensive
relations as the Susquehanna Valley. No other conclusion can be reached
after a serious study of the history of the period."
[43] Leyburn, _The Scotch-Irish_, p. 150.
CHAPTER FIVE
_Fair Play Society_
The society of the Fair Play territory, between the year 1769 and 1784,
was indeed simple. There were no towns or population clusters, either in
the territory or within a range of some thirty-five or forty miles.
Furthermore, as we have already noted, transportation and communication
facilities were so limited as to make contact with the "outside world"
an exception rather than the rule. As we have also seen, economic
functions on this farmers' frontier were not highly specialized. Even
the political system, with its tribunal of Fair Play men, operated
without the benefit of any formal code.
But it would be easy, from these indications, to magnify the simplicity
of the social structure and of social relationships in the West Branch
Valley. If we are to consider the development of democracy on this
frontier, we must take into account the various national stock groups
who settled this area and, in so doing, weigh their relative economic
and social status, the amount of intermarriage between them, and the
ease and frequency with which they visited each other. These and other
social relationships, such as their joint participation in voluntary
associations, their prejudices and conflicts, and the assimilation of
alien groups, must all be evaluated. The leadership, the existence of
social classes, and the family patterns must, of necessity, be a part of
our inquiry. And finally, the religious institutions, the educational
and cultural opportunities, and the system of values have to be
considered in arriving at a judgment regarding the democratic nature of
Fair Play society.
Fair Play society was composed of Scotch-Irish (48.75 per cent), English
(20 per cent), German (15 per cent), Scots (6.25 per cent), Irish (5 per
cent), Welsh (2.5 per cent) and French (2.5 per cent) settlers.[1] Due
to the pioneering conditions under which all of these national stock
groups developed their "improvements," economic privilege was rather
difficult to attain. Furthermore, even after the legislature granted
pre-emption in the act of December, 1784, the grants were limited to
300 acres.[2] In consequence of this, massive holdings were impossible
to maintain legally, as the customary holdings of two to three hundred
acres indicate in the tax lists for the years after 1784.[3] In fact,
the tax lists suggest that absentee-owners or persons outside the actual
geographic limits of the Fair Play territory who participated with the
Fair Play settlers were the only ones to possess 700 to 1,000 acres or
more.[4] This fact, combined with the "subsistence farming" which all of
the area settlers pursued, suggests a relatively comparable economic
status for the members of the Fair Play society. Consequently, social
status was not necessarily dependent upon economic status.
Social status on this frontier depended more upon achieved status than
ascribed status. This may have been an influence of the Scotch-Irish,
who judged, and thus classified, a neighbor by the size and condition of
his dwelling, the care of his farm, the work done by the women in the
family, his personal characteristics and morality, and his
diversions.[5] Journalists, pension claimants, and the operative,
although unwritten, code of the Fair Play men all give corroborative
evidence in this regard.[6] Of all these criteria, personal character
and morality seemed to have been most important. The Scotch-Irish, who,
like the people of other national stocks, accepted social classes as the
right ordering of society, shifted their emphasis, as a result of the
frontier experience, from family heritage to individual achievement.[7]
Intermarriages provide a further key to the social relationships of the
Fair Play settlers. If a small sample is any indication, the cases of
intermarriages among the various national stock groups were relatively
high, with better than one-third of the marriages sampled falling within
this classification.[8] The fact that the Scotch-Irish frequently
married within their own group was probably due to their being more
"available" in terms of numbers. Industry and good character were the
prime criteria for selecting a frontier mate, as Dunaway points out.[9]
The ease and frequency of neighborly visits is vividly demonstrated in
the characteristically cooperative cabin-raisings, barn-raisings,
cornhuskings and similar activities in which joint effort was usual. The
women, too, exchanged visits and, on occasion, gathered at one place for
quilting or other mutually shared activities.[10] Furthermore, the
frontier journalists often noted the fine hospitality and congeniality
of their backwoods hosts.[11]
Further evidence of the egalitarian influence of this frontier is found
in the joint participation of Fair Play settlers in voluntary
associations.[12] This is particularly noticeable in their attendance
at outdoor sermons and involvement in the various political activities.
At a time when fewer than 100 families lived in the territory, Fithian
observed that "There were present about an Hundred & forty" people for a
sermon which he gave on the banks of the Susquehanna, opposite the
present city of Lock Haven, on Sunday, July 30, 1775.[13] Although
William Colbert, a Methodist, later "preached to a large congregation of
willing hearers" within the territory, he did not think that it was
"worth the preachers while to stop here."[14] This may have been due to
the fact that they were mainly Presbyterians. Colbert's reception was
apparently fair for he makes a point of saying, "I know not that there
is a prejudiced person among them."[15] No regular church was
established in this region until 1792, so it appears that the settlers
generally participated in group religious activities regardless of the
denominational affiliation of the preacher conducting the services.
However, as we will point out later, this is not to suggest that there
was no friction between denominations.
The political activities of the Fair Play settlers demonstrate the mass
participation, at least of the adult males, in this type of voluntary
association. The annual elections of the Fair Play men were conducted
without discrimination against any of the settlers by reason of
religion, national origin, or property. In addition, the decisions of
the tribunal were carried out, as Smith reports, "by the whole body, who
started up in mass, at the mandate of the court."[16] Special occasions,
such as the Pine Creek Declaration of Independence, were also marked by
the participation _en masse_ of these West Branch pioneers. Mrs.
Hamilton, in her widow's pension application, speaks of "seeing such
numbers flocking there" (along the banks of Pine Creek in July of
1776).[17] Apparently, as Mrs. Hamilton says, most of the settlers "had
a knolege of what was doing," particularly with regard to political
affairs.[18]
These evidences of group participation in religious and political
activities should not mislead one into thinking that conflict, legal or
otherwise, was alien to the West Branch frontiersmen. The cases brought
before the Fair Play "court" and the friction between Methodists and
Presbyterians affirm this strife. The first settler in the territory,
Cleary Campbell, was an almost constant litigant, both as plaintiff and
defendant, in the Northumberland County Court from the time of his
arrival in 1769.[19] His name, along with the names of other Fair Play
settlers, appeared regularly on the Appearance Dockets of the
Northumberland and Lycoming County courts. The cases usually involved
land titles and personal obligations or debts.
The religious conflict is clearly seen in the journal of the Reverend
William Colbert. An incident which occurred about twenty miles south of
the West Branch illustrates this friction:
This is a town [present-day Milton] with three stores, three
taverns, two ball allies. Agreeable to its size it appears to be one
of the most dissipated places I ever saw. I could not tell how to
pass them--I inquired at one of the ball allies if preaching was
expected--A religious old Presbyterian standing by where they were
playing answered that he did not know. I then asked them that were
playing ball, they answered no. I farther asked them if they did not
think they would be better employed hearing preaching than playing
ball. Their answer was a laugh, that there was time for all things
and that they went to preachings on Sundays. I told them they would
not be willing to go to judgment from that exercise--they said they
ventured that. So after a little conversation with the old man I
left them ripening for destruction....[20]
Colbert's journal is filled with snide remarks and caustic comments
about Presbyterians in general and Calvinist doctrines in
particular.[21] He was especially concerned for the "lost souls" of the
Presbyterians of the West Branch Valley. A twentieth-century theologian
suggests that Presbyterian dogmatism had driven the Scotch-Irish to the
frontier; this same problem complicated their social relationships in
the backwoods country.[22]
The process of acculturation of the frontier was marked by the impact of
the aborigines upon the new white settlers in terms of the developing
style of life in the West Branch Valley. In fact, the culture of the
Indian may have affected the white settlers more than theirs affected
that of the Indian. For instance, Mr. Davy says that "the Dress &
manners of the People more nearly assimilate to those of the Indians
than lower down, but the purest English Language is universally
spoken."[23]
The West Branch Valley was a new world whose experiences made new men,
rather than a transplanted old world with its emphasis on heritage and
tradition.[24] However, the English language and Scots Presbyterianism
were basic ingredients in the melting pot of this and other frontiers
where the American character emerged.
The social class structure of Fair Play society is rather difficult to
assess. Extensive land holdings and material possessions were not
characteristic of these "squatter" settlements. Consequently, property
was not the distinguishing factor in stratifying the social levels of
the Fair Play community. Furthermore, there was no slave population or
indentured servant class to be confined to the lowest rung of the social
ladder. Here, each man either owned his "improvement" or operated under
some condition of tenancy. However, both indentured servitude and Negro
slavery existed in the "New Purchase" of 1768 in nearby Muncy.[25] Thus,
it was a two-class pattern, in the main, which constituted the Fair Play
society--landholders and tenants. In addition, though, there was a
further delineation within the landholding class on the basis of
character and morality. This characteristically Scotch-Irish
differentiation may have been due to the predominance of the Ulsterites
in the West Branch population.[26] In consideration of this fact, a
three-class structure, consisting of an elite, other landholders, and
tenants, would best describe the social class system of the Fair Play
territory.
The elite of the Fair Play society were generally the political and
economic leaders as well. They owned the "forts," operated the
gristmills, and held the prominent political positions in the vicinity.
Surprisingly enough, though, they frequently resided on the fringe areas
of the territory and were thus able to acquire more land.[27] A fuller
description of this elite and its leadership is given in the next
chapter.
The frontier family was undoubtedly the key social institution in
transmitting this new "American" culture to subsequent generations.
Regardless of national origin, the families were closely-knit,
well-disciplined units, whose members formed rather complete social and
economic entities. As we have already noted, the agrarian family had its
own division of labor, with each member carrying out his assigned tasks
and, at the same time, learning the practices and procedures of the
farmers' frontier. It was also the cultural and educational core, in
which its members learned their faith, received their education, and
acquired the values which would serve them throughout their lives.
Family loyalty was a marked characteristic on the frontier and,
incidentally, among the Scotch-Irish. The woman's lot was severe but she
accepted it with a submissiveness which can still be seen in some
backcountry areas of Pennsylvania today.[28] Clannish and dependent upon
each other, the frontier family had no use for divorce, which was
practically unknown.[29] If the patterns and values of these frontier
families tended to approximate those of the Scotch-Irish in particular,
and they did, it was because the Scotch-Irish were representative rather
than unique.[30]
The church was probably the second most important social institution in
developing a system of values and a "style of life" in the Fair Play
territory. Here again, the Scotch-Irish with their Presbyterianism
provided the most significant influence, and ultimately the first
regular church--although Methodists, such as Colbert, found little to
favor in Calvinism. Almost without exception, the wills probated in the
courts of Northumberland and Lycoming counties between 1772 and 1830
asked for burial "in a decent and Christian like manner," and committed
the departed soul to "the Creator." A Christian life and a Christian
burial were valued in this frontier society.
Due to the absence of regular churches, religious instruction was
primarily carried on by mothers "abel to instruct," as Mrs. Hamilton put
it.[31] Prayer, the reading of the Bible, and a rudimentary catechism
were all a part of this home worship, conducted by one or both parents.
Baptism and other sacraments of the church were provided by itinerant
pastors who made their "rounds" through the valley. Presbyterians and,
later, Methodists developed the practice of gathering together in their
cabins in "praying societies."[32] Originally consisting of neighbor
groups, these societies, in time, took in areas consisting of several
miles.[33]
Itinerant pastors began to include the Fair Play territory in their
travels in the decade of the 1770's. Philip Vickers Fithian learned from
his host, Squire Fleming, that he was the first "orderly" preacher in
the area.[34] Fithian's visit came about after he obtained an honorable
dismissal from the first Philadelphia Presbytery--as no vacancies
existed--in order to preach outside its bounds.[35] Although in the
territory for only one week in the summer of 1775, Fithian's account of
his Sunday sermon on the banks of the Susquehanna clearly describes the
nature of wilderness preaching:
At eleven I began Service. We crossed over to the Indian Land, &
held Worship on the Bank of the River, opposite to the Great Island,
about a Mile & a half below 'Squire Fleming's. There were present
about an Hundred & forty; I stood at the Root of a great Tree, & the
People sitting in the Bushes, & green Grass round me.
They gave great Attention. I had the Eyes of all upon me. I spoke
with some Force, & pretty loud. I recommended to them earnestly the
religious Observation of God's Sabbaths, in this remote Place, where
they seldom have the Gospel preached--that they should attend with
Carefulness & Reverence upon it when it is among them--And that they
ought to strive to have it established here.[36]
Fithian's recommendation was not carried out until 1792, when the Pine
Creek Church was organized under the historic "independence" elm with
Robert Love and a Mr. Culbertson as the first elders.[37] This church,
along with the Lycoming Church, which was formed in the eastern part of
the former Fair Play territory in October of that same year, was served
by the Reverend Isaac Grier, who was called to serve Lycoming Creek,
Pine Creek, and the Great Island, and ordained and installed by the
Carlisle Presbytery, April 9, 1794.[38] He thus became the first
regularly installed pastor in what had been the Fair Play territory.
It was not until 1811 that the Presbyterian General Assembly organized
the Northumberland Presbytery, which serves West Branch Valley
Presbyterians to this day. In the days of the Fair Play system the area
was assigned to Donegal Presbytery, although in 1786 the Carlisle
Presbytery was formed out of the western part of Donegal.[39]
Missionary efforts of Presbyterians in the Fair Play territory go all
the way back to September of 1746, when the Reverend David Brainerd
preached to the Indians of the Great Island.[40] But from that time
until the opening of the West Branch Valley to settlement, following the
first treaty at Fort Stanwix, nothing concerning the area appears on
presbytery records. However, after the treaty one Presbyterian minister,
the Reverend Francis Alison, pastor of the First Presbyterian Church of
Philadelphia and vice-provost of the College of Philadelphia, applied
for land above the mouth of Bald Eagle Creek and was granted some 1,500
acres.[41] Alison never came into the region and, in fact, sold his
entire purchase to John Fleming in 1773.[42]
Although Fithian was the first "orderly" preacher assigned to the West
Branch, the Donegal Presbytery had received an application from "setlers
upon the W. Branch of Susquehannah" for ministerial supplies (pastors)
in the middle of April, 1772.[43] Apparently these supplies never
reached north of present-day Lewisburg.
Presbyterianism, then, was the most significant religious influence in
the Fair Play territory. Methodists and Baptists penetrated the region
after the Revolution, but that penetration, although marked by some
conflict, was not vital to the development of a system of values on this
frontier during the period under study.[44] Furthermore, it was not
until well into the nineteenth century that other Protestant sects
established churches in the West Branch Valley.
The extent of that influence and the nature of this frontier faith were
central to the development of Fair Play society. Since there were no
organized churches in the area, the family was the key agency of
religious instruction and service. This fact, combined with the impact
of the Great Awakening, led to the freeing of the individual from the
communal covenant, resulting in a secularization of religion which
culminated in a kind of "predestined freedom."[45] Consequently, the
political implications of American Presbyterianism, which had the
largest church membership in colonial Pennsylvania and the strongest
affiliation on this frontier, were demonstrated in the democratic
radicalism which the frontier spawned. Political maturity, that is to
say, independence, was a logical evolution from religious
emancipation.[46]
In addition to the political implications of Presbyterianism, respect
for education was a significant factor in the value structure of this
frontier. The probate records of this period are filled with examples of
the great desire to see the "children schooled," and specific
educational instructions were often included in the wills.[47] The
Presbyterian emphasis upon an educated ministry suggests that this
reverence for education may also have been an education for reverence.
Morality, education, and political equality and freedom--these were the
basic tenets of this frontier faith.
Despite the high value placed upon education, the educational and
cultural opportunities on this frontier, as on others, were extremely
limited. Aside from home instruction and the occasional visit of an
itinerant pastor, formal education was a luxury which these pioneers
could not yet afford. However, earlier historians of the West Branch
refer to the existence of a "log school" at "Sour's ferry" in 1774.[48]
Instruction in the "three R's," enforced with strict discipline, was
given here a few months out of the year. A Presbyterian preacher who
came into the region and stayed was the first teacher. Educational
opportunity was extremely limited but education was highly respected.
Books, too, were a luxury in the West Branch Valley. Although some of
the wills of Fair Play settlers indicate the importance of books by
mentioning them specifically, there was no common library from which the
settlers could draw. However, Fithian's _Journal_ contains a note that
he "reviewed the 'Squires Library"; so we do know of at least one
library in the territory. Its accessibility for most of these pioneers
is, of course, another question.
Frontier art was mainly functional. Its objects were generally the
furniture, the tools and weapons, and the implements of the household.
Individual expressions of creative talent, these items, whether they
were designs on the rifle stock or styles of tableware, were outlets of
artistic demonstration. Probably the most prized and picturesque of the
frontier folk arts was the making of patchwork quilts.[49] Although we
have found no "Fair Play" pattern, we do know that the women of every
frontier household sewed, and, because of the demand for bed quilts,
every scrap was saved for the quilt-making. Colbert's _Journal_ tells of
his dining at one Richard Manning's "with a number of women who were
quilting."[50] Quilting parties were social events in the lives of these
frontier women, and their _objets d'art_ were fully discussed from
patterns and designs down to the intricate techniques of needlecraft.
Perhaps the patchwork quilt is the enduring legacy of frontier folk art.
The music of the frontier was primarily vocal--the singing of hymns and,
possibly, folk songs. Instrumental music was confined to the fiddle,
which one Fair Play settler felt valuable enough to mention in his
will.[51] The fiddle also provided the musical background for the
rollicking reels and jigs which the Scotch-Irish enjoyed so much.[52]
That it was a hard life is certainly true, but it had its happy moments
and music was the source of much of that happiness.
Medical practices throughout the frontier were primitive, to say the
least, and the West Branch Valley was no exception. A diary of a
minister in the Susquehanna Valley around Lancaster provides specific
examples of the purges, blood-letting, and herb concoctions which the
frontier settler endured in order to survive.[53] In spite of the
liberal use of spirited stimulants, ailing frontiersmen often suffered
violent reactions both from their illnesses and their cures.
Although the Fair Play settlers of the West Branch Valley doubtless had
their own mythology and folklore, most of it was passed on by word of
mouth; as a result, little of record remains. The Revolutionary pension
claims are filled with tales of the courage and patriotism of the
stouthearted men and women of this frontier. A frequent claim is that
the measures taken to defend Fort Augusta, after the Great Runaway,
urged by Fair Play settlers who had fled to that point, saved the
frontier and made independence a reality.
Perhaps the best-known story is that of the "independence elm" on Pine
Creek. However, as a recent writer suggests, the story of the "Pine
Creek Declaration" may refer merely to the reading of a copy of the
national declaration rather than to a separate document drawn up by the
inhabitants of this frontier.[54] Mrs. Hamilton's testimony to the event
notwithstanding, no copy of the declaration has ever been found.
Another tale concerns the frequent reference to the upper Pine Creek
area as "Beulah Land."[55] It seems that a circuit rider singing hymns
approached a camp up Pine Creek in the Black Forest. Later, asked to
sing, he offered the familiar "Beulah Land." Still later, he met with an
accident between Blackwell and Cammal resulting in his death. The
entertained were his mourners. Subsequently, they kept his name alive by
singing the old hymn to such an extent that the name "Beulah Land"
became attached to this region on Pine Creek.
Frontier life afforded little leisure time so that recreation was
generally economically oriented or related to some household task. In
addition, wrestling, foot-racing, jumping, throwing the tomahawk, and
shooting at marks were popular sports.[56] But drinking was probably the
most common frontier recreation. It has been said that the Scotch-Irish
made more whiskey and drank more of it than any other group.[57]
Everyone drank it, even the ministers. In fact, the tavern preceded the
church as a social center in the West Branch Valley.[58] Moderation,
however, was the rule; excessive drinking was frowned upon.[59]
The value system of Fair Play society can be analyzed in terms of the
expressed ideals and beliefs, the conduct, and the material possessions
of the pioneers who settled along the West Branch during this period.
