_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 includehitherto little-known or non-existent countries, and even other planetsand outer space, there is still much to be said for the oft-neglectedstudy of man in his more immediate environs. Intrigued with thehistorical tale of the "Fair Play settlers" of the West Branch Valley ofthe Susquehanna River and practically a life-long resident of the WestBranch Valley, this writer felt that their story was worth telling andthat it might offer some insight into the development of democracy onthe 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 andencouragement of many fine and wonderful people. This author is deeplyindebted to librarians, archivists and historians, local historians andgenealogists, local and county historical societies, and collectors ofmanuscripts, diaries, and journals pertinent to the history of the WestBranch Valley. A comprehensive listing of all who have assisted in thiseffort would be too extensive, but certain persons cannot be ignored. Mygrateful appreciation is here expressed to a few of these; but mygratitude is no less sincere to the many persons who are not herementioned. 

Librarians who have been most helpful in providing bibliographies, checking files, and obtaining volumes from other libraries include MissIsabel 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 arethe late Dr. Paul A. W. Wallace, of the Pennsylvania Historical andMuseum Commission; Mrs. Phyllis V. Parsons, of Collegeville; Dr. AlfredP. James, of the University of Pittsburgh; and Mrs. Solon J. Buck, ofWashington, D. C. 

Perhaps the most significant research support for this investigation wasprovided by a local historian and genealogist, Mrs. Helen HerrittRussell, of Jersey Shore. 

Dr. Samuel P. Bayard, of the Pennsylvania State University, analyzed theFair Play settlers using linguistic techniques to determine theirnational origins. This help was basic to the demographic portion of thisstudy. 

Dr. Charles F. Berkheimer and Mrs. Marshall Anspach, both ofWilliamsport, magnanimously consented to loan this author their copies, respectively, of William Colbert's _Journal_ and the Wagner Collectionof Revolutionary War Pension Claims. 

County and local historical societies which opened their collections forstudy were the Clinton County Historical Society, the LycomingHistorical Society, the Northumberland County Historical Society, theCentre 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 foreverthankful. Without him, this study would not have been possible. 

The author would like to thank the members of the PennsylvaniaHistorical and Museum Commission and its Executive Director, Dr. S. K. Stevens, for making possible this publication; he would also like tothank Mr. Donald H. Kent, Director of the Bureau of Archives andHistory, and Mr. William A. Hunter, Chief of the Division of History, who supervised publication; and members of the staff of the Division ofHistory: Mr. Harold L. Myers, Associate Historian and Chief of theEditorial Section, who readied the manuscript for publication; Mrs. GailM. Gibson, Associate Historian, who prepared the index; and Mr. GeorgeR. Beyer, Assistant Historian. 

My sincerest thanks are also extended to Mrs. Mary B. Bower, who typedthe entire manuscript and offered useful suggestions with regard tostyle. 

Finally, for providing almost ideal conditions for carrying on this workand for sustaining me throughout, my wife, Margaret, is deserving of agratitude which cannot be fully expressed. 

 GEORGE D. WOLF

_Introduction_

Between 1769 and 1784, in an area some twenty-five miles long and abouttwo miles wide, located on the north side of the West Branch of theSusquehanna River and extending from Lycoming Creek (at the presentWilliamsport) to the Great Island (just east of the present Lock Haven), some 100 to 150 families settled. They established a community and apolitical organization called the Fair Play system. This study is aboutthese people and their system. 

The author of a recent case study of democracy in a frontier countycommented on the need for this kind of investigation. [1] Cognizant ofthe fact that a number of valuable histories of American communitieshave been written, he noted that few of them deal explicitly with theactual 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 andincludes tangential references to the third stage. 

The geography of the Fair Play territory has been confused for almosttwo centuries. The conclusions of this analysis will not prove toosatisfying to those who unquestioningly accept and revere the old locallegends. However, it will be noted that these conclusions are based uponthe accounts of journalists and diarists rather than hearsay. Thisshould put the controversial "question of the Tiadaghton" to rest. 

A statistical analysis has been made as a significant part of thedemography of the Fair Play settlers. However, limitations in data mayraise some questions regarding the validity of the conclusions. Nevertheless, the national and ethnic origins of these settlers, theirAmerican sources of emigration, the periods of immigration, the reasonsfor migration, and population stability and mobility have all beeninvestigated. The result offers some surprises when compared with thetrends of the time--in the Province and throughout the colonies. 

The _politics_ of Fair Play is the principal concern of this entirestudy--appropriately, it was from their political system that thesefrontiersmen derived their unusual name. This was not the only group touse the name, however. Another "fair play system" existed insouthwestern Pennsylvania during the same period, and perhaps a similarstudy can be made of those pioneers and their life. As for the Fair Playcommunity of the West Branch, we know about its political structurethrough the cases subsequently reviewed by established courts of theCommonwealth. From these cases, we have reconstructed a "code" ofoperation which demonstrates certain democratic tendencies. 

In addition to studying the political system, an effort has been made tovalidate the story of the locally-famed Pine Creek Declaration ofIndependence. Although some evidence for such a declaration was found, it seems inconclusive. 

The West Branch Valley was part of what Turner called the secondfrontier, the Allegheny, and so this agrarian frontier community hasbeen examined for evidence of the democratic traits which Turnercharacterized as particularly American. This analysis is not meant toportray a typical situation, but it does provide support for Turner'sevaluation. As this was a farmer's frontier, and as transportation andcommunication facilities were extremely limited, a generallyself-sufficient and naturally self-reliant community developed as amatter of survival. The characteristics which this frontier nurtured, and the non-English--even anti-English--composition of its populationmake understandable the sentiment in this region for independence fromGreat Britain. This, of course, is supremely demonstrated in theseparate declaration of independence drawn, according to the report, bythe settlers of the Fair Play frontier. 

Fair Play _society_ is, perhaps, the second-most-important facet of thisethnographic analysis. An understanding of it necessitated an inquiryinto the social relationships, the religious institutions, theeducational and cultural opportunities, and the values of this frontiercommunity. The results, again, lend credence to Turner's hypothesis. Admittedly, Turner's bold assertion that "the growth of nationalism andthe evolution of American political institutions were dependent on theadvance of the frontier" is somewhat contradicted by the nature of thisPennsylvania frontier. Western lands in Pennsylvania were eitherProvincial, Commonwealth, or Indian lands, but never national lands. Asa result, western land ordinances, and the whole controversy whichaccompanied the ratification of the Articles of Confederation, had noreal significance in Pennsylvania. However, in subsequent years, theexpansion of internal improvement legislation and nationalism sustainsTurner's thesis, as does the democratic and non-sectional nature of themiddle colonial region generally. [2]

The _intellectual character_ which the frontier spawned has beendescribed as rationalistic. However, this was a rationalism which wasnot at odds with empiricism, but which was more in line with what hasbeen called the American philosophy, pragmatism. Or, to put it in thevernacular, "if it works, it's good. " The frontiersman was atrial-and-error empiricist, who believed in his own ability to fathomthe depths of the problems which plagued him. If the apparent solutioncontradicted past patterns and interpretations, he justified his actionsin terms of the realities of the moment. It is this pragmaticratio-empiricism which we imply when we use the term "rationalistic. "

An examination of the role of _leadership_, suggested by the Curtistudy, presents the first summary of this type for the West BranchValley. Here, too, the limited numbers of this frontier population, combined with its peculiar tendency to rely upon peripheral residentsfor top leadership, prevents any broad generalizations. The nature ofits leadership can only be interpreted in terms of this particular groupin this specific location. 

The last two chapters of this study are summary chapters. The first ofthese is an analysis of democracy on one segment of the Pennsylvaniafrontier. Arbitrarily defining democracy, certain objective criteriawere set up to evaluate it in the Fair Play territory. Politicaldemocracy was investigated in terms of popular sovereignty, politicalequality, popular consultation, and majority rule, and the politicalsystem was judged on the basis of these principles. Social democracywas ascertained through inquiries concerning religious freedom, thesocial class system, and economic opportunity. The conclusion is that, for this frontier at least, democratic tendencies were displayed invarious contexts. 

The final chapter, although relying to a large extent upon Turner'sgreat work, is in no way intended to be a critical evaluation of thatthesis. Its primary objective is to test one interpretation of itthrough a particular analytic technique, ethnographic in nature. Frontier ethnography has proved to be a reliable research tool, mainlybecause of its wide scope. It permits conclusions which a strictlyconfined study, given the data limitations of this and other frontierareas, 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 thiscountry, can give the researcher a glimpse of its fundamentals and itseffectiveness. In a time when idealists envision a world community basedupon the self-determination which was basic in this nation's earlydevelopment, it is essential to re-evaluate that principle in terms ofits earliest American development. If we would enjoy the blessings offreedom, we must undergo the fatigue of attempting to understand it. 

Some seventy years ago, a great American historian suggested aninterpretation of the American ethos. Turner's thesis is still beingdebated today, something which I am certain would please its authorimmensely. But what is needed today is not the prolongation of thedebate as to its validity so much as the investigation of it with newertechniques which, it might be added, Turner himself suggested. This isthe merit of frontier ethnography, and, perhaps, the particular value ofthis study. 

To me, Robert Frost implied as much in his wonderful "Stopping by Woodson 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 tothat 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 CaseStudy 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 tothe historian because of its fundamental importance in the developmentof American civilization. What the American pioneers encountered, particularly in the interior settlements, was, basically, a frontierexperience. An ethnographic analysis of one part of the Provincialfrontier of Pennsylvania indicates the significance of that colonialinfluence. The "primitive agricultural democracy" of this frontierillustrates the "style of life" which provided the basis for adistinctly "American" culture which emerged from the colonialexperience. [1]

While this writer's approach is dominantly Turnerian, this study doesnot necessarily contend that this Pennsylvania frontier was typical ofthe general colonial experience, nor that this ethnographic analysispresents in microcosm the development of the American ethos. However, onthis farmer's frontier there was adequate evidence of the compositenationality, the self-reliance, the independence, and the nationalisticand rationalistic traits which Turner characterized as American. 

In his famed essay on "The Significance of the Frontier, " Turner saw thefrontier as the crucible in which the English, Scotch-Irish, andPalatine Germans were merged into a new and distinctly Americannationality, no longer characteristically English. [2] The Pennsylvaniafrontier, with its dominant Scotch-Irish and German influence, is a casein point. 

The Fair Play territory of the West Branch Valley of the SusquehannaRiver, the setting for this analysis, was part of what Turner called thesecond frontier, the Allegheny Mountains. [3] Located about ninety milesup the Susquehanna from the present State capital at Harrisburg, andextending some twenty-five-odd miles westward between the present citiesof Williamsport and Lock Haven, this territory was the heartland of thecentral Pennsylvania frontier in the decade preceding the AmericanRevolution. 

The term "Fair Play settlers, " used to designate the inhabitants of thisregion, is derived from the extra-legal political system which thesedemocratic forerunners set up to maintain order in their developingcommunity. Being squatters and, consequently, without the bounds of anyestablished political agency, they formed their own government, andlabeled it "Fair Play. "

However, despite the apparent simplicity of the above geographicdescription, the exact boundaries of the Fair Play territory have beendebated for almost two centuries. Before we can assess the democratictraits of the Fair Play settlers, we must first clearly define what ismeant by the Fair Play territory. 

The terminal points in this analysis are 1768 and 1784, the dates of thetwo Indian treaties made at Fort Stanwix (now Rome), New York. Theformer opened up the Fair Play territory to settlement, and the latterbrought it within the limits of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, thuslegalizing the _de facto_ political structure which had developed in theinterim. 

According to the treaty of 1768, negotiated by Sir William Johnson withthe Indians of the Six Nations, the western line of colonial settlementwas extended from the Allegheny Mountains, previously set by theProclamation of 1763, to a line extending to the mouth of LycomingCreek, which empties into the West Branch of the Susquehanna River. Thecreek is referred to as the Tiadaghton in the original of the treaty. [4]The question of whether Pine Creek or Lycoming Creek was the Tiadaghtonis the first major question of this investigation. The map which facespage one outlines the territory in question. 

Following the successful eviction of the French in the French and IndianWar, the American counterpart of the Seven Years' War, the crown soughta more orderly westward advance than had been the rule. Heretofore, theestablishment of frontier settlements had stirred up conflict with theIndians and brought frontier pleas to the colonial assemblies formilitary support and protection. The result was greater pressure on thealready depleted exchequer. The opinion that a more controlled and lessexpensive westward advance could be accomplished is reflected in theRoyal Proclamation of 1763. 

This proclamation has frequently been misinterpreted as a definiteeffort to deprive the colonies of their western lands. The very languageof the document contradicts this. For example, the expression "for thepresent, and until our further pleasure be known" clearly indicates thetentative nature of the proclamation, which was "to prevent [therepetition of] such irregularities for the future" with the Indians, irregularities which had prompted Pontiac's Rebellion. [5] The orderlyadvancement of this colonial frontier was to be accomplished throughsubsequent treaties with the Indians. The Treaty of Fort Stanwix in 1768is one such example of those treaties. [6]

The term "Fair Play settlers" refers to the residents of the areabetween Lycoming Creek and the Great Island on the north side of theWest Branch of the Susquehanna River, and to those who interacted withthem, during the period 1769-1784, when that area was outside of theProvincial limits. The appellation stems from the annual designation bythe settlers of "Fair Play Men, " a tribunal of three withquasi-executive, legislative, and judicial authority over the residents. 

The relevance of the first Stanwix Treaty to the geographic area of thisstudy is a matter of the utmost importance. The western boundary of thattreaty in the West Branch Valley of the Susquehanna has been a source ofsome confusion because of the employment of the name "Tiadaghton" in thetreaty to designate that boundary. The question, quite simply, iswhether Pine Creek or Lycoming is the Tiadaghton. If Pine Creek is theTiadaghton, an extra-legal political organization would have beenunnecessary, for the so-called Fair Play settlers of this book wouldhave been under Provincial jurisdiction. [7] The designation of LycomingCreek as the Tiadaghton tends to give geographic corroboration for theFair Play system. 

First and foremost among the Pine Creek supporters is John Meginness, the nineteenth-century historian of the West Branch Valley. His work isundoubtedly the most often quoted source of information on the WestBranch Valley of the Susquehanna, and rightfully so. Although he wrotewhen standards of documentation were lax and relied to an extent uponlocal legendry as related by aged residents, Meginness' views have ageneral validity. However, there is some question regarding his judgmentconcerning the boundary issue. 

Quoting directly from the journal of Moravian Bishop AugustusSpangenburg, who visited the West Branch Valley in 1745 in the companyof Conrad Weiser, David Zeisberger, and John Schebosh, Meginnessdescribes the Bishop's travel from Montoursville, or Ostonwaken as theIndians called it, to the "Limping Messenger, " or "Diadachton Creek, "where the party camped for the night. [8] It is interesting to note thatthe Moravian journalist refers here to Lycoming Creek as the Tiadaghton, some twenty-three years prior to the purchase at Fort Stanwix, whichmade the question a local issue. Yet Meginness, in a footnote writtenbetter than a hundred years later, says that "It afterwards turned outthat the true _Diadachton_ or _Tiadachton_, was what is now known asPine Creek. "[9]

Perhaps Meginness was influenced by the aged sources of some of hisaccounts. It may be, however, that he was merely repeating the judgmentof an earlier generation which had sought to legalize its settlementmade prior to the second Stanwix Treaty. The Indian description of theboundary line in the Fort Stanwix Treaty of 1768 may also have had someimpact 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 popularrepute as historian of the West Branch Valley. However, he too callsPine Creek the Tiadaghton, though the reliability of his sources isquestionable. Unlike Meginness, whose judgment derived somewhat frominterviews with contemporaries of the period, Linn based his contentionupon the statements made by the Indians at the second Stanwix Treatymeeting in 1784. [10]

At those sessions on October 22 and 23, 1784, the Pennsylvaniacommissioners twice questioned the deputies of the Six Nations about thelocation of the Tiadaghton, and were told twice that it was PineCreek. [11] In the first instance, Samuel J. Atlee, speaking for theother Pennsylvania commissioners, called attention to the last deed madeat 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 hadpromised after the previous day's interrogation. [14] It substantiatedthe description given in the discussions preceding the Fort StanwixTreaty 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 strongestevidence to sustain the Pine Creek view. 

There is little doubt that Meginness and Linn were influenced by therecord. This is certainly true of D. S. Maynard, a lessernineteenth-century historian, whose work is obviously based upon theresearch of Meginness. Maynard repeated the evidence of his predecessorfrom the account of Thomas Sergeant by describing the Stanwix Treatyline of 1768 as coming "across to the headwaters of Pine Creek. "Maynard's utter dependence upon Meginness suggests that his evidence ismore 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 nothingmore 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 moreobjective support for Pine Creek, although her argument appears to bebetter semantics than geography. [20]

Edmund A. DeSchweinitz, in his biography of David Zeisberger, errs inhis interpretation of the term "Limping Messenger" (Tiadaghton), used byBishop Spangenburg in his account of their journey to the West BranchValley in 1745. He notes that on their way to Onondaga (Syracuse) afterleaving "Ostonwaken" (Montoursville) they passed through the valley ofTiadaghton Creek. They were following the Sheshequin Path. But heidentifies the Tiadaghton with Pine Creek. There was an Indian path upPine 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 PineCreek view, and that is Smith's _Laws of the Commonwealth ofPennsylvania_. After the last treaty was made acquiring Pennsylvanialands from the Indians, the legislature, in order to quell disputesabout the right of occupancy in this "New Purchase, "[22] passed thefollowing 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 reflectpopular demand rather than the hard facts of a situation. In this casethe settlers of the region prior to 1780 stood to benefit by thislegislation 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 whotraveled along the West Branch _prior_ to the first Stanwix Treaty andwho thus had no axe to grind. 

That the Lycoming Creek was in fact the Tiadaghton referred to by theIndians at Fort Stanwix in 1768 is strongly indicated by the weight ofevidence 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 ofLewis Evans (1749) and John Adlum (1792), the land applications ofRobert Galbreath and Martin Stover (1769), and a 1784 statute of thePennsylvania General Assembly all tend to validate Lycoming's claim torecognition as the Tiadaghton. Each datum has merit in the finalanalysis, which justifies the specific examination which follows:

Supporting evidence is found in Weiser's German journal, which was meantfor his family and friends, and translated into English by hisgreat-grandson, Hiester H. Muhlenberg. (Weiser also kept an Englishjournal for the Council at Philadelphia. ) Weiser wrote: "The stream weare now on the Indians call Dia-daclitu, (die berirte, the lost orbewildered) which in fact deserves such a name. "[24] (This is an obviousmisspelling of Diadachton. ) Weiser was following the Sheshequin Pathwith 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 theterm "Limping Messenger" in his journal for June 8, 1745. He too wastraveling the Sheshequin Path with David Zeisberger, Conrad Weiser, Shickellamy, Andrew Montour, _et al. _ He describes the "LimpingMessenger" as a camp on the "Tiadachton" (Lycoming), whereasDeSchweinitz in his _Zeisberger_ interprets the term to mean PineCreek. [25]

Another traveler along the Sheshequin Path was the colonial botanist, John Bartram. Bartram, in the company of Weiser and Lewis Evans, the mapmaker, notes in his diary of July 12, 1743, riding "down [up] a valleyto a point, a prospect of an opening bearing N, then down the hill to arun and over a rich neck lying between it and the Tiadaughton. "[26]Incidentally, the editor of this extract from Bartram's journal makesthe quite devastating point that Meginness did not know of Bartram'sjournal, which was published in London in 1751 but which did not appearin America until 1895. [27]

One of the Moravian journalists who visited the scenic Susquehanna alongthe West Branch was Bishop John Ettwein, who passed through this valleyon 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 alongthe West Branch was the Reverend Philip Vickers Fithian. Fithian came towhat we will establish as Fair Play country on July 25, 1775, at what hecalled "Lacommon Creek. " His conclusion was that this creek was theTiadaghton. [29] It is this same Fithian, it might be added, whoseVirginia journals were the primary basis for the reconstruction ofcolonial Williamsburg. 

The work of colonial cartographers also substantiates the claim thatLycoming Creek is the Tiadaghton. Both Lewis Evans, following his 1743journey in the company of Bartram and Weiser, and John Adlum, whoconducted a survey of the West Branch Valley in 1792 for theCommonwealth of Pennsylvania, failed to label Pine Creek as the"Tiadaghton" on their maps. [30] In fact, Adlum's map of 1792, foundamong the papers of William Bingham, designates the area east ofLycoming Creek as the "Old Purchase. " Furthermore, as is the case withEvans' map, Adlum does not apply the Tiadaghton label to either PineCreek or Lycoming Creek. [31]

Two applications in 1769 for land in the New Purchase show that theTiadaghton, or in this case "Ticadaughton, " can only be Lycoming Creek. The application of Robert Galbreath (no. 1823) is described as "Boundedon one side by the Proprietor's tract at Lycoming. " Martin Stoverapplied for the same tract (application no. 2611), which is described as"below the mouth of Ticadaughton Creek. "[32] The copies of these twoapplications, together with the copy of the survey, offer irrefutableproof of the validity of Lycoming's claim. 

Perhaps the final note is the action of the General Assembly of theCommonwealth of Pennsylvania on December 12, 1784. [33] The legislatorsaffirmed the judgments of the frontier journalists, whose recordedjourneys offer the best proof that the Lycoming is the Tiadaghton. Priorto this action, the Provincial authorities had issued a proclamation onSeptember 20, 1773, prohibiting settlement west of Lycoming Creek bywhite persons. Violators were to be apprehended and tried. The penaltieswere real and quite severe: £500 fine, twelve months in prison withoutbail, and a guarantee of twelve months of exemplary conduct afterrelease. [34] Court records, however, fail to indicate any prosecutions. 

Finally, the latest scholar to delve into the complexities of theStanwix treaties, Professor Peter Marshall, says that there was noprolonged and close discussion about the running of the treaty line inPennsylvania (the Tiadaghton question), no discussion in any waycomparable 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 wasresponsible for opening the West Branch Valley to settlement, suchsettlement being stimulated by the opening of the Land Office inPhiladelphia on April 3, 1769. James Tilghman, secretary of the LandOffice, published the notice of his office's willingness "to receiveapplications from all persons inclinable to take up lands in the NewPurchase. "[36] The enthusiasm generated by the opening of the LandOffice is shown by the better than 2, 700 applications received on thevery first day. However, the question of the Tiadaghton came to be asource of real contention. The ambiguity of the Indian references to thewestern boundary of the first Stanwix Treaty led the eager settlers, whowere seeking to legitimize claims in the area between Lycoming and Pinecreeks, to favor Pine Creek. There was substance to the settlers' claim. 

