the most controversial and confusing element of the combination.
Absolute majority rule, its critics tell us, means majority "tyranny"
and minority acquiescence, despite the fact that this fear is not
empirically demonstrable.[8] The majority ruled absolutely in the Fair
Play territory just as it did in the New England town meeting, and with
similar results. However, it never restricted suffrage or public office
to particular religious or nationality groups. Scotch-Irish, English,
and German settlers participated equally in the political process.
However, as we pointed out in the last chapter, the English did not
enjoy leadership roles in the community.[9] Whether this was by accident
or by design is difficult to ascertain. Perhaps it was just a further
demonstration of the absolute rule of the majority with the Scotch-Irish
and the Germans combining to form that majority.
The nature of community implies shared interests and the prevailing
interest in this frontier community was survival. Necessity undoubtedly
caused the English minority to accept the Scotch-Irish and German
leadership, because forbearance meant survival. Conversely, the
Scotch-Irish and Germans could, and did, support the English in
positions of responsibility on the basis of their mutual needs and their
desire to maintain the community.[10] Not only physical survival but
also economic survival were mutually desirable to Fair Play community
members, and the decisions of the court were rendered on the basis of
equal justice.[11]
As long as minority feelings are given free expression in an atmosphere
of mutual concern, there is little danger of misinterpretation by the
majority. Such a climate prevailed in the meetings of the Fair Play
settlers and the sessions of the Fair Play men; at least, there is no
available evidence to the contrary.
The nature and role of consensus in the Fair Play territory hinged upon
what was best for the community. Fundamental agreement was reached,
based upon mutual need apparent from open discussion. In the event of
conflict, forbearance, which was in the best interest of the community,
could be expected.[12] An examination of the appearance dockets of the
county courts for Northumberland and Lycoming counties suggests,
however, that this consensus did not extend to questions of land titles.
Nevertheless, the all-inclusiveness of signatures on petitions to the
Supreme Executive Council for protection from the Indians and for the
recognition of the right of pre-emption, and the general response of the
Fair Play settlers to calls for troops for the Continental Army indicate
to some degree the nature and extent of that consensus.[13]
Democracy, that is self-determination, did exist among the Fair Play
settlers of this Pennsylvania frontier. There was no outside authority
which legislated the affairs of the pioneers of the West Branch. They
selected their own representatives, the Fair Play men, and maintained
their control over them, a control which was assured both by annual
elections and the full participation of the settlers in the
decision-making process. The will of the majority prevailed, and that
will was expressed through a community consensus reached by the full
participation of political equals. It was neither radical nor
revolutionary, but it was typical of the American colonial experience.
The Fair Play settlers had not "jumped the gun" on independence,
although they participated in the movement. They did not rebel against a
ruling aristocracy. They simply governed themselves.
Self-determination, as we have already stated, includes the right of the
people to decide upon their own economic institutions. This right was
asserted on the farmers' frontier of the West Branch. With free land
available to those who worked it, provided the neighbors and the Fair
Play men approved, economic opportunity was shared by the Scotch-Irish,
English, German, Scots, Irish, Welsh, and French settlers.[14] This
sharing, in itself, was a demonstration of economic democracy.
The labor system, too, was an affirmation of the democratic ideal.
Because free land was available in the Fair Play territory, neither
slavery nor involuntary servitude existed in this region, although it
was found in immediately adjacent areas.[15] Free labor, family labor to
be more exact, was the system employed in this portion of the West
Branch Valley. Noticeable, too, was the spirit of cooperation in such
enterprises as cabin-raisings, barn-raisings, harvesting, cornhuskings
and the like. This mutual helpfulness was characteristic of the frontier
and obviated the necessity of any enforced labor system.
