Produced by Greg Weeks, Stephen Blundell and the Online
Distributed Proofreading Team at http://www.pgdp.net
_The Fair Play Settlers
of the West Branch Valley,
1769-1784:
A Study of Frontier Ethnography_
BY
GEORGE D. WOLF
Commonwealth of Pennsylvania
THE PENNSYLVANIA HISTORICAL
AND MUSEUM COMMISSION
Harrisburg, 1969
THE PENNSYLVANIA HISTORICAL
AND MUSEUM COMMISSION
JAMES B. STEVENSON, _Chairman_
CHARLES G. WEBB, _Vice Chairman_
HERMAN BLUM MRS. FERNE SMITH HETRICK
MARK S. GLEESON MRS. HENRY P. HOFFSTOT, JR.
RALPH HAZELTINE MAURICE A. MOOK
THOMAS ELLIOTT WYNNE
DAVID H. KURTZMAN, _ex officio
Superintendent of Public Instruction_
MEMBERS FROM THE GENERAL ASSEMBLY
MRS. SARAH ANDERSON, _Representative_
PAUL W. MAHADY, _Senator_ ORVILLE E. SNARE, _Representative_
JOHN H. WARE, III, _Senator_
TRUSTEES EX OFFICIO
RAYMOND P. SHAFER, _Governor of the Commonwealth_
ROBERT P. CASEY, _Auditor General_
GRACE M. SLOAN, _State Treasurer_
ADMINISTRATIVE STAFF
SYLVESTER K. STEVENS, _Executive Director_
WILLIAM J. WEWER, _Deputy Executive Director_
DONALD H. KENT, _Director
Bureau of Archives and History_
FRANK J. SCHMIDT, _Director
Bureau of Historic Sites and Properties_
WILLIAM N. RICHARDS, _Director
Bureau of Museums_
_Preface_
In an Age when man's horizons are constantly being widened to include
hitherto little-known or non-existent countries, and even other planets
and outer space, there is still much to be said for the oft-neglected
study of man in his more immediate environs. Intrigued with the
historical tale of the "Fair Play settlers" of the West Branch Valley of
the Susquehanna River and practically a life-long resident of the West
Branch Valley, this writer felt that their story was worth telling and
that it might offer some insight into the development of democracy on
the frontier. The result is an ethnography of the Fair Play settlers.
This account, however, is not meant to typify the frontier experience;
it is simply an illustration, and, the author hopes, a useful one.
No intensive research can be conducted without the help and
encouragement of many fine and wonderful people. This author is deeply
indebted to librarians, archivists and historians, local historians and
genealogists, local and county historical societies, and collectors of
manuscripts, diaries, and journals pertinent to the history of the West
Branch Valley. A comprehensive listing of all who have assisted in this
effort would be too extensive, but certain persons cannot be ignored. My
grateful appreciation is here expressed to a few of these; but my
gratitude is no less sincere to the many persons who are not here
mentioned.
Librarians who have been most helpful in providing bibliographies,
checking files, and obtaining volumes from other libraries include Miss
Isabel Welch, of the Ross Library in Lock Haven; Mrs. Kathleen Chandler,
formerly of the Lock Haven State College library; and Miss Barbara Ault,
of the Library of Congress.
Archivists and historians who have been most generous in their aid are
the late Dr. Paul A. W. Wallace, of the Pennsylvania Historical and
Museum Commission; Mrs. Phyllis V. Parsons, of Collegeville; Dr. Alfred
P. James, of the University of Pittsburgh; and Mrs. Solon J. Buck, of
Washington, D. C.
Perhaps the most significant research support for this investigation was
provided by a local historian and genealogist, Mrs. Helen Herritt
Russell, of Jersey Shore.
Dr. Samuel P. Bayard, of the Pennsylvania State University, analyzed the
Fair Play settlers using linguistic techniques to determine their
national origins. This help was basic to the demographic portion of this
study.
Dr. Charles F. Berkheimer and Mrs. Marshall Anspach, both of
Williamsport, magnanimously consented to loan this author their copies,
respectively, of William Colbert's _Journal_ and the Wagner Collection
of Revolutionary War Pension Claims.
County and local historical societies which opened their collections for
study were the Clinton County Historical Society, the Lycoming
Historical Society, the Northumberland County Historical Society, the
Centre County Historical Society, the Greene County Historical Society,
and the Muncy Historical Society and Museum of History.
For his refreshing criticisms and constant encouragement, Dr. Murray G.
Murphey, of the University of Pennsylvania, will find me forever
thankful. Without him, this study would not have been possible.
The author would like to thank the members of the Pennsylvania
Historical and Museum Commission and its Executive Director, Dr. S. K.
Stevens, for making possible this publication; he would also like to
thank Mr. Donald H. Kent, Director of the Bureau of Archives and
History, and Mr. William A. Hunter, Chief of the Division of History,
who supervised publication; and members of the staff of the Division of
History: Mr. Harold L. Myers, Associate Historian and Chief of the
Editorial Section, who readied the manuscript for publication; Mrs. Gail
M. Gibson, Associate Historian, who prepared the index; and Mr. George
R. Beyer, Assistant Historian.
My sincerest thanks are also extended to Mrs. Mary B. Bower, who typed
the entire manuscript and offered useful suggestions with regard to
style.