Journalists, diarists, and pension claimants offer recorded evidence of
the ideals and beliefs of these settlers. Their actual behavior gives us
some understanding of conduct as value. And finally, the probate records
of the Northumberland and Lycoming County courts contribute some
documentation concerning the material values of these frontier
inhabitants. The result was a society dedicated to the idea of progress
and oriented to a future of political and social equality and economic
opportunity.
A firm conviction concerning the right of property, that is, the right
of individual private ownership, was developed early in the American
experience in Virginia and Massachusetts and was reinforced by the
experience of successive frontiers, of which the Fair Play territory was
one. This is noted particularly in the pride in individual
"improvements" and the vigorous assertion of property rights before the
Fair Play tribunal and, later, in the regular courts. The large
Scotch-Irish population on this and other frontiers characteristically
asserted this view. Motivated by a spirit of individualism and the
desire for a better way of life, the Fair Play settlers found land
ownership basic to the accomplishment of their desired ends.[60]
In conjunction with the policy of private land ownership, the support of
squatters' rights tended to emphasize the equality of achievement rather
than that of ascription. No man's position was ascribed in the Fair
Play territory--he had to earn it. However, as we noted earlier, the
pioneer farmer had to obtain the approval of his neighbors in order to
settle in the area; but no evidence exists to show that this approval
was in any way dependent upon social class or national origin.
Furthermore, the annual election of the Fair Play men by the settlers,
along with their rotation in office, gave a fair measure of political
equality, which was reflected in the decisions of the tribunal affecting
land claims.
The hospitality of the Fair Play settlers is particularly stressed by
the journalists who traveled in the West Branch Valley.[61] Despite the
limitations of rooms and furnishings, the frontier cabin was ever open
to the weary traveler, and spirited conversation and beverages were
always available to revive him. Good food and fine friends could be
found on the frontier. The frontiersman took great pride in his
hospitality. Dependent upon outside travelers for news, the latest
remedies for ailments, and mail, the inhabitants of the frontier opened
the doors of their cabins and their hearts to visitors. Taken into a
home, the weary traveler often found himself treated to the best in food
and comfort which the limitations of the frontier permitted. Generally
sharing the one-room cabin, like any member of the family, he soon
learned that he was a welcome guest rather than a stranger in their
midst. The loneliness of the frontier stimulated the hospitality of the
frontiersman.
Although no "frontier philosophy," as such, existed, the conduct of its
inhabitants demonstrated their faith, their patriotism, their spirit of
mutual helpfulness, and their temperance. The pioneer was not a
philosopher or a thinker, because the rigorous struggle for survival,
which was his, did not permit the leisure to develop these traits. He
was a doer whose values and beliefs were reflected in his behavior.
The favorable, but not always eager, reception of itinerant pastors, the
religious instruction which took place in the home, and the frequent
references to "the Creator" in the wills testify to the relevance of
faith in influencing the character and behavior of these early
Americans. Faith was not only relevant but also a matter of choice, and
freedom of worship was practiced on this frontier. Here again, the
Scotch-Irish Presbyterian influence may have been significant.[62]
Patriotism, with few exceptions, was characteristic of the frontier. But
loyalty to what? On this frontier it seems to have meant devotion to an
America which developed through New World experience. Like Topsy, "it
jus' growed," and no frontiersman wanted it taken away. The enthusiastic
reception of the Declaration of Independence by the Fair Play settlers
combined with the legend of their own resolutions on the question
indicate this patriotic feeling. Despite their political differences
with the settled areas, the West Branch pioneers were overwhelmingly
loyal to the patriot cause in the American Revolution.[63] Their
loyalty, however, was more to the ideal of freedom, or "liberty" as they
termed it, than to any organization or state. They believed in and
supported the liberty which their own hard work and the circumstances of
the frontier had made possible.
Mutual helpfulness was essential to survival in the wilderness and
valued among its pioneers. Cabin-raisings, cornhuskings, harvesttime,
and quilting parties are just a few examples of this spirit in action.
Individualistic in his approach, the frontier farmer realized the need
for neighborly support and appreciated its offer.
In spite of the availability of a more-than-adequate supply of spirited
liquid refreshment, temperance was both commended and respected on this
Pennsylvania frontier. One historian points out that there was probably
less drunkenness on the frontier than there was in eastern Pennsylvania,
where it was not unusual for young men to get drunk at the taverns or to
drink themselves under the table at weddings or at other social
functions.[64] Drunkards were few and generally despised on the
frontier.[65]
Material values, in a society where possessions, beyond the land itself
and the rude cabin built upon it, are limited, are best gleaned from the
probate records, which listed the prized possessions of this frontier
community. Beds and bedsteads are the items which appear most frequently
in the wills of the Fair Play settlers. Occasionally, the ultimate in
frontier affluence is reached in the form of a "feather Bed."[66] Beds,
or feather beds, and bedsteads were so highly valued as pieces of
furniture that they were often passed on to the daughters, serving as a
substantial part of their dowries.[67] Surprisingly enough, the widow
often received "the room she now sleeps in" or, "her choise of any one
room in the house." This is not so amazing, however, when one realizes
that additional rooms beyond the original one-room cabin quite logically
became highly valued. Pewterware was the silver of the frontier, and, if
the probate records are any indication, there was little of it and no
silver. Aside from references to furniture such as spinning wheels,
bureaus, tables, and chairs, and these not too regularly, it is quite
evident that material possessions were few.
What then was the nature of Fair Play society? The frontier, by its very
nature, had an egalitarian influence which is readily apparent from this
analysis of the "style of life" along the West Branch. A relative
political and social equality existed in this land of economic
opportunity where faith, patriotism, helpfulness, and self-determination
were the outstanding traits. The frontier brought the democratizing role
of achievement to the fore in American life, and the Fair Play settlers
were an excellent example.
FOOTNOTES:
[1] _See_ Chart 1 in Chapter Two.
[2] Smith, _Laws_, II, 195.
[3] _Pennsylvania Archives_, Third Series, XIX, 557-805.
[4] For example, in the County Assessments for 1781, _Pennsylvania
Archives_, Third Series, XIX, 468, 484, the individual holdings of
resident property owners range from 50 to 1,500 acres, whereas
non-residents' range from 200 to 13,000. Only six of thirty residents
showed property in excess of 325 acres and four of these had 550 acres
or less. The two large landowners were peripheral Fair Play residents.
Subsequent tax lists indicate that non-residents eventually sold their
property in sections.
[5] Leyburn, _The Scotch-Irish_, p. 262.
[6] _Fithian: Journal_ (1775) and _Journal of William Colbert_
(1792-1794). These journals of the first regularly assigned itinerant
pastors, Presbyterian and Methodist, to the West Branch Valley, contain
numerous references concerning the personal character and morality of
the settlers. In the Hamilton Papers of the Wagner Collection of
Revolutionary War pension claimants, p. 11, Mrs. Hamilton writes to the
Honorable George C. Whiting, Commissioner of Pensions, on Dec. 16, 1858:
"I believe they were people of clear sound mind, just, upright, morrall,
religious, and friendly to all. I should say they came nearest to
keeping the commandment, love your nabour as yourself, then any people I
ever lived among."
[7] Leyburn, _The Scotch-Irish_, p. 269.
[8] Helen Herritt Russell, "The Documented Story of the Fair Play Men
and Their Government," _The Northumberland County Historical Society
Proceedings and Addresses_, XXII (1958), 16-43. Mrs. Russell, whose
genealogical studies were the basis of Chart 1 in Chapter Two, notes 24
marriages among the 80 names, 9 of which were intermarriages of
different national stocks. Of the 24 marriages, 9 were between
Scotch-Irish couples. Intermarriages produced 5 English-Scotch-Irish
couples, 2 German-Scotch-Irish, 1 Welsh-Scotch-Irish, and 1
German-English. The intermarriages appear to follow the national stock
percentages in the population. This would suggest that the
intermarriages were a matter of choice rather than of necessity.
[9] Dunaway, _The Scotch-Irish of Colonial Pennsylvania_, p. 198.
[10] _Journal of William Colbert_ (1792-1794). This entry for Thursday,
Sept. 5, 1793, is from a typescript belonging to Dr. Charles F.
Berkheimer, of Williamsport. The original is in Chicago at the Garrett
Biblical Seminary.
[11] Here again, Fithian, Colbert, and Mr. Davy all mention the friendly
reception which was theirs on this frontier. Davy, in an entry for Oct.
10, 1794, p. 265, says, "In the Winter Sleighs are in general use on the
Rivers & on Land & it is time of Visiting & Jollity throughout the
Country."
[12] _Journal of William Colbert_, Tuesday, Aug. 21, 1792. Here the
Reverend Colbert refers to the existence of a class in religion among
the group of Presbyterians, although the prospects appear none too
favorable. In fact, he says, "I had no desire to meet the class, so
disordered are they, therefore omitted it." Quarterly meetings of
Methodists were also held in the West Branch Valley, as Colbert notes in
his journal for Saturday, Sept. 15, 1792, and Saturday, Sept. 7, 1793.
In 1792, Colbert remarks that "Our Quarterly Meeting began at Joshua
White's today." The following year he wrote that "brother Paynter and I
have to hold a Quarterly meeting at Ammariah Sutton's at Lycommon." Each
of these instances indicates the presence of some sort of voluntary
religious association. However, it must be recalled that Fithian
mentioned no such classes or meetings extant during his visit in July of
1775.
[13] _Fithian: Journal_, pp. 80-81.
[14] _Journal of William Colbert_, Thursday, Oct. 17, 1793, and
Saturday, Aug. 18, 1792.
[15] _Ibid._, Tuesday, Oct. 15, 1793.
[16] Smith, _Laws_, II, 195.
[17] Muncy Historical Society, Wagner Collection, Hamilton Papers, p.
10.
[18] _Ibid._
[19] _See_ the Appearance Dockets Commencing in 1772 for Northumberland
County and 1795 for Lycoming County.
[20] _Journal of William Colbert_, Monday, June 18, 1792.
[21] _Ibid._, Saturday, Aug. 4, 1792: "Calvinist must certainly be the
most damnable doctrine upon the face of the globe." Sunday, July 29,
1792: "Here for telling the people they must live without sin, I so
offended a Presbyterian, that he got up, called his wife and away he
went." Sunday July 22, 1792: "... in the afternoon for the first time
heard a Presbyterian at Pine Creek.... He is an able speaker but could
not, but, Calvinistic like speak against sinless perfection." Monday,
Aug. 20, 1792: "... rode to John Hamilton's in the afternoon. Here the
unhappy souls [Presbyterian Fair Play settlers] that were joined
together in society, I fear are going to ruin." Thursday, Oct. 17, 1793:
"I went to John Hamilton's on the Bald Eagle Creek spoke a few words to
a few people: I do not think that is worth the preachers while to stop
here."
[22] F. B. Everett, "Early Presbyterianism along the West Branch of the
Susquehanna River," _Journal of the Presbyterian Historical Society_,
XII (1927), 481. According to the Reverend Mr. Everett, whose article
also appeared in the Montgomery _Mirror_ for Oct. 27, 1926, the
Scotch-Irish, with the Anglicans, were the dogmatists of Pennsylvania.
The Quakers and Pietistic German sects were anti-dogmatic. Dogmatically
adhering to his catechisms, the Scotch-Irishman "resented the aspersions
cast upon dogma and creed." The frontier gave him freedom from the
Quakers who still considered Presbyterians as those "who had burnt a
Quaker in New England from the cart's tail, and had murdered other
Quakers."
[23] "Mr. Davy's Diary," p. 259.
[24] Thomas J. Wertenbaker, _The First Americans, 1607-1690_ (New York,
1927). Wertenbaker's first chapter, "A New World Makes New Men,"
develops this thesis generally for the American colonial experience,
and, as Turner said, those first colonies were the first frontier.
[25] Clark, "Pioneer Life in the New Purchase," pp. 28, 63. Clark notes
that indentured servitude appeared in Muncy, where Samuel Wallis' great
holdings made such service feasible. He also mentions Wallis' ownership
of slaves, verified by the Quarter Session Docket of 1778. Wallis freed
two Negro slaves, Zell and Chloe, posting a £30 bond that they would not
become a charge on the township.
[26] Leyburn, _The Scotch-Irish_, p. 262. _See also_ Dunaway, _The
Scotch-Irish of Colonial Pennsylvania_, pp. 180-200.
[27] These "fringe area" participants in Fair Play society actually
resided, for the most part, in Provincial territory and hence enjoyed
greater stability and more land.
[28] Calhoun, _A Social History of the American Family_, I, 207.
[29] _Ibid._
[30] Leyburn, _The Scotch-Irish_, p. 271. Leyburn points out that since
the Scotch-Irish were never a "minority," in the sense that their values
differed radically from the norms of their areas of settlement, they
never suffered the normlessness which Durkheim calls anomie--the absence
of clear standards to follow. As Leyburn states it,
Anomie was an experience unknown to the Scotch-Irishman, for he
moved immediately upon arrival to a region where there was neither a
settlement nor an established culture. He held land, knew
independence, had manifold responsibilities from the very outset. He
spoke the language of his neighbors to the East through whose
communities he had passed on his way to the frontier. Their
institutions and standards differed at only minor points from his
own. The Scotch-Irish were not, in short, a "minority group" and
needed no Immigrant Aid society to tide them over a period of
maladjustment so that they might become assimilated in the American
melting pot.
This, however, is not to suggest that minorities are necessarily anomic.
The Jews, for example, were always a cultural minority in Europe, yet
they adhered intensely to their own cultural norms.
[31] Muncy Historical Society, Wagner Collection, Hamilton Papers, p.
10.
[32] J. E. Wright and Doris S. Corbett, _Pioneer Life in Western
Pennsylvania_ (Pittsburgh, 1940), p. 142.
[33] _Ibid._ The existence of these "praying societies" is further
substantiated in Colbert's _Journal_. During these services, lay persons
gave exhortations or assisted Colbert in some fashion.
[34] _Fithian: Journal_, p. 76.
[35] Robert S. Cocks, _One Hundred and Fifty Years of Evangelism, The
History of Northumberland Presbytery 1811-1961_ (n. p., 1961), p. 2.
[36] _Fithian: Journal_, pp. 80-81.
[37] Joseph Stevens, _History of the Presbytery of Northumberland, from
Its Organization, in 1811, to May 1888_ (Williamsport, 1888), p. 38.
[38] _Ibid._, p. 18.
[39] Cocks, _One Hundred and Fifty Years of Evangelism_, p. 2.
[40] Guy S. Klett, "Scotch-Irish Presbyterian Pioneering Along the
Susquehanna River," _Pennsylvania History_, XX (1953), p. 173.
[41] _Ibid._, p. 174.
[42] Linn, _History of Centre and Clinton Counties_, p. 520.
[43] Klett, "Scotch-Irish Presbyterian Pioneering," p. 175.
[44] _Journal of William Colbert_, Monday, June 18, 1792; and Robert
Berger, "The Story of Baptist Beginnings in Lycoming County," _Now and
Then_, XII (1960), 274-280. According to the Reverend Robert Berger, of
Hughesville, a few Baptist settlers came into Lycoming County from New
Jersey, but were soon driven out by the Indians. Apparently, the
Philadelphia Baptist Association sent missionaries to the area in 1775
and 1778. However, not until the association commissioned Elders Patton,
Clingan, and Vaughn in 1792 did any extensive Baptist preaching take
place in this region. They were sent out for three months on the Juniata
and the West Branch. The Loyalsock Baptist Church, established in 1822,
is the first church.
[45] Dietmar Rothermund, _The Layman's Progress: Religious and Political
Experience in Colonial Pennsylvania 1740-1770_ (Philadelphia, 1961), p.
142. As Rothermund describes it, "The Pilgrim's progress had turned into
the layman's emancipation, and finally into the citizen's revolution"
(p. 137). He calls "the political maturity which followed the era of
religious emancipation ... America's real revolutionary heritage" (p.
138).
[46] _Ibid._, p. 137. It must first be recognized that American
Presbyterianism differed from that of Scotland particularly with regard
to local autonomy. The Presbyterian Church, like the United States under
the Constitution of 1787, was federal in its governmental structure, and
the autonomy of the local religious institutions was later carried into
politics. Leyburn, _The Scotch-Irish_, p. 313, emphasizes the fact that
the Scotch-Irishman's church had accustomed him to belief in government
by the consent of the governed, in representative and republican
institutions. The relationship between the church covenant and the
social compact is quite direct. If men can bind themselves together to
form a church, then it seems quite logical that they can bind themselves
together to form a government. Fair Play democracy was simply political
Presbyterianism. Its impact has been noted by a number of historians.
Dunaway, _The Scotch-Irish of Colonial Pennsylvania_, p. 135, claims
that "The actual means by which Pennsylvania was transformed from a
proprietary province into an American commonwealth was the new political
organization developed by the Scotch-Irish in alliance with the eastern
radical leaders of the continental Revolutionary movement. This
extra-legal organization, consisting of the committee of safety, the
provincial and county committees of correspondence, and the provincial
conventions, supplanted the regular provincial government by absorbing
its functions." Becker, _Beginning of the American People_, p. 180,
calls the Scotch-Irish a people "whose religion confirmed them in a
democratic habit of mind."
[47] Lycoming County Courthouse, Will Book #1, George Quigley's Will, p.
69.
[48] Maynard, _Historical View of Clinton County_, p. 208.
[49] Carrie A. Hall and Rose G. Kretsinger, _The Romance of the
Patchwork Quilt in America_ (New York, 1935), p. 27.
[50] _Journal of William Colbert_, Thursday, Sept. 5, 1793.
[51] Lycoming County Courthouse, Will Book #1, William Chatham's Will,
p. 177. Chatham's bequest is "To Robert Devling My Fidel."
[52] Dunaway, _The Scotch-Irish of Colonial Pennsylvania_, p. 196.
[53] Rev. John Cuthbertson's Diary (1716-1791), microfilm transcript, 2
rolls, Pennsylvania Historical and Museum Commission, Harrisburg. An
example, found on p. 252, is this "_famous American Receipt for the
Rheumatism_. Take of garlic two cloves, of gum ammoniac, one drachm;
blend them by bruising together. Make them into two or three bolus's
with fair water and swallow one at night and the other in the morning.
Drink strong sassafras tea while using these. It banishes also
contractions of the joints. 100 pounds been given for this."
[54] Rebecca F. Gross, "Postscript to the Week," Lock Haven _Express_,
Aug. 3, 1963, p. 4.
[55] Eugene P. Bertin, "Primary Streams of Lycoming County," _Now and
Then_, VIII (1947), 257-258.
[56] Dunaway, _The Scotch-Irish of Colonial Pennsylvania_, p. 193.
[57] _Ibid._, p. 197.
[58] "Eleanor Coldren's Deposition," pp. 220-222. Mrs. Coldren refers to
a tavern, just west of Chatham's Run, in the spring of 1775. The first
church appeared in 1792.
[59] "Diary of the Unknown Traveler," _Now and Then_, X (1954), 307. The
diarist tells of a tavernkeeper who refused a man a pint of wine because
"he had had enough" (Thursday, July 24, 1794).
[60] Leyburn, _The Scotch-Irish_, pp. 148-150. Leyburn suggests, and the
Fair Play settlers demonstrate, that Ulster and America were similar
experiences. He says (p. 148) that the Scotch-Irish "lived on land in
both regions often forcibly taken from the natives. The confiscation
itself was declared legal by the authorities, and the actual settlement
was made in the conviction that the land was now rightfully theirs.
Might makes right--at least in the matter of life and land ownership."
[61] _Fithian: Journal_, the _Journal of William Colbert_, and "Mr.