Tenancy was occasionally practiced in the Fair Play territory, although
it appears that the tenant farmer suffered no feelings of inferiority,
if the following case is any example:
... Peter Dewitt ... leased the land in question to William
McIlhatton as a Cropper, who took possession of it after Huggins
left it: That the Terms of the Lease were that McIlhatton should
possess the Land about two or three Years, rendering hold of the
Crops to be raised unto Peter Dewitt, who was to find him a Team and
farming Utensils: That the Lease was in Writing and Lodged with a
certain Daniel Cruger who lived in the Neighborhood at that
Time.[16]
Sometime later, McElhattan obtained the lease from Cruger and sold "his
right" to William Dunn, claiming that Dewitt had failed to fill his end
of the bargain, despite the fact that Eleanor Coldren gave evidence to
the contrary. When challenged for selling Dewitt's land, McElhattan
responded in a fashion which demonstrates the independent spirit of this
lessee. He said "that he only sold his Right to Dunn and if Dunn would
be such a fool as to give him forty or fifty pounds for Nothing He
McIlhatton would be a greater fool for not taking it--for that Dunn knew
what Right he (McIlhatton) had."[17] Obviously, if this case is
indicative, and there were others, share-cropping did not induce
attitudes of subservience.
Religious freedom, in which Pennsylvania ranked second only to Rhode
Island in colonial America, was enjoyed by the frontiersmen of the West
Branch. It might, however, be better described as a freedom from
religion rather than a freedom of religion. With no system of local
taxation and no regular church, there was no establishment of religion.
Nevertheless, this is not to suggest that religious qualifications were
not applied to prospective landowners, potential voters, or members of
the Fair Play community. Religious liberty had been guaranteed to
Pennsylvanians in the Charter of Privileges of 1701, and no religious
test was required for suffrage in the new State constitution in 1776.
Belief in one God and in the inspiration of the Scriptures was required
for members of the assembly, but bona fide Fair Play settlers were
disqualified on geographic grounds anyhow.[18]
There is no record of religious discrimination among the Fair Play
settlers. In addition to the absence of a regular church, this was
probably due, in part, to the religious composition of the population.
The pioneers of the West Branch were Protestant Christians, and if
denominational in their approach, either Presbyterian or Methodist. The
friction between Methodists and Presbyterians appears to have been
doctrinal rather than political or social.[19]
The comparative economic equality in an area of free land had a
democratizing influence on the social class structure. This three-class
stratification, composed of property owners distinguished by their
morality, other property owners, and tenants, was an open-class system
marked by a noticeable degree of mobility. Fair Play settlers who began
as tenants could, and did, become property owners.
Since no one in the Fair Play territory could claim more than 300 acres
under the Pre-Emption Act of 1785, there was little chance for the
development of an aristocratic class.[20] It was a society of
achievement in which the race was open to anyone who could acquire land,
with the approval of his neighbors and the Fair Play men, and "improve"
it. There is no evidence to indicate that the availability of land was
restricted because of national origin, religious affiliation, or a
previous condition of servitude. This is not to say that the judgments
of neighbors may not have been based upon these criteria, but, at least,
there is no record of such discrimination. The Fair Play settlers were
eighteenth-century souls and romantic egalitarianism was not a
characteristic of such persons. The frontier, however, broke "the cake
of custom" and the necessities of that experience contributed to the
development of democracy as we have defined it.
A recent writer, analyzing the "democracy" of the Scotch-Irish, made his
evaluation on the basis of the contemporary French definition of
liberty, equality, and fraternity.[21] On this basis, the Scotch-Irish
fail; but if we equate democracy with self-determination, the
Scotch-Irish and the Fair Play settlers of the West Branch Valley can be
seen as thoroughgoing democrats.
The value system of the pioneers on the West Branch of the Susquehanna
reflected, at least in part, the democracy of the frontier. The spirit
of cooperation and mutual helpfulness was a prime characteristic of this
frontier, as it was of others. Cabin-raisings, barn-raisings, and the
cooperative enterprises at harvesttime enhanced the spirit of community
and brought the settlers together in common efforts, which demonstrated
their equality. Individualism could be harnessed for the common good,
and such was the case among the Fair Play settlers in the struggle for
economic survival.