Finally, for providing almost ideal conditions for carrying on this work
and for sustaining me throughout, my wife, Margaret, is deserving of a
gratitude which cannot be fully expressed.
GEORGE D. WOLF
_Introduction_
Between 1769 and 1784, in an area some twenty-five miles long and about
two miles wide, located on the north side of the West Branch of the
Susquehanna River and extending from Lycoming Creek (at the present
Williamsport) to the Great Island (just east of the present Lock Haven),
some 100 to 150 families settled. They established a community and a
political organization called the Fair Play system. This study is about
these people and their system.
The author of a recent case study of democracy in a frontier county
commented on the need for this kind of investigation.[1] Cognizant of
the fact that a number of valuable histories of American communities
have been written, he noted that few of them deal explicitly with the
actual relation of frontier experience to democracy:
No one seems to have studied microscopically a given area that
experienced transition from wilderness to settled community with the
purpose of determining how much democracy, in Turner's sense,
existed initially in the first phase of settlement, during the
process itself, and in the period that immediately followed.
This research encompasses the first two stages of that development and
includes tangential references to the third stage.
The geography of the Fair Play territory has been confused for almost
two centuries. The conclusions of this analysis will not prove too
satisfying to those who unquestioningly accept and revere the old local
legends. However, it will be noted that these conclusions are based upon
the accounts of journalists and diarists rather than hearsay. This
should put the controversial "question of the Tiadaghton" to rest.
A statistical analysis has been made as a significant part of the
demography of the Fair Play settlers. However, limitations in data may
raise some questions regarding the validity of the conclusions.
Nevertheless, the national and ethnic origins of these settlers, their
American sources of emigration, the periods of immigration, the reasons
for migration, and population stability and mobility have all been
investigated. The result offers some surprises when compared with the
trends of the time--in the Province and throughout the colonies.
The _politics_ of Fair Play is the principal concern of this entire
study--appropriately, it was from their political system that these
frontiersmen derived their unusual name. This was not the only group to
use the name, however. Another "fair play system" existed in
southwestern Pennsylvania during the same period, and perhaps a similar
study can be made of those pioneers and their life. As for the Fair Play
community of the West Branch, we know about its political structure
through the cases subsequently reviewed by established courts of the
Commonwealth. From these cases, we have reconstructed a "code" of
operation which demonstrates certain democratic tendencies.
In addition to studying the political system, an effort has been made to
validate the story of the locally-famed Pine Creek Declaration of
Independence. Although some evidence for such a declaration was found,
it seems inconclusive.
The West Branch Valley was part of what Turner called the second
frontier, the Allegheny, and so this agrarian frontier community has
been examined for evidence of the democratic traits which Turner
characterized as particularly American. This analysis is not meant to
portray a typical situation, but it does provide support for Turner's
evaluation. As this was a farmer's frontier, and as transportation and
communication facilities were extremely limited, a generally
self-sufficient and naturally self-reliant community developed as a
matter of survival. The characteristics which this frontier nurtured,
and the non-English--even anti-English--composition of its population
make understandable the sentiment in this region for independence from
Great Britain. This, of course, is supremely demonstrated in the
separate declaration of independence drawn, according to the report, by
the settlers of the Fair Play frontier.
Fair Play _society_ is, perhaps, the second-most-important facet of this
ethnographic analysis. An understanding of it necessitated an inquiry
into the social relationships, the religious institutions, the
educational and cultural opportunities, and the values of this frontier
community. The results, again, lend credence to Turner's hypothesis.
Admittedly, Turner's bold assertion that "the growth of nationalism and
the evolution of American political institutions were dependent on the
advance of the frontier" is somewhat contradicted by the nature of this
Pennsylvania frontier. Western lands in Pennsylvania were either
Provincial, Commonwealth, or Indian lands, but never national lands. As
a result, western land ordinances, and the whole controversy which
accompanied the ratification of the Articles of Confederation, had no
real significance in Pennsylvania. However, in subsequent years, the
expansion of internal improvement legislation and nationalism sustains
Turner's thesis, as does the democratic and non-sectional nature of the
middle colonial region generally.[2]
The _intellectual character_ which the frontier spawned has been
described as rationalistic. However, this was a rationalism which was
not at odds with empiricism, but which was more in line with what has
been called the American philosophy, pragmatism. Or, to put it in the
vernacular, "if it works, it's good." The frontiersman was a
trial-and-error empiricist, who believed in his own ability to fathom
the depths of the problems which plagued him. If the apparent solution
contradicted past patterns and interpretations, he justified his actions
in terms of the realities of the moment. It is this pragmatic
ratio-empiricism which we imply when we use the term "rationalistic."
An examination of the role of _leadership_, suggested by the Curti
study, presents the first summary of this type for the West Branch
Valley. Here, too, the limited numbers of this frontier population,
combined with its peculiar tendency to rely upon peripheral residents
for top leadership, prevents any broad generalizations. The nature of
its leadership can only be interpreted in terms of this particular group
in this specific location.
The last two chapters of this study are summary chapters. The first of
these is an analysis of democracy on one segment of the Pennsylvania
frontier. Arbitrarily defining democracy, certain objective criteria
were set up to evaluate it in the Fair Play territory. Political
democracy was investigated in terms of popular sovereignty, political
equality, popular consultation, and majority rule, and the political
system was judged on the basis of these principles. Social democracy
was ascertained through inquiries concerning religious freedom, the
social class system, and economic opportunity. The conclusion is that,
for this frontier at least, democratic tendencies were displayed in
various contexts.