Davy's Diary" all refer to the hospitality of the people of this
frontier. For example, Fithian speaks of his hosts as "sociable, kind";
while Colbert constantly mentions the "liberty" which he enjoyed in the
various homes which he visited.
[62] Leyburn, _The Scotch-Irish_, pp. 146-147. Leyburn suggests that
belief in the superiority of the Presbyterian church to any king
justifies revolt; if one may, others may, leading to anarchy. Thus
freedom of worship for a minority allied itself in America with liberty
of worship for all. The right of revolution, as it was acted upon in
America, was also implied.
[63] Loyalists in the West Branch Valley suffered the usual privations
as this excerpt from the "Diary of the Unknown Traveler," p. 310,
indicates: "_Thursday, July 24, 1794_.... Mr. Witteker and his family
are of the people called Quakers but was turned out of the society
during the time of war for paing the money called substitute [relief
from the draft]* money to the Congress agents. M[r]. W's case is really
hard. He suffered as above by his friends for aiding Congress and his
estate was conviscated [_sic_] by the state for being a loyalist."
[*Phrase bracketed in quotation.]
[64] Dunaway, _The Scotch-Irish of Colonial Pennsylvania_, pp. 197-198.
[65] _Ibid._, p. 198. An example of this attitude is found in this entry
in the "Diary of the Unknown Traveler," p. 310: "This afternoon 24 July
[1794] a person with two horses, one he rode, the other lead, called at
Wittekers for a pint of wine, but on account of him being intoxicated
before Mr. W. told him he had had enough & would not let him have any.
Where could we find so disinterested a tavernkeeper in England? In
England they never refuse as long as they pay, but here the man had the
money ready if they would let him have the wine."
[66] This conclusion was reached after the reading of some three hundred
wills in the probate records of Northumberland and Lycoming counties.
This particular reference is from James Caldwell's will, Nov. 20, 1815,
located in Will Book #1, p. 108, Lycoming County Courthouse.
[67] Clark, "Pioneer Life in the New Purchase," p. 22. Beds and feather
beds seem to have been status symbols of a sort often willed to the wife
or included as a dowry.
CHAPTER SIX
_Leadership and the Problems of the Frontier_
Any analysis of democracy in the Fair Play territory must consider the
question of leadership and the particular problems of that frontier. The
number of leaders and their roles, the marks of leadership, and the
circumstances which brought certain men to the fore must all be
considered. Was there some correlation between property-holdings, or
national origin, and leadership? Were there certain offices conducive to
the exercise of leadership? The subject of leadership entails inquiry
into each of these areas.
Unfortunately, only one biographical study of any Fair Play leader has
ever been attempted, that of Henry Antes.[1] As a result, the patterns
of leadership must be gleaned from court records, tax lists, lists of
public officials, and petitions from the settlers of this frontier.
Consequently, what follows gives us some general understanding of the
nature of leadership but offers little in the way of insight into the
personalities of the leaders.
Using the Curti study as an example, certain objective criteria have
been set up in analyzing leadership in the West Branch Valley.[2]
Obviously, some leaders were more important than others. Their influence
extended beyond the limits of the Fair Play territory. These leaders,
provided that they stood out in respect to at least three of the four
criteria established, have been categorized as regional leaders. These
four criteria have been used in this study to determine regional
leadership: (1) the holding of political office, (2) the ownership of
better-than-average property holdings, (3) the operation of frontier
forts, and (4) the holding of military rank of some significance.[3]
Of these criteria, office holding appears to be the most important.
Thus, regional leaders were generally re-elected to public office, or
held more than one such office. Furthermore, it will be noted that these
offices tended to be with the established governments of the State and
county. Since some leaders never held any political office, another
classification seemed necessary. Consequently, the role of local
leadership was also classified.
The influence of some men seems to have been strictly confined to the
Fair Play territory, either by virtue of their election to some local
office or by their prominence in some other phase of community life. As
a result, local leaders have been considered as (1) those who held at
least two local offices, or (2) those who exercised identifiable
community leadership in a non-political context.
After an extensive examination of the lists of public officials for
Northumberland County, the tax lists for the same period, the records of
the Fair Play men and the Committee of Safety, the accounts of the
frontier forts in the region, and the military records of these
settlers, it becomes evident that only three men can be considered as
regional leaders and not more than seven or eight as local leaders.[4]
Henry Antes, Robert Fleming, and Frederick Antes are the regional
leaders; and Alexander Hamilton, John Fleming, James Crawford, John
Walker, Thomas Hughes, Cookson Long, William Reed, and Samuel Horn are
the local leaders. Obviously, the listings are too limited to offer any
valid quantitative analysis.
Henry Antes is undoubtedly the single most outstanding leader in the
entire Fair Play country. Judge of the Court of Quarter Sessions,
sheriff, justice of the peace, Fair Play spokesman, captain (later
colonel) of Associators and commander of Fort Antes, miller and property
owner, personal friend of John Dickinson and other Provincial leaders,
Henry Antes was the top figure in civic, economic, military, and social
affairs along the West Branch. Influential within and without the Fair
Play territory, Henry Antes was truly the major leader in the valley.
The Antes family had long played a significant role in the history of
the Province of Pennsylvania. As MacMinn relates, Henry's father, Henry,
Sr., had been "associated with the most prominent men of his time in
movements for the public good."[5] A Moravian, the elder Antes had
assisted Count Zinzendorf in his missionary efforts, aided Whitefield in
his philanthropic endeavors, worked with Henry Muhlenberg in educating
the German town community, and served with a marked impartiality as a
justice of the peace.[6] From such stock came the necessary leadership
for the Fair Play settlers of the West Branch frontier.
Born near Pottstown in Montgomery County in 1736, young Henry may have
learned of frontier opportunity from visitors to his father's inn, such
as Zinzendorf and Spangenburg, who had traveled along the West Branch of
the Susquehanna. Consequently, joined by his brother William, he signed
an article of agreement on September 29, 1773, for the purchase of land
in the West Branch Valley.[7] When another brother, Frederick, obtained
property in the area later in that same decade, the Antes brothers,
particularly Henry and Frederick, became the dominant political,
economic, and social influence in the territory. Frederick, however, was
more of an absentee leader since he never actually resided in the Fair
Play territory.
Although the combined holdings of the Antes brothers constituted only a
little less than 700 acres, their gristmill, the first in the region,
became the meeting place for the area settlers, providing a forum for
the usual discussions of politics and prices.[8] From Lycoming Creek on
the east to Pine Creek and the Great Island on the west, the frontier
farmers brought their grain to the Antes mill, on the south side of the
Susquehanna River opposite present Jersey Shore. While the milling went
on, the men analyzed their common problems and debated the future of
this pioneer land. If there was a center for the dissemination of news
in the West Branch Valley, it was the Antes mill and fort, which was
soon constructed on the property. Located in almost the center of the
Fair Play territory (although actually across the river from it), where
men met of necessity, and having had a father who had exerted influence
and exercised leadership in Philadelphia County, the Antes brothers were
well prepared to lead the West Branch pioneers.
With their gristmill giving Henry and Frederick a decided economic edge,
they soon became involved in the politics of the Fair Play territory,
Northumberland County, and the Province of Pennsylvania. Henry became
primarily a local and county leader, while his brother concentrated on
county and Provincial and, later, State affairs. Both served as county
judges--Henry, appointed in 1775, and Frederick, elected in 1784--which
suggests judicial responsibility as the key to assuming major
leadership, since Robert Fleming took Frederick's judicial post when he
resigned to take a seat in the General Assembly.[9]
By the summer of 1775, when Philip Vickers Fithian first included the
West Branch in his itinerary--the valley by then supported some 100
families--Henry Antes had already distinguished himself as a public
servant. He, along with five others, had been commissioned by the county
court to lay out a road from Fort Augusta to the mouth of Bald Eagle
Creek;[10] he had served as a spokesman for the Fair Play men in a land
title dispute;[11] he had been made a justice of the peace;[12] and he
had been appointed as a judge of the Court of Quarter Sessions.[13] This
was to be only the beginning, for in 1775, when the Associators were
organized, Henry Antes was made captain of company eight, embodying the
Nippenose and Pine Creek settlers.[14] But even this is not the complete
picture, for when the settlers returned to the region in the eighties,
following the Great Runaway of 1778, Antes became sheriff, the chief law
enforcement officer of Northumberland County.[15] The popular miller had
become the popular leader, a popularity enhanced by his interpretation
of the sheriff's role, an interpretation which occasionally brought him
into conflict with the State's leaders.[16]
The leadership of the Antes brothers is further accentuated by the
activities of Frederick Antes. Between 1776 and 1784 he was a delegate
to the Pennsylvania Constitutional Convention, justice of the peace,
president judge of the county courts, county treasurer, commissioner of
purchase for Northumberland County, a representative in the General
Assembly, and a colonel of militia.[17] With Henry on the West Branch
and Frederick frequently in Philadelphia, the Antes family had a
constant finger on the pulse of Pennsylvania politics. Official duties,
plus the strategic location of the Antes fort and mill, made Frederick
and Henry Antes the most influential persons in the West Branch Valley
during the operation of the Fair Play system. Eminently qualified by
numerous public responsibilities, the Antes brothers were major leaders
of the Fair Play settlers.
Robert Fleming, the third regional leader in the territory, also served
as a judge of the Court of Common Pleas for the county, although that
service began in March, 1785, after the Fair Play territory was acquired
by the State of Pennsylvania in the second Stanwix Treaty of 1784.[18]
He became a justice of the peace at the same time.[19] Prior to his
judicial obligations, Fleming had been a member of the county Committee
of Safety, a township overseer, a representative in the General
Assembly, a second lieutenant of Associators, and possibly a Fair Play
man.[20] During the Revolution, he was primarily concerned with the area
around the Great Island, serving at Reed's Fort (present Lock Haven) and
on the Fleming estate, which some referred to as Fort Fleming. Robert
had a brother, John, with whom Fithian stayed during his brief sojourn
in the territory. Their combined holdings, the largest in the vicinity,
ran to almost 3,000 acres, of which 1,250 acres were Robert's.[21]
Certain conclusions can be drawn from these data regarding the regional
leaders of the Fair Play territory. Better than average property
holdings, extensive in the case of Robert Fleming; judicial
responsibility, which was true of all three men; primary authority in
frontier forts (the Antes brothers owned and commanded Antes Fort, and
the Flemings operated their own stockade and commanded Fort Reed); and
military rank ranging from lieutenant of Associators to colonel of
militia: these characteristics signified major leadership in the West
Branch Valley among the Fair Play settlers. Coincidentally, it can be
noted that two of the three regional leaders, having served in the State
legislature, had influence which reached to the State House in
Philadelphia. Obviously, these men were known outside of the limited
environs of the Fair Play territory. In fact, both Henry and Frederick
Antes enjoyed a more than passing acquaintance with Benjamin Franklin
and John Dickinson, two of the giants of this period of Pennsylvania's
history.[22]
A further observation which can be made concerning leadership relates to
the question of national origin. Although the Fair Play territory has
often been referred to as "Scotch-Irish country," the German Antes
brothers performed the outstanding leadership roles on this frontier.
Also, the specific geographic location of our regional leaders provides
a final note of interest. All three of them, Henry and Frederick Antes,
and Robert Fleming, actually resided outside the limits of the Fair Play
territory. They were on the geographic fringe but at the leadership
core. Their close proximity to the Fair Play territory, separated from
it only by the Susquehanna River, in addition to their contacts with and
positions in established government, gave these men an obvious political
eminence. The forts located in both places and the Anteses' gristmill
gave both the Flemings and the Anteses opportunity for leadership.
Local leaders generally lived within the Fair Play territory, had
average property holdings, and served on either the Fair Play tribunal
or the township Committee of Safety. There are, of course, exceptions to
each of these generalizations. The fort operators, Samuel Horn, William
Reed, and John Fleming, resided on the Provincial or State side of the
Susquehanna River. Furthermore, John Fleming was the largest property
owner in the area with some 1,640 acres.[23] And one man, James
Crawford, held the highly respected county office of sheriff.[24]
Three of the local leaders, John Fleming, Alexander Hamilton, and James
Crawford, stand out from the rest, although for different reasons. John
Fleming undoubtedly would have become a major leader had he lived
longer--he died in 1777. His extensive property made his home the usual
stop for itinerant pastors and other travelers in the valley, as
Fithian's _Journal_ attests.[25] It also made him a figure of central
significance in economic affairs. Alexander Hamilton was probably "the"
local leader. A member of the Committee of Safety and presumably a Fair
Play man, he was also the captain of Horn's Fort.[26] He is also the
reputed author of the Pine Creek declaration. James Crawford was more
noted for military exploits than for civic duties. Prior to his military
service, Crawford had represented Northumberland County in the
Constitutional Convention of 1776, which framed the State constitution
and, later, commissioned him as a major in the Twelfth Pennsylvania
Regiment.[27] Deprived of his commission after the Germantown campaign,
Major Crawford returned home and was elected county sheriff, an office
which he held until succeeded by Henry Antes.[28]
Of the other local leaders, Horn and Reed held only lesser township
offices, overseer and supervisor, respectively, in addition to operating
frontier forts.[29] Cookson Long, mentioned as a Fair Play man in 1775
in Eleanor Coldren's deposition, later commanded Fort Reed, for a time,
as a captain of Associators.[30] The final two local leaders, John
Walker and Thomas Hughes, both took turns as Fair Play men and as
members of the local Committee of Safety.[31]
In analyzing the local leadership roles which these various settlers
filled, additional and pertinent conclusions become apparent. In the
first place, the Fair Play men were obviously not the top leaders of the
community. Henry Antes may have served as their spokesman in 1775, and
it is quite possible that Robert Fleming was a member of the tribunal,
but both were more important as county leaders. Secondly, Fair Play men
were members of the Committee of Safety, a fact which suggests that
their efforts may have been coordinated. Finally, returning to the
question of national origin, six of these eight local leaders were
either Scots, Scotch-Irish, or Irish. The other two were Germans. No
Englishman was a leader, either regional or local, in the Fair Play
territory between 1769 and 1784. Perhaps, as Carl Becker suggests, this
was due to the fact that neither the German nor the Scotch-Irish
immigrant held in his breast any sentiment of loyalty to King George, or
much sympathy with the traditions or the leaders of English society.[32]
What were the particular problems of this frontier and how effective
were these leaders in meeting them? The question of defense, including
the daily task of survival in the wilderness, the right of pre-emption,
and the efforts to obtain frontier representation in the assembly: these
were the main problems in this pioneer land along the West Branch of the
Susquehanna. All were not solved during the period under analysis, but
the attempts to solve these and other problems afford us the opportunity
to evaluate the leadership in the Fair Play territory.
Doubtless, the most pressing public need on this frontier was protection
from the marauding Indians who plagued these pioneers throughout the
fifteen years encompassed by this study. Aroused by the British during
the Revolution, the Indians of the Six Nations descended from New York
into the West Branch Valley to harass and, finally, to drive the Fair
Play settlers from their homes. Driven from their homes, the frontiersmen
of the West Branch first gathered in the hastily-constructed and
poorly-manned forts conveniently scattered along the Susquehanna from
Jersey Shore to Lock Haven, but, ultimately, these too had to be
evacuated in the Great Runaway in 1778.
The severity of these attacks is evident from this petition from the
settlers gathered at Fort Horn, above present McElhattan, pleading for
military support in their perilous position:
_To the Honourable the Supreame Executive Councill of the
Commonwealth of Pennsyllvania, in Lancaster;_
Wee, your humble petitioners, the Inhabitance of Bald Eagle
Township, on the West Branch of Susquehannah, Northumberland County,
&c., &c., humbly Sheweth: that, Wherease, wee are Driven By the
Indians from our habitations and obblidged to assemble ourselves
together for our Common Defence, have thought mete to acquaint you
with our Deplorable situation. Wee have for a month by past,
endeavoured to maintain our ground, with the loss of nearly fifty
murdered and made Captives, still Expecting relief from Coll.
Hunter; but wee are pursuaded that the Gentleman has done for us as
mutch as has layd in his power; we are at len[g]th surrounded with
great numbers on every side, and unless Our Honourable Councill Does
grant us some Assistance wee will Be obblidged to evaquete [_sic_]
this frontier; which will be great encouragement to the enemy, and
Bee very injurious to our Common Cause. We, therefore, humbly
request that you would grant us as many men as you may Judge
suficient to Defend four small Garrisons, and some amunition, and as
we are wery ill prowided with arms, we Beg that you would afford us
some of them; for particulars we refer to the Bearer, Robert
Fleming, Esq'r, and Begs leave to Conclude. Your humble petitioners,
as in Duty Bound, shall ever pray.
Sined by us:[33]
This petition was signed by some forty-seven settlers, including John
and Robert Fleming, Alexander Hamilton, and Samuel Horn. Unfortunately,
the much-needed assistance was not forthcoming, and Colonel Hunter soon
sent instructions from Fort Augusta for the evacuation of the valley.
This evacuation is, of course, the Great Runaway.[34] It is interesting
to note, however, that the bearer of this petition was Robert Fleming,
one of the regional leaders of the territory.
Although forced to leave the West Branch Valley, the Fair Play settlers
responded to Colonel Hunter's fervent plea to stay at Fort Augusta to
help in the defense of this last frontier. Their gallant stand on the
West Branch and their earnestly successful support of Fort Augusta, the
last frontier outpost in central Pennsylvania, protected the interior,
enabled the Continental Congress "to function in safety at a period when
its collapse would have meant total disaster to the American cause," and
provided a vivid demonstration of what a later president of the United
States would call "that last full measure of devotion."[35]
In the fall of 1778, following the earlier alliance with France, the
tide of the Revolution began to flow in favor of independence,
notwithstanding the fact that the Fair Play territory was now deserted.
But for two years previous, when the issue of independence had been in
grave doubt, the courageous pioneers of the West Branch stood their
ground in tiny garrisons at Fort Antes, Fort Horn, and Fort Reed,
resisting the attacking Indians at the insistence of their leaders, that
freedom might be preserved. Perhaps it is a little-known story, but the
fate of independence was in good hands with the Fair Play settlers of
the West Branch Valley, who fought to preserve it.
Towards the end of the Revolution the Fair Play settlers returned to the
territory, and a new problem arose, that of title claims or, more
particularly, the right of pre-emption. Still outside the bounds of the
Commonwealth and organized government, these frontier squatters
petitioned the Supreme Council for validation of their land claims.[36]
Two petitions, one in August, 1781, and the other in March, 1784, were
sent. Their claims were recognized by an act of the General Assembly
passed in May, 1785.[37] By this time, the land in question had been
opened for settlement by virtue of the Treaty of Fort Stanwix in 1784.
Needless to say, their petitions had been prompted in part by fear of
land speculators who were attempting to buy up their lands through the
Land Office in Philadelphia. The prominence of local leaders, such as
Alexander Hamilton and John Walker, is once again noted in these
petitions. These petitions achieved notable results in that the right of
pre-emption for the West Branch squatters was recognized by the
Commonwealth long before the national government endorsed the principle.
Furthermore, the validation of these claims beyond the purchase line of
the Stanwix Treaty of 1768 provided the first legal recognition of
pre-emption in the State of Pennsylvania.
Unsuccessful in maintaining their homes against the incursive Indians,
but successful in regaining them by right of pre-emption, the Fair Play
settlers were also vitally concerned with representative democracy.
Locally, on the county level, and in the Province and State, these
frontiersmen sought to make their wishes known, both to and through
their political leaders. How well they achieved these goals was
influenced by the number of persons whom they elected to both legal and
extra-legal offices at the various political levels.
