frontier. In the first place, aside from the Second Continental
Congress, there was no national government during most of the Fair Play
period. The Articles of Confederation were not ratified until 1781, and
Fair Play territory was opened to settlement after the Treaty of Fort
Stanwix in 1784. Furthermore, the patriotism of the Fair Play settlers
seems to reflect an ethnocentric pride in their own territory and an
exaggerated interpretation of its significance to the developing
nation.[9] Their patriotism was apparently for an ideal, liberty, to
which they were devoted, having already enjoyed it in a nation only
recently declared, but yet to be recognized. And, for its support, there
had been a rush to the colors by these settlers "beyond the purchase
line."[10] The "real American Revolution," as John Adams described it,
was "in the minds and hearts of the people," and it was "effected before
the war Commenced."[11] That revolution had already occurred in the
Fair Play territory prior to the firing of "the shot heard round the
world" on Lexington green.
The frontier experience had a profound influence on the development of
the American philosophy of pragmatism. Turner claimed that it was "to
the frontier" that "the American intellect owe[d] its striking
characteristics."[12] And the Fair Play settlers showed that
... coarseness and strength combined with acuteness and
inquisitiveness; that practical, inventive turn of mind, quick to
find expedients; that masterful grasp of material things, lacking in
the artistic but powerful to effect great ends; that restless,
nervous energy; that dominant individualism, working for good and
for evil, and withal that buoyancy and exuberance which comes with
freedom....[13]
The frontiersman of the West Branch was a free spirit in a free land, a
doer rather than a thinker, more concerned with the "hows" than the
"whys" of survival. This practical approach to problems can be seen in
the homes he built, the tools he made, the clothes he wore, the
political and social systems under which he operated, and the set of
values by which he was motivated. The development of these
characteristic American traits owed much to the frontier and the new
experiences which it offered.
This ethnographic analysis of the Fair Play settlers of the West Branch
Valley has attempted to present a clearer picture of the "style of life"
on this particular frontier and, in so doing, to suggest a further
technique for the frontier historian. There are, no doubt, certain
defects in this specific study, but the fault lies with the limitations
of the data rather than the technique. The scope of this investigation
has carried into questions of geography, demography, politics,
economics, social systems, and leadership. Unfortunately, the frontier
had not yet provided the leisure essential to artistic and aesthetic
pursuits. Consequently, these areas were given a limited treatment.
Furthermore, the mythology and folklore of this valley offered little of
record. However, the breadth of this analysis has furnished evidence of
the existence of democracy on this frontier and, thus, support for
Turner's thesis, or at least for this interpretation of it.
The geographic analysis has clarified the question of the Tiadaghton,
demonstrating that Lycoming Creek, rather than Pine Creek, was the true
eastern boundary of the Fair Play territory. The substantial destruction
of an erroneous legend has been the main contribution of the geographic
part of this study.[14] It is now clear that the Fair Play territory
extended from Lycoming Creek, on the north side of the West Branch of
the Susquehanna River, to the Great Island, just east of Lock Haven.
This frontier region was beyond the legal limit of settlement of the
Province and the Commonwealth from 1769 to 1784. Hence, within its
limits was formed the extra-legal political system known as Fair Play.
The demographic portion of this study has added to the undermining of
the frontier myth of the Scotch-Irish. The evidence presented here
indicates that it was the frontier, rather than national origin, which
affected the behavior of the pioneers of the West Branch Valley. The
Fair Play settlers, a mixed population of seven national stock groups,
reacted similarly to the common problems of the frontier experience. In
one important exception, the Fair Play system itself, there is, however,
an apparent contradiction. Since no account of any "fair play system"
has turned up in the annals of the Cumberland Valley, the American
reservoir of the Scotch-Irish, it seems quite probable that the "system"
originated in either Northern Ireland or Scotland, or else on the
frontier itself. This probability offers good ground for further study,
particularly when the existence of a similar "system" in Greene County,
which was found in conjunction with this investigation, is
considered.[15] If the Fair Play system originated on the frontier, why
did not it also appear on the Virginia and Carolina frontiers where the
Scotch-Irish predominated? Regardless, the lack of data corroborating
the American origin of the Fair Play system leads to the conclusion that
the germ of this political organization was brought to this country by
the Scotch-Irish from their cultural heritage, and that those elements
were found usable under the frontier conditions of both central and
southwestern Pennsylvania. If so, the politics of "fair play" will add
to, rather than detract from, the myth of the Scotch-Irish.