The significance of the boundary question to this study is betterunderstood when it is recognized that the so-called Fair Play system ofgovernment in lands beyond the Provincial limits must have a definablelocale. It is this writer's firm conviction that Fair Play territoryextended from Lycoming Creek, on the north side of the West Branch ofthe Susquehanna, to the Great Island, some five miles west of PineCreek. The foundation for the establishment of Lycoming Creek as theTiadaghton, and consequently, as the eastern boundary of the Fair Playterritory is apparent once all the evidence is examined. Aside from thecomments of the Indians at the treaty negotiations and Smith's _Laws ofthe Commonwealth of Pennsylvania_, there are only secondary accountswith little documentation to sustain the Pine Creek argument. 

On the other hand, the Lycoming Creek claim is buttressed by suchprimary sources as the journals of Weiser, Bartram, Spangenberg, Ettwein, and Fithian, three of which were written before the location ofthe Tiadaghton became a subject of dispute. Since none of these men wasseeking lands, they can be considered impartial observers. Furthermore, the cartographic efforts of Lewis Evans and John Adlum followed actualvisits to the region and say nothing to favor the Pine Creek view. 

Perhaps the Indians were merely accepting an already accomplished factat the meeting in 1784. Dr. Paul A. W. Wallace says that this would havebeen expected from the subservient, pacified Indian. Regardless, theProvincial leadership made no effort to settle the lands in what somecalled "the disputed territory" until after the later agreement atStanwix; in fact, they discouraged it. [37] The simple desire forlegitimacy gives us very little to go on in the light of more thanadequate 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 thevexatious question of the Tiadaghton. However let us strike a note ofcaution, if not humility. Indian place names had a way of shifting, doubling, and moving, since they served largely as descriptive terms andnot as true place names. It is not at all unusual to find the same nameapplied to several places or to find names migrating. The Tiadaghtoncould have been Lycoming Creek to some Indians at one time, and PineCreek to others at the same or another time. Consider, for example, thatthere were three Miami rivers in present Ohio, which are now known asthe Miami, the Little Miami, and the Maumee. It hardly makes any realdifference to the geography of the Fair Play territory, or to thedelimiting of its boundaries, which stream was the Tiadaghton. Actually, it was the doubt about it which drew in the squatters and created FairPlay. These settlers justified their contention that the Tiadaghton wasPine Creek by moving into the territory and holding onto it. This may bereason enough for calling the famous tree the Tiadaghton Elm, even ifearly travelers and the proprietary officials said that the Tiadaghtonwas Lycoming Creek. [38]

The topography of the region also influenced the delineation of what wecall Fair Play territory. The jugular vein which supplies the life-bloodto this region is undoubtedly the West Branch of the Susquehanna River. This branch of the great river, which drains almost fifty per cent ofthe State, follows a northeasterly course of some forty miles from theGreat Island, which is just east of present Lock Haven, to what is nowMuncy, then turns southward. [39]

The West Branch of the mighty Susquehanna, which has plagued generationsof residents with its spring floodings, was the primary means of ingressand egress for the area. Rich bottom lands at the mouths of Lycoming, Larrys, and Pine creeks drew the hardy pioneer farmers, and here theyworked the soil to provide the immediate needs for survival. Hemmed inon the north by the plateau area of the Appalachian front and on thesouth by the Bald Eagle Mountains, these courageous pioneers of frontierdemocracy carved their future out of the two-mile area (more often less)between those two forbidding natural walls. With the best lands to befound around the mouth of Pine Creek, which is reasonably close to thecenter of this twenty-five-mile area, it seems quite natural that themajor political, social, and economic developments would take place inclose proximity--and they did. [40]

Thus, an area never exceeding two miles in width and spanning some tenmiles (presently from Jersey Shore to Lock Haven) was the heartland ofFair Play settlement. Lycoming Creek, Larrys Creek, and Pine Creek allrun south into the West Branch, having channeled breaks through therolling valley which extends along the previously defined territory. 

"The land was ours before we were the land's, " the poet said, and itseems apropos of this moment in history. [41] Fair Play territory, possessed before it was owned and operated under _de facto_ rule, wouldbe some time in Americanizing the sturdy frontiersmen who came to bringcivilization 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_ (NewYork, 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 firstStanwix Treaty in much the same manner as earlier colonial historianserred 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 Playsettlers are any example, when he claims that the Fort Stanwix line, bysetting a definite boundary, impeded the western advance. Establishingfriendships with the Indians and then persuading them to sell theirlands proved valuable to more than speculators, whose case Volwilerdocuments so well, as West Branch settlements after 1768 will attest. 

[7] The extension of Provincial authority to Pine Creek would have takenin three-fourths of what we have labeled Fair Play territory. 

[8] John F. Meginness, _Otzinachson: A History of the West Branch Valleyof the Susquehanna_ (Williamsport, 1889), p. 106. The full passage fromthe Bethlehem Diary (now in the Moravian Archives) was translated by thelate Dr. William N. Schwarze for Dr. Paul A. W. Wallace, historian ofthe Pennsylvania Historical and Museum Commission, as follows: "In theafternoon [June 8, New Style] our brethren left that place [beyondMontoursville] and came in the evening to the Limping Messenger on theTiadachton Creek, where they spent the night. " In the _PennsylvaniaMagazine of History and Biography_, II (1878), 432 (hereafter cited as_PMHB_), Zeisberger's account is translated in this manner: "In theafternoon we proceeded on our journey, and at dusk came to the 'LimpingMessenger, ' or Diadachton Creek [a note identifies this as Lycoming], and encamped for the night. " Here the error is in identifying theLimping Messenger with the stream. Meginness, of course, repeated theerror in his _Otzinachson_ (1889), p. 106. Referring the passage toVernon H. Nelson of the Moravian Archives, through Dr. Wallace, resultedin 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 Botenan der Tiatachton Creek, u lagen da uber Nacht. " In the original traveljournal the passage reads: "des Nachm. Reissten wir wieder von da weg, ukamen Abends zum _hinckenden Boten_ an der Tiatachton Crick u lagen dauber Nacht. " De Schweinitz in his _Zeisberger_ further confused theissue in his description of the journey. He takes the adventurers(Zeisberger, Spangenburg, Conrad Weiser, Shickellamy, and AndrewMontour) through the valley of the Tiadaghton Creek on the SheshequinPath to Onondaga (Syracuse). There was an Indian path up Pine Creek, butit led to Niagara, not Onondaga. 

[9] Meginness, _Otzinachson_ (1889), p. 106. This is an added note ofMeginness' 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 theTiadaghton question in his "Indian Land and Its Fair Play Settlers, "_PMHB_, VII (1883), 420-425. Here he simply defines Fair Play territoryas "Indian Land" encompassing the Lycoming-Pine Creek region. 

[11] _Minutes of the First Session of the Ninth General Assembly of theCommonwealth 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 ofthe State of New York_, VIII (Albany, 1857), 125. In the discussionspreceding the Fort Stanwix Treaty of 1768, the Indians' description ofthe boundary line could be interpreted as favoring Pine Creek: "... Tothe Head of the West Branch of Susquehanna thence down the same to BaldEagle Creek thence across the River at Tiadaghta Creek below the greatIsland, thence by a straight Line to Burnett's Hills and along thesame.... " 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 ItsEarliest Settlement To The Present Time_ (Lock Haven, 1875), p. 8. Theline is given by Maynard as follows: "... And took in the lands lyingeast of the North Branch of the Susquehanna, beginning at Owego, down toTowanda, 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 andThen_, VIII (1947), 258-259. 

[19] Dr. Bertin, former associate secretary of the Pennsylvania StateEducation Association, adds nothing to the Meginness and Linn accounts, his probable sources. He speaks of settlements as early as 1772, whereasit is a matter of record that Cleary Campbell squatted in what is nownorth Lock Haven sometime shortly after 1769. He refers to theestablishment of homes, properly, but then goes on to add churches andschools. The source for his "Children and elders met togetherperiodically to recite catechism to the preacher, who was a travellingmissionary, one being Phillip Fithian, " was J. B. Linn. But Fithian, anextremely accurate diarist, fails to mention the occasion during hisone-week visit to this area in the summer of 1775. However, the realvalue of this article is the editorial note by T. Kenneth Wood on theTiadaghton question. In it he refers to John Bartram's journal of 1743, twenty-five years before the Stanwix Treaty at Rome, N. Y. , with theIroquois, which recounts his travels with the Oneida Chief Shickellamyand Conrad Weiser. Lewis Evans was also in the party, making notes forhis map of 1749. The party, on its way to Onondaga (Syracuse), wasapproaching Lycoming Creek at a point just south of Powys, via theSheshequin Indian path. Bartram, the first American botanist, who wrotein his journal nightly after checking with his two guides, gives thisaccount, T. Kenneth Wood (ed. ), "Observations Made By John Bartram InHis Travels from Pennsylvania to Onondaga, Oswego and the Lake Ontarioin 1743, " _Now and Then_, V (1936), 90: "Then down a hill to a run andover a rich neck of land lying between it and the Tiadaughton. " Nocontact was made with Pine Creek. Dr. Wood contends in his note to theBertin article, and this writer is inclined to agree, that the Indian of1743 and the Indian of 1768 were telling the truth and that the whitesettlers of 1768, and for sixteen years thereafter, were wrong, eitherthrough guile and design or ignorance. He says, "The original Indianprincipals signing the treaty had retreated westward and sixteen yearsof fighting over the question (and possibly a few bribes) had settled itto the white man's satisfaction. The Indians always had to yield or getout. " This is essentially the point which Dr. Wallace made to me in hisletter of Feb. 16, 1961. 

[20] Elsie Singmaster, _Pennsylvania's Susquehanna_ (Harrisburg, 1950), p. 87. Her Pine Creek description (while describing tributaries of theSusquehanna) speaks of the gorge as the upper course of Pine Creek, which is now part of Harrison State Park. Here, she says, "The rim isaccessible by a paved highway, and from there one may look down athousand feet and understand why the Indians called the streamTiadaghton 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. Onpage 707, he calls the Great Island, Lock Haven; on page 709, he callsLong Island, Jersey Shore; and on page 713, he refers to Pine Creek asthe Tiadaghton, "also called Diadaghton. "

[22] The term "New Purchase" was frequently used, both officially andotherwise, to designate the area on the north side of the West Branch ofthe Susquehanna from Lycoming Creek to the Great Island, although inactuality 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, thiserror 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. ), _PhilipVickers 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 obtainedfrom [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 PurchaseApplications, 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 Marshallstates: "It was my opinion that the treaty marked, in one aspect, abargain between Johnson and the Six Nations. I do not acceptBillington's charge of betrayal of their interests. But it does seem tome that this meant hard bargaining in New York, when the state of Indianand colonial lands was precisely known to both sides, and indifferenceand ignorance beyond this point.... As far as I am aware, there was noprolonged and close discussion about the running of the line inPennsylvania in the least comparable to that which took place over itslocation in New York. " _See_ Peter Marshall, "Sir William Johnson andthe 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 ofIndependence, " _The Northumberland County Historical Society Proceedingsand Addresses_, XXII (1958), 1-15. 

[38] The fame of this historic elm stems from the fact that it isreputed to be the site of a local declaration of independence made thesame day as the adoption of Jefferson's draft in Philadelphia, July 4, 1776. The author is indebted to Donald H. Kent, Director of the Bureauof 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 significanceof Pennsylvania's "Three Rivers. "

[40] Gristmills--meeting places of the Fair Play tribunal--a school, anda church would all be found in this Pine Creek region. However, thechurch (Presbyterian) would not be built until the territory became anofficial part of the Commonwealth following the second Stanwix Treaty in1784. 

[41] Robert Frost, _Complete Poems of Robert Frost_ (New York, 1949), p. 467. This poem somehow characterizes the experiences of the settlers ofthis 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 theywill make themselves masters of the Province. "[1] His prediction, whichwas to be generally proven in the Province during the French and IndianWar, was to be demonstrated particularly in the West Branch Valleyduring the Revolutionary period. The Scotch-Irish were the dominantnational or ethnic group in the Fair Play territory from 1769 to 1784. This dominance is demonstrated in Chart 1, which indicates the nationalorigins 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 amongthe Fair Play settlers of the West Branch Valley, but they alsorepresented a plurality and almost a majority of the entire population. The significance of this finding in terms of the "style of life" of theFair Play settlers cannot be over-emphasized. It influenced thepolitics, the religion, the family patterns, and thus the values of thisfrontier society. 

Several other important conclusions can be drawn from this chart. Incontrast to the population of Pennsylvania in general and theassumptions regarding frontier areas in particular, the English, ratherthan the Germans, were the second most numerous national stock group. The Germans, however, made up the third-largest segment of the WestBranch Valley population. The Scots, Welsh, Irish, and a few Frenchinhabitants formed the remaining sixteen per cent of the population. Obviously, this was a dominantly Anglo-Saxon Protestant area ofsettlement. 

The impact of this Scotch-Irish hegemony upon the religion, politics, family life, and social values in general will be dealt with in a laterchapter. However, it can be noted at this juncture that thestrong-willed individualism which characterized these sturdy people wasas much influenced by their national origin as by their experience onthe American frontier. Furthermore, Presbyterianism influenced and wasinfluenced by a developing democratic political system, which paralleledthe American Presbyterian system of popular rather than hierarchicalchurch government. [3] A prominent immigration historian has pointed outthat "the theory of Presbyterian republicanism, as a matter of churchpolicy, could easily be reconciled with demands of the more radicaldemocrats of 1776. "[4] Finally, the social life and customs and, hence, the values of this frontier society were governed for the most part bythis majority group. Thus, dogmatic faith, political equality, socialand economic independence, respect for education, and a tightly-knitpattern of family relationships express appropriately the institutionalpatterns by which the Scotch-Irish of the West Branch operated. 

It is interesting to contrast the national stock groupings of thisSusquehanna frontier with the results of a study of national origins ofthe American population made by the American Council of LearnedSocieties 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 ofthe Fair Play settlers in no way conform to either the national patternor the State pattern of just a few years later. Although this limitedfrontier area can be recognized as having its own individual ratio ofcomponent stocks, it is representative rather than unique in its cultureand values. The reaction of those of other national stocks to thefrontier experience buttresses the conclusion that their values wereinfluenced more by the frontier than by national origin. It is thiscommon reaction to the problems of the frontier which gives rise to theconclusion that this West Branch Valley environment was characterized byand that its inhabitants held values which Turner evaluated asdemocratic. The nature of those democratic values is, however, dealtwith in greater detail in subsequent chapters. 

The American sources of emigration form the next question to beconsidered in examining the origins of the Fair Play settlers. Lackingadequate statistical data for a complete picture of migration in termsof percentages, the following chart indicates only the probable originsof the three most numerous national stock groupings in the Fair Playterritory:

 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 thelower Susquehanna Valley and southeastern Pennsylvania. However, anappreciable number of English settlers appear to have come originallyfrom New Jersey to settle in what they called "Jersey Shore, "immediately east of the mouth of Pine Creek. One explanation for themigration of the dominant stock, the Scotch-Irish, is probably the factthat the Provincial government refused to sell more lands in Lancasterand York counties to the Scotch-Irish. In effect, they were driven touse squatter tactics in the Fair Play territory. [7]

The internal origins of sixteen of these settlers can be verified ineither Meginness or Linn. Four came from Chester County, three each fromthe Juniata Valley and Lancaster County, two each from Cumberland Countyand New Jersey, and one each from Dauphin County and from Orange Countyin New York. Nine of these settlers, incidentally, were Scotch-Irish. Although these data are insufficient for any valid generalization, theydo conform to the characteristic migratory trends indicated in Chart 3. 

In analyzing the migration of settlers into the West Branch Valleybeyond the line of the "New Purchase, " it becomes apparent that theScotch-Irish came from the fringe areas of settlement, whereas theEnglish and Germans tended to migrate from more settled areas. Furthermore, the English migrants often came from outside the Provinceof Pennsylvania, either from New Jersey or New York. In fact, if onewere to construct a pattern of concentric zones, with the core in thesoutheastern corner of the Province and the lines radiating in anorth-westerly direction, the English would be found at the core, theGermans in the next zone, and the Scotch-Irish in the outlying area. This zoning offers no real contradiction of the usual pattern ofPennsylvania migrations. However, when one combines the data of internalmovements with those of external origins, certain contradictions doappear. The most noteworthy of these is, of course, the prominence ofEnglish settlers on this Fair Play frontier vis-à-vis the Germans. 

Since the Pennsylvania frontiersmen of the Wyoming Valley were ofEnglish stock, and immigrated from New England, it might have beenassumed that some of these Connecticut settlers came into the WestBranch Valley. Here, however, all evidence points to the fact thatConnecticut settlers did not migrate west of Muncy, which is located atthe 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 intothe Pennamite Wars, did not involve the Fair Play settlers. [8]Nevertheless, at least one Fair Play settler looked forward to thepossibility of an advance of the Connecticut settlement along the WestBranch. [9]

The impact of events upon the settlement of the Fair Play territory isparticularly apparent when one examines the periods of immigration toand emigration from the region. Three events seemed to have had thegreatest influence upon the immigration: the Treaty of Fort Stanwix in1768, which extended the Provincial limits to Lycoming Creek in thisregion, and the resultant opening of the Land Office for claims in the"New Purchase" on April 3, 1769;[10] the almost complete evacuation ofthe territory in the "Great Runaway" of the summer of 1778, which wasprompted by Indian attacks and the fear of a great massacre comparableto the "Wyoming Valley Massacre" of that same year;[11] and finally, theStanwix Treaty of 1784, which brought the Fair Play area within thelimits of the Province. [12]

The first Stanwix Treaty, made by Sir William Johnson with the SixNations in November of 1768, extended the legitimate line of Englishcolonial settlement from the line established by the Proclamation of1763 to a point on the West Branch of the Susquehanna River at the mouthof Lycoming Creek (the Tiadaghton, as it was so ambiguouslylabeled). [13] This extension, ostensibly for the purpose of providinglands for the colonial veterans of the French and Indian War, became aboon to speculators and an inducement to the Scotch-Irish squatters whotook lands beyond the limits of this "New Purchase" in what was tobecome the Fair Play territory. 

In the summer of 1778 the war whoop once again caused the settlers ofthe West Branch Valley to flee from their homes for fear of a repetitionof the Wyoming Massacre. The peril of the moment is vividly described inthis communication to the Executive Council in Philadelphia from ColonelSamuel 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 whofled 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 waspractically cleared of settlers. 

The Indians, it is true, proved troublesome to the entire advancingAmerican frontier; but unlike the French, whose menacing forts had beenremoved in the recent wars, the Indians were unable to halt the westwardpenetration. An expedition under the leadership of Colonel ThomasHartley was sent out expressly for the purpose of boosting morale in theWest Branch Valley following the Wyoming Massacre and the Great Runaway. Colonel Hartley's letter to Thomas McKean, chief justice of Pennsylvaniaand a member of the Continental Congress, gives bitter testimony to theconditions 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 someoffensive action would restore confidence and cause the people to returnto the valley. His interpretation of the significance of his mission isquite clearly stated in the conclusion of his letter: "We shall not haveit in our Power to gain Honour or Laurels on these Frontiers but we havethe Satisfaction to think we save our Country.... " Hartley's solution tothe Indian problem, which had driven off the settlers, was to expel them"beyond the Lakes" excepting only the more civilized Tuscaroras andOneidas. [16]

Despite the danger from the Indians, the Fair Play settlers begantrickling back to their homes, or what was left of them, toward the endof the Revolutionary War. Once the war was ended and the Fair Playterritory was annexed by subsequent purchase, the mass movement ofsettlers to the West Branch Valley resumed. 

Incidentally, Dr. Wallace in his _Conrad Weiser_ assesses one John HenryLydius with the major responsibility for the Indian massacres in centraland northeastern Pennsylvania. Wallace notes that Lydius' Connecticutpurchase from the Indians in 1754 caused "war between Pennsylvania andConnecticut and ... [precipitated] the Massacre of Wyoming in 1778. "This massacre, as West Branch historians know, had its subsequent impacton the West Branch Valley in the Great Runaway, although the WintersMassacre 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 October3, 1784, in a second Stanwix Treaty. This accession ended thePennsylvania boundary dispute with the Six Nations; and it also endedthe need for any extra-legal system of government in the West BranchValley, for this new treaty encompassed the Fair Play territory. [18]However, this treaty raised the troublesome Tiadaghton question onceagain, a question only partly resolved by the Legislature's designationof Lycoming Creek as the Tiadaghton and the recognition of thesquatters' right of pre-emption to their settlements along the WestBranch of the Susquehanna. [19] The land office was opened for the saleof this purchase July 1, 1785; by 1786 fifty heads of families werelisted for State taxes in Northumberland County. [20] Approximately fiftyper cent of these taxables had been in the area earlier. 

Perhaps the only significant nationality trend to be noted in thisimportant sequence of events is the tenacity of the Scotch-Irish and thesubsequent 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 becamean official part of the Province, were Scotch-Irish. As a result, theseScots from the north of Ireland continued to maintain their position ofleadership even after the area was included in the Commonwealth. 

The reasons for migrating to the West Branch Valley in this fifteen-yearperiod from 1769 to 1784 were varied and numerous. For the most part, the various nationality groups which emigrated from Europe came foreconomic opportunity and because of religious and politicalpersecutions. Their movement to the frontier regions was prompted bysimilar problems. In fact, much the same as the earlier settlers ofJamestown and Plymouth, the squatters of the West Branch Valley came forgain and for God. Furthermore, the promise of Penn's "Holy Experiment, "in which men of diverse backgrounds could live together peacefully inreligious freedom and political equality, encouraged them to come toPennsylvania. However, once the dominant group of the Fair Playfrontier, the Scotch-Irish, arrived in Pennsylvania, they foundthemselves unsuited to the settled areas. The natural enemy of theEnglish, who had oppressed them at home, these settlers soon foundthemselves repeating the Old World conflicts. In addition, the GermanPietists caused them further embarrassment in their new homes. TheirCalvinism, fierce political independence, and earnest desire for landand opportunity soon made them _personae non gratae_ in the establishedareas. Hence, they migrated to the frontier areas and even beyond thelimits of Provincial interference and control. [22]

The paucity of population data makes impossible any extensive analysisof the stability and mobility of the Fair Play settlers. However, thetax lists, both in the published archives and in the files of the countycommissioners in Northumberland County, offer limited evidence for theearly years, though they provide ample data for the years after 1773. Prior to the Great Runaway in 1778, tax lists are available for theentire county of Northumberland; the lists simply indicate the taxable'stownship, acreage, and tax. Records in the Northumberland Countycourthouse give the assessments for 1773, 1774, 1776, and 1778. 

Due to the fact that the Fair Play territory was outside the Provinciallimits until after the purchase of Fort Stanwix in 1784, the assessmentlists give only those persons residing within Northumberland County. Asa result, there were only six to twelve settlers who associated with theFair Play men who were included in the lists for 1773-1778. Chart 4indicates the names, national origins, and years listed for thosesettlers. 