The Fair Play settlers managed to send two of their associates to the
General Assembly in the decade after Lexington and Concord.[38] These
two, Robert Fleming and Frederick Antes, constituted a disproportionate
representation, when one considers the limited population of the Fair
Play community and the general under-representation of the frontier
counties at this period. In fact, a few hundred families in and around
the West Branch were surprisingly fortunate to have one of their number,
Robert Fleming, in the General Assembly when, following a petition from
the frontier counties in 1776, a new apportionment created an assembly
in which fifty-eight legislators represented Pennsylvania's 300,000
people.[39] However, the elections of both Fleming and Antes came after
the new constitution of 1776, in which each county was given six
representatives.[40] It can hardly be said that the West Branch Valley
lacked adequate representation in the councils of the State.
Furthermore, Frederick Antes was a delegate to that State Constitutional
Convention. This not only emphasizes the leadership role of Antes, but
also points up the good fortune of the Fair Play settlers in having one
of their community participate in the framing of the new State
government. Although the Fair Play settlers lived beyond the legal
limits of settlement, they were very much involved in its political
affairs.
Aside from the General Assembly and the Constitutional Convention, these
pioneers of the Northumberland County frontier placed three men on the
county bench, one of whom was presiding judge.[41] Fair Play men became
justices of fair play in the county courts.
Concerning other county offices, the key position of sheriff was held
continuously from 1779 to 1785 by members of the Fair Play
community.[42] Here again, it appears that the proper administration of
justice could be expected from Fair Play men.
Locally, the rotational system of the Fair Play tribunal and the
frequent changes in the composition of the Committee of Safety give rise
to the conclusion that political democracy, in the sense of active
participation in public office, was truly a characteristic of the Fair
Play territory. Nine different men served on the three-man Committee of
Safety from February of 1776 to February of 1777, three new members
being elected semi-annually. Except for the two or three years following
the Great Runaway, the three members of the Fair Play tribunal were
elected annually.
In conclusion, then, what can be said regarding the leadership of the
Fair Play settlers? Except for the dangers from Indian hostility, which
were compounded by the settlers' limited manpower, the leadership was
more than adequate, one might say eminently successful, in meeting the
needs of the frontier. It enacted law, interpreted it, and saw to it
that the law was carried out on every political level with which the
West Branch pioneers had contact. In short, it gave them a government
of, by, and for themselves. This was _real_ representation by spokesmen
of a small community, very different from _virtual_ representation in a
distant Parliament, from which their independence had now been
declared.
FOOTNOTES:
[1] Edwin MacMinn, _On the Frontier with Colonel Antes_ (Camden, N. J.,
1900). This book is a mosaic of primary and secondary sources dealing
with the entire area, rather than a standard biographical treatment of
its particular subject.
[2] Merle Curti, _The Making of an American Community: A Case Study of
Democracy in a Frontier County_ (Stanford, 1959), pp. 417-441. This
entire fifteenth chapter is devoted to both a quantitative and
qualitative analysis of "leadership."
[3] Wealth, i.e., liquid assets, was not necessarily a criterion on this
agrarian frontier, where a man's assets were not easily convertible into
cash. Hence, property was the main economic source of value.
[4] The records of the first State and county officers are found in the
_Pennsylvania Archives_, Second Series, III, 768-772, and John Blair
Linn, _Annals of Buffalo Valley_ (Harrisburg, 1877), pp. 558-563. Some
data are also available in Linn, _History of Centre and Clinton
Counties_.
The tax listings were located in the _Pennsylvania Archives_, Third
Series, XIX, 437, 468, 557, and 618-622. Mrs. Russell also collected a
listing for the years 1774 to 1800 for Northumberland County. Court
records, pension claims, Meginness' _Otzinachson_ (1889) and _Frontier
Forts of Pennsylvania_ provided the remaining data.
[5] MacMinn, _On the Frontier with Colonel Antes_, p. 19.
[6] _Ibid._, pp. 20-21. MacMinn also calls the senior Antes the father
of the Unity Conferences of Christian Endeavor and presents a copy of a
letter written on Dec. 17, 1741, calling for a New Year's Day meeting of
Christians in Germantown in 1742 in support of this statement. Of his
minor judicial role, MacMinn offers this account published in
Christopher Saur's _Pensylvanische Berichte_ for May 16, 1756: "Were
such magistrates more numerous, the poor would not have cause to
complain and to weep over gross injustices which they have to suffer
because persons are respected."
[7] _Ibid._, p. 248.
[8] Meginness, _Otzinachson_ (1889), p. 484. _See also_, MacMinn, _On
the Frontier with Colonel Antes_, p. 324.
[9] MacMinn, _On the Frontier with Colonel Antes_, pp. 316, 413; and
_Pennsylvania Archives_, Second Series, III, p. 769.
[10] Linn, _History of Centre and Clinton Counties_, p. 472.
[11] "Eleanor Coldren's Deposition," pp. 220-222.
[12] Linn, _Annals of the Buffalo Valley_, p. 95; and Meginness,
_Otzinachson_ (1889), p. 473.
[13] MacMinn, _On the Frontier with Colonel Antes_, p. 316.
[14] Linn, _History of Centre and Clinton Counties_, p. 473.
[15] _Pennsylvania Archives_, Second Series, III, 770.
[16] MacMinn, _On the Frontier with Colonel Antes_, pp. 416-420. See
also Alex. Patterson to John Dickinson (October 28, 1783) in the Zebulon
Butler Papers, Wyoming Historical and Geological Society, Wilkes-Barre,
Pa. Patterson, speaking of Antes' failure to arrest Zebulon Butler, said
of Antes: "The Sheriff has not done his duty nor do I believe he intends
it being. A party man among which I am sorry to see so little principels
of humanity or honnor, Men who wish for popularity at the Expense of the
Propperty and perhaps blood of their fellow Citizens...."
[17] _Pennsylvania Archives_, Second Series, III, 768-772, and MacMinn,
_On the Frontier with Colonel Antes_, pp. 330, 395, and 413.
[18] _Pennsylvania Archives_, Second Series, III, 769.
[19] _Ibid._, p. 771.
[20] _Ibid._, pp. 769, 771; Linn, _History of Centre and Clinton
Counties_, pp. 473-474; and _Colonial Records_, XI, 367.
[21] _Pennsylvania Archives_, Third Series, XIX, 618.
[22] MacMinn, _On the Frontier with Colonel Antes_, pp. 12 and 420.
[23] _Pennsylvania Archives_, Third Series, XIX, 437.
[24] _Colonial Records_, XII. 137.
[25] _Fithian: Journal_, p. 81.
[26] Linn, _History of Centre and Clinton Counties_, p. 473. The full
account of Hamilton's military service is given in the Hamilton Pension
Papers in the Wagner Collection, Muncy Historical Society. Hamilton had
also been a member of the group commissioned to lay out a road from Bald
Eagle Creek to Fort Augusta. Linn, _History_, p. 472.
[27] _Ibid._, p. 474, and Meginness, _Otzinachson_ (1889), p. 474.
[28] _Pennsylvania Archives_, Second Series, III, 770.
[29] Linn, _History of Centre and Clinton Counties_, p. 472.
[30] _Ibid._, p. 473.
[31] _Ibid._; Yeates, _Pennsylvania Reports_, I, 498; and Russell,
"Signers of the Pine Creek Declaration of Independence," p. 4.
[32] Becker, _Beginnings of the American People_, p. 180.
[33] _Pennsylvania Archives_, Second Series, III, pp. 217-218. The
petition was dated June 21, 1778. The situation had been further
complicated by the enlistment the previous summer of many of the
able-bodied men to aid Washington in Cambridge, Massachusetts. These
men, "early in the service of their Country from the unpurchased land on
the West Branch of the River Susquehanna," deprived the valley of its
available manpower.
[34] _See_ Chapter Two for a fuller description of the Great Runaway.
[35] Helen Herritt Russell, "The Great Runaway of 1778," _The Journal of
the Lycoming Historical Society_, II, No. 4 (1961), 3-10. This article
contains a few additions to an article by the same name by Mrs. Russell
published in _The Northumberland County Historical Society Proceedings
and Addresses_, XXIII (1960), 1-16.
[36] _Pennsylvania Archives_, Second Series, III, 518-522.
[37] Smith, _Laws_, II, 195.
[38] Robert Fleming and Frederick Antes, as previously noted, had been
elected in 1777 and 1784, respectively.
[39] Dunaway, _History of Pennsylvania_, pp. 176, 196. Of these
fifty-eight, twenty-eight came from the frontier counties of York,
Berks, Bedford, Cumberland, and Northumberland.
[40] Wallace, _Pennsylvania: Seed of a Nation_, pp. 105-106.
[41] As previously noted, Henry Antes had been appointed judge of the
Court of Quarter Sessions in 1775, and Frederick Antes and Fleming had
been elected in 1780 and 1785, respectively. Frederick Antes was
president judge.
[42] _Pennsylvania Archives_, Second Series, III, 770.
CHAPTER SEVEN
_Democracy on the Pennsylvania Frontier_
One of the most often used and least understood words in the American
lexicon is the term "democracy." In the colonial period, it was seldom
used, except in denunciation. However, properly defined, it can help us
to evaluate the Fair Play settlers in some understandable context.
Etymologically stemming from two Greek words, _demos_, meaning "the
people," and _kratos_, meaning "authority," democracy means "authority
in the people" or, we can say, "self-determination." By
self-determination is meant the right of the people to decide their own
political, economic, and social institutions.
Self-determination in its basic, or political, context can best be
explained through James Bryce's definition of a democracy. Lord Bryce
said:
The word Democracy has been used ever since the time of Herodotus to
denote that form of government in which the ruling power of a State
is legally vested, not in any particular class or classes, but in
the members of the community as a whole.[1]
Analyzing the key phrases in Bryce's statement, we can best clarify the
meaning of political self-determination.
(1) "The ruling power of a State." Self-determination, as it is employed
here, concerns the right of the people of Fair Play society to determine
their own political institutions. Fair Play society did not constitute a
state, but it was a political community, and in that sense Bryce's
definition applies. Living outside the legal limit of settlement of
Province and Commonwealth, these people could not obtain legal authority
for their own rule, so, following the prevalent theory of the social
compact, they formed their own government. The result was the annual
election, by the people, of the Fair Play tribunal, the source of final
authority in the Fair Play territory.
(2) "Is legally vested." Fair Play society was actually illegal; that is
to say, the settlements were made in violation of the laws of the
Province. However, the extra-legal government which was formed was
created by, and responsive to, the popular will. Since the actual
authority for rule was vested in the people, it can be considered as
legal for the Fair Play community.
(3) "In the members of the community." The members of the Fair Play
community, as previously noted, were not strictly resident within the
geographic confines of the Fair Play territory. Communities, it has been
said, are total ways of life, complexes Of behavior composed of all the
institutions necessary to carry on a complete life, formed into a
working whole.[2] Self-determination, as it is used here, suggests that
the community as a whole participates in the decision-making process.
(4) "Not in any particular class or classes, but in the members of the
community as a whole." Bryce's definition here extends the
interpretation of "the members of the community." Obviously, if any
particular class or classes were vested with the final political
authority, then the people as a whole, that is, the Fair Play community,
would not exercise self-determination.
The concept of self-determination, carried to an economic context,
suggests that the people of the Fair Play community had the right to
determine their own economic institutions. This means that they had the
right to choose their own portion of land, subject, of course, to the
will of the existing community, and to utilize it according to their own
needs and interests. This meant that no undemocratic and feudalistic
practices, such as primogeniture and entail, could exist. Granted that
this is self-determination rather broadly interpreted in an economic
context, the question is whether or not these people had the right to
choose their own plot of ground and work it as they saw fit, unhampered
by any preordained system of discrimination or restriction.
Socially, the idea of self-determination is applied to evaluate the
religious institutions, the class structure, and the value system. The
application concerns, once again, the authority of the people to
determine their own social patterns. It questions whether or not any
Fair Play settler could worship according to the dictates of his own
conscience. It evaluates the class structure to ascertain whether or not
a superimposed caste system ordered the class structure of Fair Play
society, rather than a community-determined system in which choice and
opportunity provided flexibility and mobility. And finally, it considers
whether or not the values of the Fair Play settlers were inculcated by
some internal clique or external force, rather than being developed by
the members of the community themselves.
Did democracy exist on this Pennsylvania frontier? Was the Fair Play
system marked by real representation and popular control? These
questions must be answered before any judgment can be made concerning
political democracy in the West Branch Valley.
Was there equality of economic opportunity on this farmers' frontier?
Was land available to all who sought it, and on equal terms? These
problems need to be considered before we can attach the label
"democratic" on the economic life of the Fair Play settlers.
If democracy prizes diversity, as some claim, were the diverse elements
of Fair Play society equally recognized?[3] Was the class structure open
or closed, mobile or fixed? Did the mixed national stocks enjoy
religious freedom? One needs to inquire into each of these areas prior
to a final evaluation of Fair Play society.
A useful tool for evaluating political democracy can be found in Ranney
and Kendall's _Democracy and the American Party System_.[4] It suggests
the use of popular sovereignty, political equality, popular
consultation, and majority rule as criteria for democracy. Accepting
these criteria as basic principles of democracy, we can begin to analyze
the democratic character of the Fair Play system.
A political system based upon popular sovereignty is one in which the
final authority to rule is vested in the people. The question of who the
people are is still before us today. In the fullest sense, popular
sovereignty means rule by all the people, but in colonial America the
"people" was a much more qualified term. It generally signified white,
Protestant, adult males who were property owners. In the Fair Play
territory, the ruling "people" were "the whole body" of adult male
settlers who annually elected their governing tribunal and participated
in the decisions of its "court."[5] Lacking an established church, or
any church for that matter, and possessing property lying beyond legal
limits of settlement, the Fair Play settlers could not have enforced
religious or property qualifications for voting, even if they had so
desired, and there is no evidence to indicate that they did.
Furthermore, the frequency of elections, which were held annually, and
the principle of rotating the offices among the settlers tended to
emphasize the sovereignty of the people in this part of the West Branch
Valley. The right of suffrage, it is true, had not been extended to
women, but this was the rule throughout colonial America. Popular
sovereignty, in its qualified eighteenth-century sense, was a basic
characteristic of the political democracy which existed on this
frontier.
Political equality, that is "one man, one vote," was practiced by the
pioneers of the West Branch. There was no additional vote given to the
large property owners; in fact, as the tax lists indicate, there were no
large property owners within the geographic limits of the Fair Play
territory. Thus, each man, rather than a small ruling oligarchy, had the
opportunity to participate in the decision-making process of the Fair
Play community.
In a democratic society, the people must be consulted by the policy
makers prior to their exercise of the power of decision. Among the Fair
Play settlers this basically democratic principle was vividly
demonstrated in the case of disputed land titles, the primary concern of
the Fair Play men. In both Eleanor Coldren's deposition in behalf of her
deceased husband and in the Huff-Latcha case, it was established that
the unanimous consent of the prospective neighbors had to be obtained
before a favorable decision was rendered in behalf of the land
claimants.[6] The frequency of elections, combined with the ease and
regularity of assembly, provided the settlers with the opportunity to
become acquainted with the circumstances of their problems. Here again,
the paucity of specific data prompts us to some speculation regarding
the nature and location of these meetings. However, it must be added,
the Hamilton pension papers and the petitions to the Supreme Council in
Philadelphia refer specifically to meetings at Fort Horn and Fort
Antes.[7] Direct representation based upon popular consultation was a
distinct trait of the political democracy in the Fair Play territory.
The fourth principle of political democracy, majority rule, is probably
the most controversial and confusing element of the combination.
Absolute majority rule, its critics tell us, means majority "tyranny"
and minority acquiescence, despite the fact that this fear is not
empirically demonstrable.[8] The majority ruled absolutely in the Fair
Play territory just as it did in the New England town meeting, and with
similar results. However, it never restricted suffrage or public office
to particular religious or nationality groups. Scotch-Irish, English,
and German settlers participated equally in the political process.
However, as we pointed out in the last chapter, the English did not
enjoy leadership roles in the community.[9] Whether this was by accident
or by design is difficult to ascertain. Perhaps it was just a further
demonstration of the absolute rule of the majority with the Scotch-Irish
and the Germans combining to form that majority.
The nature of community implies shared interests and the prevailing
interest in this frontier community was survival. Necessity undoubtedly
caused the English minority to accept the Scotch-Irish and German
leadership, because forbearance meant survival. Conversely, the
Scotch-Irish and Germans could, and did, support the English in
positions of responsibility on the basis of their mutual needs and their
desire to maintain the community.[10] Not only physical survival but
also economic survival were mutually desirable to Fair Play community
members, and the decisions of the court were rendered on the basis of
equal justice.[11]
As long as minority feelings are given free expression in an atmosphere
of mutual concern, there is little danger of misinterpretation by the
majority. Such a climate prevailed in the meetings of the Fair Play
settlers and the sessions of the Fair Play men; at least, there is no
available evidence to the contrary.
The nature and role of consensus in the Fair Play territory hinged upon
what was best for the community. Fundamental agreement was reached,
based upon mutual need apparent from open discussion. In the event of
conflict, forbearance, which was in the best interest of the community,
could be expected.[12] An examination of the appearance dockets of the
county courts for Northumberland and Lycoming counties suggests,
however, that this consensus did not extend to questions of land titles.
Nevertheless, the all-inclusiveness of signatures on petitions to the
Supreme Executive Council for protection from the Indians and for the
recognition of the right of pre-emption, and the general response of the
Fair Play settlers to calls for troops for the Continental Army indicate
to some degree the nature and extent of that consensus.[13]
Democracy, that is self-determination, did exist among the Fair Play
settlers of this Pennsylvania frontier. There was no outside authority
which legislated the affairs of the pioneers of the West Branch. They
selected their own representatives, the Fair Play men, and maintained
their control over them, a control which was assured both by annual
elections and the full participation of the settlers in the
decision-making process. The will of the majority prevailed, and that
will was expressed through a community consensus reached by the full
participation of political equals. It was neither radical nor
revolutionary, but it was typical of the American colonial experience.
The Fair Play settlers had not "jumped the gun" on independence,
although they participated in the movement. They did not rebel against a
ruling aristocracy. They simply governed themselves.
Self-determination, as we have already stated, includes the right of the
people to decide upon their own economic institutions. This right was
asserted on the farmers' frontier of the West Branch. With free land
available to those who worked it, provided the neighbors and the Fair
Play men approved, economic opportunity was shared by the Scotch-Irish,
English, German, Scots, Irish, Welsh, and French settlers.[14] This
sharing, in itself, was a demonstration of economic democracy.
The labor system, too, was an affirmation of the democratic ideal.
Because free land was available in the Fair Play territory, neither
slavery nor involuntary servitude existed in this region, although it
was found in immediately adjacent areas.[15] Free labor, family labor to
be more exact, was the system employed in this portion of the West
Branch Valley. Noticeable, too, was the spirit of cooperation in such
enterprises as cabin-raisings, barn-raisings, harvesting, cornhuskings
and the like. This mutual helpfulness was characteristic of the frontier
and obviated the necessity of any enforced labor system.
Tenancy was occasionally practiced in the Fair Play territory, although
it appears that the tenant farmer suffered no feelings of inferiority,
if the following case is any example:
... Peter Dewitt ... leased the land in question to William
McIlhatton as a Cropper, who took possession of it after Huggins
left it: That the Terms of the Lease were that McIlhatton should
possess the Land about two or three Years, rendering hold of the
Crops to be raised unto Peter Dewitt, who was to find him a Team and
farming Utensils: That the Lease was in Writing and Lodged with a
certain Daniel Cruger who lived in the Neighborhood at that
Time.[16]
Sometime later, McElhattan obtained the lease from Cruger and sold "his
right" to William Dunn, claiming that Dewitt had failed to fill his end
of the bargain, despite the fact that Eleanor Coldren gave evidence to
the contrary. When challenged for selling Dewitt's land, McElhattan
responded in a fashion which demonstrates the independent spirit of this
lessee. He said "that he only sold his Right to Dunn and if Dunn would
be such a fool as to give him forty or fifty pounds for Nothing He
McIlhatton would be a greater fool for not taking it--for that Dunn knew
what Right he (McIlhatton) had."[17] Obviously, if this case is
indicative, and there were others, share-cropping did not induce
attitudes of subservience.
