The Fair Play Settlers of the West Branch Valley, 1769-1784 Part 14

[26] Linn, _History of Centre and Clinton Counties_, p. 473. The full account of Hamilton's military service is given in the Hamilton Pension Papers in the Wagner Collection, Muncy Historical Society. Hamilton had also been a member of the group commissioned to lay out a road from Bald Eagle Creek to Fort Augusta. Linn, _History_, p. 472.

[27] _Ibid._, p. 474, and Meginness, _Otzinachson_ (1889), p. 474.

[28] _Pennsylvania Archives_, Second Series, III, 770.

[29] Linn, _History of Centre and Clinton Counties_, p. 472.

[30] _Ibid._, p. 473.

[31] _Ibid._; Yeates, _Pennsylvania Reports_, I, 498; and Russell, "Signers of the Pine Creek Declaration of Independence," p. 4.

[32] Becker, _Beginnings of the American People_, p. 180.

[33] _Pennsylvania Archives_, Second Series, III, pp. 217-218. The pet.i.tion was dated June 21, 1778. The situation had been further complicated by the enlistment the previous summer of many of the able-bodied men to aid Washington in Cambridge, Ma.s.sachusetts. These men, "early in the service of their Country from the unpurchased land on the West Branch of the River Susquehanna," deprived the valley of its available manpower.

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

[35] Helen Herritt Russell, "The Great Runaway of 1778," _The Journal of the Lycoming Historical Society_, II, No. 4 (1961), 3-10. This article contains a few additions to an article by the same name by Mrs. Russell published in _The Northumberland County Historical Society Proceedings and Addresses_, XXIII (1960), 1-16.

[36] _Pennsylvania Archives_, Second Series, III, 518-522.

[37] Smith, _Laws_, II, 195.

[38] Robert Fleming and Frederick Antes, as previously noted, had been elected in 1777 and 1784, respectively.

[39] Dunaway, _History of Pennsylvania_, pp. 176, 196. Of these fifty-eight, twenty-eight came from the frontier counties of York, Berks, Bedford, c.u.mberland, and Northumberland.

[40] Wallace, _Pennsylvania: Seed of a Nation_, pp. 105-106.

[41] As previously noted, Henry Antes had been appointed judge of the Court of Quarter Sessions in 1775, and Frederick Antes and Fleming had been elected in 1780 and 1785, respectively. Frederick Antes was president judge.

[42] _Pennsylvania Archives_, Second Series, III, 770.

CHAPTER SEVEN

_Democracy on the Pennsylvania Frontier_

One of the most often used and least understood words in the American lexicon is the term "democracy." In the colonial period, it was seldom used, except in denunciation. However, properly defined, it can help us to evaluate the Fair Play settlers in some understandable context.

Etymologically stemming from two Greek words, _demos_, meaning "the people," and _kratos_, meaning "authority," democracy means "authority in the people" or, we can say, "self-determination." By self-determination is meant the right of the people to decide their own political, economic, and social inst.i.tutions.

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

The word Democracy has been used ever since the time of Herodotus to denote that form of government in which the ruling power of a State is legally vested, not in any particular cla.s.s or cla.s.ses, but in the members of the community as a whole.[1]

a.n.a.lyzing the key phrases in Bryce's statement, we can best clarify the meaning of political self-determination.

(1) "The ruling power of a State." Self-determination, as it is employed here, concerns the right of the people of Fair Play society to determine their own political inst.i.tutions. Fair Play society did not const.i.tute a state, but it was a political community, and in that sense Bryce's definition applies. Living outside the legal limit of settlement of Province and Commonwealth, these people could not obtain legal authority for their own rule, so, following the prevalent theory of the social compact, they formed their own government. The result was the annual election, by the people, of the Fair Play tribunal, the source of final authority in the Fair Play territory.

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

(3) "In the members of the community." The members of the Fair Play community, as previously noted, were not strictly resident within the geographic confines of the Fair Play territory. Communities, it has been said, are total ways of life, complexes Of behavior composed of all the inst.i.tutions necessary to carry on a complete life, formed into a working whole.[2] Self-determination, as it is used here, suggests that the community as a whole partic.i.p.ates in the decision-making process.

(4) "Not in any particular cla.s.s or cla.s.ses, but in the members of the community as a whole." Bryce's definition here extends the interpretation of "the members of the community." Obviously, if any particular cla.s.s or cla.s.ses were vested with the final political authority, then the people as a whole, that is, the Fair Play community, would not exercise self-determination.