 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-Irishwere not only the most numerous but also the most persistent of thesefrontiersmen. Also, nine of these men, that is all except Clark, Jones, and King, appear on the tax lists for Northumberland County for the year1785. [24] Interestingly enough, six of these nine were Scotch-Irish; andalthough our sample is limited, it is readily apparent that the stalwartScots had a way of "hanging on. " It would be presumptuous to concludethat seventy-five per cent of the residents before 1778 returned by1785; but it is fact that some forty families had made improvements inthe area by 1773 when William Cooke was sent out by the Land Office to"Warn the People of[f] the unpurchased Land. "[25] Furthermore, asindicated earlier, some fifty families appear on the assessments for1786, more than half of whom had been in the region before. 

Any effort to analyze the population in terms of stability and mobilityruns head-on into the creation of new townships in the 1780's, theinability to establish death rates for this frontier, and the inadequacyof probate records. The result is that the data are intuitively ratherthan statistically sound. Chart 5 offers a comparison of tax lists overa period of nine years as the basis for some conclusions regarding thestability 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. Thesteady growth rate of the area is easily recognizable both in rawfigures and in percentages. Beginning with an increase of a little morethan seven per cent between the first two listings, we find a seventyper cent increase in the final figures. The tremendous increase in thelast two assessments may be due to the purchase of 1784 and thesubsequent legitimizing of claims through the establishment ofpre-emption rights. 

The stability of the population is particularly noted in theconsistently high percentage of residents with some tenure in thevalley. Furthermore, the apparent contradiction of this statement by thedecline to fourteen residents in the 1786 listing who had once left andthen returned is offset when one examines the neighboring townshipassessments for that same year. Here fourteen additional names of formerFair Play settlers are to be found which would sustain thecharacteristic pattern of tenure. The statistical problem is complicatedby the creation of new townships following the purchase of 1784. PineCreek and Lycoming were the new designations for the former Fair Playterritory, Pine Creek running from the creek of that same name west, andLycoming 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 twoor more of these appeals. These include a distress petition in June of1778, and petitions asking recognition of pre-emption rights in 1781 and1784. [27] The signatures on the petitions range in number fromthirty-nine to fifty-one, and at least twenty-four of these settlerssigned two or more of these documents. The very nature of thesepetitions, particularly the later ones, indicates the tremendous desireon the part of these sturdy pioneers to remain in or return to theirhomes in the West Branch Valley. Here too, however, this tenacity ofpurpose is not strictly confined to the Scotch-Irish. 

What conclusions can be drawn from this analysis of the demographicfactors in the Fair Play settlement? Particularly evident is thedominance of the Scotch-Irish, who numerically composed the greatestnational stock group in the population. This dominance, as we havealready noted, greatly influenced the political and social institutionsof the area. Secondly, one might consider the numbers of Englishsettlers, as compared with the number of Germans, surprising. As amatter of fact, if one adds the numbers of Scots and Welsh inhabitantsto the English and Scotch-Irish, the result is an "English" percentageof seventy-seven and one half for the entire population. Thus it isquite logical to assume that English customs and language would prevail, and they did. Incidentally, it should be added that the "English" natureof the population, combined with the Scotch-Irish plurality, meant thatthe Scotch-Irish were more representative of this frontier than theywere 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 thatthese frontiersmen were predominantly from the lower Susquehanna Valleyand southeastern Pennsylvania. Pennsylvania was to them a land ofliberty and opportunity;[28] and when they failed to find theseprivileges in the settled areas, they moved out on the frontier wherethey could make their own rules, that is to say, establish their ownfamiliar institutions. The result was the Fair Play system. 

Although the Fair Play settlers came to America and central Pennsylvaniafor the usual political, economic, and social reasons, the two Stanwixtreaties and the Indian raids of 1778 had the most influence onpopulation fluctuations. The pioneers came into the territoryover-reaching the limits of the "New Purchase" of 1768. They were drivenout, almost to a man, in the Great Runaway of 1778. And finally, theyreturned after the second "New Purchase" in 1784, which resulted in therecognition of their pre-emption claims for their earlier illegalsettlements. It is interesting to note that pre-emption claims wererecognized in the West Branch Valley some forty-five years prior tofederal legislation to that effect. [29]

Despite fluctuations in the population, the Scotch-Irish were able tomaintain their hold over the valley and thus influence the pattern ofdevelopment for this frontier outpost. Horace Walpole, addressing theEnglish Parliament during the American Revolution, said, "There is nouse crying about it. Cousin America has run off with a Presbyterianparson, and that is the end of it. "[30] The Scotch-Irish with theirPresbyterianism had run off with the West Branch Valley as well; andtheir independent spirit would see them in the foreground of the"noblest rupture in the history of mankind. " That independent spirit andleadership is particularly noted in the political system which theyestablished along the West Branch of the Susquehanna River. Their "FairPlay 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 appearingin an article on the genealogy of the Fair Play men, Helen HerrittRussell, "The Documented Story of the Fair Play Men and TheirGovernment, " _The Northumberland County Historical Society Proceedingsand Addresses_, XII (1958), 16-43. Mrs. Russell is genealogist of theFort Antes chapter of the Daughters of the American Revolution in JerseyShore, Pa. The names were checked in Meginness and Linn for possiblenational origin. Approximately one-fourth were verified in thesesources. Although this writer questioned the validity of the geographicconclusions of Meginness and Linn, both have ample documentation fortheir findings regarding genealogy and national origins. These findingscan be validated in the published archives. The entire sample of nameswas submitted to Dr. Samuel P. Bayard, a folklore specialist andprofessor of English at the Pennsylvania State University, whosedetermination was made on the basis of linguistic techniques. 

[3] Popular control was an American rather than a Scottish influencenecessitated by the absence of sufficient numbers of ministers. InScotland, 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 onLinguistic 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 JohnB. 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 Migrationof the Connecticut Yankees to the West Branch of the Susquehanna River, "_The Northumberland County Historical Society Proceedings andAddresses_, XX (1954), 34-35, eighty-two Yankees came to Warrior's Runin September of 1775, but none went farther west. 

[9] Wyoming Historical and Geological Society, Wilkes-Barre, Pa. , TheZebulon 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 ColonelThomas Hartley was ordered to the area with his regiment before thesummer 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 theIndians drunk following the settlement at Albany between the Six Nationsand the Proprietaries. This boundary line (Albany) "crossed the WestBranch 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 itis recognized that territorial acquisitions of both Stanwix treatiesadopted 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 ofthe 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 StateArchives, Harrisburg. 

[28] Penn's colony was well advertised, and the emphasis upon liberty ofconscience, when contrasted with the restrictions of the Test Act, givesample 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 of1841, whereas Congress actually recognized squatters' rights in the actof 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 inthe Susquehanna Valley, along the West Branch, offers a vividdemonstration of the impact of the frontier on the development ofdemocratic institutions. Occupying lands beyond the reach of theProvincial legislature, with some forty families of mixed nationalorigin in residence by 1773, these frontier "outlaws" had to devise somesolution to the question of authority in their territory. [1] Theirsolution was the extra-legal creation of _de facto_ rule historicallyknown as the Fair Play system. The following is a contemporarydescription 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 asold as the Greeks. Nor is the concept of a "social compact, " hereimplied, particularly novel to the American scene. The theory was thatpeople hitherto unconnected assembled and gave their consent to begoverned by a certain ruler or rulers under some particular form ofgovernment. [3] Theoretically justified by John Locke in his persuasivedefense of the Glorious Revolution, it had been practiced in Plymouth, Rhode Island, Connecticut, and New Hampshire, where practical necessityhad required it for settlements occasionally made outside charterlimits. The frontier, whether in New England or in the West BranchValley, created a practical necessity which made popular consent thebasis of an actual government. 

They were not "covenanters" in the Congregational sense of havingbrought an established church with them to the Fair Play territory. Butthe Fair Play settlers understood and subscribed to the principle ofpopular control, which was fundamental to such solemnly made andproperly ratified agreements. Separated from the authority of the crown, detached from the authority of the hierarchy of the church by theProtestant Reformation, possessing no American tradition of extensivepolitical experience, these settlers could only depend upon themselvesas proper authorities for their own political system. 

Furthermore, the great majority of the settlers who came to the FairPlay territory came from families who had left their homes in the oldcountry to escape political, economic, and social restrictions, only tobe made unwelcome in their new homes in the settled areas ofPennsylvania. Displaced persons in a new country, they were forced bylives of conflict to seek better opportunity by moving to undevelopedlands. As a result, they settled along the West Branch of theSusquehanna, beyond the authority of the crown and outside the pressuresof the Provincial legislature. 

If man is a predatory beast in his natural state, a belief someexpressed in the eighteenth century, then it follows naturally thatevery society must have some agency of authority and control. Theuniversally standardized solution to the problem of social control isgovernment. The Fair Play system was the answer on this Susquehannafrontier to the need for some legitimate agency of force. [4] This systemvested authority in the people through annual elections of a tribunal ofthree of their number. The members of the tribunal were givenquasi-executive, legislative, and judicial powers over all the settlersin the West Branch Valley "beyond the purchase line. "[5]

Although no record of any of these elections has been preserved, thecomposition of the Fair Play tribunal in 1776 has been established andverified by subsequent reviews of land claims in the county courts. [6]Also, two of the members of the tribunal of 1775 are identified in apre-emption claim made before the Lycoming County Court in 1797. [7] Itis interesting to note that among these five men are represented thethree most prominent national stock groups in the area, with theScotch-Irish, as our earlier sample demonstrated, in the majority. 

Lacking returns of the annual elections of the tribunal and minutes ofits actual meetings, we have only Smith's _Laws of the Commonwealth ofPennsylvania_, petitions from the Fair Play settlers, and the subsequentreview of land questions by the Northumberland and Lycoming Countycourts to evaluate the tribunal, its members, and its procedures. However, these data are more than adequate in giving us a picture ofthis _de facto_, though illegal, rule, which existed in the West BranchValley until the Treaty of Fort Stanwix in 1784 brought the territoryunder Commonwealth jurisdiction. The composition of the electoratevaried with the fluctuations in population caused by the two Stanwixtreaties, the Revolution, and the Great Runaway. 

Since property and religious qualifications were the primaryprerequisites to voting at this time, it seems logical to assume that asimilar basis for suffrage operated in the West Branch Valley. [8] Havingno regular church--the first, a Presbyterian, was not organized until1792--property qualifications appear to have been the basis for what, inthis area, was practically universal manhood suffrage. Due to the factthat the entire settlement consisted of squatters, practically all ofthe heads of households were property holders, regardless of thequestionable legality of their holdings. The tax lists indicate holdingsof some 100 to 300 acres on the average for residents, so it isparticularly difficult to know whether or not a minimum holdingrequirement prevailed. The Provincial suffrage requirement in thisperiod 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 "fourtyImprovements, "[10] meaning forty family settlements, existed in the areaby 1773, and that following the Great Runaway of 1778, the territory wasalmost devoid of settlers. The void was filled, however, when settlersbegan returning toward the end of the Revolution and following theaccession of the territory in the second Stanwix Treaty, in 1784. Thus, for all practical purposes, the functioning of the Fair Play system wasconfined to this more limited time. Furthermore, the system wassupplemented in 1776 by the introduction of the Committee of Safety, andlater that year by the Council of Safety. [11]

As is indicated in Smith's _Laws_, annual meetings were held to selectthe governing tribunal of three for the ensuing year. Generally convenedat some readily accessible place, these sessions were presumably held inthe open or at one of the frontier forts erected in the area: FortAntes, across the river from Jersey Shore; or Fort Horn, located on thesouth side of the Susquehanna about eight miles west of Jersey Shore. There were frontier forts in the vicinity of the present Muncy--FortMuncy--and Lock Haven--Fort Reed; but Fort Muncy was some twenty-oddmiles east of the Fair Play territory and Fort Reed was beyond the GreatIsland at its western extremity. As a result, these outposts wereunlikely meeting places for the tribunal or for its election. [12]Unfortunately, there is no recorded evidence of a specific meeting ofthe Fair Play men. 

The authority of the Fair Play tribunal extended across the entireterritory from Lycoming Creek to the Great Island on the north side ofthe West Branch of the Susquehanna. However, most of the disputed cases, which can be verified by subsequent court reviews in eitherNorthumberland or Lycoming counties, seem to have involved land claimsin the area between Lycoming and Pine creeks. The tribunal accepted orrejected claims for settlement in the area and decided boundaryquestions and other controversies among settlers. [13] As to a specificcode of laws, there is none of record. However, the cases subsequentlyreviewed in the established county courts refer to some of their regularpractices. For example, any man who left his improvement for six weekswithout leaving someone to continue it, lost his right to theimprovement;[14] any man who went into the army could count on the FairPlay men (the tribunal) to protect his property;[15] any man who soughtland in the territory was obliged to obtain not only the approval of theFair Play men but also of his nearest potential neighbors;[16] and thesummary process of ejectment which the Fair Play men exercised was realand certain and sometimes supported by the militia. [17]

The specific membership of the Fair Play tribunal is rather difficult toascertain due to its failure to keep minutes of its proceedings and theabsence of any recorded code. However, as indicated earlier, [18] theexistence of the tribunal between the years 1773 and 1778, and itsactual composition in 1775 and 1776, have already been established fromthe 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 yearsnoted. [19] The cases reviewed reveal the names of five of theseeighteen. Recognizing the limitations of our twenty-eight per centsampling, however, it is interesting to note that the three majornational stocks are represented in this restricted sample. Furthermore, as was mentioned previously, [20] the Scotch-Irish settlers, being in themajority, enjoyed the majority representation on the tribunal. Ananalysis of leadership in the territory, to be developed more fullylater, leads one to conclude that the Scotch-Irish, in the main, werethe political leaders of the area. [21]

A diligent search of some sixty cases in the Court of Common Pleas inboth Northumberland and Lycoming counties yielded some documentaryevidence regarding the procedures of the Fair Play tribunal. [22] Threecases in Lycoming County and one from Northumberland County containdepositions which describe the activities of the Fair Play men in somedetail. One case, _Hughes_ vs. _Dougherty_, was appealed to the SupremeCourt of the Commonwealth. All of the cases deal with the question oftitle to lands in the Fair Play territory following the purchase ofthese lands at the Treaty of Fort Stanwix in 1784. The depositions takenin conjunction with these cases indicate the processes of settlement andejectment, in addition to the policies regarding land tenure. Thefairness of the Fair Play decisions is noted by the fact that theregular courts concurred with the earlier judgments of the tribunal. [23]

An anecdote involving one of the Fair Play men, Peter Rodey, illustratesthe nature of this frontier justice. According to legend, Chief JusticeMcKean of the State Supreme Court was holding court in this district, and, curious about the principles or code of the Fair Play men, heinquired about them of Peter Rodey, a former member of the tribunal. Rodey, unable to recall the details of the code, simply replied: "All Ican say is, that since your Honor's coorts have come among us, _fairplay_ has entirely ceased, and law has taken its place. "[24]

The justice of "fair play" and the nature of the system can be seen froman analysis of the cases reviewed subsequently in the establishedcourts. As mentioned previously, these cases describe the proceduresregarding settlement, land tenure, and ejectment. Although no recordedcode of laws has been located, references to "resolutions of the FairPlay men" regularly appear in the depositions and summaries of thesecases. [25] According to Leyburn, a customary "law" concerning settlementrights operated on the frontier, particularly among theScotch-Irish. [26] This "law" recognized three settlement rights: "cornright, " which established claims to 100 acres for each acre of grainplanted; "tomahawk right, " which marked off the area claimed bydeadening trees at the boundaries of the claim; and, "cabin right, "which confirmed the claim by the construction of a cabin upon thepremises. 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 secondaryconsideration 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" isparticularly noted. [27] The following summary of that case, found in_Pennsylvania Reports_, emphasizes that significance, in addition todefining 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 in1786, was appealed to the State Supreme Court, where the lower courtdecision was affirmed in 1791. The summary runs the gamut of Fair Playprocedures from settlement, through questions of tenure, to ejectment. Its completeness indicates its usefulness. Partial and occasionaldepositions in the other cases cited help to round out the picture ofthe Fair Play "code. "

For example, the right of settlement included not only the approval ofthe Fair Play men, but also the acceptance of the prospectivelandholder by his neighbors. Allusions to this effect are made in theColdren deposition as well as in the Huff-Latcha case. Eleanor Coldren'sdeposition, made at Sunbury, June 7, 1797, concerns the disputed titleto certain lands of her deceased husband, Abraham Dewitt, opposite theGreat Island. Her comments about neighbor approval demonstrate thepoint. 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 theunanimous agreement of the Neighbors and Fair-Play Men.... "[30]

William King, who temporarily claimed part of the land involved in thedispute between Edmund Huff and Jacob Latcha, also refers to neighborapproval in his deposition taken in that case. He said, "I first went toEdmund Huff, then to Thomas Kemplen, Samuel Dougherty, William McMeans, and Thomas Ferguson, and asked if they would accept me as aneighbor.... "[31]

Land tenure policy is noted by this same William King in the case of_James Grier_ vs. _William Tharpe_. Repeating what we have alreadypointed 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 absentedhimself for the space of six weeks, lost his right to hisimprovement. "[32] In the Huff-Latcha case, King recounts the case of oneJoseph Haines who "had once a right ... But had forfeited his right bythe Fair-play law.... "[33]

The forfeiture rule was tempered, however, in cases involving militaryservice. Bratton Caldwell's deposition in _Grier_ vs. _Tharpe_ is a casein 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 fallof 1778.... In July, 1778, the Runaway, John Martin, had come on theland in his absence. The Fair-play men put Greer in possession. If a manwent into the army, the Fair-play men protected his property. "[34]Meginness mentions a similar decision in the case of John Toner andMorgan Sweeney. [35] Sweeney had attempted to turn a lease forimprovements in Toner's behalf to possession for himself, but theNorthumberland County Court honored the Fair Play rule concerningmilitary 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'sdeposition in the Huff-Latcha case. King, having sold his right to oneWilliam 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 Playsystem, it seems quite likely that the tribunal's jurisdiction extendedto other matters. A few anecdotes, obviously based quite tenuously uponhearsay, will suffice to illustrate. Joseph Antes, son of Colonel HenryAntes, used to tell this story: It seems that one Francis Clark, wholived just west of Jersey Shore in the Fair Play territory, gainedpossession 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 andtrial for the alleged theft. Clark was convicted and sentenced to belashed. The punishment was to be inflicted by a person decided by lot, the responsibility falling upon the man drawing the red grain of cornfrom a bag containing grains of corn for each man present. Philip Anteswas the reluctant "winner. " The Indian, seeing that the decision of the"court" was to be carried out immediately, magnanimously suggested thatbanishment would serve better than flogging. Clark agreed and left forthe Nippenose Valley, where his settlement is a matter of record. [39]

Another anecdote, if true, gives further testimony to the justice ofFair Play. In this instance, a minister and school teacher named Kincaidfaced the Fair Play tribunal on the charge of abusing his family. Triedand convicted, he was sentenced to be ridden on a rail for hisoffense. [40] Here again, the tale, though legendary, is made plausibleby the established fact of Kincaid's residence in the area. [41]

Doubtless the most notable political action of the Fair Play settlers istheir declaration of independence, which Meginness calls "a remarkablecoincidence" because "it took place about the same time that theDeclaration was signed in Philadelphia!"[42] Aware, as were many of theAmerican colonists in the spring and summer of 1776, that independencewas being debated in Philadelphia, these West Branch pioneers decided toabsolve themselves from all allegiance to the Crown and declare theirown independence. Meeting under a large elm on the west bank of PineCreek, mistakenly known as the "Tiadaghton Elm, " the Fair Play men andsettlers simply resolved their own right of self-determination, aprinciple upon which they had been acting for some time. Unfortunately, no record of the resolution has been preserved--if it was actuallywritten. However, the names of the supposed signers, all bona fide FairPlay settlers, have been passed down to the present. [43]

As every careful historian knows, no declaration was signed inPhiladelphia on July 4, 1776, except by the clerk and presiding officerof the Continental Congress. Consequently, the Pine Creek story arousesjustifiable skepticism. However, there does seem to be some evidence tosubstantiate this famous act. 

First of all, Fithian's _Journal_ gives insight into the possiblemotivation for such independent action. In an entry for Thursday, July27, 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 inPennsylvania_, which he had come across in the library of John Fleming, his host for a week in the West Branch Valley. Dickinson's dozenuncompromising epistles in opposition to the Grenville and Townshendprograms both inspired and incited liberty-lovers. Furthermore, Fleminghimself was a leader among the Fair Play settlers, and may have beenaroused to action by the eloquence of Dickinson's expression. Every ideais an incitement to action and the ideas of _Letters from a Farmer_, which made Dickinson the chief American propagandist prior to ThomasPaine, reached into the frontier of the West Branch Valley. 

The best contemporary evidence in support of the Pine Creek declarationis found in the widow's pension application of Anna Jackson Hamilton, daughter-in-law of Alexander Hamilton, who was one of the early settlersand a prominent leader along the West Branch of the Susquehanna. Mrs. Hamilton, whose pension application and accompanying statement weremade in 1858, lived within one mile of the reputedly historic elm. Inher sworn statement she says, "I remember well the day independence wasdeclared on the plains of Pine Creek, seeing such numbers flockingthere, and Independence being all the talk, I had a knolege of what wasdoing. "[45] Her son John corroborates this in his statement that "Sheand an old colored woman are the only persons now living in the countrywho remembers the meeting of the 4th of July, 1776, at Pine Creek. Sheremembers it well. "[46] Mrs. Hamilton was ninety years old at the timeof her declaration, which was made some eighty-two years after thecelebrated event. [47]

Following the outbreak of the Revolution and the meeting of the SecondContinental Congress, the Fair Play system of the West Branch Valley wassoon augmented by another extra-legal organization, the Committee ofSafety. 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] TheCouncil of Safety was instituted as the successor to the Committee ofSafety by a resolution of the Provincial Convention of 1776, thenmeeting in Philadelphia to draw up a new constitution for Pennsylvania. It was continued by an act of the assembly that same year. It functionedfrom July 24, 1776, until it was dissolved on December 6, 1777, by aproclamation of the Supreme Executive Council. [49] Locally, however, the township branches continued to function and were still referred toas "committees. "

It appears from the resolutions and actions of the local committee thatthe Fair Play men maintained jurisdiction in land questions, but thatall other cases were within the range of the committee's authority. Infact, a resolution dated February 27, 1776, asserted that "the committeeof Bald Eagle is the most competent judges of the circumstances of thepeople of that township. "[50] This resolution was made in conjunctionwith an order from the county committee to prevent the loss of rye andother grains which were being "carried out of the township forstilling. "[51] Although cautioned against "using too much rigor in theirmeasures, " the committee was advised to find "a medium between seizingof property and supplying the wants of the poor. "[52] The countycommittee even went so far as to recommend the suppression of suchpractices as "profaning the Sabbath in an unchristian and scandalousmanner. "[53] In April of 1777, the county committee required an oath ofallegiance from one William Reed, who had refused military service forreasons of conscience. [54]

Although Bald Eagle Township did not, at this time, extend into FairPlay territory, [55] it is interesting to note that the local committee, whose three members frequently changed, often included settlers fromthat territory or those who were in close association with the Fair Playmen. [56] The Revolution apparently gave a certain quasi-legality to theclaims of the "outlaws" of the West Branch Valley. 