Religious freedom, in which Pennsylvania ranked second only to Rhode
Island in colonial America, was enjoyed by the frontiersmen of the West
Branch. It might, however, be better described as a freedom from
religion rather than a freedom of religion. With no system of local
taxation and no regular church, there was no establishment of religion.
Nevertheless, this is not to suggest that religious qualifications were
not applied to prospective landowners, potential voters, or members of
the Fair Play community. Religious liberty had been guaranteed to
Pennsylvanians in the Charter of Privileges of 1701, and no religious
test was required for suffrage in the new State constitution in 1776.
Belief in one God and in the inspiration of the Scriptures was required
for members of the assembly, but bona fide Fair Play settlers were
disqualified on geographic grounds anyhow.[18]
There is no record of religious discrimination among the Fair Play
settlers. In addition to the absence of a regular church, this was
probably due, in part, to the religious composition of the population.
The pioneers of the West Branch were Protestant Christians, and if
denominational in their approach, either Presbyterian or Methodist. The
friction between Methodists and Presbyterians appears to have been
doctrinal rather than political or social.[19]
The comparative economic equality in an area of free land had a
democratizing influence on the social class structure. This three-class
stratification, composed of property owners distinguished by their
morality, other property owners, and tenants, was an open-class system
marked by a noticeable degree of mobility. Fair Play settlers who began
as tenants could, and did, become property owners.
Since no one in the Fair Play territory could claim more than 300 acres
under the Pre-Emption Act of 1785, there was little chance for the
development of an aristocratic class.[20] It was a society of
achievement in which the race was open to anyone who could acquire land,
with the approval of his neighbors and the Fair Play men, and "improve"
it. There is no evidence to indicate that the availability of land was
restricted because of national origin, religious affiliation, or a
previous condition of servitude. This is not to say that the judgments
of neighbors may not have been based upon these criteria, but, at least,
there is no record of such discrimination. The Fair Play settlers were
eighteenth-century souls and romantic egalitarianism was not a
characteristic of such persons. The frontier, however, broke "the cake
of custom" and the necessities of that experience contributed to the
development of democracy as we have defined it.
A recent writer, analyzing the "democracy" of the Scotch-Irish, made his
evaluation on the basis of the contemporary French definition of
liberty, equality, and fraternity.[21] On this basis, the Scotch-Irish
fail; but if we equate democracy with self-determination, the
Scotch-Irish and the Fair Play settlers of the West Branch Valley can be
seen as thoroughgoing democrats.
The value system of the pioneers on the West Branch of the Susquehanna
reflected, at least in part, the democracy of the frontier. The spirit
of cooperation and mutual helpfulness was a prime characteristic of this
frontier, as it was of others. Cabin-raisings, barn-raisings, and the
cooperative enterprises at harvesttime enhanced the spirit of community
and brought the settlers together in common efforts, which demonstrated
their equality. Individualism could be harnessed for the common good,
and such was the case among the Fair Play settlers in the struggle for
economic survival.
Faith, patriotism, and temperance were not necessarily democratic, but
they also were part of the value system of the Fair Play settlers. In
matters of faith, there was a certain "live and let live" philosophy,
which had democratic implications. Despite the conflict between
Methodists and Presbyterians, the members of the Presbyterian majority
made their homes available to Methodist preachers.[22] This demonstrated
a willingness at least to hear "the other side." Such an atmosphere is
conducive to democracy, if not to conversion. There is little doubt,
however, that this receptivity was due in part to the absence of any
"regular" church or preacher. Here again, the necessities of the
frontier made "democrats" of its occupants.
The most intense patriots are often ethnocentric and chauvinistic. The
Fair Play settlers were such patriots, according to one journalist.[23]
However, the patriotism of the eighteenth century had not reached the
level of concern for all mankind which finds expression today. The
pioneers of the West Branch were democrats in an age not yet conditioned
to democracy.
Temperance, particularly with regard to the use of spirited beverages,
usually implies abstinence, which is certainly not democratic if it is
applied in a formally imposed prohibition without any local option.
Abstinence by choice, however, is purely a matter of self-determination.
But in an area where drinking was a commonly accepted practice, such as
the frontier, the term signifies moderation. In the Fair Play territory
drinking, but not drunkenness, was condoned. The spirit of the frontier,
or the use of it, was not incompatible with democracy.
Frontier values, for the most part then, were democratic in tendency.
Noteworthy for their attitude of community cooperation and mutual
helpfulness, supported by a faith which could not afford to be
exclusive, temperate in their personal habits, particularly in the use
of alcohol, the patriots of the Fair Play territory looked to a future
filled with promise and opportunity for all the diverse elements of
their society. This is the democracy which the frontier nurtured. It
flourished in the West Branch Valley.
In summary then, was self-determination the central theme in the Fair
Play territory? Did the Fair Play settlers truly determine their own
political, economic, and social institutions? The available data suggest
that they did.
The democracy of the Fair Play settlers encompassed popular sovereignty,
political equality, popular consultation, majority rule, religious
freedom, an open class structure, free land, free labor, and a value
system whose dominating feature was mutual helpfulness. The democracy of
Fair Play was basically the fair play of democracy.
Observable in this atmosphere were the traits of a developing American
character, traits which the frontier historian, Frederick Jackson
Turner, defined as democratic.[24] These included the composite
nationality of a population of mixed national origins; the self-reliance
which the new experience of the frontier developed; the independence,
both of action and in spirit, which the relative isolation of the
environment promoted; a rationalistic, or pragmatic, approach to
problems necessitated by circumstances lacking in precedents for
solution; and perhaps a growing nationalism, marked by an identification
with something larger than the mere Provincial assembly, something
existing, but not yet realized, the American nation.
These traits, in conjunction with Turner's thesis, are a major concern
of the final chapter. That chapter will provide an evaluation of
frontier ethnography as a technique for testing the validity of this
interpretation of Turner's thesis on the Fair Play frontier of the West
Branch Valley.
FOOTNOTES:
[1] Quoted in Austin Ranney and Willmoore Kendall, _Democracy and the
American Party System_ (New York, 1956), pp. 23-24.
[2] Don Martindale, _American Society_ (New York, 1960), p. 105.
[3] National Education Association, Educational Policies Commission,
_The Education of Free Men in American Democracy_ (Washington, 1941),
pp. 25-26.
[4] Pp. 18-39.
[5] Smith, _Laws_, II, 195.
[6] "Eleanor Coldren's Deposition," pp. 220-222; Lycoming County Docket
No. 2, Commencing 1797, No. 32; _see also_, Chapter Two, _passim_.
[7] _Pennsylvania Archives_, Second Series, III, 217; and the Muncy
Historical Society, Wagner Collection, Hamilton Papers.
[8] Ranney and Kendall, _Democracy and the American Party System_, p.
47. The authors argue here that the history of town meetings in America
and the Parliamentary system in Great Britain shows hundreds of years
without majority tyranny or civil war.
[9] Chapter Six, pp. 78, 84.
[10] _Pennsylvania Archives_, Second Series, III, 770. For example, John
Chatham, an English miller, was elected coroner in 1782, a minor role to
be sure, but he was supported.
[11] Smith, _Laws_, II, 196-197. In _Sweeney_ vs. _Toner_, an
Englishman, Toner's property right was upheld because his absence was
for military service, despite the fact that Sweeney, a Scotch-Irishman,
was a majority representative.
[12] Linn, "Indian Land and Its Fair Play Settlers," p. 424. The case
cited here, _Huff_ vs. _Satcha_, saw the use of militia to drive off a
landholder whose title had been denied by the Fair Play men.
[13] _Pennsylvania Archives_, Second Series, III, 217-218, 417-418, and
518-522. On page 417, fifty-three officers and soldiers are described as
"early in the service from the unpurchased land." Thirty-nine
petitioners (p. 520) sought pre-emption, a claim repeated over two years
later by some fifty-three settlers. The petition to the Supreme Council
(p. 217) for protection from the Indians in 1778 prior to the Great
Runaway bore forty-seven names.
[14] _See_ Chapter Two for a demographic analysis of the Fair Play
settlers.
[15] Clark, "Pioneer Life in the New Purchase," p. 28.
[16] "Eleanor Coldren's Deposition," p. 222.
[17] _Ibid._
[18] _See_ Chapter One for the geographic bounds of the Fair Play
territory. The Fair Play territory did not come under State jurisdiction
until the second Stanwix Treaty in 1784. Regardless, it must be
remembered that settlers on the south bank of the Susquehanna actually
participated in the political, economic, and social life of the
community. The fact that these participants were often community leaders
was pointed out in Chapter Six.
[19] _See_ the footnotes in Chapter Five referring to _The Journal of
William Colbert_.
[20] Smith, _Laws_, II, 195.
[21] Leyburn, _The Scotch-Irish_, pp. 311-314.
[22] _The Journal of William Colbert._ Colbert had been received at
Annanias McFaddon's (Aug. 20, 1792, Sept. 4, 1793) and John Hamilton's
(July 23, 1792, Aug. 20, 1793), where he both preached and lodged. Both
were Presbyterians, and, as noted earlier, Colbert expressed grave
doubts concerning his efforts there.
[23] "Diary of the Unknown Traveler," p. 307.
[24] Turner, _Frontier and Section_, p. 5.
CHAPTER EIGHT
_Frontier Ethnography and the Turner Thesis_
In the first chapter of his recent study, _The Making of an American
Community_, Merle Curti suggests that "less is to be gained by further
analysis of Turner's brilliant and far-ranging but often ambiguous
presentations than by patient and careful study of particular frontier
areas in the light of the investigator's interpretation of Turner's
theory."[1] This study was undertaken with just such a purpose in mind.
In addition, it is hoped that this investigation will give some insight
into the value of ethnography and its usefulness as an analytic
technique in studying the frontier.
By definition, ethnography is "the scientific description of nations or
races of men, their customs, habits, and differences."[2] Frontier
ethnography is the scientific description of the full institutional
pattern of a particular group of people, located specifically on a
certain frontier, within a certain period of time. That institutional
pattern is described from the analysis of data concerning the political
and economic systems, and the social structure, including religion, the
family, the value system, social classes, art, music, recreation,
mythology, and folklore. Also, as noted in the first two chapters of
this study, geographic and demographic data have been analyzed in an
attempt to picture the area under observation and the people who
inhabited that region. It is believed that these various data present a
fuller view of the "way of life" of these people than the earlier
politico-military accounts of nineteenth-century historians.
Of course, there are certain limitations in this particular analysis.
This study is not meant to be typical of the frontier experience or
necessarily representative of frontier communities. However, it would
have broader implications if a similar study were made for Greene County
in western Pennsylvania, where a group composed mainly of Scotch-Irish
Presbyterians also set up a "Fair Play system."[3] Furthermore, it is my
interpretation of Turner's thesis which is being tested, not the
validity of the thesis.
Despite the fact that the Fair Play settlers and their "system" have
been referred to by both Pennsylvania and frontier historians in the
twentieth century, neither the settlers nor their system has been
studied in depth.[4] Meginness and Linn, the foremost historians of the
West Branch, were both nineteenth-century writers, and, unfortunately,
twentieth-century scholars have not considered the Fair Play settlers
worthy of their study. Biographical studies are limited to the work of
Edwin MacMinn on Colonel Antes, completed in 1900. As a result, there
has been a definite need for an investigation collating the researches
of these earlier historians and based upon the available primary data.
This study is an attempt to fill the void.
The seeming paucity of primary source materials is a further
complication to the student of Fair Play history. However, letters,
journals, diaries, probate records, tax lists, pension claims, and court
records offer adequate data to the inquiring historian, although the
extra-legal character of the settlement seriously reduced the public
record. Nevertheless, the broad scope of ethnography provides the kind
of study for which the data supply a rather full picture of life on this
frontier. Political, economic, and social patterns are discernible,
although no day-by-day account for any extended period has been
uncovered.
This ethnographic analysis demonstrates the merits of the "civilization
approach" to history. Examining every aspect of a society, it provides
more than a mere "battles and leaders" account. The result gives insight
into a "style of life" rather than a chronology of highlights. This
study has investigated the full institutional structure of the Fair Play
frontier, evaluating that structure in terms of a developing democracy,
or, at least, of democratic tendencies.
American civilization was a frontier civilization from the outset, and
that frontier experience was significant in the development of American
democracy. Frederick Jackson Turner's frontier thesis, which has
probably inspired more historical scholarship than any other American
thesis, stated that "the existence of an area of free land, its
continuous recession, and the advance of American settlement westward,
explain American development."[5] That development took place on
successive frontiers stretching from the Atlantic to the Pacific Coast
over a period of almost three centuries. Turner's second frontier, the
Allegheny Mountains, marked the farmers' frontier of the Fair Play
settlers of the West Branch Valley.
It was on the frontier, according to Turner, that the "true" traits of
American character emerged; its composite nationality, its self-reliant
spirit, its independence of thought and action, its nationalism, and its
rationalistic approach to the problems of a pioneer existence. The Fair
Play settlers, American frontiersmen, suggested some of these traits in
their character. Recognizing the data limitations of this study, the
evidence indicates some validation of this test of Turner's model.
However, it would be presumptuous indeed to conclude that this analysis
offers a complete demonstration of the impact of the frontier in the
development of traits of character which Turner classified as American.
The composite nationality of the Fair Play settlers is particularly
evident from the demographic analysis offered at the beginning of this
study.[6] Seven different national stock groups appeared on this
frontier: Scotch-Irish, English, German, Scots, Irish, Welsh, and
French. Here, indeed, was "the crucible of the frontier," in which
settlers were "Americanized, liberated, and fused into a mixed race."[7]
The legendary self-reliance of the frontiersman is not without some
basis in fact. The nature of the frontier experience itself was
conducive to its development. Its appearance among the Fair Play
settlers is implied in various contexts. Politically, it is suggested in
the creation of the Fair Play men, the annual governing tribunal, an
extra-legal political agency in this extra-Provincial territory.
Economically, it is intimated in the image of the frontier farmer
tackling the wilderness with rifle and plow and the unbounded
determination to make a better life for himself and his family.
Socially, the self-reliance of these doughty pioneers is indicated in
the continuation of their religious practices and worship, despite the
absence of any organized church. Their self reliance is indicated, as
well, in the flexibility of a social structure whose main criterion was
achievement, a society in which "what" you were was more important than
"who" you were. These examples are, of course, only brief glimpses of
the elusive trait of self-reliance which Turner considered typical of
the frontier.
Independence, or the ability to act independently, was a characteristic
frontier trait, according to Turner. The Fair Play settlers presented
some contradictions. It is true that they organized their own system of
government and the code under which it operated. However, their key
leaders lived on the periphery; and the settlers petitioned the
Commonwealth government for assistance in the vital questions of defense
and pre-emption rights.[8] The Fair Play settlers were generally
independent, a condition promoted by the necessities of frontier life;
but, obviously, they were not isolated.
It is difficult to assess the nationalizing influence of this particular
frontier. In the first place, aside from the Second Continental
Congress, there was no national government during most of the Fair Play
period. The Articles of Confederation were not ratified until 1781, and
Fair Play territory was opened to settlement after the Treaty of Fort
Stanwix in 1784. Furthermore, the patriotism of the Fair Play settlers
seems to reflect an ethnocentric pride in their own territory and an
exaggerated interpretation of its significance to the developing
nation.[9] Their patriotism was apparently for an ideal, liberty, to
which they were devoted, having already enjoyed it in a nation only
recently declared, but yet to be recognized. And, for its support, there
had been a rush to the colors by these settlers "beyond the purchase
line."[10] The "real American Revolution," as John Adams described it,
was "in the minds and hearts of the people," and it was "effected before
the war Commenced."[11] That revolution had already occurred in the
Fair Play territory prior to the firing of "the shot heard round the
world" on Lexington green.
The frontier experience had a profound influence on the development of
the American philosophy of pragmatism. Turner claimed that it was "to
the frontier" that "the American intellect owe[d] its striking
characteristics."[12] And the Fair Play settlers showed that
... coarseness and strength combined with acuteness and
inquisitiveness; that practical, inventive turn of mind, quick to
find expedients; that masterful grasp of material things, lacking in
the artistic but powerful to effect great ends; that restless,
nervous energy; that dominant individualism, working for good and
for evil, and withal that buoyancy and exuberance which comes with
freedom....[13]
The frontiersman of the West Branch was a free spirit in a free land, a
doer rather than a thinker, more concerned with the "hows" than the
"whys" of survival. This practical approach to problems can be seen in
the homes he built, the tools he made, the clothes he wore, the
political and social systems under which he operated, and the set of
values by which he was motivated. The development of these
characteristic American traits owed much to the frontier and the new
experiences which it offered.
This ethnographic analysis of the Fair Play settlers of the West Branch
Valley has attempted to present a clearer picture of the "style of life"
on this particular frontier and, in so doing, to suggest a further
technique for the frontier historian. There are, no doubt, certain
defects in this specific study, but the fault lies with the limitations
of the data rather than the technique. The scope of this investigation
has carried into questions of geography, demography, politics,
economics, social systems, and leadership. Unfortunately, the frontier
had not yet provided the leisure essential to artistic and aesthetic
pursuits. Consequently, these areas were given a limited treatment.
Furthermore, the mythology and folklore of this valley offered little of
record. However, the breadth of this analysis has furnished evidence of
the existence of democracy on this frontier and, thus, support for
Turner's thesis, or at least for this interpretation of it.
The geographic analysis has clarified the question of the Tiadaghton,
demonstrating that Lycoming Creek, rather than Pine Creek, was the true
eastern boundary of the Fair Play territory. The substantial destruction
of an erroneous legend has been the main contribution of the geographic
part of this study.[14] It is now clear that the Fair Play territory
extended from Lycoming Creek, on the north side of the West Branch of
the Susquehanna River, to the Great Island, just east of Lock Haven.
This frontier region was beyond the legal limit of settlement of the
Province and the Commonwealth from 1769 to 1784. Hence, within its
limits was formed the extra-legal political system known as Fair Play.
The demographic portion of this study has added to the undermining of
the frontier myth of the Scotch-Irish. The evidence presented here
indicates that it was the frontier, rather than national origin, which
affected the behavior of the pioneers of the West Branch Valley. The
Fair Play settlers, a mixed population of seven national stock groups,
reacted similarly to the common problems of the frontier experience. In
one important exception, the Fair Play system itself, there is, however,
an apparent contradiction. Since no account of any "fair play system"
has turned up in the annals of the Cumberland Valley, the American
reservoir of the Scotch-Irish, it seems quite probable that the "system"
originated in either Northern Ireland or Scotland, or else on the
frontier itself. This probability offers good ground for further study,
particularly when the existence of a similar "system" in Greene County,
which was found in conjunction with this investigation, is
considered.[15] If the Fair Play system originated on the frontier, why
did not it also appear on the Virginia and Carolina frontiers where the
Scotch-Irish predominated? Regardless, the lack of data corroborating
the American origin of the Fair Play system leads to the conclusion that
the germ of this political organization was brought to this country by
the Scotch-Irish from their cultural heritage, and that those elements
were found usable under the frontier conditions of both central and
southwestern Pennsylvania. If so, the politics of "fair play" will add
to, rather than detract from, the myth of the Scotch-Irish.