The final chapter, although relying to a large extent upon Turner's
great work, is in no way intended to be a critical evaluation of that
thesis. Its primary objective is to test one interpretation of it
through a particular analytic technique, ethnographic in nature.
Frontier ethnography has proved to be a reliable research tool, mainly
because of its wide scope. It permits conclusions which a strictly
confined study, given the data limitations of this and other frontier
areas, would not allow.
Democracy, it is no doubt agreed, is a difficult thing to assess,
particularly when there are so many conflicting interpretations of it.
But an examination of it, even in its most primitive stages in this
country, can give the researcher a glimpse of its fundamentals and its
effectiveness. In a time when idealists envision a world community based
upon the self-determination which was basic in this nation's early
development, it is essential to re-evaluate that principle in terms of
its earliest American development. If we would enjoy the blessings of
freedom, we must undergo the fatigue of attempting to understand it.
Some seventy years ago, a great American historian suggested an
interpretation of the American ethos. Turner's thesis is still being
debated today, something which I am certain would please its author
immensely. But what is needed today is not the prolongation of the
debate as to its validity so much as the investigation of it with newer
techniques which, it might be added, Turner himself suggested. This is
the merit of frontier ethnography, and, perhaps, the particular value of
this study.
To me, Robert Frost implied as much in his wonderful "Stopping by Woods
on a Snowy Evening." Yes, the "woods" of contemporary history are
"lovely, dark and deep,
But I have promises to keep,
And miles to go before I sleep,
And miles to go before I sleep."
It is hoped that this investigation is the beginning of the answer to
that promise, but it is well-recognized that there are miles to go.
FOOTNOTES:
[1] Merle Curti _et al._, _The Making of an American Community: A Case
Study of Democracy in a Frontier County_ (Stanford, 1959), p. 3.
[2] _Frontier and Section: Selected Essays of Frederick Jackson Turner_,
intro. by Ray Allen Billington (Englewood Cliffs, N. J., 1961), pp.
52-55.
_Table of Contents_
PREFACE iii
INTRODUCTION v
I. FAIR PLAY TERRITORY: GEOGRAPHY AND TOPOGRAPHY 1
II. THE FAIR PLAY SETTLERS: DEMOGRAPHIC FACTORS 16
III. THE POLITICS OF FAIR PLAY 30
IV. THE FARMERS' FRONTIER 47
V. FAIR PLAY SOCIETY 58
VI. LEADERSHIP AND THE PROBLEMS OF THE FRONTIER 76
VII. DEMOCRACY ON THE PENNSYLVANIA FRONTIER 89
VIII. FRONTIER ETHNOGRAPHY AND THE TURNER THESIS 100
BIBLIOGRAPHY 113
INDEX 119
[Map]
CHAPTER ONE
_Fair Play Territory: Geography and Topography_
The Colonial period of American history has been of primary concern to
the historian because of its fundamental importance in the development
of American civilization. What the American pioneers encountered,
particularly in the interior settlements, was, basically, a frontier
experience. An ethnographic analysis of one part of the Provincial
frontier of Pennsylvania indicates the significance of that colonial
influence. The "primitive agricultural democracy" of this frontier
illustrates the "style of life" which provided the basis for a
distinctly "American" culture which emerged from the colonial
experience.[1]
While this writer's approach is dominantly Turnerian, this study does
not necessarily contend that this Pennsylvania frontier was typical of
the general colonial experience, nor that this ethnographic analysis
presents in microcosm the development of the American ethos. However, on
this farmer's frontier there was adequate evidence of the composite
nationality, the self-reliance, the independence, and the nationalistic
and rationalistic traits which Turner characterized as American.
In his famed essay on "The Significance of the Frontier," Turner saw the
frontier as the crucible in which the English, Scotch-Irish, and
Palatine Germans were merged into a new and distinctly American
nationality, no longer characteristically English.[2] The Pennsylvania
frontier, with its dominant Scotch-Irish and German influence, is a case
in point.
The Fair Play territory of the West Branch Valley of the Susquehanna
River, the setting for this analysis, was part of what Turner called the
second frontier, the Allegheny Mountains.[3] Located about ninety miles
up the Susquehanna from the present State capital at Harrisburg, and
extending some twenty-five-odd miles westward between the present cities
of Williamsport and Lock Haven, this territory was the heartland of the
central Pennsylvania frontier in the decade preceding the American
Revolution.
The term "Fair Play settlers," used to designate the inhabitants of this
region, is derived from the extra-legal political system which these
democratic forerunners set up to maintain order in their developing
community. Being squatters and, consequently, without the bounds of any
established political agency, they formed their own government, and
labeled it "Fair Play."
However, despite the apparent simplicity of the above geographic
description, the exact boundaries of the Fair Play territory have been
debated for almost two centuries. Before we can assess the democratic
traits of the Fair Play settlers, we must first clearly define what is
meant by the Fair Play territory.
The terminal points in this analysis are 1768 and 1784, the dates of the
two Indian treaties made at Fort Stanwix (now Rome), New York. The
former opened up the Fair Play territory to settlement, and the latter
brought it within the limits of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, thus
legalizing the _de facto_ political structure which had developed in the
interim.