Faith, patriotism, and temperance were not necessarily democratic, but
they also were part of the value system of the Fair Play settlers. In
matters of faith, there was a certain "live and let live" philosophy,
which had democratic implications. Despite the conflict between
Methodists and Presbyterians, the members of the Presbyterian majority
made their homes available to Methodist preachers.[22] This demonstrated
a willingness at least to hear "the other side." Such an atmosphere is
conducive to democracy, if not to conversion. There is little doubt,
however, that this receptivity was due in part to the absence of any
"regular" church or preacher. Here again, the necessities of the
frontier made "democrats" of its occupants.
The most intense patriots are often ethnocentric and chauvinistic. The
Fair Play settlers were such patriots, according to one journalist.[23]
However, the patriotism of the eighteenth century had not reached the
level of concern for all mankind which finds expression today. The
pioneers of the West Branch were democrats in an age not yet conditioned
to democracy.
Temperance, particularly with regard to the use of spirited beverages,
usually implies abstinence, which is certainly not democratic if it is
applied in a formally imposed prohibition without any local option.
Abstinence by choice, however, is purely a matter of self-determination.
But in an area where drinking was a commonly accepted practice, such as
the frontier, the term signifies moderation. In the Fair Play territory
drinking, but not drunkenness, was condoned. The spirit of the frontier,
or the use of it, was not incompatible with democracy.
Frontier values, for the most part then, were democratic in tendency.
Noteworthy for their attitude of community cooperation and mutual
helpfulness, supported by a faith which could not afford to be
exclusive, temperate in their personal habits, particularly in the use
of alcohol, the patriots of the Fair Play territory looked to a future
filled with promise and opportunity for all the diverse elements of
their society. This is the democracy which the frontier nurtured. It
flourished in the West Branch Valley.
In summary then, was self-determination the central theme in the Fair
Play territory? Did the Fair Play settlers truly determine their own
political, economic, and social institutions? The available data suggest
that they did.
The democracy of the Fair Play settlers encompassed popular sovereignty,
political equality, popular consultation, majority rule, religious
freedom, an open class structure, free land, free labor, and a value
system whose dominating feature was mutual helpfulness. The democracy of
Fair Play was basically the fair play of democracy.
Observable in this atmosphere were the traits of a developing American
character, traits which the frontier historian, Frederick Jackson
Turner, defined as democratic.[24] These included the composite
nationality of a population of mixed national origins; the self-reliance
which the new experience of the frontier developed; the independence,
both of action and in spirit, which the relative isolation of the
environment promoted; a rationalistic, or pragmatic, approach to
problems necessitated by circumstances lacking in precedents for
solution; and perhaps a growing nationalism, marked by an identification
with something larger than the mere Provincial assembly, something
existing, but not yet realized, the American nation.
These traits, in conjunction with Turner's thesis, are a major concern
of the final chapter. That chapter will provide an evaluation of
frontier ethnography as a technique for testing the validity of this
interpretation of Turner's thesis on the Fair Play frontier of the West
Branch Valley.
FOOTNOTES:
[1] Quoted in Austin Ranney and Willmoore Kendall, _Democracy and the
American Party System_ (New York, 1956), pp. 23-24.
[2] Don Martindale, _American Society_ (New York, 1960), p. 105.
[3] National Education Association, Educational Policies Commission,
_The Education of Free Men in American Democracy_ (Washington, 1941),
pp. 25-26.
[4] Pp. 18-39.
[5] Smith, _Laws_, II, 195.
[6] "Eleanor Coldren's Deposition," pp. 220-222; Lycoming County Docket
No. 2, Commencing 1797, No. 32; _see also_, Chapter Two, _passim_.
[7] _Pennsylvania Archives_, Second Series, III, 217; and the Muncy
Historical Society, Wagner Collection, Hamilton Papers.
[8] Ranney and Kendall, _Democracy and the American Party System_, p.
47. The authors argue here that the history of town meetings in America
and the Parliamentary system in Great Britain shows hundreds of years
without majority tyranny or civil war.
[9] Chapter Six, pp. 78, 84.
[10] _Pennsylvania Archives_, Second Series, III, 770. For example, John
Chatham, an English miller, was elected coroner in 1782, a minor role to
be sure, but he was supported.