This study has also brought forward the first complete account of court
records validating the activities of the Fair Play men. Mainly concerned
with the adjudication of land questions, this frontier tribunal
developed an unwritten code which encompassed the problems of
settlement, tenure, and ejectment. Subsequently reviewed in the regular
courts of the counties of which the Fair Play territory became a part,
these cases provide substantial evidence of the existence of a "system"
as well as insight into the manner of its operation. The fairness of the
Fair Play system is marked by the fact that none of the decisions of its
tribunal was later reversed in the established county courts.
Supplemented by the Committee of Safety for Northumberland County and
augmented by peripheral leaders, who gave them a voice in the higher
councils of the State, the Fair Play men and their government proved
adequate to the needs of the settlers, until all were driven off in the
Great Runaway of 1778.
Some corroboration for the legendary tale of a "Fair Play Declaration of
Independence" was found in the course of this study. Although
consisting, in the main, of accounts culled from the records of
Revolutionary War pension claimants made some eighty years after the
event, the evidence is that of a contemporary.[16] However, the most
common objection to this conclusion, that the Fair Play declaration was
merely the reading of a copy of Jefferson's Declaration, is
unsubstantiated by the archival descriptions.[17] Perhaps the Fair Play
declaration is apocryphal, but, lacking valid disclaimers, the Hamilton
data offer some basis for a judgment. It is the tentative conclusion of
this writer that there was such a declaration on the banks of Pine Creek
in July of 1776.
The Fair Play territory was truly "an area of free land" in which a "new
order of Americanism" emerged.[18] Individualistic and self-reliant of
necessity, the pioneers of this farmers' frontier rationally developed
their solution to the problem of survival in the wilderness, a
democratic squatter sovereignty. With land readily available and a free
labor system to work it, provided that the family was large enough to
assure sufficient "hands," these agrarian frontiersmen not only
cultivated the soil but also a free society. And their cooperative
spirit, despite their mixed national origins, was markedly noticeable at
harvesttime. From such spirit are communities formed, and from such
communities a democratic society emerges.
This analysis has not only described the geography and demography, the
politics and economics of the Fair Play settlers; it has also examined
the basis and structure of this society, including the value system
which undergirded it. The results have pictured the religious liberty
extant in a frontier society isolated from any regular or established
church, a liberty of conscience which left each man free to worship
according to the dictates of his own faith. This freedom, this right to
choose for himself, made the Fair Play settler surprisingly receptive to
other groups and their practices, practices which he was free to reject,
and often did.[19] This analysis has also pointed up the class structure
and its significance in promoting order in a frontier community. And
finally, an examination of the value system of these Pennsylvania
pioneers has provided an understanding of why they behaved as they did.
The last major aspect of this investigation concerned the nature of
leadership. Determined by the people, and thus essentially democratic,
it had certain peculiar characteristics. In the first place, the top
leaders tended to come from the Fair Play community in its broadest
social sense, but not from the Fair Play territory in its narrow
geographic sense.[20] Secondly, the political participation of the Fair
Play settlers, if office-holding is any criterion, emphasizes the high
degree of involvement in terms of the total population.[21] And last,
this leadership appeared to be overextended when faced with the problem
of defending its own frontier and the new nation which was striving so
desperately for independence. Consequently, it was forced to turn to
established government for support. This may have been the embryonic
beginning of the nationalism which the frontier fostered in later
generations.
What then, is the meaning of this particular study, an ethnographic
interpretation of Turner's thesis? Turner himself, gave the best
argument for ethnography. He said that
... the economist, the political scientist, the psychologist, the
sociologist, the geographer, the student of literature, of art, of
religion--all the allied laborers in the study of society--have
contributions to make to the equipment of the historian. These
contributions are partly of material, partly of tools, partly of new
points of view, new hypotheses, new suggestions of relations,
causes, and emphasis. Each of these special students is in some
danger of bias by his particular point of view, by his exposure to
see simply the thing in which he is primarily interested, and also
by his effort to deduce the universal laws of his separate science.
The historian, on the other hand, is exposed to the danger of
dealing with the complex and interacting social forces of a period
or of a country from some single point of view to which his special
training or interest inclines him. If the truth is to be made known,
the historian must so far familiarize himself with the work, and
equip himself with the training of his sister-subjects that he can
at least avail himself of their results and in some reasonable
degree master the essential tools of their trade.[22]
Frontier ethnography is just such an effort.
The frontier ethnographer then, because of his interdisciplinary
approach, can capture the spirit of pioneer life. And if, as Turner
suggested, the frontier explains American development, then frontier
ethnography presents an understanding of the American ethos with its
ideals of discovery, democracy, and individualism.[23] These ideals
characterize "the American spirit and the meaning of America in world
history."[24]
The ideal of discovery, "the courageous determination to break new
paths," as Turner called it, was abundantly evident in the Fair Play
territory of the West Branch Valley.[25] This innovating spirit can be
seen in the piercing of the Provincial boundary, despite the restrictive
legislation to the contrary, and the establishment of homes in Indian
territory.[26] It was also demonstrated in a marvelous adaptability in
solving the new problems of the frontier, problems for which the old
dogmas were no longer applicable. The new world of the Susquehanna
frontier made new men, Americans.
Self-determination, the ideal of democracy as we have defined it, was
the cornerstone of Fair Play society. Its particular contribution was
the Fair Play "system" with its popularly elected tribunal of Fair Play
men. Perhaps this was the proper antecedent of the commission form of
local government which came into vogue on the progressive wave of the
late nineteenth and early twentieth centuries. Regardless, the
geographic limitations of the Fair Play territory, the frequency of
elections, and the open conduct of meetings tend to substantiate the
democratic evaluation which has been made of the politics of this
frontier community. Furthermore, as was pointed out in the last chapter,
this self-determination was the key characteristic of the economic and
social life of these people.[27]
The pioneer ideal of creative and competitive individualism, which
Turner considered America's best contribution to history and to
progress, was an essential of the frontier experience which became an
integral part of the American mythology.[28] The "myth of the happy
yeoman," as one historian called it, is still revered in American
folklore and respected in American politics, whether it is outmoded or
not.[29] The primitive nature of frontier life developed this
characteristically American trait and the family, the basic
organization of social control, promoted it. It was this promotion, with
its antipathy to any outside control, which stimulated the Revolution,
creating an American nation from an already existing American character.
The individualism of the West Branch frontier is also apparent in the
administration of justice. The Fair Play system emphasized the
personality of law, by its very title, rather than the organized
machinery of justice.[30] Frontier law was personal and direct,
resulting in the unchecked development of the individual, a circumstance
which Turner considered the significant product of this frontier
democracy.[31] Being personal, though, it had meaning for those affected
by it, as an anecdote noted earlier indicated.[32]
Individualism has become somewhat of an anachronism in a mass society,
but its obsolescence today is part of the current American tragedy. The
buoyant self-confidence which it inspired has made much of the American
dream a reality. Legislation, it is true, has taken the place of free
lands as the means of preserving democracy, but it will be a hollow
triumph if that legislation suppresses this essential trait of the
American character, its individualism. No intelligent person today would
recommend a return to the laissez-faire individualism of the Social
Darwinists of the late nineteenth century, but it must be admitted that
a society emphasizing the worth of the individual and dedicated to
principles of justice and fair play, the banner under which the
frontiersmen of the West Branch operated, has genuine merit.
Whether the historian is analyzing old frontiers or charting new ones,
the timeless question remains: does man have the intelligence adequate
to secure his own survival? The old frontiers, such as the Fair Play
territory of the West Branch of the Susquehanna, were free lands of
opportunity for a better life, and the history of the westward movement
of the American people gives ample proof of their conquest. But the new
frontiers are not so clearly marked or so easily conquered. Perhaps a
re-examination of the history of the old frontiers can give increased
meaning to the problems of the new. This investigation was attempted, in
part, to serve such a purpose.
The intelligent solution to the problem of survival for the pioneers of
the West Branch Valley was fair play. The ethnography of the Fair Play
settlers is the record of the democratic development of an American
community under the impact of the new experience of the frontier.
FOOTNOTES:
[1] P. 2.
[2] _The Oxford Universal Dictionary_ (Oxford, 1955), p. 637.
[3] Solon and Elizabeth Buck, _The Planting of Civilization in Western
Pennsylvania_ (Pittsburgh, 1939), pp. 431 and 451.
[4] _See_, for example, Dunaway, _A History of Pennsylvania_, p. 146,
and _The Scotch-Irish of Colonial Pennsylvania_, pp. 159-160; _also_,
Leyburn, _The Scotch-Irish_, p. 306.
[5] Turner, _The Frontier in American History_, p. 1.
[6] _See_ Chapter Two.
[7] Quoted by Ray Allen Billington in his introduction to Turner,
_Frontier and Section_, p. 5.
[8] _Pennsylvania Archives_, Second Series, III, 217-218, 518-522.
[9] This pride was notably demonstrated in the insistence of the Fair
Play settlers that a stand be made at Fort Augusta following the Great
Runaway. Previous to this, they had pleaded for support for "our Common
Cause" in the defense of this frontier. _Pennsylvania Archives_, Second
Series, III, 217.
[10] _Pennsylvania Archives_, Second Series, X, 27-31, 417, and Fifth
Series, II, 29-35.
[11] Quoted in Clinton Rossiter, _The First American Revolution_ (New
York, 1956), pp. 4-5.
[12] Turner, _The Frontier in American History_, p. 37.
[13] _Ibid._
[14] _See also_, George D. Wolf, "The Tiadaghton Question," _The Lock
Haven Review_, Series I, No. 5 (1963), 61-71.
[15] Buck, _The Planting of Civilization in Western Pennsylvania_, pp.
431, 451.
[16] Anna Jackson Hamilton to Hon. George C. Whiting, Commissioner of
Pensions, Dec. 16, 1858, Wagner Collection, Muncy Historical Society.
[17] _Colonial Records_, X, 634-635. The following resolution of
Congress was entered in the minutes of the Council of Safety on July 5,
1776:
_Resolved_, That Copies of the Declaration be sent to the several
Assemblies, Conventions, and Councils of Safety, and to the several
Commanding Officers of the Continental Troops, that it be proclaimed
in each of the United States, and at the Head of the Army.
By order of Congress.
sign'd, JOHN HANCOCK, Presid't.
Provision was also made for the reading in Philadelphia at 12 noon on
July 8, and letters were sent to Bucks, Chester, Northampton, Lancaster,
and Berks counties with copies of the Declaration to be posted on Monday
the 8th where elections for delegates were to be held. For some reason,
the frontier counties of Bedford, Cumberland, Westmoreland, York, and
Northumberland, contiguous to the Fair Play territory, were omitted from
these instructions.
[18] Turner, _The Frontier in American History_, pp. 1, 18.
[19] _The Journal of William Colbert_ gives frequent testimony to this
statement, as indicated in Chapter Five.
[20] _See_ the map in Chapter One for the geographic boundaries of the
Fair Play territory. Note the location of the top leaders, Henry and
Frederick Antes and Robert Fleming, in Chapter Six.
[21] The number of different office-holders runs to better than ten per
cent of the population.
[22] Turner, _The Frontier in American History_, pp. 333-334.
[23] _Ibid._, pp. 306-307.
[24] _Ibid._, p. 306.
[25] _Ibid._
[26] Meginness, _Otzinachson_ (1857), pp. 163-164.
[27] _See_ Chapter Seven for an evaluation of "Democracy on the
Pennsylvania Frontier."
[28] Turner, _The Frontier in American History_, p. 307.
[29] Richard Hofstadter, "The Myth of the Happy Yeoman," _American
Heritage_, VII, No. 3 (April, 1956), 43-53.
[30] The term "the personality of the law" is Turner's and emphasizes
the men who carried out the law, rather than its structure. The fact
that the ruling tribunal of the West Branch Valley was referred to as
the "Fair Play men" rather than the "tribunal" illustrates this
contention.
[31] Turner, _The Frontier in American History_, pp. 253-254.
[32] _See_ Chapter Three, n. 24.
_Bibliography_
BOOKS
Albion, Robert G. and Leonidas Dodson (eds.). _Philip Vickers Fithian:
Journal, 1775-1776._ Princeton, 1934.
American Council of Learned Societies. "Report of the Committee on
Linguistic and National Stocks in the Population of the United States,"
_Annual Report of the American Historical Association for the Year
1931_, I. Washington, 1932.
Andrews, Charles M. _Colonial Folkways._ New Haven, 1919.
----. _Guide to the Materials for American History to 1783 in the Public
Record Office of Great Britain._ Washington, 1912.
---- and Frances G. Davenport. _Guide to the Manuscript Materials for
the History of the United States to 1783, in the British Museum, in
Minor London Archives, and in the Libraries of Oxford and Cambridge._
Washington, 1908.
Barck, Oscar T., Jr., and Hugh T. Lefler. _Colonial America._ New York,
1958.
Bates, Samuel P. _Greene County._ Chicago, 1888.
Becker, Carl L. _Beginnings of the American People._ Ithaca, N. Y.,
1960.
Bell, Herbert. _History of Northumberland County, Pennsylvania._
Chicago, 1891.
Billington, Ray Allen. _Westward Expansion._ New York, 1960.
Boyd, Julian P., and Robert J. Taylor (eds.). _The Susquehanna Company
Papers_, 1750-1775. 6 vols. Ithaca, N. Y., 1962.
Bridenbaugh, Carl and Jessica. _Rebels and Gentlemen: Philadelphia in
the Age of Franklin._ New York, 1962.
Buck, Solon J. and Elizabeth H. _The Planting of Civilization in Western
Pennsylvania._ Pittsburgh, 1939.
Calhoun, Arthur W. _A Social History of the American Family_, I. New
York, 1960.
Cocks, Robert S. _One Hundred and Fifty Years of Evangelism, The History
of Northumberland Presbytery, 1811-1961._ 1961.
Commager, Henry S. _Documents of American History_, I. New York, 1958.
Crick, B. R. and Miriam Alman (eds.). _A Guide to Manuscripts Relating
to America in Great Britain and Ireland._ New York, 1961.
Curti, Merle, _et al._ _The Making of an American Community, A Case
Study of Democracy in a Frontier County._ Stanford, 1959.
Day, Richard E. (comp.). _Calendar of the Sir William Johnson
Manuscripts in the New York State Library._ Albany, N. Y., 1909.
DePuy, Henry F. _A Bibliography of the English Colonial Treaties with
the American Indians including a Synopsis of Each Treaty._ New York,
1917.
DeSchweinitz, Edmund A. _The Life and Times of David Zeisberger._
Philadelphia, 1870.
Doddridge, Joseph. _Notes on the Settlement and Indian Wars of the
Western Parts of Virginia and Pennsylvania._ Pittsburgh, 1912.
Dunaway, Wayland F. _A History of Pennsylvania._ Englewood Cliffs, N.
J., 1948.
----. _The Scotch-Irish of Colonial Pennsylvania._ Chapel Hill, 1944.
Egle, William H. _History of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania._
Philadelphia, 1883.
---- (ed.). _Historical Register: Notes and Queries, Historical and
Genealogical, relating to Interior Pennsylvania_, 2 vols. Harrisburg,
1883-84.
----. _Pennsylvania Genealogies; Scotch-Irish and German._ Harrisburg,
1886, 1896.
Frost, Robert. _Complete Poems of Robert Frost._ New York, 1949.
Hall, Carrie A., and Rose G. Kretsinger. _The Romance of the Patchwork
Quilt in America._ New York, 1935.
Hanna, C. A. _The Scotch-Irish._ 2 vols. New York, 1902.
Jones, U. J. _History of the Early Settlements of the Juniata Valley._
Philadelphia, 1856.
Klett, Guy S. _Presbyterians in Colonial Pennsylvania._ Philadelphia,
1937.
Leopold, Richard W., and Arthur S. Link (eds.). _Problems in American
History._ Englewood Cliffs, N. J., 1957.
Leyburn, James G. _The Scotch-Irish: A Social History._ Chapel Hill,
1962.
Lincoln, Charles A. (comp.). _Calendar of Sr. William Johnson
Manuscripts in the Library of the American Antiquarian Society._
("Transactions of the Society," Vol. XI.) Worcester, 1906.
Linn, John B. _History of Centre and Clinton Counties, Pennsylvania._
Philadelphia, 1883.
----. _Annals of Buffalo Valley._ Harrisburg, 1877.
MacMinn, Edwin. _On the Frontier with Colonel Antes._ Camden, N. J.,
1900.
Maginnis, T. H., Jr. _The Irish Contribution to American Independence._
Philadelphia, 1913.
Martin, A. E., and H. H. Shenk. _Pennsylvania History Told by
Contemporaries._ New York, 1925.
Martindale, Don. _American Society._ New York, 1960.
Maynard, D. S. _Historical View of Clinton County, from its Earliest
Settlement to the Present Time._ Lock Haven, 1875.
Meginness, John F. _Biographical Annals of the West Branch Valley._
Williamsport, 1889.
----. _History of Lycoming County, Pennsylvania._ Chicago, 1872.
----. _Otzinachson: or a History of the West Branch Valley of the
Susquehanna._ Philadelphia, 1857.
----. _Otzinachson: A History of the West Branch Valley of the
Susquehanna._ Williamsport, 1889.
National Education Association. _The Education of Free Men in American
Democracy._ Washington, 1941.
O'Callaghan, E. B. _Documentary History of the State of New York_, I.
Albany, N. Y., 1849.
_The Oxford Universal Dictionary._ Oxford, 1955.
Parkes, Henry Bamford. _The American Experience._ New York, 1959.
The Pennsylvania Writers' Project, Work Projects Administration. _A
Picture of Clinton County._ Williamsport, 1942.
----. _A Picture of Lycoming County._ Williamsport, 1939.
Proud, Robert. _History of Pennsylvania in North America._ 2 vols.
Philadelphia, 1797, 1798.
Ranney, Austin, and Willmoore Kendall. _Democracy and the American Party
System._ New York, 1956.
Rossiter, Clinton. _The First American Revolution._ New York, 1956.
Rothermund, Dietmar. _The Layman's Progress._ Philadelphia, 1961.
Rupp, Israel D. (ed.). _A Collection of Thirty Thousand Names of German,
Swiss, Dutch, French, Portuguese, and other Immigrants in Pennsylvania,
Chronologically Arranged from 1727 to 1776._ Harrisburg, 1856.
Sanderson, W. H. _Historical Reminiscences_, ed. Henry W. Shoemaker.
Altoona, 1920.
Sergeant, Thomas. _View of the Land Laws of Pennsylvania with Notices of
its Early History and Legislation._ Philadelphia and Pittsburgh, 1838.
Shimmell, Lewis S. _Border Warfare in Pennsylvania During the
Revolution._ Harrisburg, 1901.
Singmaster, Elsie. _Pennsylvania's Susquehanna._ Harrisburg, 1950.
Smith, Charles. _Laws of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania_, II.
Philadelphia, 1810.
Stevens, Benjamin F. _Catalogue Index of Manuscripts in the Archives of
England, France, Holland, and Spain relating to America, 1763-1783._
London, 1870-1902. (In manuscript in the Library of Congress.)
Stevens, Joseph. _History of the Presbytery of Northumberland._
Williamsport, 1881.
Sullivan, James (ed.). _The Papers of Sir William Johnson_, I-III.
Albany, 1921.
Taylor, George R. _The Turner Thesis Concerning the Role of the Frontier
in American History_ ("Problems in American Civilization."). Boston,
1956.
Theiss, Lewis E. "Early Agriculture," _Susquehanna Tales_ (Sunbury,
1955), 88-89.
Tome, Philip. _Pioneer Life; or Thirty Years a Hunter._ Harrisburg,
1928.