According to the treaty of 1768, negotiated by Sir William Johnson with
the Indians of the Six Nations, the western line of colonial settlement
was extended from the Allegheny Mountains, previously set by the
Proclamation of 1763, to a line extending to the mouth of Lycoming
Creek, which empties into the West Branch of the Susquehanna River. The
creek is referred to as the Tiadaghton in the original of the treaty.[4]
The question of whether Pine Creek or Lycoming Creek was the Tiadaghton
is the first major question of this investigation. The map which faces
page one outlines the territory in question.
Following the successful eviction of the French in the French and Indian
War, the American counterpart of the Seven Years' War, the crown sought
a more orderly westward advance than had been the rule. Heretofore, the
establishment of frontier settlements had stirred up conflict with the
Indians and brought frontier pleas to the colonial assemblies for
military support and protection. The result was greater pressure on the
already depleted exchequer. The opinion that a more controlled and less
expensive westward advance could be accomplished is reflected in the
Royal Proclamation of 1763.
This proclamation has frequently been misinterpreted as a definite
effort to deprive the colonies of their western lands. The very language
of the document contradicts this. For example, the expression "for the
present, and until our further pleasure be known" clearly indicates the
tentative nature of the proclamation, which was "to prevent [the
repetition of] such irregularities for the future" with the Indians,
irregularities which had prompted Pontiac's Rebellion.[5] The orderly
advancement of this colonial frontier was to be accomplished through
subsequent treaties with the Indians. The Treaty of Fort Stanwix in 1768
is one such example of those treaties.[6]
The term "Fair Play settlers" refers to the residents of the area
between Lycoming Creek and the Great Island on the north side of the
West Branch of the Susquehanna River, and to those who interacted with
them, during the period 1769-1784, when that area was outside of the
Provincial limits. The appellation stems from the annual designation by
the settlers of "Fair Play Men," a tribunal of three with
quasi-executive, legislative, and judicial authority over the residents.
The relevance of the first Stanwix Treaty to the geographic area of this
study is a matter of the utmost importance. The western boundary of that
treaty in the West Branch Valley of the Susquehanna has been a source of
some confusion because of the employment of the name "Tiadaghton" in the
treaty to designate that boundary. The question, quite simply, is
whether Pine Creek or Lycoming is the Tiadaghton. If Pine Creek is the
Tiadaghton, an extra-legal political organization would have been
unnecessary, for the so-called Fair Play settlers of this book would
have been under Provincial jurisdiction.[7] The designation of Lycoming
Creek as the Tiadaghton tends to give geographic corroboration for the
Fair Play system.
First and foremost among the Pine Creek supporters is John Meginness,
the nineteenth-century historian of the West Branch Valley. His work is
undoubtedly the most often quoted source of information on the West
Branch Valley of the Susquehanna, and rightfully so. Although he wrote
when standards of documentation were lax and relied to an extent upon
local legendry as related by aged residents, Meginness' views have a
general validity. However, there is some question regarding his judgment
concerning the boundary issue.
Quoting directly from the journal of Moravian Bishop Augustus
Spangenburg, who visited the West Branch Valley in 1745 in the company
of Conrad Weiser, David Zeisberger, and John Schebosh, Meginness
describes the Bishop's travel from Montoursville, or Ostonwaken as the
Indians called it, to the "Limping Messenger," or "Diadachton Creek,"
where the party camped for the night.[8] It is interesting to note that
the Moravian journalist refers here to Lycoming Creek as the Tiadaghton,
some twenty-three years prior to the purchase at Fort Stanwix, which
made the question a local issue. Yet Meginness, in a footnote written
better than a hundred years later, says that "It afterwards turned out
that the true _Diadachton_ or _Tiadachton_, was what is now known as
Pine Creek."[9]
Perhaps Meginness was influenced by the aged sources of some of his
accounts. It may be, however, that he was merely repeating the judgment
of an earlier generation which had sought to legalize its settlement
made prior to the second Stanwix Treaty. The Indian description of the
boundary line in the Fort Stanwix Treaty of 1768 may also have had some
impact upon Meginness. Regardless, a comparison of data, pro and con,
will demonstrate that the Tiadaghton is Lycoming Creek.
John Blair Linn, of Bellefonte, stood second to Meginness in popular
repute as historian of the West Branch Valley. However, he too calls
Pine Creek the Tiadaghton, though the reliability of his sources is
questionable. Unlike Meginness, whose judgment derived somewhat from
interviews with contemporaries of the period, Linn based his contention
upon the statements made by the Indians at the second Stanwix Treaty
meeting in 1784.[10]
At those sessions on October 22 and 23, 1784, the Pennsylvania
commissioners twice questioned the deputies of the Six Nations about the
location of the Tiadaghton, and were told twice that it was Pine
Creek.[11] In the first instance, Samuel J. Atlee, speaking for the
other Pennsylvania commissioners, called attention to the last deed made
at Fort Stanwix in 1768 and asked the question about the Tiadaghton:
This last deed, brothers, with the map annexed, are descriptive of
the purchase made sixteen years ago at this place; one of the
boundary lines calls for a creek by the name of _Tyadoghton_, we
wish our brothers the Six Nations to explain to us clearly which you
call the _Tyadoghton_, as there are two creeks issuing from the
_Burnet's Hills_, _Pine_ and _Lycoming_.[12]
Captain Aaron Hill, a Mohawk chief, responded for the Indians:
With regard to the creek called _Tyadoghton_, mentioned in your deed
of 1768, we have already answered you, and again repeat it, it is
the same you call _Pine Creek_, being the largest emptying into the
west branch of the _Susquehannah_.[13]
This, of course, was the "more positive answer" which the Indians had
promised after the previous day's interrogation.[14] It substantiated
the description given in the discussions preceding the Fort Stanwix
Treaty of 1768.[15] However, the map illustrating the treaty line,
although tending to support this view, is subject to interpretation.[16]
Regardless, this record of the treaty sessions provides the strongest
evidence to sustain the Pine Creek view.