One further political note is worthy of mention. After Lexington andConcord and the formation of the various committees of safety, thecivil officers of Bald Eagle Township, that is to say the constable, supervisor, and overseers, were often chosen from among settlers on theborders of, or actually in, Fair Play territory. [57]

The politics of fair play then was nothing more than that--fair play. Itwas a pragmatic system which the necessities of the frontier experience, more than national or ethnic origin, had developed. The "codes" ofoperation represented a consensus, equally, freely, and fairly arrivedat--a common "law" based upon general agreement and practicalacceptance. There were subsequent appeals to regular courts of law, but, surprisingly enough, in every instance the fairness of the judgments wassustained. No Fair Play decision was reversed. Furthermore, thefrequency of elections and the use of the principle of rotation inoffice were additional assurances against the usurpation of power by anysmall 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 aproclamation of the Council signed by Governor John Penn on Sept. 20, 1773. The proclamation was issued "strictly enjoyning and requiring alland every Person and Persons, already settled or Residing on any Landsbeyond the Boundary Line of the Last Indian Purchase, immediately toevacuate their illegal Settlements, and to depart and remove themselvesfrom the said Lands without Delay, on pain of being prosecuted with theutmost rigour of the Law. " The "Last Indian Purchase" referred to hereis, of course, the Stanwix Treaty of 1768. 

[2] Smith, _Laws_, II, 195. 

[3] Richard W. Leopold and Arthur S. Link (eds. ), _Problems in AmericanHistory_ (Englewood Cliffs, N. J. , 1957), p. 22. The entire firstproblem in this excellent text deals with the question of authority inAmerican government. 

[4] This Fair Play system was certainly not unique, for other frontiersocieties employed the same technique, even down to the ruling tribunalof three members. See Solon and Elizabeth Buck, _The Planting ofCivilization in Western Pennsylvania_ (Pittsburgh, 1939), pp. 431, 451. However, it must be pointed out that the Bucks' "Fair Play" reference isbased on Smith, _Laws_, II, 195, which Samuel P. Bates used in "ageneral application of the practice to W. Pa. Areas after 1768, " in his_History of Greene County, Pennsylvania_ (Chicago, 1888). This was theinterpretation 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 areevidences of Fair Play Men titles in the court records of Washington andGreene Counties. "

[5] This designation was often employed to classify those settlers whotook 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 WestBranch of the Susquehanna. 

[6] Russell, "Signers of the Pine Creek Declaration of Independence, " p. 5. Mrs. Russell, whose historical accuracy can be verified through herindicated sources, refers to old borough minutes of Jersey Shore as hersource for the names of the tribunal of 1776, namely, Bartram Caldwell, John Walker, and James Brandon. Upon discussing the matter with her, Ilearned that a clipping from an old Jersey Shore paper, now lost, whichdescribed the minutes, was her actual source. However, adequatedocumentation and meticulous research characterize her work. Furthermore, Bratton Caldwell (he signed his name Bartram) is alsolabeled a Fair Play official by Linn, "Indian Land and Its Fair PlaySettlers, 1773-1785, " p. 422. Linn's identification comes in the case of_Greer_ vs. _Tharpe_, Greer's case being a pre-emption claim on thebasis 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 andCookson Long, two of the Fair-Play Men, with others, were at thedeponent's house.... "

[8] Oscar T. Barck, Jr. And Hugh T. Lefler, _Colonial America_ (NewYork, 1958), pp. 258-260. Although Barck and Lefler indicate in thissection on "The Colonial Franchise" that universal suffrage did notprevail 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_, FirstSeries, XII, 286-287. 

[11] _Pennsylvania Archives_, Fourth Series, III, 545-546. 

[12] _Report of the Commission to Locate the Site of the Frontier Fortsof 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 sixweeks 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, indicatesthis 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 useof 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 namewas 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, inwhich the excerpt from this source is quoted verbatim. 

[20] _Supra_, p. 33. 

[21] _Infra_, Chapter Six. The question of leadership in conjunctionwith the problems of this frontier is discussed in Chapter Six. 

[22] The Appearance Dockets and Files were checked for NorthumberlandCounty 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 LycomingCounty dealing with former Fair Play settlers. Unfortunately, only fourwere reviews of actual Fair Play decisions. 

[23] Northumberland County originated in 1772 and Lycoming County in1795. 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 theAppearance Dockets of Lycoming and Northumberland counties in therespective prothonotaries' offices. _Hughes_ vs. _Dougherty_ appears inthe Northumberland County Docket for November, 1783, to August, 1786, inthe February term of the Court of Common Pleas, file 42. Both the Huffand 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 JohnHamilton's "Early Times on the West Branch, " which was published in theLock Haven _Republican_ in 1875. Unfortunately, recurrent floodsdestroyed most of the newspaper files, and copies of this series are notnow available. John Hamilton was a third-generation descendant ofAlexander 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 Pictureof Clinton County_ (Lock Haven, 1942), p. 38, is clearly spurious. Thelanguage of this Pennsylvania Writers' project of the W. P. A. Isobviously twentieth-century, and it contains references to events whichhad not yet occurred. 

[44] _Fithian: Journal_, p. 72. 

[45] Muncy Historical Society, Muncy, Pa. , Wagner Collection, AnnaJackson Hamilton to Hon. George C. Whiting, Commissioner of Pensions, Dec. 16, 1858. 

[46] _Ibid. _, John Hamilton to Hon. George C. Whiting, Commissioner ofPensions, 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 thisremarkable woman who was in full possession of her faculties at thetime. The Rev. John Grier, son-in-law of Mrs. Hamilton and brother ofSupreme Court Justice Robert C. Grier, wrote to President Buchanan onNov. 12, 1858, (Wagner Collection), stating that "Mrs. Hamilton is oneof the most intelligent in our community. " Buchanan then wrote anaffidavit in support of Grier's statements to the Commissioner ofPensions, Nov. 27, 1858, (Wagner Collection). Aside from thedeclarations of Mrs. Hamilton and her son, the only other support, andthis is hearsay, is found in the account of an alleged conversationbetween 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 notrecorded until some seventy years after the "chats" raises seriousdoubts. 

[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 ofNorthumberland County, " _The Northumberland County Historical SocietyProceedings 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 theactivities of the Committee. Carter notes that the county committeeconsisted of thirty-three members, three from each of the eleventownships 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 frontierwas in part due to the cultural background of its inhabitants, theknowledge and traditional values which they had brought with them. Itwas further influenced by the frontier status of the region itself--anarea 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 moreestablished settlements. It has been said that "many of the enduringcharacteristics of the American creed and the American nationalcharacter originated in the way of life of the colonial farmer. "[2] TheFair Play territory was typical of this development. 

The early pioneer, particularly if he was Scotch-Irish, generally cameinto the area from the Cumberland Valley, the "seed-plot and nursery" ofthe Scotch-Irish in America, the "original reservoir" of this leadingfrontier stock, via the Great Shamokin Path. [3] Since there were noroads, only Indian trails, the frontier traveler customarily followedthe Indian paths which had been cleared along the rivers and streams. The Great Shamokin Path followed the Susquehanna from Shamokin (nowSunbury) to the West Branch, then out along the West Branch to theAllegheny Mountains. [4] Loading his wife and smaller children on a packhorse, his scanty possessions on another horse, the prospective settlerdrove a cow or two into the wild frontier at the rate of about twentymiles a day. [5] This meant that a trip of approximately two days broughthim from Fort Augusta to the Fair Play country. 

Indian paths were the primary means of ingress and egress, althoughsupplemented by the waterways which they paralleled. In addition to theGreat Shamokin Path, there were paths up Lycoming Creek (the SheshequinPath), and up Pine Creek, besides the path which followed Bald EagleCreek down into the Juniata Valley. These trails and adjoining waterroutes were usually traveled on horseback or in canoes, depending uponthe route to be followed. However, the rivers and streams were moreoften passages of departure than courses of entry. 

Established roads, that is authorized public constructions, were not toreach the West Branch region until 1775, although the NorthumberlandCounty Court ordered such construction and reported on it at the Octoberterm 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 mouthof Bald Eagle Creek to the town of Sunbury. "[7] It was not until tenyears later that extensions of this road were authorized, carrying itinto the Nittany Valley and to Bald Eagle's Nest (near Milesburg, on theIndian path from the Great Island to Ohio). [8]

Travel was usually on horseback or on foot. Canoes and flatboats, orsimply rafts, were used on the rivers and creeks where available. Wagons, however, appeared after the construction of public roads andwere seen in the Great Runaway of 1778. [9]

The problem of communication between the frontier and the settled areaswas a difficult one compounded by the natural geographic barriers andthe fact that post and coach roads did not extend into this centralPennsylvania region. As a result the inhabitants had to depend uponoccasional travelers, circuit riders, surveyors, and other Provincialauthorities who visited them infrequently. Otherwise, the meetings ofthe Fair Play tribunal, irregular as they were, and the communicationsfrom the county Committee of Safety were about the only sources ofinformation available. Of course, cabin-building, cornhusking, andquilting parties provided ample opportunities for the dissemination ofstrictly "local" news. 

Newspapers were not introduced into the upper Susquehanna Valley untilaround the turn of the century. The _Northumberland Gazette_ waspublished in Sunbury in 1797 or 1798. [10] The first truly West Branchpaper was not circulated until 1802, when the _Lycoming Gazette_ wasfirst published in Williamsport. [11] On the eve of the Revolution therewere only seven newspapers available in the entire Province, none ofwhich circulated as far north as the Fair Play territory. [12] As amatter of fact, there were only thirty-seven papers printed in allthirteen colonies at the beginning of the Revolution. [13]

The Fair Play settler was an "outlaw, " a squatter who came into thiscentral Pennsylvania wilderness with his family and without the benefitof a land grant, and who literally hacked and carved out a living. Thenatural elements, the savage natives, and the wild life all resistedhim; but he conquered them all, and the conquest gave him a feeling ofaccomplishment which enhanced his independent spirit. 

If the story of the Great Plains frontier can be told in terms ofrailroads, barbed-wire fences, windmills, and six-shooters, [14] then thecruder tale of the West Branch frontier can be told in terms of therifle, the axe, and the plow. The rifle, first and foremost as theweapon of security, was the basic means of self-preservation in a wildland where survival was a constant question. [15] The axe, which TheodoreRoosevelt later described as "a servant hardly standing second even tothe rifle, "[16] was the main implement of destruction and construction. It was used for clearing the forest of the many trees which encroachedupon the acreage which the settler had staked out for himself, and forcutting the logs which would provide the rude, one-room shelter thepioneer constructed for himself and his family. The crude wooden plowwas the implement which made this frontiersman a farmer, although itseffectiveness was extremely limited. However, the soil was so fertile, and the weeds so sparse, that scratching the earth and scattering seedsproduced a crop. [17]

A contemporary description of squatter settlements in Muncy Hills, sometwenty-odd miles east of the Fair Play territory, but in the West BranchValley, gives a vivid picture of the nature of these earlyestablishments:

 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 therewere no immediate neighbors whose permission was necessary forsettlement, or until a dispute was carried to the tribunal foradjudication. This procedure was detailed in the last chapter. 

Having selected a site, preferably on or near a stream, and obtainedapproval from the Fair Play men and his neighbors, the prospectivesettler was faced with the long and tedious work of clearing the landfor his home and farm. This was an extended effort for he could clearonly a few acres a year. In the meantime, his survival depended upon thefew provisions he brought with him--some grain for meal, a little flour, and perhaps some salt pork and smoked meat. These supplies, combinedwith the wild game and fish which abounded in the area, served untilsuch a time as crops could be produced. It was a rigorous lifecomplicated by the fact that the meager supplies often ran out beforethe first crop was brought in. The first month's meals were too oftenvariations on the limited fare of water porridge and hulled corn, asdescribed 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 theoriginal settlers, illustrates the cooperative nature of the enterprise, in addition to giving a clear picture of the type of construction whichreplaced the early lean-to shelter with which the frontiersman was firstacquainted:

 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 singleday, without a mason, without a pound of iron, and with nothing but dirtfor flooring. The doors and windows were subsequently cut out of thestructure to suit the tastes of its occupants. 

In this one-room cabin lived the frontier settler and his family, whomight be joined by guests. Small wonder, then, that additions to thisconstruction took on such significance that they were items of mentionin later wills. [22]

Once having cleared a reasonable portion of his property, raised hiscabin, and scratched out an existence for his first few months ofoccupation, the pioneer was now ready to get down to the business offarming. Working around the stumps which cluttered his improvement, thefrontier farmer planted his main crops, which were, of course, the foodgrains--wheat, rye, with oats, barley, and corn, and buckwheat and cornfor the livestock. Some indication of the planting and harvestingseasons 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 thefarmer's tools. Reference is made to "one [who] plowed the same spot ... For eight years ... [taking] double Crops without giving it an Ounce ofManure. "[24] Scientific farming had not yet come to the West BranchValley, although the Philadelphia area had been awakened to itspossibilities through the publications of Franklin's AmericanPhilosophical Society. 

Fertile soil was practically essential when one considers the crudeimplements with which the frontier farmer carried on his hazardousvocation. In addition to the crude wooden plow, which we have alreadymentioned, the agrarian pioneer of the West Branch possessed along-bladed sickle, a homemade rake, a homemade hay fork, and a grainshovel. [25] All of these items were made of wood and were of the crudestsort. [26] As time went on, he added a few tools of his own invention, but these, and his sturdy curved-handled axe, constituted the essentialinstruments of the farmer's craft. 

July was the month of harvest for the mainly "subsistence" farmersscattered along the West Branch. The uncertainties of the weather andthe number of acres planted had some influence upon the harvesting, sothat it was not unusual to see the wheat still swaying in the warmsummer breezes in the last week of July. However, if possible, the grainwas 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 grainitself. This took "hands" and the frontier family was generally the onlylabor force available. In time, however, field work was confined to themen of the family among the Scotch-Irish, who attached socialsignificance to the type of work done by their women. 

Fithian's _Journal_ reveals, however, that class-consciousness was notyet apparent in the division of labor on this frontier. On two occasionshe describes daughters of leading families engaged in other thanhousehold tasks. Arriving at the home of Squire Fleming, with whom hewas to stay for a week, Fithian notes on July 25, 1775, that BetseyFleming, his host's daughter, "was milking. "[27] The very next day, uponvisiting the Squire's brother, who had "two fine Daughter's, " thisPresbyterian journalist found "One of them reaping. "[28] If Leyburn'scomment that social status among the Scotch-Irish depended in part uponthe work done by the women of the family, then these examples attest tothe fact that "status" was a luxury which the Fair Play settlers couldnot yet afford. [29]

Threshing was either done by hand with flails, or, if the family had acow or two (and the tax lists indicate that they did), the grain wasseparated by driving the livestock around and around over the unbundledstraw. Finally, the chaff was removed by throwing the grain into the airwhile the breeze was flowing. The grain was then collected and readiedfor milling. 

Gristmills were available in the West Branch Valley almost from theoutset of settlement due to the many fine streams which flowed throughthe territory. As a result, few farmers had to travel more than fivemiles, 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 hisshoulder. If the settler lived on or near a stream, he put his sacks ofgrain in a canoe and paddled downstream to the nearest mill. In theearly days before the mills, the grain was pounded into meal by using aheavy pestle and a hollowed-out stump, a crude mortar which served thepurpose. 

In time, the gristmill owners also operated distilleries, converting thepioneer's wheat, rye, and barley into spirited beverages which werefreely imbibed along this and other frontiers. By the time of theRevolution, distilling was so common as to cause the Committee of Safetyto take action to conserve the grain. [30] "Home brew, " however, wasquite the custom, and it was not long before most farmers operated theirown stills. 

Self-sufficiency was both a characteristic and a necessity among theseScotch-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 "subsistencefarming" existence by the inaccessibility of markets to the frontier. One diarist found this conducive to a "perfect Independence" which madea "Market to them, almost unnecessary. "[31] This economic independencecarried 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-alltrades, " and the West Branch settler of the Fair Play territory was atypical example. With no market of skilled labor, or any other marketfor that matter, [32] he was his own carpenter, cooper, shoe-maker, tailor, and blacksmith. Whatever he wanted or needed had to be made inhis own home. Thus, frontier industry was of the handicraft or domestictype, with tasks apportioned among the various members of the family inaccordance with their sex and talent. It was truly a "complete littleworld" in which the pioneer family supplied its every demand by its ownefforts. [33]

Although the role of the women was to take on status significance as thefrontier areas became more stable, in the earlier years of settlementtheir tasks were extensive and varied. Though they were busy withhousehold duties such as churning butter, making soap, pouring candles, quilting, and weaving cloth for the family's clothing, it was notuncommon for the women to join the men in the field at harvesttime. Thedomesticity of the American housewife may be one impact on American lifemade by the Germans. [34]

The children, too, were important persons in the economic life of thefrontier family. Their labors lightened the load for both father andmother. With no available labor market from which to draw farm hands andhousehold help, it was both necessary and useful to give the boys andgirls a vocational apprenticeship in farming or homemaking. The girls'responsibilities were usually, although not exclusively, related to thehearth; the efforts of the boys were generally confined to the field andthe implements employed there, although they did service too ashousehold handymen, hauling wood, making fires, and the like. [35]

In addition to their farming and domestic industry, the other economicactivities of these agrarian pioneers included the care of theirlivestock and the exploitation of the available natural resources intheir subsistence pattern of living. The tax lists for NorthumberlandCounty indicate the possession of two or three horses and a like numberof cows for each head of a household. [36] There were also "variousBreeds of Hogs" although they were not listed by the tax assessor. [37]Mr. Davy's comment that "Sheep are not well understood ... Oftendestroyed by the Wolves ... Few ... Except [those] of good Capital keepthem" may explain their absence from these same assessments. [38]

Maple syrup provided the sugar supply, a fact noted by land speculatorswho touted this "Country Abounding in the Sugar Tree. "[39] Anti-slaveinterests later thought that maple sugar would replace theslave-produced cane sugar. [40] Mr. Davy described the process as heobserved 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 usedextensively. Apparently the "sweet tooth" of the West Branch settlerswas well satisfied by the ample resources for saccharine products. 

The trade and commerce of the West Branch Valley were strictly confinedto its own locale. Mountain barriers, limited transportation facilities, and insufficient contact with the settled areas of the Province onlyserved to heighten the essential self-sufficiency of the Fair Playsettlers. The result was an economic independence which doubtless hadits political manifestations. [42]

Economic conditions have their political implications, but it was thetotal impact of the frontier and not simply the commercial restrictionsof some outside authority which made the Fair Play settlers self-reliantand independent "subsistence" farmers. The farmers' frontier did notresult from the impact of any particular national stock groups, forScotch-Irish, English, and German settlers reacted similarly. As themost recent historian of the Scotch-Irish, the most numerical nationalstock on this frontier, suggests, "authentically democratic principles, when the Scotch-Irish exhibited them in America, were rather the resultof their experiences on colonial frontiers than the product of theScottish and Ulster heritage. "[43] The farmers' frontier with itscharacteristics of individualistic self-reliance was a product of thefrontier 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, " _TheNorthumberland 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: Philadelphiain 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 PennsylvaniaRifle, " _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, " _PennsylvaniaHistory_, XX (1953), 261. 

[19] James W. Silver (ed. ), "Chauncey Brockway, an AutobiographicalSketch, " _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, foundin the respective offices of the Register of Wills and Recorder ofDeeds, contain entries leaving to the widow the "best room in thehouse, " or, "her choice of rooms. " No doubt, the simplicity of theearlier home accentuated the value of the additions. 

[23] "Mr. Davy's Diary, " p. 259. 

[24] _Ibid. _, p. 341. The Reverend Philip Vickers Fithian notes therichness of the land in the journal of his one-week visit to the area inthe summer of 1775. He was also surprised to find that "many have theirGrain 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 ofthese early farm implements and offers vivid evidence of theircrudeness. 

[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. Evenin the more settled areas of the Susquehanna Valley markets were slow todevelop 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 EnglishFamilies settle this will soon follow as there is an excellent supply ofevery necessary & even Luxury in the Neighbourhood. "

[33] J. E. Wright and Doris S. Corbett, _Pioneer Life in WesternPennsylvania_ (Pittsburgh, 1940), p. 74. 

[34] Arthur W. Calhoun, _A Social History of the American Family_ (NewYork, 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 sweepinggeneralizations about its significance which can hardly besubstantiated. _See_ Morris K. Turner, _The Commercial Relations of theSusquehanna Valley During the Colonial Period_ (Ph. D. Thesis, Universityof Pennsylvania, 1916). This dissertation, although claiming to dealwith the Susquehanna Valley, never gets much beyond Harrisburg andseldom 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-sufficientexistence. Turner's concluding paragraph is, however, a gem of economicdeterminism and bears repeating in full. Found on page 100, it reads asfollows:

"If then, the commercial relations of the Susquehanna Valley were so farreaching affecting as they did in the pre-Revolutionary period theattitude of the people on all the questions, practically, of the day itis only fair to say that it was these relations which promoted theRevolution in the Province and drove the old government out ofexistence. The political issues were aided and abetted, yes, werecreated, were born from the womb of the neglected commercial relationsof the Province and no other section at the time had such extensiverelations as the Susquehanna Valley. No other conclusion can be reachedafter 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 inthe territory or within a range of some thirty-five or forty miles. Furthermore, as we have already noted, transportation and communicationfacilities were so limited as to make contact with the "outside world"an exception rather than the rule. As we have also seen, economicfunctions on this farmers' frontier were not highly specialized. Eventhe political system, with its tribunal of Fair Play men, operatedwithout the benefit of any formal code. 

But it would be easy, from these indications, to magnify the simplicityof the social structure and of social relationships in the West BranchValley. If we are to consider the development of democracy on thisfrontier, we must take into account the various national stock groupswho settled this area and, in so doing, weigh their relative economicand social status, the amount of intermarriage between them, and theease and frequency with which they visited each other. These and othersocial relationships, such as their joint participation in voluntaryassociations, their prejudices and conflicts, and the assimilation ofalien groups, must all be evaluated. The leadership, the existence ofsocial classes, and the family patterns must, of necessity, be a part ofour inquiry. And finally, the religious institutions, the educationaland cultural opportunities, and the system of values have to beconsidered in arriving at a judgment regarding the democratic nature ofFair 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 percent), Welsh (2. 5 per cent) and French (2. 5 per cent) settlers. [1] Dueto the pioneering conditions under which all of these national stockgroups developed their "improvements, " economic privilege was ratherdifficult to attain. Furthermore, even after the legislature grantedpre-emption in the act of December, 1784, the grants were limited to300 acres. [2] In consequence of this, massive holdings were impossibleto maintain legally, as the customary holdings of two to three hundredacres indicate in the tax lists for the years after 1784. [3] In fact, the tax lists suggest that absentee-owners or persons outside the actualgeographic limits of the Fair Play territory who participated with theFair Play settlers were the only ones to possess 700 to 1, 000 acres ormore. [4] This fact, combined with the "subsistence farming" which all ofthe area settlers pursued, suggests a relatively comparable economicstatus for the members of the Fair Play society. Consequently, socialstatus was not necessarily dependent upon economic status. 