Trinterud, Leonard J. _The Forming of an American Tradition: A
Re-Examination of Colonial Presbyterianism._ Philadelphia, 1949.
Turner, Frederick Jackson. _Frontier and Section: Selected Essays of
Frederick Jackson Turner._ Intro. by Ray Allen Billington. Englewood,
Cliffs, N. J., 1961.
----. _The Frontier in American History._ New York, 1963.
Volwiler, Albert T. _George Croghan and the Westward Movement
1741-1783._ Cleveland, 1926.
Wallace, Paul A. W. _Conrad Weiser._ Philadelphia, 1945.
----. _Indians in Pennsylvania._ Harrisburg, 1961.
----. _Pennsylvania: Seed of a Nation._ New York, 1962.
Webb, Walter Prescott. _The Great Plains._ New York, 1931.
Wertenbaker, Thomas J. _The First Americans 1607-1690._ New York, 1962.
----. _The Founding of American Civilization: The Middle Colonies._ New
York, 1949.
Wittke, Carl. _We Who Built America._ 1963.
Wright, J. E., and Doris S. Corbett. _Pioneer Life In Western
Pennsylvania._ Pittsburgh, 1940.
Wright, Louis B. _Culture on the Moving Frontier._ Bloomington, Ind.,
1955.
----. _The Atlantic Frontier._ New York, 1947.
----. _The Cultural Life of the American Colonies, 1607-1763._ New York,
1957.
Yeates, Jasper. _Pennsylvania Reports_, I. Philadelphia and St. Louis,
1871.
PUBLIC DOCUMENTS
_Appearance Docket Commencing 1797_, No. 2. Lycoming County, Office of
the Prothonotor, Williamsport.
_Colonial Records_, IX. Harrisburg, 1852.
_Colonial Records_, X. Harrisburg, 1852.
_Colonial Records_, XI. Harrisburg, 1852.
_Colonial Records_, XII. Harrisburg, 1852.
_Colonial Records_, XX. Harrisburg, 1852.
_Pennsylvania Archives_, [First Series], XI. Philadelphia, 1855.
----, [First Series], XII. Philadelphia, 1856.
----, Second Series, II. Harrisburg, 1876.
----, Second Series, III. Harrisburg, 1875.
----, Second Series, XVII. Harrisburg, 1890.
----, Third Series, XI-XXII. Harrisburg, 1897.
_New Purchase Applications, Nos. 1823 and 2611_, April 3, 1769. Bureau
of Land Records, Harrisburg.
_Report of the Commission to Locate the Site of the Frontier Forts of
Pennsylvania._ Harrisburg, 1916.
ARTICLES AND ESSAYS
Baelyn, Bernard. "Political Experiences and Enlightenment Ideas in
Eighteenth-Century America," _American Historical Review_, LXVII
(January, 1962), 339-351.
Beck, Herbert H. "Martin Meylin, A Progenitor of the Pennsylvania
Rifle," _Papers Read Before the Lancaster County Historical Society_,
LIII (1949), 33-61.
Berger, Robert. "The Story of Baptist Beginnings in Lycoming County,"
_Now and Then_, XII (July, 1960), 274-280.
Bertin, Eugene P. "Primary Streams of Lycoming County," _Now and Then_,
VIII (October, 1947), 258-259.
Carter, John H. "The Committee of Safety of Northumberland County," _The
Northumberland County Historical Society Proceedings and Addresses_,
XVIII (1950), 33-54.
Champagne, Roger. "Family Politics Versus Constitutional Principles: The
New York Assembly Elections of 1768 and 1769," _William and Mary
Quarterly_, Third Series, XX (January, 1963), 57-79.
Clark, Chester. "Pioneer Life in the New Purchase," _Northumberland
County Historical Society Proceedings and Addresses_, VII (1935), 16-44.
Deans, John Bacon. "The Migration of the Connecticut Yankees to the West
Branch of the Susquehanna River," _Proceedings of the Northumberland
County Historical Society_ (1954), 34-55.
"Diary of the Unknown Traveler," _Now and Then_, X (January, 1954),
307-313.
"Eleanor Coldren's Depositions," _Now and Then_, XII (October, 1959),
220-222.
Everett, F. B. "Early Presbyterianism along the West Branch of the
Susquehanna River," _Journal Presbyterian Historical Society_, XII
(October, 1927), 481-485.
Garrison, Hazel Shields. "Cartography of Pennsylvania Before 1800,"
_Pennsylvania Magazine of History and Biography_, LIX (July, 1935),
255-283.
Gross, Rebecca F. "Postscript to the Week," Lock Haven _Express_ (August
3, 1963), 4.
Hofstadter, Richard. "The Myth of the Happy Yeoman," _American
Heritage_, VII (April, 1956), 43-53.
Johns, John O. "July 4, 1776--Rediscovered." _Commonwealth: The Magazine
for Pennsylvania_, II (July, 1948), 2-16.
Jordan, John W. (contributor), "Spangenberg's Notes of Travel to
Onondaga in 1745," _Pennsylvania Magazine of History and Biography_, II
(No. 4, 1878), 424-432.
Klett, Guy S. "Scotch-Irish Presbyterian Pioneering Along The
Susquehanna River," _Pennsylvania History_, XX (April, 1953), 165-179.
Linn, John Blair. "Indian Land and Its Fair Play Settlers, 1773-1785,"
_The Pennsylvania Magazine of History and Biography_, VII (No. 4, 1883),
420-425.
"Map Drawn by John Adlum, District Surveyor, 1792, Found Among the
Bingham Papers," _Now & Then_, X. (July, 1952), 148-150.
Meginness, John F. "The Scotch-Irish of the Upper Susquehanna Valley,"
_Scotch-Irish Society of America Proceedings and Addresses_, VIII
(1897), 159-169.
Neal, Don. "Freedom Outpost," _Pennsylvania Game News_, XXXI (July,
1960), 6-10.
Russell, Helen Herritt. "The Documented Story of the Fair Play Men and
Their Government," _Proceedings of the Northumberland County Historical
Society_, XXII (1958), 16-43.
----. "The Great Runaway of 1778," _The Journal of the Lycoming
Historical Society_, II (No. 4, 1961), 3-10.
----. "The Great Runaway of 1778," _The Northumberland County Historical
Society Proceedings and Addresses_, XXIII (1960), 1-16.
----. "Signers of the Pine Creek Declaration of Independence,"
_Proceedings of the Northumberland County Historical Society_, XXII
(1958), 1-15.
Silver, James W. (ed.). "An Autobiographical Sketch of Chauncey
Brockway," _Pennsylvania History_, XXV (April, 1958), 137-161.
Stille, C. J. "Pennsylvania and the Declaration of Independence,"
_Pennsylvania Magazine of History and Biography_, XIII (No. 4, 1889),
385-429.
Wallace, Paul A. W., Excerpt from letter, Sept. 2, 1952, _Now and Then_,
X (October, 1952), 184.
Wilkinson, Norman B. (ed.). "Mr. Davy's Diary," _Now and Then_, X
(April, 1954), 336-343.
Williams, E. Melvin. "The Scotch-Irish in Pennsylvania," _Americana_
XVII (1923), 374-387.
Williams, Richmond D. "Col. Thomas Hartley's Expedition of 1778," _Now
and Then_, XII (April, 1960), 258-259.
Wolf, George D. "The Tiadaghton Question," _The Lock Haven Review_,
Series I, No. 5 (1963), 61-71.
Wood, T. Kenneth (ed.). "Journal of an English Emigrant Farmer,"
_Lycoming Historical Society Proceedings and Papers_, No. 6 (1928).
----. _Now and Then_, X (July, 1952), 148-150.
---- (ed.). "Observations Made By John Bartram In His Travels From
Pennsylvania to Onondaga, Oswego and the Lake Ontario in 1743," _Now and
Then_, V (1936), 90.
UNPUBLISHED STUDIES
Turner, Morris K. "The Commercial Relations of the Susquehanna Valley
During the Colonial Period." Unpublished Ph.D. dissertation, University
of Pennsylvania, 1916.
_MANUSCRIPTS_
MANUSCRIPT COLLECTIONS
Zebulon Butler Papers, Wyoming Historical and Geological Society,
Wilkes-Barre, Pennsylvania.
Rev. John Cuthbertson's Diary, 1716-1791 (microfilm, 2 reels). The
Pennsylvania Historical and Museum Commission, Harrisburg.
Journal of William Colbert (typescript). Property of the Rev. Charles F.
Berkheimer of Williamsport, Pa. Original (1792-1794) at the Garrett
Biblical Seminary, Chicago. (Copy also at Lycoming College,
Williamsport.)
Revolutionary War Pension Claims (typescript). Wagner Collection, Muncy
Historical Society and Museum of History, Muncy, Pa.
PERSONAL CORRESPONDENCE
Mrs. Solon J. Buck, Washington, D. C, June 22, 1963, to the author.
Alfred P. James, Pittsburgh, July 16, 1963, to the author.
Peter Marshall, Berkeley, Calif., May 19, 1962, to the author.
Mrs. Phyllis V. Parsons, Collegeville, Pa., October 21, 1962, to the
author.
Paul A. W. Wallace, Harrisburg, February 16, 1961, July 30, August 24,
and December 17, 1962, to the author.
_Index_
Adlum, John, 9, 10, 13
Alexander, James, 26
Allegheny Mountains, 1, 2, 47, 102
Allison, Rev. Francis, 67
American Revolution, 23, 33, 34, 44, 49, 54, 68, 71, 84, 86, 103, 104, 110
Antes, Frederick, 77-82, 87
Antes, Henry, Jr., 40, 42, 76-83, 101
Antes, Henry, Sr., 78
Antes, Joseph, 42
Antes, Philip, 42
Antes, William, 78
Antes Mill, 79, 80, 82
Art, 70
Arthur, Robert, 41
Atlee, Samuel J., 5
Bald Eagle Creek, 22, 48, 67, 79
Bald Eagle Mountains, 14
Bald Eagle Township, 45, 46, 84
Bald Eagle's Nest, 48
Baptists, 68
Barn-raisings, 60, 95, 97
Bartram, John, 9-11, 13
Bertin, Eugene P., 7
"Beulah Land," 71
Bingham, William, 11
Blackwell, 71
Bonner, Barnabas, 40
Books, 69, 70
Brainerd, Rev. David, 67
Bryce, James, 89, 90
Bucks County, 19
Burnet's Hills, 6
"Cabin right," 37
Cabin-raisings, 48, 51, 60, 74, 95, 97
Caldwell, Bratton, 40, 41
Calhoune, George, 26
Cammal, 71
Campbell, Cleary, 26, 62
Campbell, William, Jr., 26
Carlisle Presbytery, 67
Charter of Privileges, 96
Chester County, 19, 20
Children, 55
Clark, Francis, 42
Clark, John, 26
Colbert, William, 61-63, 65, 70
Coldren, Eleanor, 40, 83, 92, 96
Commerce, 56
Committee of Safety, 34, 44, 45, 48, 54, 77, 81-83, 88, 106
Connecticut, 20, 21, 23, 31
Constitutional Convention, Pennsylvania (1776), 80, 83, 87
Continental Congress, 85, 103
Cooke, William, 26
"Corn right," 37
Council of Safety, 34, 44
Covenhoven, Robert, 22
Crawford, James, 77, 82, 83
Cruger, Daniel, 96
Culbertson, Mr., 67
Cumberland County, 19, 20
Cumberland Valley, 47, 105
Curti, Merle, 76, 100
Dauphin County, 19, 20
Davy, Mr., 56, 63
Declaration of Independence, 42, 43, 71, 74, 106
"Declaration of Independence" of Fair Play Settlers, 42-44, 61, 62, 71,
74, 83, 106, 107
Defense, 84, 103, 108
Demography, 16-29, 100, 104-107
DeSchweinitz, Edmund A., 8, 10
Dewitt, Abraham, 40
Dewitt, Peter, 95, 96
Dickinson, John, 43, 78, 81
Donegal Presbytery, 67
Dougherty, Samuel, 40
Drinking, 71, 72, 74, 75, 98
Duncan, Mr., 38
Dunn, William, 96
Economic institutions, 89-91, 97, 99-102, 104, 107, 109;
_see also_ Farming
Education, 17, 58, 65, 69
Ejectment, 35-39, 41, 106
English, 16-20, 24-26, 28, 54, 57, 58, 83, 84, 93, 95, 102
Ettwein, Bishop John, 9, 10, 13
Evans, Lewis, 9-11, 13
Fair Play men, 3, 31, 35-36, 38, 40, 41, 45, 73, 77, 81-83, 92, 94, 95,
97, 102, 109;
_see also_ Tribunal, Fair Play
Faith, 17, 68, 73, 75, 98, 99
Family life, 17, 58, 64, 65, 68, 100, 110
Ferguson, Thomas, 40
Fithian, Philip Vickers, 9, 10, 13, 43, 53, 61, 66, 67, 69, 79, 82
Fleming, Betsey, 53
Fleming, John, 43, 66, 67, 69, 77, 81, 82, 85
Fleming, Robert, 77, 79, 81, 83, 85, 87
Forster, Thomas, 26
Fort Antes, 34, 78, 80, 81, 86, 93
Fort Augusta, 22, 71, 79, 85
Fort Fleming, 81
Fort Horn, 34, 82-84, 86, 93
Fort Muncy, 34
Fort Reed, 34, 81, 83, 86
Fort Stanwix, Treaties of, 2, 3, 5-9, 12, 13, 21, 25, 29, 33, 34, 36,
67, 81, 86, 103
Forts, 64, 77, 81-83
Franklin, Benjamin, 52, 81
French, 2, 16-18, 58, 86, 95, 102
French and Indian War, 2, 16, 21
Galbreath, Robert, 9, 11
General Assembly, 9, 11, 79, 80, 81, 84, 86, 87, 96
George III, 84
Germans, 16-20, 24-26, 28, 54, 57, 58, 82-84, 93, 95, 102
Germantown, 78, 83
Great Island, 3, 12, 14, 34, 35, 40, 48, 67, 79, 81, 105
Great Runaway 21-23, 29, 33, 34, 71, 80, 84, 85, 88, 106
Great Shamokin Path, 47, 48
Greene County, 100, 101, 105
Grier, Rev. Isaac, 67
Grier, James, 40, 41
_Grier_ vs. _Tharpe_, 40
Gristmills, 54, 64
Haines, Joseph, 40
Hamilton, Alexander, 43, 77, 82, 85, 86
Hamilton, Anna Jackson, 43, 44, 62, 66, 71, 107
Hamilton, John, 44
Hartley, Col. Thomas, 22, 23
Harvest, 53, 74, 95, 98, 107
Hill, Aaron, 6
Homes, 51, 52, 59, 104
Horn, Samuel, 77, 82, 83, 85
Hospitality, 60, 73
Huff, Edmund, 40, 41
Huff-Latcha (Satcha) case, 40, 41, 92
Huggins, Mr., 95
Hughes, James, 38, 39
Hughes, Thomas, 38, 39, 77, 83
_Hughes_ vs. _Dougherty_, 36-40
Hunter, Col. Samuel, 21, 22, 84, 85
Immigration, 19-21, 24, 25, 28, 29
"Improvements," 37-39, 41, 58, 64, 72, 97
Indentured servitude, 64, 95
Independence, 68, 95, 103;
_see also_ Declaration of Independence
Indians, 2, 3, 5, 6, 8, 9, 13, 21-24, 29, 41, 42, 63, 67, 84, 86, 88,
94, 109
Individualism, 17, 72, 74, 98, 104, 107, 109, 110
Industry, 54, 55
Intermarriage, 58, 60
Irish, 16-18, 58, 83, 95, 102
Irwin (Irvin), James, 26, 40
Jamison, John, 26
Jersey Shore, 15, 19, 34, 42, 79, 84
Johnson, Sir William, 2, 21
Jones, Isaiah, 26
Juniata Valley, 20, 48
Kemplen, Thomas, 40, 41
Kendall, Willmoore, 91
Kincaid, Mr., 42
King, Robert, 26
King, William, 40, 41
Labor, 95, 99, 107
Lancaster, 70
Lancaster County, 19, 20, 38
Land claims, 32, 33, 35, 36, 38-40, 45, 62, 73, 80, 86, 92-94, 106
Land Office, 12, 21, 24, 86
Larrys Creek, 14, 15
Latcha, Jacob, 40
Law, unwritten, 37-39
Leadership, 36, 76-88, 104, 107, 108
Lewisburg, 67
Leyburn, James G., 37, 53
"Limping Messenger," 4, 8, 10
Linn, John Blair, 5-7, 20, 101
Lock Haven, 2, 14, 15, 34, 61, 81, 84, 105
Locke, John, 31
Logan, James, 16
Long, Cookson, 40, 77, 83
Love, Robert, 67
Lycoming Church, 67
Lycoming County courts, 33, 35, 36, 62, 65, 72, 94
Lycoming Creek 2-6, 9-15, 21, 24, 30, 35, 48, 67, 79, 105
Lycoming _Gazette_, 49
Lycoming Township, 28
Lydius, John Henry, 23
McElhattan, Pa., 84
McElhattan, William, 95, 96
McKean, Thomas, 22, 36, 37
McMeans, William, 40
MacMinn, Edwin, 78, 101
Manning, Richard, 70
Marshall, Peter, 12
Martin, John, 41
Maynard, D. S., 6, 7
Medical practices, 70, 71
Meginness, John, 4-7, 10, 20, 41, 42, 101
Methodists, 61, 62, 65, 66, 68, 97, 98
Milesburg, 48
Military service, 38-41, 45, 77, 78, 80, 81, 83, 94
Milton, 62
Ministers, itinerant, 66, 69, 71, 73
Missionaries, 67
Montgomery County, 78
Montour, Andrew, 10
Montoursville; _see_ Ostonwaken
Moravians, 78
Muhlenberg, Henry, 78
Muhlenberg, Hiester H., 9
Muncy, 14, 20, 34, 64
Muncy Creek, 20
Muncy Hills, 50
Music, 70, 100
National origins, 16-18, 26, 33, 36, 57, 58, 61, 64, 73, 76, 82, 83,
91, 93, 97, 99, 102, 105, 107
Nationalism, 99, 102, 103, 108
New Hampshire, 31
New Jersey, 19, 20
"New Purchase," 8, 11, 12, 20, 21, 24, 29, 64
New York, 19, 20, 84
Newspapers, 49
Niagara, N. Y., 8
Nippenose Valley, 42, 80
Nittany Valley, 48
Northumberland County, 24-26, 35, 38, 56, 77, 79, 80, 83, 84, 87, 106
Northumberland County courts, 33, 36, 39, 41, 48, 62, 65, 72, 94
Northumberland _Gazette_, 49
Northumberland Presbytery, 67
Office holding, 76, 77, 79, 87, 88, 92, 108
"Old Purchase," 11
Onondaga (Syracuse), N. Y., 8, 9
Orange County, N. Y., 20
Ostonwaken (Montoursville), 4, 8
Paine, Thomas, 43
Parr, James, 40
Patriotism, 71, 73-75, 98, 99, 103
Paul, William, 41
Pennamite Wars, 20
Petitions, 28, 33, 76, 86, 87, 93, 94, 103
Philadelphia, 52, 80, 81
Philadelphia County, 19, 79
Pine Creek, 2-15, 19, 30, 35, 43, 44, 48, 62, 67, 71, 79, 80, 105, 107
Pine Creek Church, 67
Pine Creek Township, 24, 28
Plymouth Colony, 31
Political equality, 17, 69, 73, 75, 91, 92, 95, 99
Pottstown, 78
Pragmatism, 99, 102, 104
"Praying societies," 66
Pre-emption, 27-29, 33, 38, 39, 58, 84, 86, 94, 97, 103
Presbyterianism, 17, 29, 33, 61-63, 65-69, 74, 97, 98, 101
Price, John, 26
Proclamation of 1763, 2, 3, 21
Property right, 35, 72
Quilting, 49, 60, 70, 74
Ranney, Austin, 91
Read, Mr., 38
Recreation, 71, 100
Reed, William, 45, 77, 82, 83
Religion, 33, 58, 61, 62, 65, 66, 68, 73, 74, 91-93, 96, 97, 99, 100,
103, 107
Revolution; _see_ American Revolution
Rhode Island, 31, 96
Roads, 48
Rodey, Peter, 36, 37
Schebosh, John, 4
Scotch-Irish, 16-21, 24, 25, 28-30, 33, 36, 37, 47, 53, 54, 57-60,
63-65, 70-72, 74, 82-84, 93, 95, 97, 101, 102, 105, 106
Scots, 16-18, 28, 58, 83, 95, 102
Self-determination, 89-91, 94, 97-99, 109
Self-reliance, 102, 103, 107
Self-sufficiency, 54, 56-58
Sergeant, Thomas, 6
Settlement, 35-37, 39, 72, 73, 90, 106
Sheshequin Path, 8-10, 48
Shickellamy, 9, 10
Shippen, Justice Edward, 39
Singmaster, Elsie, 8
Slavery, 64, 95
Smith, Charles, 38
Smith, Daniel, 38
Social compact, 31, 90
Social structure, 53, 58, 59, 64, 73, 75, 91, 97, 99-101, 103, 104,
107, 109
Sour's ferry, 69
Spangenburg, Bishop Augustus, 4, 8-10, 13, 78
Squatters' rights, 24, 72, 107
Stover, Martin, 9, 11
Suffrage, 33, 34, 92, 93, 96
Sunbury, 22, 47-49
Supreme Court, Pennsylvania, 36, 39
Supreme Executive Council, 44, 45, 86, 93, 94
Sweeney, Morgan, 41
Syracuse, N. Y.; _see_ Onondaga, N. Y.
