The Fair Play Settlers of the West Branch Valley, 1769-1784 Part 9

[15] Herbert H. Beck, "Martin Meylin, A Progenitor of the Pennsylvania Rifle," _Papers Read Before The Lancaster County Historical Society_, LIII (1949), 33-61.

[16] Clark, "Pioneer Life in the New Purchase," p. 19.

[17] Lewis E. Theiss, "Early Agriculture," _Susquehanna Tales_ (Sunbury, 1955), p. 89.

[18] Norman B. Wilkinson (ed.), "Mr. Davy's Diary," _Pennsylvania History_, XX (1953), 261.

[19] James W. Silver (ed.), "Chauncey Brockway, an Autobiographical Sketch," _Pennsylvania History_, XXV (1958), 143.

[20] Maynard, _Historical View of Clinton County_, p. 11.

[21] _Ibid._

[22] The probate records of Northumberland and Lycoming counties, found in the respective offices of the Register of Wills and Recorder of Deeds, contain entries leaving to the widow the "best room in the house," or, "her choice of rooms." No doubt, the simplicity of the earlier home accentuated the value of the additions.

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

[24] _Ibid._, p. 341. The Reverend Philip Vickers Fithian notes the richness of the land in the journal of his one-week visit to the area in the summer of 1775. He was also surprised to find that "many have their Grain yet in the Field," a notation for the 26th of July. _Fithian: Journal_, p. 71.

[25] Theiss, _Susquehanna Tales_, p. 88.

[26] The Museum of the Muncy Historical Society contains examples of these early farm implements and offers vivid evidence of their crudeness.

[27] _Fithian: Journal_, p. 71.

[28] _Ibid._, p. 72.

[29] Leyburn, _The Scotch-Irish_, p. 262.

[30] Linn, _History of Centre and Clinton Counties_, p. 469.

[31] "Mr. Davy's Diary," p. 258.

[32] Dunaway, _The Scotch-Irish of Colonial Pennsylvania_, p. 171. Even in the more settled areas of the Susquehanna Valley markets were slow to develop as this note from "Mr. Davy's Diary," p. 338, reported on Oct.

3, 1794: "At present there is no Market here but if many English Families settle this will soon follow as there is an excellent supply of every necessary & even Luxury in the Neighbourhood."

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

[34] Arthur W. Calhoun, _A Social History of the American Family_ (New York, 1960), I, 202.

[35] Wright and Corbett, _Pioneer Life in Western Pennsylvania_, pp.

86-92.

[36] _Pennsylvania Archives_, Third Series, XIX, 405-805.

[37] "Mr. Davy's Diary," p. 265.

[38] _Ibid._

[39] _Ibid._, pp. 263-264.

[40] _Ibid._, p. 264.

[41] _Ibid._, p. 263.

[42] One student of the commerce of the Susquehanna Valley made sweeping generalizations about its significance which can hardly be substantiated. _See_ Morris K. Turner, _The Commercial Relations of the Susquehanna Valley During the Colonial Period_ (Ph.D. Thesis, University of Pennsylvania, 1916). This dissertation, although claiming to deal with the Susquehanna Valley, never gets much beyond Harrisburg and seldom reaches as far north as Fort Augusta. Its accounts of roads, navigation improvements, and trade fail to reach the Fair Play settlers.

This lends further support to their independent and self-sufficient existence. Turner's concluding paragraph is, however, a gem of economic determinism and bears repeating in full. Found on page 100, it reads as follows:

"If then, the commercial relations of the Susquehanna Valley were so far reaching affecting as they did in the pre-Revolutionary period the att.i.tude of the people on all the questions, practically, of the day it is only fair to say that it was these relations which promoted the Revolution in the Province and drove the old government out of existence. The political issues were aided and abetted, yes, were created, were born from the womb of the neglected commercial relations of the Province and no other section at the time had such extensive relations as the Susquehanna Valley. No other conclusion can be reached after a serious study of the history of the period."

[43] Leyburn, _The Scotch-Irish_, p. 150.

CHAPTER FIVE

_Fair Play Society_

The society of the Fair Play territory, between the year 1769 and 1784, was indeed simple. There were no towns or population cl.u.s.ters, either in the territory or within a range of some thirty-five or forty miles.

Furthermore, as we have already noted, transportation and communication facilities were so limited as to make contact with the "outside world"

an exception rather than the rule. As we have also seen, economic functions on this farmers' frontier were not highly specialized. Even the political system, with its tribunal of Fair Play men, operated without the benefit of any formal code.

But it would be easy, from these indications, to magnify the simplicity of the social structure and of social relations.h.i.+ps in the West Branch Valley. If we are to consider the development of democracy on this frontier, we must take into account the various national stock groups who settled this area and, in so doing, weigh their relative economic and social status, the amount of intermarriage between them, and the ease and frequency with which they visited each other. These and other social relations.h.i.+ps, such as their joint partic.i.p.ation in voluntary a.s.sociations, their prejudices and conflicts, and the a.s.similation of alien groups, must all be evaluated. The leaders.h.i.+p, the existence of social cla.s.ses, and the family patterns must, of necessity, be a part of our inquiry. And finally, the religious inst.i.tutions, the educational and cultural opportunities, and the system of values have to be considered in arriving at a judgment regarding the democratic nature of Fair Play society.