Social status on this frontier depended more upon achieved status thanascribed status. This may have been an influence of the Scotch-Irish, who judged, and thus classified, a neighbor by the size and condition ofhis dwelling, the care of his farm, the work done by the women in thefamily, his personal characteristics and morality, and hisdiversions. [5] Journalists, pension claimants, and the operative, although unwritten, code of the Fair Play men all give corroborativeevidence in this regard. [6] Of all these criteria, personal characterand morality seemed to have been most important. The Scotch-Irish, who, like the people of other national stocks, accepted social classes as theright ordering of society, shifted their emphasis, as a result of thefrontier experience, from family heritage to individual achievement. [7]

Intermarriages provide a further key to the social relationships of theFair Play settlers. If a small sample is any indication, the cases ofintermarriages among the various national stock groups were relativelyhigh, with better than one-third of the marriages sampled falling withinthis classification. [8] The fact that the Scotch-Irish frequentlymarried within their own group was probably due to their being more"available" in terms of numbers. Industry and good character were theprime criteria for selecting a frontier mate, as Dunaway points out. [9]

The ease and frequency of neighborly visits is vividly demonstrated inthe characteristically cooperative cabin-raisings, barn-raisings, cornhuskings and similar activities in which joint effort was usual. Thewomen, too, exchanged visits and, on occasion, gathered at one place forquilting or other mutually shared activities. [10] Furthermore, thefrontier journalists often noted the fine hospitality and congenialityof their backwoods hosts. [11]

Further evidence of the egalitarian influence of this frontier is foundin the joint participation of Fair Play settlers in voluntaryassociations. [12] This is particularly noticeable in their attendanceat outdoor sermons and involvement in the various political activities. At a time when fewer than 100 families lived in the territory, Fithianobserved that "There were present about an Hundred & forty" people for asermon which he gave on the banks of the Susquehanna, opposite thepresent city of Lock Haven, on Sunday, July 30, 1775. [13] AlthoughWilliam Colbert, a Methodist, later "preached to a large congregation ofwilling hearers" within the territory, he did not think that it was"worth the preachers while to stop here. "[14] This may have been due tothe fact that they were mainly Presbyterians. Colbert's reception wasapparently fair for he makes a point of saying, "I know not that thereis a prejudiced person among them. "[15] No regular church wasestablished in this region until 1792, so it appears that the settlersgenerally participated in group religious activities regardless of thedenominational affiliation of the preacher conducting the services. However, as we will point out later, this is not to suggest that therewas no friction between denominations. 

The political activities of the Fair Play settlers demonstrate the massparticipation, at least of the adult males, in this type of voluntaryassociation. The annual elections of the Fair Play men were conductedwithout discrimination against any of the settlers by reason ofreligion, national origin, or property. In addition, the decisions ofthe tribunal were carried out, as Smith reports, "by the whole body, whostarted up in mass, at the mandate of the court. "[16] Special occasions, such as the Pine Creek Declaration of Independence, were also marked bythe participation _en masse_ of these West Branch pioneers. Mrs. Hamilton, in her widow's pension application, speaks of "seeing suchnumbers flocking there" (along the banks of Pine Creek in July of1776). [17] Apparently, as Mrs. Hamilton says, most of the settlers "hada knolege of what was doing, " particularly with regard to politicalaffairs. [18]

These evidences of group participation in religious and politicalactivities should not mislead one into thinking that conflict, legal orotherwise, was alien to the West Branch frontiersmen. The cases broughtbefore the Fair Play "court" and the friction between Methodists andPresbyterians affirm this strife. The first settler in the territory, Cleary Campbell, was an almost constant litigant, both as plaintiff anddefendant, in the Northumberland County Court from the time of hisarrival in 1769. [19] His name, along with the names of other Fair Playsettlers, appeared regularly on the Appearance Dockets of theNorthumberland and Lycoming County courts. The cases usually involvedland titles and personal obligations or debts. 

The religious conflict is clearly seen in the journal of the ReverendWilliam Colbert. An incident which occurred about twenty miles south ofthe 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 commentsabout Presbyterians in general and Calvinist doctrines inparticular. [21] He was especially concerned for the "lost souls" of thePresbyterians of the West Branch Valley. A twentieth-century theologiansuggests that Presbyterian dogmatism had driven the Scotch-Irish to thefrontier; this same problem complicated their social relationships inthe backwoods country. [22]

The process of acculturation of the frontier was marked by the impact ofthe aborigines upon the new white settlers in terms of the developingstyle of life in the West Branch Valley. In fact, the culture of theIndian may have affected the white settlers more than theirs affectedthat of the Indian. For instance, Mr. Davy says that "the Dress &manners of the People more nearly assimilate to those of the Indiansthan lower down, but the purest English Language is universallyspoken. "[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 andtradition. [24] However, the English language and Scots Presbyterianismwere basic ingredients in the melting pot of this and other frontierswhere the American character emerged. 

The social class structure of Fair Play society is rather difficult toassess. Extensive land holdings and material possessions were notcharacteristic of these "squatter" settlements. Consequently, propertywas not the distinguishing factor in stratifying the social levels ofthe Fair Play community. Furthermore, there was no slave population orindentured servant class to be confined to the lowest rung of the socialladder. Here, each man either owned his "improvement" or operated undersome condition of tenancy. However, both indentured servitude and Negroslavery 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 Playsociety--landholders and tenants. In addition, though, there was afurther delineation within the landholding class on the basis ofcharacter and morality. This characteristically Scotch-Irishdifferentiation may have been due to the predominance of the Ulsteritesin the West Branch population. [26] In consideration of this fact, athree-class structure, consisting of an elite, other landholders, andtenants, would best describe the social class system of the Fair Playterritory. 

The elite of the Fair Play society were generally the political andeconomic leaders as well. They owned the "forts, " operated thegristmills, and held the prominent political positions in the vicinity. Surprisingly enough, though, they frequently resided on the fringe areasof the territory and were thus able to acquire more land. [27] A fullerdescription of this elite and its leadership is given in the nextchapter. 

The frontier family was undoubtedly the key social institution intransmitting 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 andeconomic entities. As we have already noted, the agrarian family had itsown division of labor, with each member carrying out his assigned tasksand, at the same time, learning the practices and procedures of thefarmers' frontier. It was also the cultural and educational core, inwhich its members learned their faith, received their education, andacquired 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 sheaccepted it with a submissiveness which can still be seen in somebackcountry areas of Pennsylvania today. [28] Clannish and dependent uponeach other, the frontier family had no use for divorce, which waspractically unknown. [29] If the patterns and values of these frontierfamilies tended to approximate those of the Scotch-Irish in particular, and they did, it was because the Scotch-Irish were representative ratherthan unique. [30]

The church was probably the second most important social institution indeveloping a system of values and a "style of life" in the Fair Playterritory. Here again, the Scotch-Irish with their Presbyterianismprovided the most significant influence, and ultimately the firstregular church--although Methodists, such as Colbert, found little tofavor in Calvinism. Almost without exception, the wills probated in thecourts of Northumberland and Lycoming counties between 1772 and 1830asked for burial "in a decent and Christian like manner, " and committedthe departed soul to "the Creator. " A Christian life and a Christianburial were valued in this frontier society. 

Due to the absence of regular churches, religious instruction wasprimarily carried on by mothers "abel to instruct, " as Mrs. Hamilton putit. [31] Prayer, the reading of the Bible, and a rudimentary catechismwere all a part of this home worship, conducted by one or both parents. Baptism and other sacraments of the church were provided by itinerantpastors who made their "rounds" through the valley. Presbyterians and, later, Methodists developed the practice of gathering together in theircabins in "praying societies. "[32] Originally consisting of neighborgroups, these societies, in time, took in areas consisting of severalmiles. [33]

Itinerant pastors began to include the Fair Play territory in theirtravels in the decade of the 1770's. Philip Vickers Fithian learned fromhis host, Squire Fleming, that he was the first "orderly" preacher inthe area. [34] Fithian's visit came about after he obtained an honorabledismissal from the first Philadelphia Presbytery--as no vacanciesexisted--in order to preach outside its bounds. [35] Although in theterritory for only one week in the summer of 1775, Fithian's account ofhis Sunday sermon on the banks of the Susquehanna clearly describes thenature 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 PineCreek Church was organized under the historic "independence" elm withRobert Love and a Mr. Culbertson as the first elders. [37] This church, along with the Lycoming Church, which was formed in the eastern part ofthe former Fair Play territory in October of that same year, was servedby the Reverend Isaac Grier, who was called to serve Lycoming Creek, Pine Creek, and the Great Island, and ordained and installed by theCarlisle Presbytery, April 9, 1794. [38] He thus became the firstregularly installed pastor in what had been the Fair Play territory. 

It was not until 1811 that the Presbyterian General Assembly organizedthe Northumberland Presbytery, which serves West Branch ValleyPresbyterians to this day. In the days of the Fair Play system the areawas assigned to Donegal Presbytery, although in 1786 the CarlislePresbytery was formed out of the western part of Donegal. [39]

Missionary efforts of Presbyterians in the Fair Play territory go allthe way back to September of 1746, when the Reverend David Brainerdpreached to the Indians of the Great Island. [40] But from that timeuntil the opening of the West Branch Valley to settlement, following thefirst treaty at Fort Stanwix, nothing concerning the area appears onpresbytery records. However, after the treaty one Presbyterian minister, the Reverend Francis Alison, pastor of the First Presbyterian Church ofPhiladelphia and vice-provost of the College of Philadelphia, appliedfor land above the mouth of Bald Eagle Creek and was granted some 1, 500acres. [41] Alison never came into the region and, in fact, sold hisentire purchase to John Fleming in 1773. [42]

Although Fithian was the first "orderly" preacher assigned to the WestBranch, the Donegal Presbytery had received an application from "setlersupon the W. Branch of Susquehannah" for ministerial supplies (pastors)in the middle of April, 1772. [43] Apparently these supplies neverreached north of present-day Lewisburg. 

Presbyterianism, then, was the most significant religious influence inthe Fair Play territory. Methodists and Baptists penetrated the regionafter the Revolution, but that penetration, although marked by someconflict, was not vital to the development of a system of values on thisfrontier during the period under study. [44] Furthermore, it was notuntil well into the nineteenth century that other Protestant sectsestablished churches in the West Branch Valley. 

The extent of that influence and the nature of this frontier faith werecentral to the development of Fair Play society. Since there were noorganized churches in the area, the family was the key agency ofreligious instruction and service. This fact, combined with the impactof the Great Awakening, led to the freeing of the individual from thecommunal covenant, resulting in a secularization of religion whichculminated in a kind of "predestined freedom. "[45] Consequently, thepolitical implications of American Presbyterianism, which had thelargest church membership in colonial Pennsylvania and the strongestaffiliation on this frontier, were demonstrated in the democraticradicalism which the frontier spawned. Political maturity, that is tosay, independence, was a logical evolution from religiousemancipation. [46]

In addition to the political implications of Presbyterianism, respectfor education was a significant factor in the value structure of thisfrontier. The probate records of this period are filled with examples ofthe great desire to see the "children schooled, " and specificeducational instructions were often included in the wills. [47] ThePresbyterian emphasis upon an educated ministry suggests that thisreverence for education may also have been an education for reverence. Morality, education, and political equality and freedom--these were thebasic tenets of this frontier faith. 

Despite the high value placed upon education, the educational andcultural opportunities on this frontier, as on others, were extremelylimited. Aside from home instruction and the occasional visit of anitinerant pastor, formal education was a luxury which these pioneerscould not yet afford. However, earlier historians of the West Branchrefer to the existence of a "log school" at "Sour's ferry" in 1774. [48]Instruction in the "three R's, " enforced with strict discipline, wasgiven here a few months out of the year. A Presbyterian preacher whocame into the region and stayed was the first teacher. Educationalopportunity was extremely limited but education was highly respected. 

Books, too, were a luxury in the West Branch Valley. Although some ofthe wills of Fair Play settlers indicate the importance of books bymentioning them specifically, there was no common library from which thesettlers could draw. However, Fithian's _Journal_ contains a note thathe "reviewed the 'Squires Library"; so we do know of at least onelibrary in the territory. Its accessibility for most of these pioneersis, of course, another question. 

Frontier art was mainly functional. Its objects were generally thefurniture, the tools and weapons, and the implements of the household. Individual expressions of creative talent, these items, whether theywere designs on the rifle stock or styles of tableware, were outlets ofartistic demonstration. Probably the most prized and picturesque of thefrontier folk arts was the making of patchwork quilts. [49] Although wehave found no "Fair Play" pattern, we do know that the women of everyfrontier household sewed, and, because of the demand for bed quilts, every scrap was saved for the quilt-making. Colbert's _Journal_ tells ofhis dining at one Richard Manning's "with a number of women who werequilting. "[50] Quilting parties were social events in the lives of thesefrontier women, and their _objets d'art_ were fully discussed frompatterns 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 hiswill. [51] The fiddle also provided the musical background for therollicking 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 momentsand music was the source of much of that happiness. 

Medical practices throughout the frontier were primitive, to say theleast, and the West Branch Valley was no exception. A diary of aminister in the Susquehanna Valley around Lancaster provides specificexamples of the purges, blood-letting, and herb concoctions which thefrontier settler endured in order to survive. [53] In spite of theliberal use of spirited stimulants, ailing frontiersmen often sufferedviolent reactions both from their illnesses and their cures. 

Although the Fair Play settlers of the West Branch Valley doubtless hadtheir own mythology and folklore, most of it was passed on by word ofmouth; as a result, little of record remains. The Revolutionary pensionclaims are filled with tales of the courage and patriotism of thestouthearted men and women of this frontier. A frequent claim is thatthe measures taken to defend Fort Augusta, after the Great Runaway, urged by Fair Play settlers who had fled to that point, saved thefrontier and made independence a reality. 

Perhaps the best-known story is that of the "independence elm" on PineCreek. However, as a recent writer suggests, the story of the "PineCreek Declaration" may refer merely to the reading of a copy of thenational declaration rather than to a separate document drawn up by theinhabitants of this frontier. [54] Mrs. Hamilton's testimony to the eventnotwithstanding, no copy of the declaration has ever been found. 

Another tale concerns the frequent reference to the upper Pine Creekarea as "Beulah Land. "[55] It seems that a circuit rider singing hymnsapproached a camp up Pine Creek in the Black Forest. Later, asked tosing, he offered the familiar "Beulah Land. " Still later, he met with anaccident between Blackwell and Cammal resulting in his death. Theentertained were his mourners. Subsequently, they kept his name alive bysinging 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 wasgenerally economically oriented or related to some household task. Inaddition, wrestling, foot-racing, jumping, throwing the tomahawk, andshooting at marks were popular sports. [56] But drinking was probably themost common frontier recreation. It has been said that the Scotch-Irishmade more whiskey and drank more of it than any other group. [57]Everyone drank it, even the ministers. In fact, the tavern preceded thechurch 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 theexpressed ideals and beliefs, the conduct, and the material possessionsof the pioneers who settled along the West Branch during this period. Journalists, diarists, and pension claimants offer recorded evidence ofthe ideals and beliefs of these settlers. Their actual behavior gives ussome understanding of conduct as value. And finally, the probate recordsof the Northumberland and Lycoming County courts contribute somedocumentation concerning the material values of these frontierinhabitants. The result was a society dedicated to the idea of progressand oriented to a future of political and social equality and economicopportunity. 

A firm conviction concerning the right of property, that is, the rightof individual private ownership, was developed early in the Americanexperience in Virginia and Massachusetts and was reinforced by theexperience of successive frontiers, of which the Fair Play territory wasone. This is noted particularly in the pride in individual"improvements" and the vigorous assertion of property rights before theFair Play tribunal and, later, in the regular courts. The largeScotch-Irish population on this and other frontiers characteristicallyasserted this view. Motivated by a spirit of individualism and thedesire for a better way of life, the Fair Play settlers found landownership basic to the accomplishment of their desired ends. [60]

In conjunction with the policy of private land ownership, the support ofsquatters' rights tended to emphasize the equality of achievement ratherthan that of ascription. No man's position was ascribed in the FairPlay territory--he had to earn it. However, as we noted earlier, thepioneer farmer had to obtain the approval of his neighbors in order tosettle in the area; but no evidence exists to show that this approvalwas 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 politicalequality, which was reflected in the decisions of the tribunal affectingland claims. 

The hospitality of the Fair Play settlers is particularly stressed bythe journalists who traveled in the West Branch Valley. [61] Despite thelimitations of rooms and furnishings, the frontier cabin was ever opento the weary traveler, and spirited conversation and beverages werealways available to revive him. Good food and fine friends could befound on the frontier. The frontiersman took great pride in hishospitality. Dependent upon outside travelers for news, the latestremedies for ailments, and mail, the inhabitants of the frontier openedthe doors of their cabins and their hearts to visitors. Taken into ahome, the weary traveler often found himself treated to the best in foodand comfort which the limitations of the frontier permitted. Generallysharing the one-room cabin, like any member of the family, he soonlearned that he was a welcome guest rather than a stranger in theirmidst. The loneliness of the frontier stimulated the hospitality of thefrontiersman. 

Although no "frontier philosophy, " as such, existed, the conduct of itsinhabitants demonstrated their faith, their patriotism, their spirit ofmutual helpfulness, and their temperance. The pioneer was not aphilosopher or a thinker, because the rigorous struggle for survival, which was his, did not permit the leisure to develop these traits. Hewas a doer whose values and beliefs were reflected in his behavior. 

The favorable, but not always eager, reception of itinerant pastors, thereligious instruction which took place in the home, and the frequentreferences to "the Creator" in the wills testify to the relevance offaith in influencing the character and behavior of these earlyAmericans. Faith was not only relevant but also a matter of choice, andfreedom of worship was practiced on this frontier. Here again, theScotch-Irish Presbyterian influence may have been significant. [62]

Patriotism, with few exceptions, was characteristic of the frontier. Butloyalty to what? On this frontier it seems to have meant devotion to anAmerica which developed through New World experience. Like Topsy, "itjus' growed, " and no frontiersman wanted it taken away. The enthusiasticreception of the Declaration of Independence by the Fair Play settlerscombined with the legend of their own resolutions on the questionindicate this patriotic feeling. Despite their political differenceswith the settled areas, the West Branch pioneers were overwhelminglyloyal to the patriot cause in the American Revolution. [63] Theirloyalty, however, was more to the ideal of freedom, or "liberty" as theytermed it, than to any organization or state. They believed in andsupported the liberty which their own hard work and the circumstances ofthe frontier had made possible. 

Mutual helpfulness was essential to survival in the wilderness andvalued 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 needfor neighborly support and appreciated its offer. 

In spite of the availability of a more-than-adequate supply of spiritedliquid refreshment, temperance was both commended and respected on thisPennsylvania frontier. One historian points out that there was probablyless 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 todrink themselves under the table at weddings or at other socialfunctions. [64] Drunkards were few and generally despised on thefrontier. [65]

Material values, in a society where possessions, beyond the land itselfand the rude cabin built upon it, are limited, are best gleaned from theprobate records, which listed the prized possessions of this frontiercommunity. Beds and bedsteads are the items which appear most frequentlyin the wills of the Fair Play settlers. Occasionally, the ultimate infrontier affluence is reached in the form of a "feather Bed. "[66] Beds, or feather beds, and bedsteads were so highly valued as pieces offurniture that they were often passed on to the daughters, serving as asubstantial part of their dowries. [67] Surprisingly enough, the widowoften received "the room she now sleeps in" or, "her choise of any oneroom in the house. " This is not so amazing, however, when one realizesthat additional rooms beyond the original one-room cabin quite logicallybecame highly valued. Pewterware was the silver of the frontier, and, ifthe probate records are any indication, there was little of it and nosilver. Aside from references to furniture such as spinning wheels, bureaus, tables, and chairs, and these not too regularly, it is quiteevident that material possessions were few. 

What then was the nature of Fair Play society? The frontier, by its verynature, had an egalitarian influence which is readily apparent from thisanalysis of the "style of life" along the West Branch. A relativepolitical and social equality existed in this land of economicopportunity where faith, patriotism, helpfulness, and self-determinationwere the outstanding traits. The frontier brought the democratizing roleof achievement to the fore in American life, and the Fair Play settlerswere 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, _PennsylvaniaArchives_, Third Series, XIX, 468, 484, the individual holdings ofresident property owners range from 50 to 1, 500 acres, whereasnon-residents' range from 200 to 13, 000. Only six of thirty residentsshowed property in excess of 325 acres and four of these had 550 acresor less. The two large landowners were peripheral Fair Play residents. Subsequent tax lists indicate that non-residents eventually sold theirproperty 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 itinerantpastors, Presbyterian and Methodist, to the West Branch Valley, containnumerous references concerning the personal character and morality ofthe settlers. In the Hamilton Papers of the Wagner Collection ofRevolutionary War pension claimants, p. 11, Mrs. Hamilton writes to theHonorable 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 tokeeping the commandment, love your nabour as yourself, then any people Iever lived among. "

[7] Leyburn, _The Scotch-Irish_, p. 269. 

[8] Helen Herritt Russell, "The Documented Story of the Fair Play Menand Their Government, " _The Northumberland County Historical SocietyProceedings and Addresses_, XXII (1958), 16-43. Mrs. Russell, whosegenealogical studies were the basis of Chart 1 in Chapter Two, notes 24marriages among the 80 names, 9 of which were intermarriages ofdifferent national stocks. Of the 24 marriages, 9 were betweenScotch-Irish couples. Intermarriages produced 5 English-Scotch-Irishcouples, 2 German-Scotch-Irish, 1 Welsh-Scotch-Irish, and 1German-English. The intermarriages appear to follow the national stockpercentages in the population. This would suggest that theintermarriages 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 GarrettBiblical Seminary. 