Tax lists, 25-27, 34, 56, 59, 76, 77, 101
Temperance, 73-75, 98, 99
Tenancy, 64, 95-97
Tenure, land, 37-40, 106
Tiadaghton Creek, 2-14, 24, 105
"Tiadaghton Elm," 13, 14, 43, 71
Tilghman, James, 12
"Tomahawk right," 37
Toner, John, 41
Tools, 49, 50, 52, 53, 70, 104
Tribunal, Fair Play, 32-36, 42, 48, 50, 58, 61, 72, 73, 82, 83, 88, 90,
92, 94, 102, 106, 109;
_see also_ Fair Play men
Turner, Frederick Jackson, 1, 19, 99-102, 104, 108, 109
Values, 58, 65, 68, 72, 91, 97-100, 104, 107
Virginia, 72, 105
Voluntary associations, 58, 60-62
Walker, John, 77, 83, 86
Wallace, Paul A. W., 13, 23
Weiser, Conrad, 4, 9-11, 13
Welsh, 16-18, 26, 28, 58, 95, 102
Whitefield, George, 78
Williamsport, 2, 49
Wills, 65, 69, 72, 73, 75, 101
Winters Massacre, 23
Women, 55, 59, 60, 65
Wyoming Massacre, 21-23
Wyoming Valley, 20
York County, 19
Zeisberger, David, 4, 8, 10
Zinzendorf, Nicholas von, 78
Transcriber's Endnotes
Minor typographical errors have been corrected without note.
Archaic spellings in quoted material have been retained.
The following discrepancies have been noted and corrected where
possible:
Page 26, Chart 4. The data in column headed '1774' does not tally
with the total below. With no obvious solution, the table remains
as originally published.
Footnote 18, Chapter 3. 'See nn. 6 and 7, p. 4.' Corrected to _See
nn. 6 and 7, p. 33._
Footnote 20, Chapter 3. 'Supra, p. 4.' Corrected to _Supra, p. 33._
Index entry 'Economic institutions'. There is no index entry for
'_Farming_', however the main references to farming can found in
Chapter Four.
End of the Project Gutenberg EBook of The Fair Play Settlers of the West
Branch Valley, 1769-1784, by George D. Wolf
*** END OF THIS PROJECT GUTENBERG EBOOK FAIR PLAY SETTLERS ***
***** This file should be named 22471-8.txt or 22471-8.zip *****
This and all associated files of various formats will be found in:
http://www.gutenberg.org/2/2/4/7/22471/
Produced by Greg Weeks, Stephen Blundell and the Online
Distributed Proofreading Team at http://www.pgdp.net
Updated editions will replace the previous one--the old editions
will be renamed.
Creating the works from public domain print editions means that no
one owns a United States copyright in these works, so the Foundation
(and you!) can copy and distribute it in the United States without
permission and without paying copyright royalties. Special rules,
set forth in the General Terms of Use part of this license, apply to
copying and distributing Project Gutenberg-tm electronic works to
protect the PROJECT GUTENBERG-tm concept and trademark. Project
Gutenberg is a registered trademark, and may not be used if you
charge for the eBooks, unless you receive specific permission. If you
do not charge anything for copies of this eBook, complying with the
rules is very easy. You may use this eBook for nearly any purpose
such as creation of derivative works, reports, performances and
research. They may be modified and printed and given away--you may do
practically ANYTHING with public domain eBooks. Redistribution is
subject to the trademark license, especially commercial
redistribution.
*** START: FULL LICENSE ***
THE FULL PROJECT GUTENBERG LICENSE
PLEASE READ THIS BEFORE YOU DISTRIBUTE OR USE THIS WORK
To protect the Project Gutenberg-tm mission of promoting the free
distribution of electronic works, by using or distributing this work
(or any other work associated in any way with the phrase "Project
Gutenberg"), you agree to comply with all the terms of the Full Project
Gutenberg-tm License (available with this file or online at
http://gutenberg.org/license).
Section 1. General Terms of Use and Redistributing Project Gutenberg-tm
electronic works
1.A. By reading or using any part of this Project Gutenberg-tm
electronic work, you indicate that you have read, understand, agree to
and accept all the terms of this license and intellectual property
(trademark/copyright) agreement. If you do not agree to abide by all
the terms of this agreement, you must cease using and return or destroy
all copies of Project Gutenberg-tm electronic works in your possession.
If you paid a fee for obtaining a copy of or access to a Project
Gutenberg-tm electronic work and you do not agree to be bound by the
terms of this agreement, you may obtain a refund from the person or
entity to whom you paid the fee as set forth in paragraph 1.E.8.
1.B. "Project Gutenberg" is a registered trademark. It may only be
used on or associated in any way with an electronic work by people who
agree to be bound by the terms of this agreement. There are a few
things that you can do with most Project Gutenberg-tm electronic works
even without complying with the full terms of this agreement. See
paragraph 1.C below. There are a lot of things you can do with Project
Gutenberg-tm electronic works if you follow the terms of this agreement
and help preserve free future access to Project Gutenberg-tm electronic
works. See paragraph 1.E below.
1.C. The Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation ("the Foundation"
or PGLAF), owns a compilation copyright in the collection of Project
Gutenberg-tm electronic works. Nearly all the individual works in the
collection are in the public domain in the United States. If an
individual work is in the public domain in the United States and you are
located in the United States, we do not claim a right to prevent you from
copying, distributing, performing, displaying or creating derivative
works based on the work as long as all references to Project Gutenberg
are removed. Of course, we hope that you will support the Project
Gutenberg-tm mission of promoting free access to electronic works by
freely sharing Project Gutenberg-tm works in compliance with the terms of
this agreement for keeping the Project Gutenberg-tm name associated with
the work. You can easily comply with the terms of this agreement by
keeping this work in the same format with its attached full Project
Gutenberg-tm License when you share it without charge with others.
1.D. The copyright laws of the place where you are located also govern
what you can do with this work. Copyright laws in most countries are in
a constant state of change. If you are outside the United States, check
the laws of your country in addition to the terms of this agreement
before downloading, copying, displaying, performing, distributing or
creating derivative works based on this work or any other Project
Gutenberg-tm work. The Foundation makes no representations concerning
the copyright status of any work in any country outside the United
States.
1.E. Unless you have removed all references to Project Gutenberg:
1.E.1. The following sentence, with active links to, or other immediate
access to, the full Project Gutenberg-tm License must appear prominently
whenever any copy of a Project Gutenberg-tm work (any work on which the
phrase "Project Gutenberg" appears, or with which the phrase "Project
Gutenberg" is associated) is accessed, displayed, performed, viewed,
copied or distributed:
This eBook is for the use of anyone anywhere at no cost and with
almost no restrictions whatsoever. You may copy it, give it away or
re-use it under the terms of the Project Gutenberg License included
with this eBook or online at www.gutenberg.org
1.E.2. If an individual Project Gutenberg-tm electronic work is derived
from the public domain (does not contain a notice indicating that it is
posted with permission of the copyright holder), the work can be copied
and distributed to anyone in the United States without paying any fees
or charges. If you are redistributing or providing access to a work
with the phrase "Project Gutenberg" associated with or appearing on the
work, you must comply either with the requirements of paragraphs 1.E.1
through 1.E.7 or obtain permission for the use of the work and the
Project Gutenberg-tm trademark as set forth in paragraphs 1.E.8 or
1.E.9.
1.E.3. If an individual Project Gutenberg-tm electronic work is posted
with the permission of the copyright holder, your use and distribution
must comply with both paragraphs 1.E.1 through 1.E.7 and any additional
terms imposed by the copyright holder. Additional terms will be linked
to the Project Gutenberg-tm License for all works posted with the
permission of the copyright holder found at the beginning of this work.
1.E.4. Do not unlink or detach or remove the full Project Gutenberg-tm
License terms from this work, or any files containing a part of this
work or any other work associated with Project Gutenberg-tm.
1.E.5. Do not copy, display, perform, distribute or redistribute this
electronic work, or any part of this electronic work, without
prominently displaying the sentence set forth in paragraph 1.E.1 with
active links or immediate access to the full terms of the Project
Gutenberg-tm License.
1.E.6. You may convert to and distribute this work in any binary,
compressed, marked up, nonproprietary or proprietary form, including any
word processing or hypertext form. However, if you provide access to or
distribute copies of a Project Gutenberg-tm work in a format other than
"Plain Vanilla ASCII" or other format used in the official version
posted on the official Project Gutenberg-tm web site (www.gutenberg.org),
you must, at no additional cost, fee or expense to the user, provide a
copy, a means of exporting a copy, or a means of obtaining a copy upon
request, of the work in its original "Plain Vanilla ASCII" or other
form. Any alternate format must include the full Project Gutenberg-tm
License as specified in paragraph 1.E.1.
1.E.7. Do not charge a fee for access to, viewing, displaying,
performing, copying or distributing any Project Gutenberg-tm works
unless you comply with paragraph 1.E.8 or 1.E.9.
1.E.8. You may charge a reasonable fee for copies of or providing
access to or distributing Project Gutenberg-tm electronic works provided
that
- You pay a royalty fee of 20% of the gross profits you derive from
the use of Project Gutenberg-tm works calculated using the method
you already use to calculate your applicable taxes. The fee is
owed to the owner of the Project Gutenberg-tm trademark, but he
has agreed to donate royalties under this paragraph to the
Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation. Royalty payments
must be paid within 60 days following each date on which you
prepare (or are legally required to prepare) your periodic tax
returns. Royalty payments should be clearly marked as such and
sent to the Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation at the
address specified in Section 4, "Information about donations to
the Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation."
- You provide a full refund of any money paid by a user who notifies
you in writing (or by e-mail) within 30 days of receipt that s/he
does not agree to the terms of the full Project Gutenberg-tm
License. You must require such a user to return or
destroy all copies of the works possessed in a physical medium
and discontinue all use of and all access to other copies of
Project Gutenberg-tm works.
- You provide, in accordance with paragraph 1.F.3, a full refund of any
money paid for a work or a replacement copy, if a defect in the
electronic work is discovered and reported to you within 90 days
of receipt of the work.
- You comply with all other terms of this agreement for free
distribution of Project Gutenberg-tm works.
1.E.9. If you wish to charge a fee or distribute a Project Gutenberg-tm
electronic work or group of works on different terms than are set
forth in this agreement, you must obtain permission in writing from
both the Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation and Michael
Hart, the owner of the Project Gutenberg-tm trademark. Contact the
Foundation as set forth in Section 3 below.
1.F.
1.F.1. Project Gutenberg volunteers and employees expend considerable
effort to identify, do copyright research on, transcribe and proofread
public domain works in creating the Project Gutenberg-tm
collection. Despite these efforts, Project Gutenberg-tm electronic
works, and the medium on which they may be stored, may contain
"Defects," such as, but not limited to, incomplete, inaccurate or
corrupt data, transcription errors, a copyright or other intellectual
property infringement, a defective or damaged disk or other medium, a
computer virus, or computer codes that damage or cannot be read by
your equipment.
1.F.2. LIMITED WARRANTY, DISCLAIMER OF DAMAGES - Except for the "Right
of Replacement or Refund" described in paragraph 1.F.3, the Project
Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation, the owner of the Project
Gutenberg-tm trademark, and any other party distributing a Project
Gutenberg-tm electronic work under this agreement, disclaim all
liability to you for damages, costs and expenses, including legal
fees. YOU AGREE THAT YOU HAVE NO REMEDIES FOR NEGLIGENCE, STRICT
LIABILITY, BREACH OF WARRANTY OR BREACH OF CONTRACT EXCEPT THOSE
PROVIDED IN PARAGRAPH F3. YOU AGREE THAT THE FOUNDATION, THE
TRADEMARK OWNER, AND ANY DISTRIBUTOR UNDER THIS AGREEMENT WILL NOT BE
LIABLE TO YOU FOR ACTUAL, DIRECT, INDIRECT, CONSEQUENTIAL, PUNITIVE OR
INCIDENTAL DAMAGES EVEN IF YOU GIVE NOTICE OF THE POSSIBILITY OF SUCH
DAMAGE.
1.F.3. LIMITED RIGHT OF REPLACEMENT OR REFUND - If you discover a
defect in this electronic work within 90 days of receiving it, you can
receive a refund of the money (if any) you paid for it by sending a
written explanation to the person you received the work from. If you
received the work on a physical medium, you must return the medium with
your written explanation. The person or entity that provided you with
the defective work may elect to provide a replacement copy in lieu of a
refund. If you received the work electronically, the person or entity
providing it to you may choose to give you a second opportunity to
receive the work electronically in lieu of a refund. If the second copy
is also defective, you may demand a refund in writing without further
opportunities to fix the problem.
1.F.4. Except for the limited right of replacement or refund set forth
in paragraph 1.F.3, this work is provided to you 'AS-IS' WITH NO OTHER
WARRANTIES OF ANY KIND, EXPRESS OR IMPLIED, INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO
WARRANTIES OF MERCHANTIBILITY OR FITNESS FOR ANY PURPOSE.
1.F.5. Some states do not allow disclaimers of certain implied
warranties or the exclusion or limitation of certain types of damages.
If any disclaimer or limitation set forth in this agreement violates the
law of the state applicable to this agreement, the agreement shall be
interpreted to make the maximum disclaimer or limitation permitted by
the applicable state law. The invalidity or unenforceability of any
provision of this agreement shall not void the remaining provisions.
1.F.6. INDEMNITY - You agree to indemnify and hold the Foundation, the
trademark owner, any agent or employee of the Foundation, anyone
providing copies of Project Gutenberg-tm electronic works in accordance
with this agreement, and any volunteers associated with the production,
promotion and distribution of Project Gutenberg-tm electronic works,
harmless from all liability, costs and expenses, including legal fees,
that arise directly or indirectly from any of the following which you do
or cause to occur: (a) distribution of this or any Project Gutenberg-tm
work, (b) alteration, modification, or additions or deletions to any
Project Gutenberg-tm work, and (c) any Defect you cause.
Section 2. Information about the Mission of Project Gutenberg-tm
Project Gutenberg-tm is synonymous with the free distribution of
electronic works in formats readable by the widest variety of computers
including obsolete, old, middle-aged and new computers. It exists
because of the efforts of hundreds of volunteers and donations from
people in all walks of life.
Volunteers and financial support to provide volunteers with the
assistance they need, is critical to reaching Project Gutenberg-tm's
goals and ensuring that the Project Gutenberg-tm collection will
remain freely available for generations to come. In 2001, the Project
Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation was created to provide a secure
and permanent future for Project Gutenberg-tm and future generations.
To learn more about the Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation
and how your efforts and donations can help, see Sections 3 and 4
and the Foundation web page at http://www.pglaf.org.
Section 3. Information about the Project Gutenberg Literary Archive
Foundation
The Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation is a non profit
501(c)(3) educational corporation organized under the laws of the
state of Mississippi and granted tax exempt status by the Internal
Revenue Service. The Foundation's EIN or federal tax identification
number is 64-6221541. Its 501(c)(3) letter is posted at
http://pglaf.org/fundraising. Contributions to the Project Gutenberg
Literary Archive Foundation are tax deductible to the full extent
permitted by U.S. federal laws and your state's laws.
The Foundation's principal office is located at 4557 Melan Dr. S.
Fairbanks, AK, 99712., but its volunteers and employees are scattered
throughout numerous locations. Its business office is located at
809 North 1500 West, Salt Lake City, UT 84116, (801) 596-1887, email
[email protected]. Email contact links and up to date contact
information can be found at the Foundation's web site and official
page at http://pglaf.org
For additional contact information:
Dr. Gregory B. Newby
Chief Executive and Director
[email protected]
Section 4. Information about Donations to the Project Gutenberg
Literary Archive Foundation
Project Gutenberg-tm depends upon and cannot survive without wide
spread public support and donations to carry out its mission of
increasing the number of public domain and licensed works that can be
freely distributed in machine readable form accessible by the widest
array of equipment including outdated equipment. Many small donations
($1 to $5,000) are particularly important to maintaining tax exempt
status with the IRS.
The Foundation is committed to complying with the laws regulating
charities and charitable donations in all 50 states of the United
States. Compliance requirements are not uniform and it takes a
considerable effort, much paperwork and many fees to meet and keep up
with these requirements. We do not solicit donations in locations
where we have not received written confirmation of compliance. To
SEND DONATIONS or determine the status of compliance for any
particular state visit http://pglaf.org
While we cannot and do not solicit contributions from states where we
have not met the solicitation requirements, we know of no prohibition
against accepting unsolicited donations from donors in such states who
approach us with offers to donate.
International donations are gratefully accepted, but we cannot make
any statements concerning tax treatment of donations received from
outside the United States. U.S. laws alone swamp our small staff.
Please check the Project Gutenberg Web pages for current donation
methods and addresses. Donations are accepted in a number of other
ways including checks, online payments and credit card donations.
To donate, please visit: http://pglaf.org/donate
Section 5. General Information About Project Gutenberg-tm electronic
works.
Professor Michael S. Hart is the originator of the Project Gutenberg-tm
concept of a library of electronic works that could be freely shared
with anyone. For thirty years, he produced and distributed Project
Gutenberg-tm eBooks with only a loose network of volunteer support.
Project Gutenberg-tm eBooks are often created from several printed
editions, all of which are confirmed as Public Domain in the U.S.
unless a copyright notice is included. Thus, we do not necessarily
keep eBooks in compliance with any particular paper edition.
Most people start at our Web site which has the main PG search facility:
http://www.gutenberg.org
This Web site includes information about Project Gutenberg-tm,
including how to make donations to the Project Gutenberg Literary
Archive Foundation, how to help produce our new eBooks, and how to
subscribe to our email newsletter to hear about new eBooks.