This study has also brought forward the first complete account of court
records validating the activities of the Fair Play men. Mainly concerned
with the adjudication of land questions, this frontier tribunal
developed an unwritten code which encompassed the problems of
settlement, tenure, and ejectment. Subsequently reviewed in the regular
courts of the counties of which the Fair Play territory became a part,
these cases provide substantial evidence of the existence of a "system"
as well as insight into the manner of its operation. The fairness of the
Fair Play system is marked by the fact that none of the decisions of its
tribunal was later reversed in the established county courts.
Supplemented by the Committee of Safety for Northumberland County and
augmented by peripheral leaders, who gave them a voice in the higher
councils of the State, the Fair Play men and their government proved
adequate to the needs of the settlers, until all were driven off in the
Great Runaway of 1778.
Some corroboration for the legendary tale of a "Fair Play Declaration of
Independence" was found in the course of this study. Although
consisting, in the main, of accounts culled from the records of
Revolutionary War pension claimants made some eighty years after the
event, the evidence is that of a contemporary.[16] However, the most
common objection to this conclusion, that the Fair Play declaration was
merely the reading of a copy of Jefferson's Declaration, is
unsubstantiated by the archival descriptions.[17] Perhaps the Fair Play
declaration is apocryphal, but, lacking valid disclaimers, the Hamilton
data offer some basis for a judgment. It is the tentative conclusion of
this writer that there was such a declaration on the banks of Pine Creek
in July of 1776.
The Fair Play territory was truly "an area of free land" in which a "new
order of Americanism" emerged.[18] Individualistic and self-reliant of
necessity, the pioneers of this farmers' frontier rationally developed
their solution to the problem of survival in the wilderness, a
democratic squatter sovereignty. With land readily available and a free
labor system to work it, provided that the family was large enough to
assure sufficient "hands," these agrarian frontiersmen not only
cultivated the soil but also a free society. And their cooperative
spirit, despite their mixed national origins, was markedly noticeable at
harvesttime. From such spirit are communities formed, and from such
communities a democratic society emerges.
This analysis has not only described the geography and demography, the
politics and economics of the Fair Play settlers; it has also examined
the basis and structure of this society, including the value system
which undergirded it. The results have pictured the religious liberty
extant in a frontier society isolated from any regular or established
church, a liberty of conscience which left each man free to worship
according to the dictates of his own faith. This freedom, this right to
choose for himself, made the Fair Play settler surprisingly receptive to
other groups and their practices, practices which he was free to reject,
and often did.[19] This analysis has also pointed up the class structure
and its significance in promoting order in a frontier community. And
finally, an examination of the value system of these Pennsylvania
pioneers has provided an understanding of why they behaved as they did.
The last major aspect of this investigation concerned the nature of
leadership. Determined by the people, and thus essentially democratic,
it had certain peculiar characteristics. In the first place, the top
leaders tended to come from the Fair Play community in its broadest
social sense, but not from the Fair Play territory in its narrow
geographic sense.[20] Secondly, the political participation of the Fair
Play settlers, if office-holding is any criterion, emphasizes the high
degree of involvement in terms of the total population.[21] And last,
this leadership appeared to be overextended when faced with the problem
of defending its own frontier and the new nation which was striving so
desperately for independence. Consequently, it was forced to turn to
established government for support. This may have been the embryonic
beginning of the nationalism which the frontier fostered in later
generations.
What then, is the meaning of this particular study, an ethnographic
interpretation of Turner's thesis? Turner himself, gave the best
argument for ethnography. He said that
... the economist, the political scientist, the psychologist, the
sociologist, the geographer, the student of literature, of art, of
religion--all the allied laborers in the study of society--have
contributions to make to the equipment of the historian. These
contributions are partly of material, partly of tools, partly of new
points of view, new hypotheses, new suggestions of relations,
causes, and emphasis. Each of these special students is in some
danger of bias by his particular point of view, by his exposure to
see simply the thing in which he is primarily interested, and also
by his effort to deduce the universal laws of his separate science.