The concept of self-determination, carried to an economic context, suggests that the people of the Fair Play community had the right to determine their own economic inst.i.tutions. This means that they had the right to choose their own portion of land, subject, of course, to the will of the existing community, and to utilize it according to their own needs and interests. This meant that no undemocratic and feudalistic practices, such as primogeniture and entail, could exist. Granted that this is self-determination rather broadly interpreted in an economic context, the question is whether or not these people had the right to choose their own plot of ground and work it as they saw fit, unhampered by any preordained system of discrimination or restriction.

Socially, the idea of self-determination is applied to evaluate the religious inst.i.tutions, the cla.s.s structure, and the value system. The application concerns, once again, the authority of the people to determine their own social patterns. It questions whether or not any Fair Play settler could worship according to the dictates of his own conscience. It evaluates the cla.s.s structure to ascertain whether or not a superimposed caste system ordered the cla.s.s structure of Fair Play society, rather than a community-determined system in which choice and opportunity provided flexibility and mobility. And finally, it considers whether or not the values of the Fair Play settlers were inculcated by some internal clique or external force, rather than being developed by the members of the community themselves.

Did democracy exist on this Pennsylvania frontier? Was the Fair Play system marked by real representation and popular control? These questions must be answered before any judgment can be made concerning political democracy in the West Branch Valley.

Was there equality of economic opportunity on this farmers' frontier?

Was land available to all who sought it, and on equal terms? These problems need to be considered before we can attach the label "democratic" on the economic life of the Fair Play settlers.

If democracy prizes diversity, as some claim, were the diverse elements of Fair Play society equally recognized?[3] Was the cla.s.s structure open or closed, mobile or fixed? Did the mixed national stocks enjoy religious freedom? One needs to inquire into each of these areas prior to a final evaluation of Fair Play society.

A useful tool for evaluating political democracy can be found in Ranney and Kendall's _Democracy and the American Party System_.[4] It suggests the use of popular sovereignty, political equality, popular consultation, and majority rule as criteria for democracy. Accepting these criteria as basic principles of democracy, we can begin to a.n.a.lyze the democratic character of the Fair Play system.

A political system based upon popular sovereignty is one in which the final authority to rule is vested in the people. The question of who the people are is still before us today. In the fullest sense, popular sovereignty means rule by all the people, but in colonial America the "people" was a much more qualified term. It generally signified white, Protestant, adult males who were property owners. In the Fair Play territory, the ruling "people" were "the whole body" of adult male settlers who annually elected their governing tribunal and partic.i.p.ated in the decisions of its "court."[5] Lacking an established church, or any church for that matter, and possessing property lying beyond legal limits of settlement, the Fair Play settlers could not have enforced religious or property qualifications for voting, even if they had so desired, and there is no evidence to indicate that they did.

Furthermore, the frequency of elections, which were held annually, and the principle of rotating the offices among the settlers tended to emphasize the sovereignty of the people in this part of the West Branch Valley. The right of suffrage, it is true, had not been extended to women, but this was the rule throughout colonial America. Popular sovereignty, in its qualified eighteenth-century sense, was a basic characteristic of the political democracy which existed on this frontier.

Political equality, that is "one man, one vote," was practiced by the pioneers of the West Branch. There was no additional vote given to the large property owners; in fact, as the tax lists indicate, there were no large property owners within the geographic limits of the Fair Play territory. Thus, each man, rather than a small ruling oligarchy, had the opportunity to partic.i.p.ate in the decision-making process of the Fair Play community.

In a democratic society, the people must be consulted by the policy makers prior to their exercise of the power of decision. Among the Fair Play settlers this basically democratic principle was vividly demonstrated in the case of disputed land t.i.tles, the primary concern of the Fair Play men. In both Eleanor Coldren's deposition in behalf of her deceased husband and in the Huff-Latcha case, it was established that the unanimous consent of the prospective neighbors had to be obtained before a favorable decision was rendered in behalf of the land claimants.[6] The frequency of elections, combined with the ease and regularity of a.s.sembly, provided the settlers with the opportunity to become acquainted with the circ.u.mstances of their problems. Here again, the paucity of specific data prompts us to some speculation regarding the nature and location of these meetings. However, it must be added, the Hamilton pension papers and the pet.i.tions to the Supreme Council in Philadelphia refer specifically to meetings at Fort Horn and Fort Antes.[7] Direct representation based upon popular consultation was a distinct trait of the political democracy in the Fair Play territory.

The fourth principle of political democracy, majority rule, is probably 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 partic.i.p.ated 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 t.i.tles.

Nevertheless, the all-inclusiveness of signatures on pet.i.tions 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 a.s.sured both by annual elections and the full partic.i.p.ation 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 partic.i.p.ation 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 partic.i.p.ated 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 inst.i.tutions. This right was a.s.serted 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.