Fair Play society was composed of Scotch-Irish (48.75 per cent), English (20 per cent), German (15 per cent), Scots (6.25 per cent), Irish (5 per cent), Welsh (2.5 per cent) and French (2.5 per cent) settlers.[1] Due to the pioneering conditions under which all of these national stock groups developed their "improvements," economic privilege was rather difficult to attain. Furthermore, even after the legislature granted pre-emption in the act of December, 1784, the grants were limited to 300 acres.[2] In consequence of this, ma.s.sive holdings were impossible to maintain legally, as the customary holdings of two to three hundred acres indicate in the tax lists for the years after 1784.[3] In fact, the tax lists suggest that absentee-owners or persons outside the actual geographic limits of the Fair Play territory who partic.i.p.ated with the Fair Play settlers were the only ones to possess 700 to 1,000 acres or more.[4] This fact, combined with the "subsistence farming" which all of the area settlers pursued, suggests a relatively comparable economic status for the members of the Fair Play society. Consequently, social status was not necessarily dependent upon economic status.

Social status on this frontier depended more upon achieved status than ascribed status. This may have been an influence of the Scotch-Irish, who judged, and thus cla.s.sified, a neighbor by the size and condition of his dwelling, the care of his farm, the work done by the women in the family, his personal characteristics and morality, and his diversions.[5] Journalists, pension claimants, and the operative, although unwritten, code of the Fair Play men all give corroborative evidence in this regard.[6] Of all these criteria, personal character and morality seemed to have been most important. The Scotch-Irish, who, like the people of other national stocks, accepted social cla.s.ses as the right ordering of society, s.h.i.+fted their emphasis, as a result of the frontier experience, from family heritage to individual achievement.[7]

Intermarriages provide a further key to the social relations.h.i.+ps of the Fair Play settlers. If a small sample is any indication, the cases of intermarriages among the various national stock groups were relatively high, with better than one-third of the marriages sampled falling within this cla.s.sification.[8] The fact that the Scotch-Irish frequently married within their own group was probably due to their being more "available" in terms of numbers. Industry and good character were the prime criteria for selecting a frontier mate, as Dunaway points out.[9]

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

Further evidence of the egalitarian influence of this frontier is found in the joint partic.i.p.ation of Fair Play settlers in voluntary a.s.sociations.[12] This is particularly noticeable in their attendance at outdoor sermons and involvement in the various political activities.

At a time when fewer than 100 families lived in the territory, Fithian observed that "There were present about an Hundred & forty" people for a sermon which he gave on the banks of the Susquehanna, opposite the present city of Lock Haven, on Sunday, July 30, 1775.[13] Although William Colbert, a Methodist, later "preached to a large congregation of willing hearers" within the territory, he did not think that it was "worth the preachers while to stop here."[14] This may have been due to the fact that they were mainly Presbyterians. Colbert's reception was apparently fair for he makes a point of saying, "I know not that there is a prejudiced person among them."[15] No regular church was established in this region until 1792, so it appears that the settlers generally partic.i.p.ated in group religious activities regardless of the denominational affiliation of the preacher conducting the services.

However, as we will point out later, this is not to suggest that there was no friction between denominations.

The political activities of the Fair Play settlers demonstrate the ma.s.s partic.i.p.ation, at least of the adult males, in this type of voluntary a.s.sociation. The annual elections of the Fair Play men were conducted without discrimination against any of the settlers by reason of religion, national origin, or property. In addition, the decisions of the tribunal were carried out, as Smith reports, "by the whole body, who started up in ma.s.s, at the mandate of the court."[16] Special occasions, such as the Pine Creek Declaration of Independence, were also marked by the partic.i.p.ation _en ma.s.se_ of these West Branch pioneers. Mrs.

Hamilton, in her widow's pension application, speaks of "seeing such numbers flocking there" (along the banks of Pine Creek in July of 1776).[17] Apparently, as Mrs. Hamilton says, most of the settlers "had a knolege of what was doing," particularly with regard to political affairs.[18]

These evidences of group partic.i.p.ation in religious and political activities should not mislead one into thinking that conflict, legal or otherwise, was alien to the West Branch frontiersmen. The cases brought before the Fair Play "court" and the friction between Methodists and Presbyterians affirm this strife. The first settler in the territory, Cleary Campbell, was an almost constant litigant, both as plaintiff and defendant, in the Northumberland County Court from the time of his arrival in 1769.[19] His name, along with the names of other Fair Play settlers, appeared regularly on the Appearance Dockets of the Northumberland and Lycoming County courts. The cases usually involved land t.i.tles and personal obligations or debts.

The religious conflict is clearly seen in the journal of the Reverend William Colbert. An incident which occurred about twenty miles south of the West Branch ill.u.s.trates 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 pa.s.s them--I inquired at one of the ball allies if preaching was expected--A religious old Presbyterian standing by where they were playing answered that he did not know. I then asked them that were playing ball, they answered no. I farther asked them if they did not think they would be better employed hearing preaching than playing ball. Their answer was a laugh, that there was time for all things and that they went to preachings on Sundays. I told them they would not be willing to go to judgment from that exercise--they said they ventured that. So after a little conversation with the old man I left them ripening for destruction....[20]

Colbert's journal is filled with snide remarks and caustic comments about Presbyterians in general and Calvinist doctrines in particular.[21] He was especially concerned for the "lost souls" of the Presbyterians of the West Branch Valley. A twentieth-century theologian suggests that Presbyterian dogmatism had driven the Scotch-Irish to the frontier; this same problem complicated their social relations.h.i.+ps in the backwoods country.[22]