The historian, on the other hand, is exposed to the danger of
dealing with the complex and interacting social forces of a period
or of a country from some single point of view to which his special
training or interest inclines him. If the truth is to be made known,
the historian must so far familiarize himself with the work, and
equip himself with the training of his sister-subjects that he can
at least avail himself of their results and in some reasonable
degree master the essential tools of their trade.[22]
Frontier ethnography is just such an effort.
The frontier ethnographer then, because of his interdisciplinary
approach, can capture the spirit of pioneer life. And if, as Turner
suggested, the frontier explains American development, then frontier
ethnography presents an understanding of the American ethos with its
ideals of discovery, democracy, and individualism.[23] These ideals
characterize "the American spirit and the meaning of America in world
history."[24]
The ideal of discovery, "the courageous determination to break new
paths," as Turner called it, was abundantly evident in the Fair Play
territory of the West Branch Valley.[25] This innovating spirit can be
seen in the piercing of the Provincial boundary, despite the restrictive
legislation to the contrary, and the establishment of homes in Indian
territory.[26] It was also demonstrated in a marvelous adaptability in
solving the new problems of the frontier, problems for which the old
dogmas were no longer applicable. The new world of the Susquehanna
frontier made new men, Americans.
Self-determination, the ideal of democracy as we have defined it, was
the cornerstone of Fair Play society. Its particular contribution was
the Fair Play "system" with its popularly elected tribunal of Fair Play
men. Perhaps this was the proper antecedent of the commission form of
local government which came into vogue on the progressive wave of the
late nineteenth and early twentieth centuries. Regardless, the
geographic limitations of the Fair Play territory, the frequency of
elections, and the open conduct of meetings tend to substantiate the
democratic evaluation which has been made of the politics of this
frontier community. Furthermore, as was pointed out in the last chapter,
this self-determination was the key characteristic of the economic and
social life of these people.[27]
The pioneer ideal of creative and competitive individualism, which
Turner considered America's best contribution to history and to
progress, was an essential of the frontier experience which became an
integral part of the American mythology.[28] The "myth of the happy
yeoman," as one historian called it, is still revered in American
folklore and respected in American politics, whether it is outmoded or
not.[29] The primitive nature of frontier life developed this
characteristically American trait and the family, the basic
organization of social control, promoted it. It was this promotion, with
its antipathy to any outside control, which stimulated the Revolution,
creating an American nation from an already existing American character.
The individualism of the West Branch frontier is also apparent in the
administration of justice. The Fair Play system emphasized the
personality of law, by its very title, rather than the organized
machinery of justice.[30] Frontier law was personal and direct,
resulting in the unchecked development of the individual, a circumstance
which Turner considered the significant product of this frontier
democracy.[31] Being personal, though, it had meaning for those affected
by it, as an anecdote noted earlier indicated.[32]
Individualism has become somewhat of an anachronism in a mass society,
but its obsolescence today is part of the current American tragedy. The
buoyant self-confidence which it inspired has made much of the American
dream a reality. Legislation, it is true, has taken the place of free
lands as the means of preserving democracy, but it will be a hollow
triumph if that legislation suppresses this essential trait of the
American character, its individualism. No intelligent person today would
recommend a return to the laissez-faire individualism of the Social
Darwinists of the late nineteenth century, but it must be admitted that
a society emphasizing the worth of the individual and dedicated to
principles of justice and fair play, the banner under which the
frontiersmen of the West Branch operated, has genuine merit.
Whether the historian is analyzing old frontiers or charting new ones,
the timeless question remains: does man have the intelligence adequate
to secure his own survival? The old frontiers, such as the Fair Play
territory of the West Branch of the Susquehanna, were free lands of
opportunity for a better life, and the history of the westward movement
of the American people gives ample proof of their conquest. But the new
frontiers are not so clearly marked or so easily conquered. Perhaps a
re-examination of the history of the old frontiers can give increased
meaning to the problems of the new. This investigation was attempted, in
part, to serve such a purpose.
The intelligent solution to the problem of survival for the pioneers of
the West Branch Valley was fair play. The ethnography of the Fair Play
settlers is the record of the democratic development of an American
community under the impact of the new experience of the frontier.
FOOTNOTES:
[1] P. 2.
[2] _The Oxford Universal Dictionary_ (Oxford, 1955), p. 637.