There is little doubt that Meginness and Linn were influenced by the
record. This is certainly true of D. S. Maynard, a lesser
nineteenth-century historian, whose work is obviously based upon the
research of Meginness. Maynard repeated the evidence of his predecessor
from the account of Thomas Sergeant by describing the Stanwix Treaty
line of 1768 as coming "across to the headwaters of Pine Creek."
Maynard's utter dependence upon Meginness suggests that his evidence is
more repetitive than substantive.[17]
A more recent student of local history, Eugene P. Bertin, of Muncy,
gives Pine Creek his undocumented support, which appears to be nothing
more than an elaboration of the accounts of Meginness and Linn.[18] Dr.
Bertin's account appears to be better folklore than history.[19]
Another twentieth-century writer, Elsie Singmaster, offers more
objective support for Pine Creek, although her argument appears to be
better semantics than geography.[20]
Edmund A. DeSchweinitz, in his biography of David Zeisberger, errs in
his interpretation of the term "Limping Messenger" (Tiadaghton), used by
Bishop Spangenburg in his account of their journey to the West Branch
Valley in 1745. He notes that on their way to Onondaga (Syracuse) after
leaving "Ostonwaken" (Montoursville) they passed through the valley of
Tiadaghton Creek. They were following the Sheshequin Path. But he
identifies the Tiadaghton with Pine Creek. There was an Indian path up
Pine Creek, but it led to Niagara, not Onondaga.[21]
Aside from the designation by the Indians at the second Stanwix Treaty,
there is only one other source which lends any credibility to the Pine
Creek view, and that is Smith's _Laws of the Commonwealth of
Pennsylvania_. After the last treaty was made acquiring Pennsylvania
lands from the Indians, the legislature, in order to quell disputes
about the right of occupancy in this "New Purchase,"[22] passed the
following legislation:
And whereas divers persons, who have heretofore occupied and
cultivated small tracts of land, without the bounds of the purchase
made, as aforesaid, in the year of our Lord one thousand seven
hundred and sixty-eight, and within the purchase made, or now to be
made, by the said commissioners, have, by their resolute stand and
sufferings during the late war, merited, that those settlers should
have the pre-emption of their respective plantations:
_Be it therefore enacted by the authority aforesaid_, That all and
every person or persons, and their legal representatives, who has or
have heretofore settled on the north side of the west branch of the
river Susquehanna, upon the Indian territory, between Lycomick or
Lycoming creek on the east, and Tyagaghton or Pine creek on the
west, as well as other lands within the said residuary purchase from
the Indians, of the territory within this state, excepting always
the lands herein before excepted, shall be allowed a right of
pre-emption to their respective possessions, at the price
aforesaid.[23]
It may be worth observing, however, that legislation tends to reflect
popular demand rather than the hard facts of a situation. In this case
the settlers of the region prior to 1780 stood to benefit by this
legislation and formed an effective pressure group.
The contrary view in this long-standing geographical debate is based,
for the most part, upon the records of journalists and diarists who
traveled along the West Branch _prior_ to the first Stanwix Treaty and
who thus had no axe to grind.
That the Lycoming Creek was in fact the Tiadaghton referred to by the
Indians at Fort Stanwix in 1768 is strongly indicated by the weight of
evidence derived from the journals of Conrad Weiser (1737), John Bartram
(1743), Bishop Spangenburg (1745), Moravian Bishop John Ettwein (1772),
and the Reverend Philip Vickers Fithian (1775). In addition, the maps of
Lewis Evans (1749) and John Adlum (1792), the land applications of
Robert Galbreath and Martin Stover (1769), and a 1784 statute of the
Pennsylvania General Assembly all tend to validate Lycoming's claim to
recognition as the Tiadaghton. Each datum has merit in the final
analysis, which justifies the specific examination which follows:
Supporting evidence is found in Weiser's German journal, which was meant
for his family and friends, and translated into English by his
great-grandson, Hiester H. Muhlenberg. (Weiser also kept an English
journal for the Council at Philadelphia.) Weiser wrote: "The stream we
are now on the Indians call Dia-daclitu, (die berirte, the lost or
bewildered) which in fact deserves such a name."[24] (This is an obvious
misspelling of Diadachton.) Weiser was following the Sheshequin Path
with Shickellamy to Onondaga and this entry is recorded on March 25,
1737, long before there was any question about the Tiadaghton.