[11] Smith, _Laws_, II, 196-197. In _Sweeney_ vs. _Toner_, an
Englishman, Toner's property right was upheld because his absence was
for military service, despite the fact that Sweeney, a Scotch-Irishman,
was a majority representative.
[12] Linn, "Indian Land and Its Fair Play Settlers," p. 424. The case
cited here, _Huff_ vs. _Satcha_, saw the use of militia to drive off a
landholder whose title had been denied by the Fair Play men.
[13] _Pennsylvania Archives_, Second Series, III, 217-218, 417-418, and
518-522. On page 417, fifty-three officers and soldiers are described as
"early in the service from the unpurchased land." Thirty-nine
petitioners (p. 520) sought pre-emption, a claim repeated over two years
later by some fifty-three settlers. The petition to the Supreme Council
(p. 217) for protection from the Indians in 1778 prior to the Great
Runaway bore forty-seven names.
[14] _See_ Chapter Two for a demographic analysis of the Fair Play
settlers.
[15] Clark, "Pioneer Life in the New Purchase," p. 28.
[16] "Eleanor Coldren's Deposition," p. 222.
[17] _Ibid._
[18] _See_ Chapter One for the geographic bounds of the Fair Play
territory. The Fair Play territory did not come under State jurisdiction
until the second Stanwix Treaty in 1784. Regardless, it must be
remembered that settlers on the south bank of the Susquehanna actually
participated in the political, economic, and social life of the
community. The fact that these participants were often community leaders
was pointed out in Chapter Six.
[19] _See_ the footnotes in Chapter Five referring to _The Journal of
William Colbert_.
[20] Smith, _Laws_, II, 195.
[21] Leyburn, _The Scotch-Irish_, pp. 311-314.
[22] _The Journal of William Colbert._ Colbert had been received at
Annanias McFaddon's (Aug. 20, 1792, Sept. 4, 1793) and John Hamilton's
(July 23, 1792, Aug. 20, 1793), where he both preached and lodged. Both
were Presbyterians, and, as noted earlier, Colbert expressed grave
doubts concerning his efforts there.
[23] "Diary of the Unknown Traveler," p. 307.
[24] Turner, _Frontier and Section_, p. 5.
CHAPTER EIGHT
_Frontier Ethnography and the Turner Thesis_
In the first chapter of his recent study, _The Making of an American
Community_, Merle Curti suggests that "less is to be gained by further
analysis of Turner's brilliant and far-ranging but often ambiguous
presentations than by patient and careful study of particular frontier
areas in the light of the investigator's interpretation of Turner's
theory."[1] This study was undertaken with just such a purpose in mind.
In addition, it is hoped that this investigation will give some insight
into the value of ethnography and its usefulness as an analytic
technique in studying the frontier.
By definition, ethnography is "the scientific description of nations or
races of men, their customs, habits, and differences."[2] Frontier
ethnography is the scientific description of the full institutional
pattern of a particular group of people, located specifically on a
certain frontier, within a certain period of time. That institutional
pattern is described from the analysis of data concerning the political
and economic systems, and the social structure, including religion, the
family, the value system, social classes, art, music, recreation,
mythology, and folklore. Also, as noted in the first two chapters of
this study, geographic and demographic data have been analyzed in an
attempt to picture the area under observation and the people who
inhabited that region. It is believed that these various data present a
fuller view of the "way of life" of these people than the earlier
politico-military accounts of nineteenth-century historians.
Of course, there are certain limitations in this particular analysis.
This study is not meant to be typical of the frontier experience or
necessarily representative of frontier communities. However, it would
have broader implications if a similar study were made for Greene County
in western Pennsylvania, where a group composed mainly of Scotch-Irish
Presbyterians also set up a "Fair Play system."[3] Furthermore, it is my
interpretation of Turner's thesis which is being tested, not the
validity of the thesis.