[3] Solon and Elizabeth Buck, _The Planting of Civilization in Western
Pennsylvania_ (Pittsburgh, 1939), pp. 431 and 451.
[4] _See_, for example, Dunaway, _A History of Pennsylvania_, p. 146,
and _The Scotch-Irish of Colonial Pennsylvania_, pp. 159-160; _also_,
Leyburn, _The Scotch-Irish_, p. 306.
[5] Turner, _The Frontier in American History_, p. 1.
[6] _See_ Chapter Two.
[7] Quoted by Ray Allen Billington in his introduction to Turner,
_Frontier and Section_, p. 5.
[8] _Pennsylvania Archives_, Second Series, III, 217-218, 518-522.
[9] This pride was notably demonstrated in the insistence of the Fair
Play settlers that a stand be made at Fort Augusta following the Great
Runaway. Previous to this, they had pleaded for support for "our Common
Cause" in the defense of this frontier. _Pennsylvania Archives_, Second
Series, III, 217.
[10] _Pennsylvania Archives_, Second Series, X, 27-31, 417, and Fifth
Series, II, 29-35.
[11] Quoted in Clinton Rossiter, _The First American Revolution_ (New
York, 1956), pp. 4-5.
[12] Turner, _The Frontier in American History_, p. 37.
[13] _Ibid._
[14] _See also_, George D. Wolf, "The Tiadaghton Question," _The Lock
Haven Review_, Series I, No. 5 (1963), 61-71.
[15] Buck, _The Planting of Civilization in Western Pennsylvania_, pp.
431, 451.
[16] Anna Jackson Hamilton to Hon. George C. Whiting, Commissioner of
Pensions, Dec. 16, 1858, Wagner Collection, Muncy Historical Society.
[17] _Colonial Records_, X, 634-635. The following resolution of
Congress was entered in the minutes of the Council of Safety on July 5,
1776:
_Resolved_, That Copies of the Declaration be sent to the several
Assemblies, Conventions, and Councils of Safety, and to the several
Commanding Officers of the Continental Troops, that it be proclaimed
in each of the United States, and at the Head of the Army.
By order of Congress.
sign'd, JOHN HANCOCK, Presid't.
Provision was also made for the reading in Philadelphia at 12 noon on
July 8, and letters were sent to Bucks, Chester, Northampton, Lancaster,
and Berks counties with copies of the Declaration to be posted on Monday
the 8th where elections for delegates were to be held. For some reason,
the frontier counties of Bedford, Cumberland, Westmoreland, York, and
Northumberland, contiguous to the Fair Play territory, were omitted from
these instructions.
[18] Turner, _The Frontier in American History_, pp. 1, 18.
[19] _The Journal of William Colbert_ gives frequent testimony to this
statement, as indicated in Chapter Five.
[20] _See_ the map in Chapter One for the geographic boundaries of the
Fair Play territory. Note the location of the top leaders, Henry and
Frederick Antes and Robert Fleming, in Chapter Six.
[21] The number of different office-holders runs to better than ten per
cent of the population.
[22] Turner, _The Frontier in American History_, pp. 333-334.
[23] _Ibid._, pp. 306-307.
[24] _Ibid._, p. 306.
[25] _Ibid._
[26] Meginness, _Otzinachson_ (1857), pp. 163-164.
[27] _See_ Chapter Seven for an evaluation of "Democracy on the
Pennsylvania Frontier."
[28] Turner, _The Frontier in American History_, p. 307.
[29] Richard Hofstadter, "The Myth of the Happy Yeoman," _American
Heritage_, VII, No. 3 (April, 1956), 43-53.
[30] The term "the personality of the law" is Turner's and emphasizes
the men who carried out the law, rather than its structure. The fact
that the ruling tribunal of the West Branch Valley was referred to as
the "Fair Play men" rather than the "tribunal" illustrates this
contention.
[31] Turner, _The Frontier in American History_, pp. 253-254.
[32] _See_ Chapter Three, n. 24.
_Bibliography_
BOOKS
Albion, Robert G. and Leonidas Dodson (eds.). _Philip Vickers Fithian:
Journal, 1775-1776._ Princeton, 1934.
American Council of Learned Societies. "Report of the Committee on
Linguistic and National Stocks in the Population of the United States,"
_Annual Report of the American Historical Association for the Year
1931_, I. Washington, 1932.