There seems to be some confusion over Bishop Spangenburg's use of the
term "Limping Messenger" in his journal for June 8, 1745. He too was
traveling the Sheshequin Path with David Zeisberger, Conrad Weiser,
Shickellamy, Andrew Montour, _et al._ He describes the "Limping
Messenger" as a camp on the "Tiadachton" (Lycoming), whereas
DeSchweinitz in his _Zeisberger_ interprets the term to mean Pine
Creek.[25]
Another traveler along the Sheshequin Path was the colonial botanist,
John Bartram. Bartram, in the company of Weiser and Lewis Evans, the map
maker, notes in his diary of July 12, 1743, riding "down [up] a valley
to a point, a prospect of an opening bearing N, then down the hill to a
run and over a rich neck lying between it and the Tiadaughton."[26]
Incidentally, the editor of this extract from Bartram's journal makes
the quite devastating point that Meginness did not know of Bartram's
journal, which was published in London in 1751 but which did not appear
in America until 1895.[27]
One of the Moravian journalists who visited the scenic Susquehanna along
the West Branch was Bishop John Ettwein, who passed through this valley
on his way to Ohio in 1772. He wrote of "Lycoming Creek, [as the stream]
which marks the boundary line of lands purchased from the Indians."[28]
Perhaps the most interesting and informative diarist who journeyed along
the West Branch was the Reverend Philip Vickers Fithian. Fithian came to
what we will establish as Fair Play country on July 25, 1775, at what he
called "Lacommon Creek." His conclusion was that this creek was the
Tiadaghton.[29] It is this same Fithian, it might be added, whose
Virginia journals were the primary basis for the reconstruction of
colonial Williamsburg.
The work of colonial cartographers also substantiates the claim that
Lycoming Creek is the Tiadaghton. Both Lewis Evans, following his 1743
journey in the company of Bartram and Weiser, and John Adlum, who
conducted a survey of the West Branch Valley in 1792 for the
Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, failed to label Pine Creek as the
"Tiadaghton" on their maps.[30] In fact, Adlum's map of 1792, found
among the papers of William Bingham, designates the area east of
Lycoming Creek as the "Old Purchase." Furthermore, as is the case with
Evans' map, Adlum does not apply the Tiadaghton label to either Pine
Creek or Lycoming Creek.[31]
Two applications in 1769 for land in the New Purchase show that the
Tiadaghton, or in this case "Ticadaughton," can only be Lycoming Creek.
The application of Robert Galbreath (no. 1823) is described as "Bounded
on one side by the Proprietor's tract at Lycoming." Martin Stover
applied for the same tract (application no. 2611), which is described as
"below the mouth of Ticadaughton Creek."[32] The copies of these two
applications, together with the copy of the survey, offer irrefutable
proof of the validity of Lycoming's claim.
Perhaps the final note is the action of the General Assembly of the
Commonwealth of Pennsylvania on December 12, 1784.[33] The legislators
affirmed the judgments of the frontier journalists, whose recorded
journeys offer the best proof that the Lycoming is the Tiadaghton. Prior
to this action, the Provincial authorities had issued a proclamation on
September 20, 1773, prohibiting settlement west of Lycoming Creek by
white persons. Violators were to be apprehended and tried. The penalties
were real and quite severe: L500 fine, twelve months in prison without
bail, and a guarantee of twelve months of exemplary conduct after
release.[34] Court records, however, fail to indicate any prosecutions.
Finally, the latest scholar to delve into the complexities of the
Stanwix treaties, Professor Peter Marshall, says that there was no
prolonged and close discussion about the running of the treaty line in
Pennsylvania (the Tiadaghton question), no discussion in any way
comparable to that which took place over its location in New York.[35]
In summary then, it appears that the Treaty of Fort Stanwix in 1768 was
responsible for opening the West Branch Valley to settlement, such
settlement being stimulated by the opening of the Land Office in
Philadelphia on April 3, 1769. James Tilghman, secretary of the Land
Office, published the notice of his office's willingness "to receive
applications from all persons inclinable to take up lands in the New
Purchase."[36] The enthusiasm generated by the opening of the Land
Office is shown by the better than 2,700 applications received on the
very first day. However, the question of the Tiadaghton came to be a
source of real contention. The ambiguity of the Indian references to the
western boundary of the first Stanwix Treaty led the eager settlers, who
were seeking to legitimize claims in the area between Lycoming and Pine
creeks, to favor Pine Creek. There was substance to the settlers' claim.
The significance of the boundary question to this study is better
understood when it is recognized that the so-called Fair Play system of
government in lands beyond the Provincial limits must have a definable
locale. It is this writer's firm conviction that Fair Play territory
extended from Lycoming Creek, on the north side of the West Branch of
the Susquehanna, to the Great Island, some five miles west of Pine
Creek. The foundation for the establishment of Lycoming Creek as the
Tiadaghton, and consequently, as the eastern boundary of the Fair Play
territory is apparent once all the evidence is examined. Aside from the
comments of the Indians at the treaty negotiations and Smith's _Laws of
the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania_, there are only secondary accounts
with little documentation to sustain the Pine Creek argument.
On the other hand, the Lycoming Creek claim is buttressed by such
primary sources as the journals of Weiser, Bartram, Spangenberg,
Ettwein, and Fithian, three of which were written before the location of
the Tiadaghton became a subject of dispute. Since none of these men was
seeking lands, they can be considered impartial observers. Furthermore,
the cartographic efforts of Lewis Evans and John Adlum followed actual
visits to the region and say nothing to favor the Pine Creek view.