[11] Here again, Fithian, Colbert, and Mr. Davy all mention the friendlyreception 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 theRivers & on Land & it is time of Visiting & Jollity throughout theCountry. "

[12] _Journal of William Colbert_, Tuesday, Aug. 21, 1792. Here theReverend Colbert refers to the existence of a class in religion amongthe group of Presbyterians, although the prospects appear none toofavorable. In fact, he says, "I had no desire to meet the class, sodisordered are they, therefore omitted it. " Quarterly meetings ofMethodists were also held in the West Branch Valley, as Colbert notes inhis journal for Saturday, Sept. 15, 1792, and Saturday, Sept. 7, 1793. In 1792, Colbert remarks that "Our Quarterly Meeting began at JoshuaWhite's today. " The following year he wrote that "brother Paynter and Ihave to hold a Quarterly meeting at Ammariah Sutton's at Lycommon. " Eachof these instances indicates the presence of some sort of voluntaryreligious association. However, it must be recalled that Fithianmentioned no such classes or meetings extant during his visit in July of1775. 

[13] _Fithian: Journal_, pp. 80-81. 

[14] _Journal of William Colbert_, Thursday, Oct. 17, 1793, andSaturday, 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 NorthumberlandCounty and 1795 for Lycoming County. 

[20] _Journal of William Colbert_, Monday, June 18, 1792. 

[21] _Ibid. _, Saturday, Aug. 4, 1792: "Calvinist must certainly be themost damnable doctrine upon the face of the globe. " Sunday, July 29, 1792: "Here for telling the people they must live without sin, I sooffended a Presbyterian, that he got up, called his wife and away hewent. " Sunday July 22, 1792: "... In the afternoon for the first timeheard a Presbyterian at Pine Creek.... He is an able speaker but couldnot, but, Calvinistic like speak against sinless perfection. " Monday, Aug. 20, 1792: "... Rode to John Hamilton's in the afternoon. Here theunhappy souls [Presbyterian Fair Play settlers] that were joinedtogether 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 toa few people: I do not think that is worth the preachers while to stophere. "

[22] F. B. Everett, "Early Presbyterianism along the West Branch of theSusquehanna River, " _Journal of the Presbyterian Historical Society_, XII (1927), 481. According to the Reverend Mr. Everett, whose articlealso appeared in the Montgomery _Mirror_ for Oct. 27, 1926, theScotch-Irish, with the Anglicans, were the dogmatists of Pennsylvania. The Quakers and Pietistic German sects were anti-dogmatic. Dogmaticallyadhering to his catechisms, the Scotch-Irishman "resented the aspersionscast upon dogma and creed. " The frontier gave him freedom from theQuakers who still considered Presbyterians as those "who had burnt aQuaker in New England from the cart's tail, and had murdered otherQuakers. "

[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 notesthat indentured servitude appeared in Muncy, where Samuel Wallis' greatholdings made such service feasible. He also mentions Wallis' ownershipof slaves, verified by the Quarter Session Docket of 1778. Wallis freedtwo Negro slaves, Zell and Chloe, posting a £30 bond that they would notbecome a charge on the township. 

[26] Leyburn, _The Scotch-Irish_, p. 262. _See also_ Dunaway, _TheScotch-Irish of Colonial Pennsylvania_, pp. 180-200. 

[27] These "fringe area" participants in Fair Play society actuallyresided, for the most part, in Provincial territory and hence enjoyedgreater 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 sincethe Scotch-Irish were never a "minority, " in the sense that their valuesdiffered radically from the norms of their areas of settlement, theynever suffered the normlessness which Durkheim calls anomie--the absenceof 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, yetthey 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 WesternPennsylvania_ (Pittsburgh, 1940), p. 142. 

[33] _Ibid. _ The existence of these "praying societies" is furthersubstantiated in Colbert's _Journal_. During these services, lay personsgave exhortations or assisted Colbert in some fashion. 

[34] _Fithian: Journal_, p. 76. 

[35] Robert S. Cocks, _One Hundred and Fifty Years of Evangelism, TheHistory 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, fromIts 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 theSusquehanna 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 RobertBerger, "The Story of Baptist Beginnings in Lycoming County, " _Now andThen_, XII (1960), 274-280. According to the Reverend Robert Berger, ofHughesville, a few Baptist settlers came into Lycoming County from NewJersey, but were soon driven out by the Indians. Apparently, thePhiladelphia Baptist Association sent missionaries to the area in 1775and 1778. However, not until the association commissioned Elders Patton, Clingan, and Vaughn in 1792 did any extensive Baptist preaching takeplace in this region. They were sent out for three months on the Juniataand the West Branch. The Loyalsock Baptist Church, established in 1822, is the first church. 

[45] Dietmar Rothermund, _The Layman's Progress: Religious and PoliticalExperience in Colonial Pennsylvania 1740-1770_ (Philadelphia, 1961), p. 142. As Rothermund describes it, "The Pilgrim's progress had turned intothe layman's emancipation, and finally into the citizen's revolution"(p. 137). He calls "the political maturity which followed the era ofreligious emancipation ... America's real revolutionary heritage" (p. 138). 

[46] _Ibid. _, p. 137. It must first be recognized that AmericanPresbyterianism differed from that of Scotland particularly with regardto local autonomy. The Presbyterian Church, like the United States underthe Constitution of 1787, was federal in its governmental structure, andthe autonomy of the local religious institutions was later carried intopolitics. Leyburn, _The Scotch-Irish_, p. 313, emphasizes the fact thatthe Scotch-Irishman's church had accustomed him to belief in governmentby the consent of the governed, in representative and republicaninstitutions. The relationship between the church covenant and thesocial compact is quite direct. If men can bind themselves together toform a church, then it seems quite logical that they can bind themselvestogether to form a government. Fair Play democracy was simply politicalPresbyterianism. Its impact has been noted by a number of historians. Dunaway, _The Scotch-Irish of Colonial Pennsylvania_, p. 135, claimsthat "The actual means by which Pennsylvania was transformed from aproprietary province into an American commonwealth was the new politicalorganization developed by the Scotch-Irish in alliance with the easternradical leaders of the continental Revolutionary movement. Thisextra-legal organization, consisting of the committee of safety, theprovincial and county committees of correspondence, and the provincialconventions, supplanted the regular provincial government by absorbingits functions. " Becker, _Beginning of the American People_, p. 180, calls the Scotch-Irish a people "whose religion confirmed them in ademocratic 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 thePatchwork 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, 2rolls, Pennsylvania Historical and Museum Commission, Harrisburg. Anexample, found on p. 252, is this "_famous American Receipt for theRheumatism_. Take of garlic two cloves, of gum ammoniac, one drachm;blend them by bruising together. Make them into two or three bolus'swith fair water and swallow one at night and the other in the morning. Drink strong sassafras tea while using these. It banishes alsocontractions 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 andThen_, 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 toa tavern, just west of Chatham's Run, in the spring of 1775. The firstchurch appeared in 1792. 

[59] "Diary of the Unknown Traveler, " _Now and Then_, X (1954), 307. Thediarist 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 theFair Play settlers demonstrate, that Ulster and America were similarexperiences. He says (p. 148) that the Scotch-Irish "lived on land inboth regions often forcibly taken from the natives. The confiscationitself was declared legal by the authorities, and the actual settlementwas 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 thisfrontier. For example, Fithian speaks of his hosts as "sociable, kind";while Colbert constantly mentions the "liberty" which he enjoyed in thevarious homes which he visited. 

[62] Leyburn, _The Scotch-Irish_, pp. 146-147. Leyburn suggests thatbelief in the superiority of the Presbyterian church to any kingjustifies revolt; if one may, others may, leading to anarchy. Thusfreedom of worship for a minority allied itself in America with libertyof worship for all. The right of revolution, as it was acted upon inAmerica, was also implied. 

[63] Loyalists in the West Branch Valley suffered the usual privationsas this excerpt from the "Diary of the Unknown Traveler, " p. 310, indicates: "_Thursday, July 24, 1794_.... Mr. Witteker and his familyare of the people called Quakers but was turned out of the societyduring the time of war for paing the money called substitute [relieffrom the draft]* money to the Congress agents. M[r]. W's case is reallyhard. He suffered as above by his friends for aiding Congress and hisestate 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 entryin 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 atWittekers for a pint of wine, but on account of him being intoxicatedbefore Mr. W. Told him he had had enough & would not let him have any. Where could we find so disinterested a tavernkeeper in England? InEngland they never refuse as long as they pay, but here the man had themoney ready if they would let him have the wine. "

[66] This conclusion was reached after the reading of some three hundredwills 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 featherbeds seem to have been status symbols of a sort often willed to the wifeor included as a dowry. 

CHAPTER SIX

_Leadership and the Problems of the Frontier_

Any analysis of democracy in the Fair Play territory must consider thequestion of leadership and the particular problems of that frontier. Thenumber of leaders and their roles, the marks of leadership, and thecircumstances which brought certain men to the fore must all beconsidered. Was there some correlation between property-holdings, ornational origin, and leadership? Were there certain offices conducive tothe exercise of leadership? The subject of leadership entails inquiryinto each of these areas. 

Unfortunately, only one biographical study of any Fair Play leader hasever been attempted, that of Henry Antes. [1] As a result, the patternsof leadership must be gleaned from court records, tax lists, lists ofpublic officials, and petitions from the settlers of this frontier. Consequently, what follows gives us some general understanding of thenature of leadership but offers little in the way of insight into thepersonalities of the leaders. 

Using the Curti study as an example, certain objective criteria havebeen set up in analyzing leadership in the West Branch Valley. [2]Obviously, some leaders were more important than others. Their influenceextended beyond the limits of the Fair Play territory. These leaders, provided that they stood out in respect to at least three of the fourcriteria established, have been categorized as regional leaders. Thesefour criteria have been used in this study to determine regionalleadership: (1) the holding of political office, (2) the ownership ofbetter-than-average property holdings, (3) the operation of frontierforts, 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, orheld more than one such office. Furthermore, it will be noted that theseoffices tended to be with the established governments of the State andcounty. Since some leaders never held any political office, anotherclassification seemed necessary. Consequently, the role of localleadership was also classified. 

The influence of some men seems to have been strictly confined to theFair Play territory, either by virtue of their election to some localoffice or by their prominence in some other phase of community life. Asa result, local leaders have been considered as (1) those who held atleast two local offices, or (2) those who exercised identifiablecommunity leadership in a non-political context. 

After an extensive examination of the lists of public officials forNorthumberland County, the tax lists for the same period, the records ofthe Fair Play men and the Committee of Safety, the accounts of thefrontier forts in the region, and the military records of thesesettlers, it becomes evident that only three men can be considered asregional leaders and not more than seven or eight as local leaders. [4]Henry Antes, Robert Fleming, and Frederick Antes are the regionalleaders; and Alexander Hamilton, John Fleming, James Crawford, JohnWalker, Thomas Hughes, Cookson Long, William Reed, and Samuel Horn arethe local leaders. Obviously, the listings are too limited to offer anyvalid quantitative analysis. 

Henry Antes is undoubtedly the single most outstanding leader in theentire Fair Play country. Judge of the Court of Quarter Sessions, sheriff, justice of the peace, Fair Play spokesman, captain (latercolonel) of Associators and commander of Fort Antes, miller and propertyowner, personal friend of John Dickinson and other Provincial leaders, Henry Antes was the top figure in civic, economic, military, and socialaffairs along the West Branch. Influential within and without the FairPlay territory, Henry Antes was truly the major leader in the valley. 

The Antes family had long played a significant role in the history ofthe Province of Pennsylvania. As MacMinn relates, Henry's father, Henry, Sr. , had been "associated with the most prominent men of his time inmovements for the public good. "[5] A Moravian, the elder Antes hadassisted Count Zinzendorf in his missionary efforts, aided Whitefield inhis philanthropic endeavors, worked with Henry Muhlenberg in educatingthe German town community, and served with a marked impartiality as ajustice of the peace. [6] From such stock came the necessary leadershipfor the Fair Play settlers of the West Branch frontier. 

Born near Pottstown in Montgomery County in 1736, young Henry may havelearned of frontier opportunity from visitors to his father's inn, suchas Zinzendorf and Spangenburg, who had traveled along the West Branch ofthe Susquehanna. Consequently, joined by his brother William, he signedan article of agreement on September 29, 1773, for the purchase of landin the West Branch Valley. [7] When another brother, Frederick, obtainedproperty 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, wasmore of an absentee leader since he never actually resided in the FairPlay territory. 

Although the combined holdings of the Antes brothers constituted only alittle less than 700 acres, their gristmill, the first in the region, became the meeting place for the area settlers, providing a forum forthe usual discussions of politics and prices. [8] From Lycoming Creek onthe east to Pine Creek and the Great Island on the west, the frontierfarmers brought their grain to the Antes mill, on the south side of theSusquehanna River opposite present Jersey Shore. While the milling wenton, the men analyzed their common problems and debated the future ofthis pioneer land. If there was a center for the dissemination of newsin the West Branch Valley, it was the Antes mill and fort, which wassoon constructed on the property. Located in almost the center of theFair Play territory (although actually across the river from it), wheremen met of necessity, and having had a father who had exerted influenceand exercised leadership in Philadelphia County, the Antes brothers werewell 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 becameprimarily a local and county leader, while his brother concentrated oncounty and Provincial and, later, State affairs. Both served as countyjudges--Henry, appointed in 1775, and Frederick, elected in 1784--whichsuggests judicial responsibility as the key to assuming majorleadership, since Robert Fleming took Frederick's judicial post when heresigned to take a seat in the General Assembly. [9]

By the summer of 1775, when Philip Vickers Fithian first included theWest Branch in his itinerary--the valley by then supported some 100families--Henry Antes had already distinguished himself as a publicservant. He, along with five others, had been commissioned by the countycourt to lay out a road from Fort Augusta to the mouth of Bald EagleCreek;[10] he had served as a spokesman for the Fair Play men in a landtitle dispute;[11] he had been made a justice of the peace;[12] and hehad been appointed as a judge of the Court of Quarter Sessions. [13] Thiswas to be only the beginning, for in 1775, when the Associators wereorganized, Henry Antes was made captain of company eight, embodying theNippenose and Pine Creek settlers. [14] But even this is not the completepicture, for when the settlers returned to the region in the eighties, following the Great Runaway of 1778, Antes became sheriff, the chief lawenforcement officer of Northumberland County. [15] The popular miller hadbecome the popular leader, a popularity enhanced by his interpretationof the sheriff's role, an interpretation which occasionally brought himinto conflict with the State's leaders. [16]

The leadership of the Antes brothers is further accentuated by theactivities of Frederick Antes. Between 1776 and 1784 he was a delegateto the Pennsylvania Constitutional Convention, justice of the peace, president judge of the county courts, county treasurer, commissioner ofpurchase for Northumberland County, a representative in the GeneralAssembly, and a colonel of militia. [17] With Henry on the West Branchand Frederick frequently in Philadelphia, the Antes family had aconstant finger on the pulse of Pennsylvania politics. Official duties, plus the strategic location of the Antes fort and mill, made Frederickand Henry Antes the most influential persons in the West Branch Valleyduring the operation of the Fair Play system. Eminently qualified bynumerous public responsibilities, the Antes brothers were major leadersof the Fair Play settlers. 

Robert Fleming, the third regional leader in the territory, also servedas a judge of the Court of Common Pleas for the county, although thatservice began in March, 1785, after the Fair Play territory was acquiredby 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 hisjudicial obligations, Fleming had been a member of the county Committeeof Safety, a township overseer, a representative in the GeneralAssembly, a second lieutenant of Associators, and possibly a Fair Playman. [20] During the Revolution, he was primarily concerned with the areaaround the Great Island, serving at Reed's Fort (present Lock Haven) andon the Fleming estate, which some referred to as Fort Fleming. Roberthad a brother, John, with whom Fithian stayed during his brief sojournin 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 regionalleaders of the Fair Play territory. Better than average propertyholdings, extensive in the case of Robert Fleming; judicialresponsibility, which was true of all three men; primary authority infrontier forts (the Antes brothers owned and commanded Antes Fort, andthe Flemings operated their own stockade and commanded Fort Reed); andmilitary rank ranging from lieutenant of Associators to colonel ofmilitia: these characteristics signified major leadership in the WestBranch Valley among the Fair Play settlers. Coincidentally, it can benoted that two of the three regional leaders, having served in the Statelegislature, had influence which reached to the State House inPhiladelphia. Obviously, these men were known outside of the limitedenvirons of the Fair Play territory. In fact, both Henry and FrederickAntes enjoyed a more than passing acquaintance with Benjamin Franklinand John Dickinson, two of the giants of this period of Pennsylvania'shistory. [22]

A further observation which can be made concerning leadership relates tothe question of national origin. Although the Fair Play territory hasoften been referred to as "Scotch-Irish country, " the German Antesbrothers performed the outstanding leadership roles on this frontier. Also, the specific geographic location of our regional leaders providesa final note of interest. All three of them, Henry and Frederick Antes, and Robert Fleming, actually resided outside the limits of the Fair Playterritory. They were on the geographic fringe but at the leadershipcore. Their close proximity to the Fair Play territory, separated fromit only by the Susquehanna River, in addition to their contacts with andpositions in established government, gave these men an obvious politicaleminence. The forts located in both places and the Anteses' gristmillgave both the Flemings and the Anteses opportunity for leadership. 

Local leaders generally lived within the Fair Play territory, hadaverage property holdings, and served on either the Fair Play tribunalor the township Committee of Safety. There are, of course, exceptions toeach of these generalizations. The fort operators, Samuel Horn, WilliamReed, and John Fleming, resided on the Provincial or State side of theSusquehanna River. Furthermore, John Fleming was the largest propertyowner in the area with some 1, 640 acres. [23] And one man, JamesCrawford, held the highly respected county office of sheriff. [24]

Three of the local leaders, John Fleming, Alexander Hamilton, and JamesCrawford, stand out from the rest, although for different reasons. JohnFleming undoubtedly would have become a major leader had he livedlonger--he died in 1777. His extensive property made his home the usualstop for itinerant pastors and other travelers in the valley, asFithian's _Journal_ attests. [25] It also made him a figure of centralsignificance in economic affairs. Alexander Hamilton was probably "the"local leader. A member of the Committee of Safety and presumably a FairPlay man, he was also the captain of Horn's Fort. [26] He is also thereputed author of the Pine Creek declaration. James Crawford was morenoted for military exploits than for civic duties. Prior to his militaryservice, Crawford had represented Northumberland County in theConstitutional Convention of 1776, which framed the State constitutionand, later, commissioned him as a major in the Twelfth PennsylvaniaRegiment. [27] Deprived of his commission after the Germantown campaign, Major Crawford returned home and was elected county sheriff, an officewhich he held until succeeded by Henry Antes. [28]

Of the other local leaders, Horn and Reed held only lesser townshipoffices, overseer and supervisor, respectively, in addition to operatingfrontier forts. [29] Cookson Long, mentioned as a Fair Play man in 1775in Eleanor Coldren's deposition, later commanded Fort Reed, for a time, as a captain of Associators. [30] The final two local leaders, JohnWalker and Thomas Hughes, both took turns as Fair Play men and asmembers of the local Committee of Safety. [31]

In analyzing the local leadership roles which these various settlersfilled, additional and pertinent conclusions become apparent. In thefirst place, the Fair Play men were obviously not the top leaders of thecommunity. Henry Antes may have served as their spokesman in 1775, andit is quite possible that Robert Fleming was a member of the tribunal, but both were more important as county leaders. Secondly, Fair Play menwere members of the Committee of Safety, a fact which suggests thattheir efforts may have been coordinated. Finally, returning to thequestion of national origin, six of these eight local leaders wereeither Scots, Scotch-Irish, or Irish. The other two were Germans. NoEnglishman was a leader, either regional or local, in the Fair Playterritory between 1769 and 1784. Perhaps, as Carl Becker suggests, thiswas due to the fact that neither the German nor the Scotch-Irishimmigrant held in his breast any sentiment of loyalty to King George, ormuch sympathy with the traditions or the leaders of English society. [32]

What were the particular problems of this frontier and how effectivewere these leaders in meeting them? The question of defense, includingthe daily task of survival in the wilderness, the right of pre-emption, and the efforts to obtain frontier representation in the assembly: thesewere the main problems in this pioneer land along the West Branch of theSusquehanna. All were not solved during the period under analysis, butthe attempts to solve these and other problems afford us the opportunityto evaluate the leadership in the Fair Play territory. 

Doubtless, the most pressing public need on this frontier was protectionfrom the marauding Indians who plagued these pioneers throughout thefifteen years encompassed by this study. Aroused by the British duringthe Revolution, the Indians of the Six Nations descended from New Yorkinto the West Branch Valley to harass and, finally, to drive the FairPlay settlers from their homes. Driven from their homes, the frontiersmenof the West Branch first gathered in the hastily-constructed andpoorly-manned forts conveniently scattered along the Susquehanna fromJersey Shore to Lock Haven, but, ultimately, these too had to beevacuated in the Great Runaway in 1778. 

The severity of these attacks is evident from this petition from thesettlers gathered at Fort Horn, above present McElhattan, pleading formilitary 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 Johnand Robert Fleming, Alexander Hamilton, and Samuel Horn. Unfortunately, the much-needed assistance was not forthcoming, and Colonel Hunter soonsent instructions from Fort Augusta for the evacuation of the valley. This evacuation is, of course, the Great Runaway. [34] It is interestingto 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 settlersresponded to Colonel Hunter's fervent plea to stay at Fort Augusta tohelp in the defense of this last frontier. Their gallant stand on theWest Branch and their earnestly successful support of Fort Augusta, thelast frontier outpost in central Pennsylvania, protected the interior, enabled the Continental Congress "to function in safety at a period whenits collapse would have meant total disaster to the American cause, " andprovided a vivid demonstration of what a later president of the UnitedStates would call "that last full measure of devotion. "[35]

In the fall of 1778, following the earlier alliance with France, thetide 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 ingrave doubt, the courageous pioneers of the West Branch stood theirground in tiny garrisons at Fort Antes, Fort Horn, and Fort Reed, resisting the attacking Indians at the insistence of their leaders, thatfreedom might be preserved. Perhaps it is a little-known story, but thefate of independence was in good hands with the Fair Play settlers ofthe West Branch Valley, who fought to preserve it. 

Towards the end of the Revolution the Fair Play settlers returned to theterritory, and a new problem arose, that of title claims or, moreparticularly, the right of pre-emption. Still outside the bounds of theCommonwealth and organized government, these frontier squatterspetitioned the Supreme Council for validation of their land claims. [36]Two petitions, one in August, 1781, and the other in March, 1784, weresent. Their claims were recognized by an act of the General Assemblypassed in May, 1785. [37] By this time, the land in question had beenopened for settlement by virtue of the Treaty of Fort Stanwix in 1784. Needless to say, their petitions had been prompted in part by fear ofland speculators who were attempting to buy up their lands through theLand Office in Philadelphia. The prominence of local leaders, such asAlexander Hamilton and John Walker, is once again noted in thesepetitions. These petitions achieved notable results in that the right ofpre-emption for the West Branch squatters was recognized by theCommonwealth long before the national government endorsed the principle. Furthermore, the validation of these claims beyond the purchase line ofthe Stanwix Treaty of 1768 provided the first legal recognition ofpre-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 Playsettlers were also vitally concerned with representative democracy. Locally, on the county level, and in the Province and State, thesefrontiersmen sought to make their wishes known, both to and throughtheir political leaders. How well they achieved these goals wasinfluenced by the number of persons whom they elected to both legal andextra-legal offices at the various political levels. 