Andrews, Charles M. _Colonial Folkways._ New Haven, 1919.
----. _Guide to the Materials for American History to 1783 in the Public
Record Office of Great Britain._ Washington, 1912.
---- and Frances G. Davenport. _Guide to the Manuscript Materials for
the History of the United States to 1783, in the British Museum, in
Minor London Archives, and in the Libraries of Oxford and Cambridge._
Washington, 1908.
Barck, Oscar T., Jr., and Hugh T. Lefler. _Colonial America._ New York,
1958.
Bates, Samuel P. _Greene County._ Chicago, 1888.
Becker, Carl L. _Beginnings of the American People._ Ithaca, N. Y.,
1960.
Bell, Herbert. _History of Northumberland County, Pennsylvania._
Chicago, 1891.
Billington, Ray Allen. _Westward Expansion._ New York, 1960.
Boyd, Julian P., and Robert J. Taylor (eds.). _The Susquehanna Company
Papers_, 1750-1775. 6 vols. Ithaca, N. Y., 1962.
Bridenbaugh, Carl and Jessica. _Rebels and Gentlemen: Philadelphia in
the Age of Franklin._ New York, 1962.
Buck, Solon J. and Elizabeth H. _The Planting of Civilization in Western
Pennsylvania._ Pittsburgh, 1939.
Calhoun, Arthur W. _A Social History of the American Family_, I. New
York, 1960.
Cocks, Robert S. _One Hundred and Fifty Years of Evangelism, The History
of Northumberland Presbytery, 1811-1961._ 1961.
Commager, Henry S. _Documents of American History_, I. New York, 1958.
Crick, B. R. and Miriam Alman (eds.). _A Guide to Manuscripts Relating
to America in Great Britain and Ireland._ New York, 1961.
Curti, Merle, _et al._ _The Making of an American Community, A Case
Study of Democracy in a Frontier County._ Stanford, 1959.
Day, Richard E. (comp.). _Calendar of the Sir William Johnson
Manuscripts in the New York State Library._ Albany, N. Y., 1909.
DePuy, Henry F. _A Bibliography of the English Colonial Treaties with
the American Indians including a Synopsis of Each Treaty._ New York,
1917.
DeSchweinitz, Edmund A. _The Life and Times of David Zeisberger._
Philadelphia, 1870.
Doddridge, Joseph. _Notes on the Settlement and Indian Wars of the
Western Parts of Virginia and Pennsylvania._ Pittsburgh, 1912.
Dunaway, Wayland F. _A History of Pennsylvania._ Englewood Cliffs, N.
J., 1948.
----. _The Scotch-Irish of Colonial Pennsylvania._ Chapel Hill, 1944.
Egle, William H. _History of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania._
Philadelphia, 1883.
---- (ed.). _Historical Register: Notes and Queries, Historical and
Genealogical, relating to Interior Pennsylvania_, 2 vols. Harrisburg,
1883-84.
----. _Pennsylvania Genealogies; Scotch-Irish and German._ Harrisburg,
1886, 1896.
Frost, Robert. _Complete Poems of Robert Frost._ New York, 1949.
Hall, Carrie A., and Rose G. Kretsinger. _The Romance of the Patchwork
Quilt in America._ New York, 1935.
Hanna, C. A. _The Scotch-Irish._ 2 vols. New York, 1902.
Jones, U. J. _History of the Early Settlements of the Juniata Valley._
Philadelphia, 1856.
Klett, Guy S. _Presbyterians in Colonial Pennsylvania._ Philadelphia,
1937.
Leopold, Richard W., and Arthur S. Link (eds.). _Problems in American
History._ Englewood Cliffs, N. J., 1957.
Leyburn, James G. _The Scotch-Irish: A Social History._ Chapel Hill,
1962.
Lincoln, Charles A. (comp.). _Calendar of Sr. William Johnson
Manuscripts in the Library of the American Antiquarian Society._
("Transactions of the Society," Vol. XI.) Worcester, 1906.
Linn, John B. _History of Centre and Clinton Counties, Pennsylvania._
Philadelphia, 1883.
----. _Annals of Buffalo Valley._ Harrisburg, 1877.
MacMinn, Edwin. _On the Frontier with Colonel Antes._ Camden, N. J.,
1900.