Perhaps the Indians were merely accepting an already accomplished fact
at the meeting in 1784. Dr. Paul A. W. Wallace says that this would have
been expected from the subservient, pacified Indian. Regardless, the
Provincial leadership made no effort to settle the lands in what some
called "the disputed territory" until after the later agreement at
Stanwix; in fact, they discouraged it.[37] The simple desire for
legitimacy gives us very little to go on in the light of more than
adequate documentation of the justice of the Lycoming view.
This evidence might suggest changing the name of the long-revered
"Tiadaghton Elm" to the "Pine Creek Elm" and bringing to a close the
vexatious question of the Tiadaghton. However let us strike a note of
caution, if not humility. Indian place names had a way of shifting,
doubling, and moving, since they served largely as descriptive terms and
not as true place names. It is not at all unusual to find the same name
applied to several places or to find names migrating. The Tiadaghton
could have been Lycoming Creek to some Indians at one time, and Pine
Creek to others at the same or another time. Consider, for example, that
there were three Miami rivers in present Ohio, which are now known as
the Miami, the Little Miami, and the Maumee. It hardly makes any real
difference to the geography of the Fair Play territory, or to the
delimiting of its boundaries, which stream was the Tiadaghton. Actually,
it was the doubt about it which drew in the squatters and created Fair
Play. These settlers justified their contention that the Tiadaghton was
Pine Creek by moving into the territory and holding onto it. This may be
reason enough for calling the famous tree the Tiadaghton Elm, even if
early travelers and the proprietary officials said that the Tiadaghton
was Lycoming Creek.[38]
The topography of the region also influenced the delineation of what we
call Fair Play territory. The jugular vein which supplies the life-blood
to this region is undoubtedly the West Branch of the Susquehanna River.
This branch of the great river, which drains almost fifty per cent of
the State, follows a northeasterly course of some forty miles from the
Great Island, which is just east of present Lock Haven, to what is now
Muncy, then turns southward.[39]
The West Branch of the mighty Susquehanna, which has plagued generations
of residents with its spring floodings, was the primary means of ingress
and egress for the area. Rich bottom lands at the mouths of Lycoming,
Larrys, and Pine creeks drew the hardy pioneer farmers, and here they
worked the soil to provide the immediate needs for survival. Hemmed in
on the north by the plateau area of the Appalachian front and on the
south by the Bald Eagle Mountains, these courageous pioneers of frontier
democracy carved their future out of the two-mile area (more often less)
between those two forbidding natural walls. With the best lands to be
found around the mouth of Pine Creek, which is reasonably close to the
center of this twenty-five-mile area, it seems quite natural that the
major political, social, and economic developments would take place in
close proximity--and they did.[40]
Thus, an area never exceeding two miles in width and spanning some ten
miles (presently from Jersey Shore to Lock Haven) was the heartland of
Fair Play settlement. Lycoming Creek, Larrys Creek, and Pine Creek all
run south into the West Branch, having channeled breaks through the
rolling valley which extends along the previously defined territory.
"The land was ours before we were the land's," the poet said, and it
seems apropos of this moment in history.[41] Fair Play territory,
possessed before it was owned and operated under _de facto_ rule, would
be some time in Americanizing the sturdy frontiersmen who came to bring
civilization to this wilderness.
FOOTNOTES:
[1] Carl L. Becker, _Beginnings of the American People_ (Ithaca, N. Y.,
1960), p. 182.
[2] Turner, _Frontier and Section_, p. 51.
[3] Frederick Jackson Turner, _The Frontier in American History_ (New
York, 1963), p. 9.
[4] E. B. O'Callaghan, _Documentary History of the State of New York_
(Albany, 1849), I, 587-591.
[5] Henry Steele Commager, _Documents of American History_ (New York,
1958), I, 49.
[6] An earlier twentieth-century historian misinterprets the first
Stanwix Treaty in much the same manner as earlier colonial historians
erred in their judgments of the Proclamation of 1763. Albert T.
Volwiler, _George Croghan and the Westward Movement, 1741-1782_
(Cleveland, 1926), p. 250, really overstates his case, if the Fair Play
settlers are any example, when he claims that the Fort Stanwix line, by
setting a definite boundary, impeded the western advance. Establishing
friendships with the Indians and then persuading them to sell their
lands proved valuable to more than speculators, whose case Volwiler
documents so well, as West Branch settlements after 1768 will attest.
[7] The extension of Provincial authority to Pine Creek would have taken
in three-fourths of what we have labeled Fair Play territory.
[8] John F. Meginness, _Otzinachson: A History of the West Branch Valley
of the Susquehanna_ (Williamsport, 1889), p. 106. The full passage from
the Bethlehem Diary (now in the Moravian Archives) was translated by the
late Dr. William N. Schwarze for Dr. Paul A. W. Wallace, historian of
the Pennsylvania Historical and Museum Commission, as follows: "In the
afternoon [June 8, New Style] our brethren left that place [beyond
Montoursville] and came in the evening to the Limping Messenger on the
Tiadachton Creek, where they spent the night." In the _Pennsylvania
Magazine of History and Biography_, II (1878), 432 (hereafter cited as
_PMHB_), Zeisberger's account is translated in this manner: "In the
afternoon we proceeded on our journey, and at dusk came to the 'Limping
Messenger,' or Diadachton Creek [a note identifies this as Lycoming],
and encamped for the night." Here the error is in identifying the
Limping Messenger with the stream. Meginness, of course, repeated the
error in his _Otzinachson_ (1889), p. 106. Referring the passage to
Vernon H. Nelson of the Moravian Archives, through Dr. Wallace, resulted
in a clarification of the translation and the affirmation of the
"Limping Messenger" as a camp on the stream. In the Bethlehem Diary,
under June 8, 1754, the sentence appears as follows: "des Nachm.