The Fair Play settlers managed to send two of their associates to theGeneral Assembly in the decade after Lexington and Concord. [38] Thesetwo, Robert Fleming and Frederick Antes, constituted a disproportionaterepresentation, when one considers the limited population of the FairPlay community and the general under-representation of the frontiercounties at this period. In fact, a few hundred families in and aroundthe West Branch were surprisingly fortunate to have one of their number, Robert Fleming, in the General Assembly when, following a petition fromthe frontier counties in 1776, a new apportionment created an assemblyin which fifty-eight legislators represented Pennsylvania's 300, 000people. [39] However, the elections of both Fleming and Antes came afterthe new constitution of 1776, in which each county was given sixrepresentatives. [40] It can hardly be said that the West Branch Valleylacked adequate representation in the councils of the State. 

Furthermore, Frederick Antes was a delegate to that State ConstitutionalConvention. This not only emphasizes the leadership role of Antes, butalso points up the good fortune of the Fair Play settlers in having oneof their community participate in the framing of the new Stategovernment. Although the Fair Play settlers lived beyond the legallimits of settlement, they were very much involved in its politicalaffairs. 

Aside from the General Assembly and the Constitutional Convention, thesepioneers of the Northumberland County frontier placed three men on thecounty bench, one of whom was presiding judge. [41] Fair Play men becamejustices of fair play in the county courts. 

Concerning other county offices, the key position of sheriff was heldcontinuously from 1779 to 1785 by members of the Fair Playcommunity. [42] Here again, it appears that the proper administration ofjustice could be expected from Fair Play men. 

Locally, the rotational system of the Fair Play tribunal and thefrequent changes in the composition of the Committee of Safety give riseto the conclusion that political democracy, in the sense of activeparticipation in public office, was truly a characteristic of the FairPlay territory. Nine different men served on the three-man Committee ofSafety from February of 1776 to February of 1777, three new membersbeing elected semi-annually. Except for the two or three years followingthe Great Runaway, the three members of the Fair Play tribunal wereelected annually. 

In conclusion, then, what can be said regarding the leadership of theFair Play settlers? Except for the dangers from Indian hostility, whichwere compounded by the settlers' limited manpower, the leadership wasmore than adequate, one might say eminently successful, in meeting theneeds of the frontier. It enacted law, interpreted it, and saw to itthat the law was carried out on every political level with which theWest Branch pioneers had contact. In short, it gave them a governmentof, by, and for themselves. This was _real_ representation by spokesmenof a small community, very different from _virtual_ representation in adistant Parliament, from which their independence had now beendeclared. 

FOOTNOTES:

[1] Edwin MacMinn, _On the Frontier with Colonel Antes_ (Camden, N. J. , 1900). This book is a mosaic of primary and secondary sources dealingwith the entire area, rather than a standard biographical treatment ofits particular subject. 

[2] Merle Curti, _The Making of an American Community: A Case Study ofDemocracy in a Frontier County_ (Stanford, 1959), pp. 417-441. Thisentire fifteenth chapter is devoted to both a quantitative andqualitative analysis of "leadership. "

[3] Wealth, i. E. , liquid assets, was not necessarily a criterion on thisagrarian frontier, where a man's assets were not easily convertible intocash. 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 BlairLinn, _Annals of Buffalo Valley_ (Harrisburg, 1877), pp. 558-563. Somedata are also available in Linn, _History of Centre and ClintonCounties_. 

The tax listings were located in the _Pennsylvania Archives_, ThirdSeries, XIX, 437, 468, 557, and 618-622. Mrs. Russell also collected alisting for the years 1774 to 1800 for Northumberland County. Courtrecords, pension claims, Meginness' _Otzinachson_ (1889) and _FrontierForts 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 fatherof the Unity Conferences of Christian Endeavor and presents a copy of aletter written on Dec. 17, 1741, calling for a New Year's Day meeting ofChristians in Germantown in 1742 in support of this statement. Of hisminor judicial role, MacMinn offers this account published inChristopher Saur's _Pensylvanische Berichte_ for May 16, 1756: "Weresuch magistrates more numerous, the poor would not have cause tocomplain and to weep over gross injustices which they have to sufferbecause persons are respected. "

[7] _Ibid. _, p. 248. 

[8] Meginness, _Otzinachson_ (1889), p. 484. _See also_, MacMinn, _Onthe 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. Seealso Alex. Patterson to John Dickinson (October 28, 1783) in the ZebulonButler Papers, Wyoming Historical and Geological Society, Wilkes-Barre, Pa. Patterson, speaking of Antes' failure to arrest Zebulon Butler, saidof Antes: "The Sheriff has not done his duty nor do I believe he intendsit being. A party man among which I am sorry to see so little principelsof humanity or honnor, Men who wish for popularity at the Expense of thePropperty 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 ClintonCounties_, 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 fullaccount of Hamilton's military service is given in the Hamilton PensionPapers in the Wagner Collection, Muncy Historical Society. Hamilton hadalso been a member of the group commissioned to lay out a road from BaldEagle 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. Thepetition was dated June 21, 1778. The situation had been furthercomplicated by the enlistment the previous summer of many of theable-bodied men to aid Washington in Cambridge, Massachusetts. Thesemen, "early in the service of their Country from the unpurchased land onthe West Branch of the River Susquehanna, " deprived the valley of itsavailable manpower. 

[34] _See_ Chapter Two for a fuller description of the Great Runaway. 

[35] Helen Herritt Russell, "The Great Runaway of 1778, " _The Journal ofthe Lycoming Historical Society_, II, No. 4 (1961), 3-10. This articlecontains a few additions to an article by the same name by Mrs. Russellpublished in _The Northumberland County Historical Society Proceedingsand 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 beenelected in 1777 and 1784, respectively. 

[39] Dunaway, _History of Pennsylvania_, pp. 176, 196. Of thesefifty-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 theCourt of Quarter Sessions in 1775, and Frederick Antes and Fleming hadbeen elected in 1780 and 1785, respectively. Frederick Antes waspresident 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 Americanlexicon is the term "democracy. " In the colonial period, it was seldomused, except in denunciation. However, properly defined, it can help usto evaluate the Fair Play settlers in some understandable context. Etymologically stemming from two Greek words, _demos_, meaning "thepeople, " and _kratos_, meaning "authority, " democracy means "authorityin the people" or, we can say, "self-determination. " Byself-determination is meant the right of the people to decide their ownpolitical, economic, and social institutions. 

Self-determination in its basic, or political, context can best beexplained through James Bryce's definition of a democracy. Lord Brycesaid:

 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 themeaning of political self-determination. 

(1) "The ruling power of a State. " Self-determination, as it is employedhere, concerns the right of the people of Fair Play society to determinetheir own political institutions. Fair Play society did not constitute astate, but it was a political community, and in that sense Bryce'sdefinition applies. Living outside the legal limit of settlement ofProvince and Commonwealth, these people could not obtain legal authorityfor their own rule, so, following the prevalent theory of the socialcompact, they formed their own government. The result was the annualelection, by the people, of the Fair Play tribunal, the source of finalauthority in the Fair Play territory. 

(2) "Is legally vested. " Fair Play society was actually illegal; that isto say, the settlements were made in violation of the laws of theProvince. However, the extra-legal government which was formed wascreated by, and responsive to, the popular will. Since the actualauthority for rule was vested in the people, it can be considered aslegal for the Fair Play community. 

(3) "In the members of the community. " The members of the Fair Playcommunity, as previously noted, were not strictly resident within thegeographic confines of the Fair Play territory. Communities, it has beensaid, are total ways of life, complexes Of behavior composed of all theinstitutions necessary to carry on a complete life, formed into aworking whole. [2] Self-determination, as it is used here, suggests thatthe community as a whole participates in the decision-making process. 

(4) "Not in any particular class or classes, but in the members of thecommunity as a whole. " Bryce's definition here extends theinterpretation of "the members of the community. " Obviously, if anyparticular class or classes were vested with the final politicalauthority, 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 todetermine their own economic institutions. This means that they had theright to choose their own portion of land, subject, of course, to thewill of the existing community, and to utilize it according to their ownneeds and interests. This meant that no undemocratic and feudalisticpractices, such as primogeniture and entail, could exist. Granted thatthis is self-determination rather broadly interpreted in an economiccontext, the question is whether or not these people had the right tochoose their own plot of ground and work it as they saw fit, unhamperedby any preordained system of discrimination or restriction. 

Socially, the idea of self-determination is applied to evaluate thereligious institutions, the class structure, and the value system. Theapplication concerns, once again, the authority of the people todetermine their own social patterns. It questions whether or not anyFair Play settler could worship according to the dictates of his ownconscience. It evaluates the class structure to ascertain whether or nota superimposed caste system ordered the class structure of Fair Playsociety, rather than a community-determined system in which choice andopportunity provided flexibility and mobility. And finally, it considerswhether or not the values of the Fair Play settlers were inculcated bysome internal clique or external force, rather than being developed bythe members of the community themselves. 

Did democracy exist on this Pennsylvania frontier? Was the Fair Playsystem marked by real representation and popular control? Thesequestions must be answered before any judgment can be made concerningpolitical 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? Theseproblems 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 elementsof Fair Play society equally recognized?[3] Was the class structure openor closed, mobile or fixed? Did the mixed national stocks enjoyreligious freedom? One needs to inquire into each of these areas priorto a final evaluation of Fair Play society. 

A useful tool for evaluating political democracy can be found in Ranneyand Kendall's _Democracy and the American Party System_. [4] It suggeststhe use of popular sovereignty, political equality, popularconsultation, and majority rule as criteria for democracy. Acceptingthese criteria as basic principles of democracy, we can begin to analyzethe democratic character of the Fair Play system. 

A political system based upon popular sovereignty is one in which thefinal authority to rule is vested in the people. The question of who thepeople are is still before us today. In the fullest sense, popularsovereignty 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 Playterritory, the ruling "people" were "the whole body" of adult malesettlers who annually elected their governing tribunal and participatedin the decisions of its "court. "[5] Lacking an established church, orany church for that matter, and possessing property lying beyond legallimits of settlement, the Fair Play settlers could not have enforcedreligious or property qualifications for voting, even if they had sodesired, and there is no evidence to indicate that they did. Furthermore, the frequency of elections, which were held annually, andthe principle of rotating the offices among the settlers tended toemphasize the sovereignty of the people in this part of the West BranchValley. The right of suffrage, it is true, had not been extended towomen, but this was the rule throughout colonial America. Popularsovereignty, in its qualified eighteenth-century sense, was a basiccharacteristic of the political democracy which existed on thisfrontier. 

Political equality, that is "one man, one vote, " was practiced by thepioneers of the West Branch. There was no additional vote given to thelarge property owners; in fact, as the tax lists indicate, there were nolarge property owners within the geographic limits of the Fair Playterritory. Thus, each man, rather than a small ruling oligarchy, had theopportunity to participate in the decision-making process of the FairPlay community. 

In a democratic society, the people must be consulted by the policymakers prior to their exercise of the power of decision. Among the FairPlay settlers this basically democratic principle was vividlydemonstrated in the case of disputed land titles, the primary concern ofthe Fair Play men. In both Eleanor Coldren's deposition in behalf of herdeceased husband and in the Huff-Latcha case, it was established thatthe unanimous consent of the prospective neighbors had to be obtainedbefore a favorable decision was rendered in behalf of the landclaimants. [6] The frequency of elections, combined with the ease andregularity of assembly, provided the settlers with the opportunity tobecome acquainted with the circumstances of their problems. Here again, the paucity of specific data prompts us to some speculation regardingthe nature and location of these meetings. However, it must be added, the Hamilton pension papers and the petitions to the Supreme Council inPhiladelphia refer specifically to meetings at Fort Horn and FortAntes. [7] Direct representation based upon popular consultation was adistinct trait of the political democracy in the Fair Play territory. 

The fourth principle of political democracy, majority rule, is probablythe 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 notempirically demonstrable. [8] The majority ruled absolutely in the FairPlay territory just as it did in the New England town meeting, and withsimilar results. However, it never restricted suffrage or public officeto 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 notenjoy leadership roles in the community. [9] Whether this was by accidentor by design is difficult to ascertain. Perhaps it was just a furtherdemonstration of the absolute rule of the majority with the Scotch-Irishand the Germans combining to form that majority. 

The nature of community implies shared interests and the prevailinginterest in this frontier community was survival. Necessity undoubtedlycaused the English minority to accept the Scotch-Irish and Germanleadership, because forbearance meant survival. Conversely, theScotch-Irish and Germans could, and did, support the English inpositions of responsibility on the basis of their mutual needs and theirdesire to maintain the community. [10] Not only physical survival butalso economic survival were mutually desirable to Fair Play communitymembers, and the decisions of the court were rendered on the basis ofequal justice. [11]

As long as minority feelings are given free expression in an atmosphereof mutual concern, there is little danger of misinterpretation by themajority. Such a climate prevailed in the meetings of the Fair Playsettlers and the sessions of the Fair Play men; at least, there is noavailable evidence to the contrary. 

The nature and role of consensus in the Fair Play territory hinged uponwhat was best for the community. Fundamental agreement was reached, based upon mutual need apparent from open discussion. In the event ofconflict, forbearance, which was in the best interest of the community, could be expected. [12] An examination of the appearance dockets of thecounty 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 theSupreme Executive Council for protection from the Indians and for therecognition of the right of pre-emption, and the general response of theFair Play settlers to calls for troops for the Continental Army indicateto some degree the nature and extent of that consensus. [13]

Democracy, that is self-determination, did exist among the Fair Playsettlers of this Pennsylvania frontier. There was no outside authoritywhich legislated the affairs of the pioneers of the West Branch. Theyselected their own representatives, the Fair Play men, and maintainedtheir control over them, a control which was assured both by annualelections and the full participation of the settlers in thedecision-making process. The will of the majority prevailed, and thatwill was expressed through a community consensus reached by the fullparticipation of political equals. It was neither radical norrevolutionary, 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 aruling aristocracy. They simply governed themselves. 

Self-determination, as we have already stated, includes the right of thepeople to decide upon their own economic institutions. This right wasasserted on the farmers' frontier of the West Branch. With free landavailable to those who worked it, provided the neighbors and the FairPlay men approved, economic opportunity was shared by the Scotch-Irish, English, German, Scots, Irish, Welsh, and French settlers. [14] Thissharing, 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, neitherslavery nor involuntary servitude existed in this region, although itwas found in immediately adjacent areas. [15] Free labor, family labor tobe more exact, was the system employed in this portion of the WestBranch Valley. Noticeable, too, was the spirit of cooperation in suchenterprises as cabin-raisings, barn-raisings, harvesting, cornhuskingsand the like. This mutual helpfulness was characteristic of the frontierand obviated the necessity of any enforced labor system. 

Tenancy was occasionally practiced in the Fair Play territory, althoughit 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 "hisright" to William Dunn, claiming that Dewitt had failed to fill his endof the bargain, despite the fact that Eleanor Coldren gave evidence tothe contrary. When challenged for selling Dewitt's land, McElhattanresponded in a fashion which demonstrates the independent spirit of thislessee. He said "that he only sold his Right to Dunn and if Dunn wouldbe such a fool as to give him forty or fifty pounds for Nothing HeMcIlhatton would be a greater fool for not taking it--for that Dunn knewwhat Right he (McIlhatton) had. "[17] Obviously, if this case isindicative, and there were others, share-cropping did not induceattitudes of subservience. 

Religious freedom, in which Pennsylvania ranked second only to RhodeIsland in colonial America, was enjoyed by the frontiersmen of the WestBranch. It might, however, be better described as a freedom fromreligion rather than a freedom of religion. With no system of localtaxation and no regular church, there was no establishment of religion. Nevertheless, this is not to suggest that religious qualifications werenot applied to prospective landowners, potential voters, or members ofthe Fair Play community. Religious liberty had been guaranteed toPennsylvanians in the Charter of Privileges of 1701, and no religioustest was required for suffrage in the new State constitution in 1776. Belief in one God and in the inspiration of the Scriptures was requiredfor members of the assembly, but bona fide Fair Play settlers weredisqualified on geographic grounds anyhow. [18]

There is no record of religious discrimination among the Fair Playsettlers. In addition to the absence of a regular church, this wasprobably due, in part, to the religious composition of the population. The pioneers of the West Branch were Protestant Christians, and ifdenominational in their approach, either Presbyterian or Methodist. Thefriction between Methodists and Presbyterians appears to have beendoctrinal rather than political or social. [19]

The comparative economic equality in an area of free land had ademocratizing influence on the social class structure. This three-classstratification, composed of property owners distinguished by theirmorality, other property owners, and tenants, was an open-class systemmarked by a noticeable degree of mobility. Fair Play settlers who beganas tenants could, and did, become property owners. 

Since no one in the Fair Play territory could claim more than 300 acresunder the Pre-Emption Act of 1785, there was little chance for thedevelopment of an aristocratic class. [20] It was a society ofachievement 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 wasrestricted because of national origin, religious affiliation, or aprevious condition of servitude. This is not to say that the judgmentsof neighbors may not have been based upon these criteria, but, at least, there is no record of such discrimination. The Fair Play settlers wereeighteenth-century souls and romantic egalitarianism was not acharacteristic of such persons. The frontier, however, broke "the cakeof custom" and the necessities of that experience contributed to thedevelopment of democracy as we have defined it. 

A recent writer, analyzing the "democracy" of the Scotch-Irish, made hisevaluation on the basis of the contemporary French definition ofliberty, equality, and fraternity. [21] On this basis, the Scotch-Irishfail; but if we equate democracy with self-determination, theScotch-Irish and the Fair Play settlers of the West Branch Valley can beseen as thoroughgoing democrats. 

The value system of the pioneers on the West Branch of the Susquehannareflected, at least in part, the democracy of the frontier. The spiritof cooperation and mutual helpfulness was a prime characteristic of thisfrontier, as it was of others. Cabin-raisings, barn-raisings, and thecooperative enterprises at harvesttime enhanced the spirit of communityand brought the settlers together in common efforts, which demonstratedtheir equality. Individualism could be harnessed for the common good, and such was the case among the Fair Play settlers in the struggle foreconomic survival. 

Faith, patriotism, and temperance were not necessarily democratic, butthey also were part of the value system of the Fair Play settlers. Inmatters of faith, there was a certain "live and let live" philosophy, which had democratic implications. Despite the conflict betweenMethodists and Presbyterians, the members of the Presbyterian majoritymade their homes available to Methodist preachers. [22] This demonstrateda willingness at least to hear "the other side. " Such an atmosphere isconducive 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 thefrontier made "democrats" of its occupants. 

The most intense patriots are often ethnocentric and chauvinistic. TheFair Play settlers were such patriots, according to one journalist. [23]However, the patriotism of the eighteenth century had not reached thelevel of concern for all mankind which finds expression today. Thepioneers of the West Branch were democrats in an age not yet conditionedto democracy. 

Temperance, particularly with regard to the use of spirited beverages, usually implies abstinence, which is certainly not democratic if it isapplied 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 asthe frontier, the term signifies moderation. In the Fair Play territorydrinking, 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 mutualhelpfulness, supported by a faith which could not afford to beexclusive, temperate in their personal habits, particularly in the useof alcohol, the patriots of the Fair Play territory looked to a futurefilled with promise and opportunity for all the diverse elements oftheir society. This is the democracy which the frontier nurtured. Itflourished in the West Branch Valley. 

In summary then, was self-determination the central theme in the FairPlay territory? Did the Fair Play settlers truly determine their ownpolitical, economic, and social institutions? The available data suggestthat they did. 

The democracy of the Fair Play settlers encompassed popular sovereignty, political equality, popular consultation, majority rule, religiousfreedom, an open class structure, free land, free labor, and a valuesystem whose dominating feature was mutual helpfulness. The democracy ofFair Play was basically the fair play of democracy. 

Observable in this atmosphere were the traits of a developing Americancharacter, traits which the frontier historian, Frederick JacksonTurner, defined as democratic. [24] These included the compositenationality of a population of mixed national origins; the self-reliancewhich the new experience of the frontier developed; the independence, both of action and in spirit, which the relative isolation of theenvironment promoted; a rationalistic, or pragmatic, approach toproblems necessitated by circumstances lacking in precedents forsolution; and perhaps a growing nationalism, marked by an identificationwith something larger than the mere Provincial assembly, somethingexisting, but not yet realized, the American nation. 

These traits, in conjunction with Turner's thesis, are a major concernof the final chapter. That chapter will provide an evaluation offrontier ethnography as a technique for testing the validity of thisinterpretation of Turner's thesis on the Fair Play frontier of the WestBranch Valley. 

FOOTNOTES:

[1] Quoted in Austin Ranney and Willmoore Kendall, _Democracy and theAmerican 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 DocketNo. 2, Commencing 1797, No. 32; _see also_, Chapter Two, _passim_. 

[7] _Pennsylvania Archives_, Second Series, III, 217; and the MuncyHistorical 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 Americaand the Parliamentary system in Great Britain shows hundreds of yearswithout majority tyranny or civil war. 

[9] Chapter Six, pp. 78, 84. 

[10] _Pennsylvania Archives_, Second Series, III, 770. For example, JohnChatham, an English miller, was elected coroner in 1782, a minor role tobe sure, but he was supported. 

[11] Smith, _Laws_, II, 196-197. In _Sweeney_ vs. _Toner_, anEnglishman, Toner's property right was upheld because his absence wasfor 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 casecited here, _Huff_ vs. _Satcha_, saw the use of militia to drive off alandholder whose title had been denied by the Fair Play men. 

[13] _Pennsylvania Archives_, Second Series, III, 217-218, 417-418, and518-522. On page 417, fifty-three officers and soldiers are described as"early in the service from the unpurchased land. " Thirty-ninepetitioners (p. 520) sought pre-emption, a claim repeated over two yearslater by some fifty-three settlers. The petition to the Supreme Council(p. 217) for protection from the Indians in 1778 prior to the GreatRunaway bore forty-seven names. 

[14] _See_ Chapter Two for a demographic analysis of the Fair Playsettlers. 

[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 Playterritory. The Fair Play territory did not come under State jurisdictionuntil the second Stanwix Treaty in 1784. Regardless, it must beremembered that settlers on the south bank of the Susquehanna actuallyparticipated in the political, economic, and social life of thecommunity. The fact that these participants were often community leaderswas pointed out in Chapter Six. 

[19] _See_ the footnotes in Chapter Five referring to _The Journal ofWilliam Colbert_. 

[20] Smith, _Laws_, II, 195. 

[21] Leyburn, _The Scotch-Irish_, pp. 311-314. 