Despite the fact that the Fair Play settlers and their "system" have
been referred to by both Pennsylvania and frontier historians in the
twentieth century, neither the settlers nor their system has been
studied in depth.[4] Meginness and Linn, the foremost historians of the
West Branch, were both nineteenth-century writers, and, unfortunately,
twentieth-century scholars have not considered the Fair Play settlers
worthy of their study. Biographical studies are limited to the work of
Edwin MacMinn on Colonel Antes, completed in 1900. As a result, there
has been a definite need for an investigation collating the researches
of these earlier historians and based upon the available primary data.
This study is an attempt to fill the void.
The seeming paucity of primary source materials is a further
complication to the student of Fair Play history. However, letters,
journals, diaries, probate records, tax lists, pension claims, and court
records offer adequate data to the inquiring historian, although the
extra-legal character of the settlement seriously reduced the public
record. Nevertheless, the broad scope of ethnography provides the kind
of study for which the data supply a rather full picture of life on this
frontier. Political, economic, and social patterns are discernible,
although no day-by-day account for any extended period has been
uncovered.
This ethnographic analysis demonstrates the merits of the "civilization
approach" to history. Examining every aspect of a society, it provides
more than a mere "battles and leaders" account. The result gives insight
into a "style of life" rather than a chronology of highlights. This
study has investigated the full institutional structure of the Fair Play
frontier, evaluating that structure in terms of a developing democracy,
or, at least, of democratic tendencies.
American civilization was a frontier civilization from the outset, and
that frontier experience was significant in the development of American
democracy. Frederick Jackson Turner's frontier thesis, which has
probably inspired more historical scholarship than any other American
thesis, stated that "the existence of an area of free land, its
continuous recession, and the advance of American settlement westward,
explain American development."[5] That development took place on
successive frontiers stretching from the Atlantic to the Pacific Coast
over a period of almost three centuries. Turner's second frontier, the
Allegheny Mountains, marked the farmers' frontier of the Fair Play
settlers of the West Branch Valley.
It was on the frontier, according to Turner, that the "true" traits of
American character emerged; its composite nationality, its self-reliant
spirit, its independence of thought and action, its nationalism, and its
rationalistic approach to the problems of a pioneer existence. The Fair
Play settlers, American frontiersmen, suggested some of these traits in
their character. Recognizing the data limitations of this study, the
evidence indicates some validation of this test of Turner's model.
However, it would be presumptuous indeed to conclude that this analysis
offers a complete demonstration of the impact of the frontier in the
development of traits of character which Turner classified as American.
The composite nationality of the Fair Play settlers is particularly
evident from the demographic analysis offered at the beginning of this
study.[6] Seven different national stock groups appeared on this
frontier: Scotch-Irish, English, German, Scots, Irish, Welsh, and
French. Here, indeed, was "the crucible of the frontier," in which
settlers were "Americanized, liberated, and fused into a mixed race."[7]
The legendary self-reliance of the frontiersman is not without some
basis in fact. The nature of the frontier experience itself was
conducive to its development. Its appearance among the Fair Play
settlers is implied in various contexts. Politically, it is suggested in
the creation of the Fair Play men, the annual governing tribunal, an
extra-legal political agency in this extra-Provincial territory.
Economically, it is intimated in the image of the frontier farmer
tackling the wilderness with rifle and plow and the unbounded
determination to make a better life for himself and his family.
Socially, the self-reliance of these doughty pioneers is indicated in
the continuation of their religious practices and worship, despite the
absence of any organized church. Their self reliance is indicated, as
well, in the flexibility of a social structure whose main criterion was
achievement, a society in which "what" you were was more important than
"who" you were. These examples are, of course, only brief glimpses of
the elusive trait of self-reliance which Turner considered typical of
the frontier.
Independence, or the ability to act independently, was a characteristic
frontier trait, according to Turner. The Fair Play settlers presented
some contradictions. It is true that they organized their own system of
government and the code under which it operated. However, their key
leaders lived on the periphery; and the settlers petitioned the
Commonwealth government for assistance in the vital questions of defense
and pre-emption rights.[8] The Fair Play settlers were generally
independent, a condition promoted by the necessities of frontier life;
but, obviously, they were not isolated.