reissten unsre Brr Wieder von da weg u kamen Abends zum hinckenden Boten
an der Tiatachton Creek, u lagen da uber Nacht." In the original travel
journal the passage reads: "des Nachm. reissten wir wieder von da weg, u
kamen Abends zum _hinckenden Boten_ an der Tiatachton Crick u lagen da
uber Nacht." De Schweinitz in his _Zeisberger_ further confused the
issue in his description of the journey. He takes the adventurers
(Zeisberger, Spangenburg, Conrad Weiser, Shickellamy, and Andrew
Montour) through the valley of the Tiadaghton Creek on the Sheshequin
Path to Onondaga (Syracuse). There was an Indian path up Pine Creek, but
it led to Niagara, not Onondaga.
[9] Meginness, _Otzinachson_ (1889), p. 106. This is an added note of
Meginness' commentary upon the citation noted above.
[10] John Blair Linn, _History of Centre and Clinton Counties,
Pennsylvania_ (Philadelphia, 1883), p. 468. Linn also deals with the
Tiadaghton question in his "Indian Land and Its Fair Play Settlers,"
_PMHB_, VII (1883), 420-425. Here he simply defines Fair Play territory
as "Indian Land" encompassing the Lycoming-Pine Creek region.
[11] _Minutes of the First Session of the Ninth General Assembly of the
Commonwealth of Pennsylvania ..._ (Philadelphia, 1784), Appendix,
Proceedings of the Treaties held at Forts Stanwix and McIntosh, pp.
314-322.
[12] _Ibid._, Oct. 23, p. 319.
[13] _Ibid._
[14] _Ibid._, Oct. 22, p. 316.
[15] E. B. O'Callaghan, _Documents Relative to the Colonial History of
the State of New York_, VIII (Albany, 1857), 125. In the discussions
preceding the Fort Stanwix Treaty of 1768, the Indians' description of
the boundary line could be interpreted as favoring Pine Creek: "... to
the Head of the West Branch of Susquehanna thence down the same to Bald
Eagle Creek thence across the River at Tiadaghta Creek below the great
Island, thence by a straight Line to Burnett's Hills and along the
same...." The juxtaposition of Bald Eagle Creek, the Great Island, and
"Tiadaghta" Creek makes this conclusion plausible.
[16] _See also ibid._, Guy Johnson's map illustrating the treaty line,
opposite p. 136.
[17] D. S. Maynard, _Historical View of Clinton County, From Its
Earliest Settlement To The Present Time_ (Lock Haven, 1875), p. 8. The
line is given by Maynard as follows: "... and took in the lands lying
east of the North Branch of the Susquehanna, beginning at Owego, down to
Towanda, thence up the same and across to the headwaters of Pine Creek;
thence down the same to Kittanning...."
[18] Eugene P. Bertin, "Primary Streams of Lycoming County," _Now and
Then_, VIII (1947), 258-259.
[19] Dr. Bertin, former associate secretary of the Pennsylvania State
Education Association, adds nothing to the Meginness and Linn accounts,
his probable sources. He speaks of settlements as early as 1772, whereas
it is a matter of record that Cleary Campbell squatted in what is now
north Lock Haven sometime shortly after 1769. He refers to the
establishment of homes, properly, but then goes on to add churches and
schools. The source for his "Children and elders met together
periodically to recite catechism to the preacher, who was a travelling
missionary, one being Phillip Fithian," was J. B. Linn. But Fithian, an
extremely accurate diarist, fails to mention the occasion during his
one-week visit to this area in the summer of 1775. However, the real
value of this article is the editorial note by T. Kenneth Wood on the
Tiadaghton question. In it he refers to John Bartram's journal of 1743,
twenty-five years before the Stanwix Treaty at Rome, N. Y., with the
Iroquois, which recounts his travels with the Oneida Chief Shickellamy
and Conrad Weiser. Lewis Evans was also in the party, making notes for
his map of 1749. The party, on its way to Onondaga (Syracuse), was
approaching Lycoming Creek at a point just south of Powys, via the
Sheshequin Indian path. Bartram, the first American botanist, who wrote
in his journal nightly after checking with his two guides, gives this
account, T. Kenneth Wood (ed.), "Observations Made By John Bartram In
His Travels from Pennsylvania to Onondaga, Oswego and the Lake Ontario
in 1743," _Now and Then_, V (1936), 90: "Then down a hill to a run and
over a rich neck of land lying between it and the Tiadaughton." No
contact was made with Pine Creek. Dr. Wood contends in his note to the
Bertin article, and this writer is inclined to agree, that the Indian of
1743 and the Indian of 1768 were telling the truth and that the white
settlers of 1768, and for sixteen years thereafter, were wrong, either
through guile and design or ignorance. He says, "The original Indian
principals signing the treaty had retreated westward and sixteen years
of fighting over the question (and possibly a few bribes) had settled it
to the white man's satisfaction. The Indians always had to yield or get
out." This is essentially the point which Dr. Wallace made to me in his
letter of Feb. 16, 1961.