[22] _The Journal of William Colbert. _ Colbert had been received atAnnanias McFaddon's (Aug. 20, 1792, Sept. 4, 1793) and John Hamilton's(July 23, 1792, Aug. 20, 1793), where he both preached and lodged. Bothwere Presbyterians, and, as noted earlier, Colbert expressed gravedoubts 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 AmericanCommunity_, Merle Curti suggests that "less is to be gained by furtheranalysis of Turner's brilliant and far-ranging but often ambiguouspresentations than by patient and careful study of particular frontierareas in the light of the investigator's interpretation of Turner'stheory. "[1] This study was undertaken with just such a purpose in mind. In addition, it is hoped that this investigation will give some insightinto the value of ethnography and its usefulness as an analytictechnique in studying the frontier. 

By definition, ethnography is "the scientific description of nations orraces of men, their customs, habits, and differences. "[2] Frontierethnography is the scientific description of the full institutionalpattern of a particular group of people, located specifically on acertain frontier, within a certain period of time. That institutionalpattern is described from the analysis of data concerning the politicaland economic systems, and the social structure, including religion, thefamily, the value system, social classes, art, music, recreation, mythology, and folklore. Also, as noted in the first two chapters ofthis study, geographic and demographic data have been analyzed in anattempt to picture the area under observation and the people whoinhabited that region. It is believed that these various data present afuller view of the "way of life" of these people than the earlierpolitico-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 ornecessarily representative of frontier communities. However, it wouldhave broader implications if a similar study were made for Greene Countyin western Pennsylvania, where a group composed mainly of Scotch-IrishPresbyterians also set up a "Fair Play system. "[3] Furthermore, it is myinterpretation of Turner's thesis which is being tested, not thevalidity of the thesis. 

Despite the fact that the Fair Play settlers and their "system" havebeen referred to by both Pennsylvania and frontier historians in thetwentieth century, neither the settlers nor their system has beenstudied in depth. [4] Meginness and Linn, the foremost historians of theWest Branch, were both nineteenth-century writers, and, unfortunately, twentieth-century scholars have not considered the Fair Play settlersworthy of their study. Biographical studies are limited to the work ofEdwin MacMinn on Colonel Antes, completed in 1900. As a result, therehas been a definite need for an investigation collating the researchesof 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 furthercomplication to the student of Fair Play history. However, letters, journals, diaries, probate records, tax lists, pension claims, and courtrecords offer adequate data to the inquiring historian, although theextra-legal character of the settlement seriously reduced the publicrecord. Nevertheless, the broad scope of ethnography provides the kindof study for which the data supply a rather full picture of life on thisfrontier. Political, economic, and social patterns are discernible, although no day-by-day account for any extended period has beenuncovered. 

This ethnographic analysis demonstrates the merits of the "civilizationapproach" to history. Examining every aspect of a society, it providesmore than a mere "battles and leaders" account. The result gives insightinto a "style of life" rather than a chronology of highlights. Thisstudy has investigated the full institutional structure of the Fair Playfrontier, evaluating that structure in terms of a developing democracy, or, at least, of democratic tendencies. 

American civilization was a frontier civilization from the outset, andthat frontier experience was significant in the development of Americandemocracy. Frederick Jackson Turner's frontier thesis, which hasprobably inspired more historical scholarship than any other Americanthesis, stated that "the existence of an area of free land, itscontinuous recession, and the advance of American settlement westward, explain American development. "[5] That development took place onsuccessive frontiers stretching from the Atlantic to the Pacific Coastover a period of almost three centuries. Turner's second frontier, theAllegheny Mountains, marked the farmers' frontier of the Fair Playsettlers of the West Branch Valley. 

It was on the frontier, according to Turner, that the "true" traits ofAmerican character emerged; its composite nationality, its self-reliantspirit, its independence of thought and action, its nationalism, and itsrationalistic approach to the problems of a pioneer existence. The FairPlay settlers, American frontiersmen, suggested some of these traits intheir character. Recognizing the data limitations of this study, theevidence indicates some validation of this test of Turner's model. However, it would be presumptuous indeed to conclude that this analysisoffers a complete demonstration of the impact of the frontier in thedevelopment of traits of character which Turner classified as American. 

The composite nationality of the Fair Play settlers is particularlyevident from the demographic analysis offered at the beginning of thisstudy. [6] Seven different national stock groups appeared on thisfrontier: Scotch-Irish, English, German, Scots, Irish, Welsh, andFrench. Here, indeed, was "the crucible of the frontier, " in whichsettlers were "Americanized, liberated, and fused into a mixed race. "[7]

The legendary self-reliance of the frontiersman is not without somebasis in fact. The nature of the frontier experience itself wasconducive to its development. Its appearance among the Fair Playsettlers is implied in various contexts. Politically, it is suggested inthe creation of the Fair Play men, the annual governing tribunal, anextra-legal political agency in this extra-Provincial territory. Economically, it is intimated in the image of the frontier farmertackling the wilderness with rifle and plow and the unboundeddetermination to make a better life for himself and his family. Socially, the self-reliance of these doughty pioneers is indicated inthe continuation of their religious practices and worship, despite theabsence of any organized church. Their self reliance is indicated, aswell, in the flexibility of a social structure whose main criterion wasachievement, a society in which "what" you were was more important than"who" you were. These examples are, of course, only brief glimpses ofthe elusive trait of self-reliance which Turner considered typical ofthe frontier. 

Independence, or the ability to act independently, was a characteristicfrontier trait, according to Turner. The Fair Play settlers presentedsome contradictions. It is true that they organized their own system ofgovernment and the code under which it operated. However, their keyleaders lived on the periphery; and the settlers petitioned theCommonwealth government for assistance in the vital questions of defenseand pre-emption rights. [8] The Fair Play settlers were generallyindependent, 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 particularfrontier. In the first place, aside from the Second ContinentalCongress, there was no national government during most of the Fair Playperiod. The Articles of Confederation were not ratified until 1781, andFair Play territory was opened to settlement after the Treaty of FortStanwix in 1784. Furthermore, the patriotism of the Fair Play settlersseems to reflect an ethnocentric pride in their own territory and anexaggerated interpretation of its significance to the developingnation. [9] Their patriotism was apparently for an ideal, liberty, towhich they were devoted, having already enjoyed it in a nation onlyrecently declared, but yet to be recognized. And, for its support, therehad been a rush to the colors by these settlers "beyond the purchaseline. "[10] The "real American Revolution, " as John Adams described it, was "in the minds and hearts of the people, " and it was "effected beforethe war Commenced. "[11] That revolution had already occurred in theFair Play territory prior to the firing of "the shot heard round theworld" on Lexington green. 

The frontier experience had a profound influence on the development ofthe American philosophy of pragmatism. Turner claimed that it was "tothe frontier" that "the American intellect owe[d] its strikingcharacteristics. "[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, adoer rather than a thinker, more concerned with the "hows" than the"whys" of survival. This practical approach to problems can be seen inthe homes he built, the tools he made, the clothes he wore, thepolitical and social systems under which he operated, and the set ofvalues by which he was motivated. The development of thesecharacteristic American traits owed much to the frontier and the newexperiences which it offered. 

This ethnographic analysis of the Fair Play settlers of the West BranchValley has attempted to present a clearer picture of the "style of life"on this particular frontier and, in so doing, to suggest a furthertechnique for the frontier historian. There are, no doubt, certaindefects in this specific study, but the fault lies with the limitationsof the data rather than the technique. The scope of this investigationhas carried into questions of geography, demography, politics, economics, social systems, and leadership. Unfortunately, the frontierhad not yet provided the leisure essential to artistic and aestheticpursuits. Consequently, these areas were given a limited treatment. Furthermore, the mythology and folklore of this valley offered little ofrecord. However, the breadth of this analysis has furnished evidence ofthe existence of democracy on this frontier and, thus, support forTurner'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 trueeastern boundary of the Fair Play territory. The substantial destructionof an erroneous legend has been the main contribution of the geographicpart of this study. [14] It is now clear that the Fair Play territoryextended from Lycoming Creek, on the north side of the West Branch ofthe Susquehanna River, to the Great Island, just east of Lock Haven. This frontier region was beyond the legal limit of settlement of theProvince and the Commonwealth from 1769 to 1784. Hence, within itslimits was formed the extra-legal political system known as Fair Play. 

The demographic portion of this study has added to the undermining ofthe frontier myth of the Scotch-Irish. The evidence presented hereindicates that it was the frontier, rather than national origin, whichaffected the behavior of the pioneers of the West Branch Valley. TheFair Play settlers, a mixed population of seven national stock groups, reacted similarly to the common problems of the frontier experience. Inone 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 Americanreservoir of the Scotch-Irish, it seems quite probable that the "system"originated in either Northern Ireland or Scotland, or else on thefrontier 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, isconsidered. [15] If the Fair Play system originated on the frontier, whydid not it also appear on the Virginia and Carolina frontiers where theScotch-Irish predominated? Regardless, the lack of data corroboratingthe American origin of the Fair Play system leads to the conclusion thatthe germ of this political organization was brought to this country bythe Scotch-Irish from their cultural heritage, and that those elementswere found usable under the frontier conditions of both central andsouthwestern Pennsylvania. If so, the politics of "fair play" will addto, rather than detract from, the myth of the Scotch-Irish. 

This study has also brought forward the first complete account of courtrecords validating the activities of the Fair Play men. Mainly concernedwith the adjudication of land questions, this frontier tribunaldeveloped an unwritten code which encompassed the problems ofsettlement, tenure, and ejectment. Subsequently reviewed in the regularcourts 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 theFair Play system is marked by the fact that none of the decisions of itstribunal was later reversed in the established county courts. Supplemented by the Committee of Safety for Northumberland County andaugmented by peripheral leaders, who gave them a voice in the highercouncils of the State, the Fair Play men and their government provedadequate to the needs of the settlers, until all were driven off in theGreat Runaway of 1778. 

Some corroboration for the legendary tale of a "Fair Play Declaration ofIndependence" was found in the course of this study. Althoughconsisting, in the main, of accounts culled from the records ofRevolutionary War pension claimants made some eighty years after theevent, the evidence is that of a contemporary. [16] However, the mostcommon objection to this conclusion, that the Fair Play declaration wasmerely the reading of a copy of Jefferson's Declaration, isunsubstantiated by the archival descriptions. [17] Perhaps the Fair Playdeclaration is apocryphal, but, lacking valid disclaimers, the Hamiltondata offer some basis for a judgment. It is the tentative conclusion ofthis writer that there was such a declaration on the banks of Pine Creekin July of 1776. 

The Fair Play territory was truly "an area of free land" in which a "neworder of Americanism" emerged. [18] Individualistic and self-reliant ofnecessity, the pioneers of this farmers' frontier rationally developedtheir solution to the problem of survival in the wilderness, ademocratic squatter sovereignty. With land readily available and a freelabor system to work it, provided that the family was large enough toassure sufficient "hands, " these agrarian frontiersmen not onlycultivated the soil but also a free society. And their cooperativespirit, despite their mixed national origins, was markedly noticeable atharvesttime. From such spirit are communities formed, and from suchcommunities a democratic society emerges. 

This analysis has not only described the geography and demography, thepolitics and economics of the Fair Play settlers; it has also examinedthe basis and structure of this society, including the value systemwhich undergirded it. The results have pictured the religious libertyextant in a frontier society isolated from any regular or establishedchurch, a liberty of conscience which left each man free to worshipaccording to the dictates of his own faith. This freedom, this right tochoose for himself, made the Fair Play settler surprisingly receptive toother groups and their practices, practices which he was free to reject, and often did. [19] This analysis has also pointed up the class structureand its significance in promoting order in a frontier community. Andfinally, an examination of the value system of these Pennsylvaniapioneers has provided an understanding of why they behaved as they did. 

The last major aspect of this investigation concerned the nature ofleadership. Determined by the people, and thus essentially democratic, it had certain peculiar characteristics. In the first place, the topleaders tended to come from the Fair Play community in its broadestsocial sense, but not from the Fair Play territory in its narrowgeographic sense. [20] Secondly, the political participation of the FairPlay settlers, if office-holding is any criterion, emphasizes the highdegree of involvement in terms of the total population. [21] And last, this leadership appeared to be overextended when faced with the problemof defending its own frontier and the new nation which was striving sodesperately for independence. Consequently, it was forced to turn toestablished government for support. This may have been the embryonicbeginning of the nationalism which the frontier fostered in latergenerations. 

What then, is the meaning of this particular study, an ethnographicinterpretation of Turner's thesis? Turner himself, gave the bestargument 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 interdisciplinaryapproach, can capture the spirit of pioneer life. And if, as Turnersuggested, the frontier explains American development, then frontierethnography presents an understanding of the American ethos with itsideals of discovery, democracy, and individualism. [23] These idealscharacterize "the American spirit and the meaning of America in worldhistory. "[24]

The ideal of discovery, "the courageous determination to break newpaths, " as Turner called it, was abundantly evident in the Fair Playterritory of the West Branch Valley. [25] This innovating spirit can beseen in the piercing of the Provincial boundary, despite the restrictivelegislation to the contrary, and the establishment of homes in Indianterritory. [26] It was also demonstrated in a marvelous adaptability insolving the new problems of the frontier, problems for which the olddogmas were no longer applicable. The new world of the Susquehannafrontier made new men, Americans. 

Self-determination, the ideal of democracy as we have defined it, wasthe cornerstone of Fair Play society. Its particular contribution wasthe Fair Play "system" with its popularly elected tribunal of Fair Playmen. Perhaps this was the proper antecedent of the commission form oflocal government which came into vogue on the progressive wave of thelate nineteenth and early twentieth centuries. Regardless, thegeographic limitations of the Fair Play territory, the frequency ofelections, and the open conduct of meetings tend to substantiate thedemocratic evaluation which has been made of the politics of thisfrontier community. Furthermore, as was pointed out in the last chapter, this self-determination was the key characteristic of the economic andsocial life of these people. [27]

The pioneer ideal of creative and competitive individualism, whichTurner considered America's best contribution to history and toprogress, was an essential of the frontier experience which became anintegral part of the American mythology. [28] The "myth of the happyyeoman, " as one historian called it, is still revered in Americanfolklore and respected in American politics, whether it is outmoded ornot. [29] The primitive nature of frontier life developed thischaracteristically American trait and the family, the basicorganization of social control, promoted it. It was this promotion, withits 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 theadministration of justice. The Fair Play system emphasized thepersonality of law, by its very title, rather than the organizedmachinery of justice. [30] Frontier law was personal and direct, resulting in the unchecked development of the individual, a circumstancewhich Turner considered the significant product of this frontierdemocracy. [31] Being personal, though, it had meaning for those affectedby 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. Thebuoyant self-confidence which it inspired has made much of the Americandream a reality. Legislation, it is true, has taken the place of freelands as the means of preserving democracy, but it will be a hollowtriumph if that legislation suppresses this essential trait of theAmerican character, its individualism. No intelligent person today wouldrecommend a return to the laissez-faire individualism of the SocialDarwinists of the late nineteenth century, but it must be admitted thata society emphasizing the worth of the individual and dedicated toprinciples of justice and fair play, the banner under which thefrontiersmen 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 adequateto secure his own survival? The old frontiers, such as the Fair Playterritory of the West Branch of the Susquehanna, were free lands ofopportunity for a better life, and the history of the westward movementof the American people gives ample proof of their conquest. But the newfrontiers are not so clearly marked or so easily conquered. Perhaps are-examination of the history of the old frontiers can give increasedmeaning to the problems of the new. This investigation was attempted, inpart, to serve such a purpose. 

The intelligent solution to the problem of survival for the pioneers ofthe West Branch Valley was fair play. The ethnography of the Fair Playsettlers is the record of the democratic development of an Americancommunity 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 WesternPennsylvania_ (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 FairPlay settlers that a stand be made at Fort Augusta following the GreatRunaway. Previous to this, they had pleaded for support for "our CommonCause" in the defense of this frontier. _Pennsylvania Archives_, SecondSeries, III, 217. 

[10] _Pennsylvania Archives_, Second Series, X, 27-31, 417, and FifthSeries, II, 29-35. 

[11] Quoted in Clinton Rossiter, _The First American Revolution_ (NewYork, 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 LockHaven 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 ofPensions, Dec. 16, 1858, Wagner Collection, Muncy Historical Society. 

[17] _Colonial Records_, X, 634-635. The following resolution ofCongress 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 onJuly 8, and letters were sent to Bucks, Chester, Northampton, Lancaster, and Berks counties with copies of the Declaration to be posted on Mondaythe 8th where elections for delegates were to be held. For some reason, the frontier counties of Bedford, Cumberland, Westmoreland, York, andNorthumberland, contiguous to the Fair Play territory, were omitted fromthese instructions. 

[18] Turner, _The Frontier in American History_, pp. 1, 18. 

[19] _The Journal of William Colbert_ gives frequent testimony to thisstatement, as indicated in Chapter Five. 

[20] _See_ the map in Chapter One for the geographic boundaries of theFair Play territory. Note the location of the top leaders, Henry andFrederick Antes and Robert Fleming, in Chapter Six. 

[21] The number of different office-holders runs to better than ten percent 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 thePennsylvania Frontier. "

[28] Turner, _The Frontier in American History_, p. 307. 

[29] Richard Hofstadter, "The Myth of the Happy Yeoman, " _AmericanHeritage_, VII, No. 3 (April, 1956), 43-53. 

[30] The term "the personality of the law" is Turner's and emphasizesthe men who carried out the law, rather than its structure. The factthat the ruling tribunal of the West Branch Valley was referred to asthe "Fair Play men" rather than the "tribunal" illustrates thiscontention. 

[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 onLinguistic and National Stocks in the Population of the United States, "_Annual Report of the American Historical Association for the Year1931_, I. Washington, 1932. 

Andrews, Charles M. _Colonial Folkways. _ New Haven, 1919. 

----. _Guide to the Materials for American History to 1783 in the PublicRecord Office of Great Britain. _ Washington, 1912. 

---- and Frances G. Davenport. _Guide to the Manuscript Materials forthe History of the United States to 1783, in the British Museum, inMinor 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 CompanyPapers_, 1750-1775. 6 vols. Ithaca, N. Y. , 1962. 

Bridenbaugh, Carl and Jessica. _Rebels and Gentlemen: Philadelphia inthe Age of Franklin. _ New York, 1962. 

Buck, Solon J. And Elizabeth H. _The Planting of Civilization in WesternPennsylvania. _ Pittsburgh, 1939. 

Calhoun, Arthur W. _A Social History of the American Family_, I. NewYork, 1960. 

Cocks, Robert S. _One Hundred and Fifty Years of Evangelism, The Historyof 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 Relatingto America in Great Britain and Ireland. _ New York, 1961. 

Curti, Merle, _et al. _ _The Making of an American Community, A CaseStudy of Democracy in a Frontier County. _ Stanford, 1959. 

Day, Richard E. (comp. ). _Calendar of the Sir William JohnsonManuscripts in the New York State Library. _ Albany, N. Y. , 1909. 

DePuy, Henry F. _A Bibliography of the English Colonial Treaties withthe 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 theWestern 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 andGenealogical, 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 PatchworkQuilt 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 AmericanHistory. _ 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 JohnsonManuscripts 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 byContemporaries. _ New York, 1925. 

Martindale, Don. _American Society. _ New York, 1960. 

Maynard, D. S. _Historical View of Clinton County, from its EarliestSettlement 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 theSusquehanna. _ Philadelphia, 1857. 

----. _Otzinachson: A History of the West Branch Valley of theSusquehanna. _ Williamsport, 1889. 

National Education Association. _The Education of Free Men in AmericanDemocracy. _ 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. _APicture 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 PartySystem. _ 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 ofits Early History and Legislation. _ Philadelphia and Pittsburgh, 1838. 

Shimmell, Lewis S. _Border Warfare in Pennsylvania During theRevolution. _ 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 ofEngland, 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 Frontierin 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: ARe-Examination of Colonial Presbyterianism. _ Philadelphia, 1949. 

Turner, Frederick Jackson. _Frontier and Section: Selected Essays ofFrederick 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 Movement1741-1783. _ 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. _ NewYork, 1949. 

Wittke, Carl. _We Who Built America. _ 1963. 

Wright, J. E. , and Doris S. Corbett. _Pioneer Life In WesternPennsylvania. _ 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 ofthe 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. Bureauof Land Records, Harrisburg. 

_Report of the Commission to Locate the Site of the Frontier Forts ofPennsylvania. _ Harrisburg, 1916. 

ARTICLES AND ESSAYS

Baelyn, Bernard. "Political Experiences and Enlightenment Ideas inEighteenth-Century America, " _American Historical Review_, LXVII(January, 1962), 339-351. 

Beck, Herbert H. "Martin Meylin, A Progenitor of the PennsylvaniaRifle, " _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, " _TheNorthumberland County Historical Society Proceedings and Addresses_, XVIII (1950), 33-54. 

Champagne, Roger. "Family Politics Versus Constitutional Principles: TheNew York Assembly Elections of 1768 and 1769, " _William and MaryQuarterly_, Third Series, XX (January, 1963), 57-79. 

Clark, Chester. "Pioneer Life in the New Purchase, " _NorthumberlandCounty Historical Society Proceedings and Addresses_, VII (1935), 16-44. 

Deans, John Bacon. "The Migration of the Connecticut Yankees to the WestBranch of the Susquehanna River, " _Proceedings of the NorthumberlandCounty 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 theSusquehanna 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_ (August3, 1963), 4. 

Hofstadter, Richard. "The Myth of the Happy Yeoman, " _AmericanHeritage_, VII (April, 1956), 43-53. 

Johns, John O. "July 4, 1776--Rediscovered. " _Commonwealth: The Magazinefor Pennsylvania_, II (July, 1948), 2-16. 

Jordan, John W. (contributor), "Spangenberg's Notes of Travel toOnondaga in 1745, " _Pennsylvania Magazine of History and Biography_, II(No. 4, 1878), 424-432. 

Klett, Guy S. "Scotch-Irish Presbyterian Pioneering Along TheSusquehanna 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 theBingham 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 andTheir Government, " _Proceedings of the Northumberland County HistoricalSociety_, XXII (1958), 16-43. 

----. "The Great Runaway of 1778, " _The Journal of the LycomingHistorical Society_, II (No. 4, 1961), 3-10. 

----. "The Great Runaway of 1778, " _The Northumberland County HistoricalSociety 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 ChaunceyBrockway, " _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, " _Nowand 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 FromPennsylvania to Onondaga, Oswego and the Lake Ontario in 1743, " _Now andThen_, V (1936), 90. 

UNPUBLISHED STUDIES

Turner, Morris K. "The Commercial Relations of the Susquehanna ValleyDuring the Colonial Period. " Unpublished Ph. D. Dissertation, Universityof 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). ThePennsylvania 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 GarrettBiblical Seminary, Chicago. (Copy also at Lycoming College, Williamsport. )

Revolutionary War Pension Claims (typescript). Wagner Collection, MuncyHistorical 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 theauthor. 

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.