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 att.i.tudes 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 const.i.tution in 1776.

Belief in one G.o.d and in the inspiration of the Scriptures was required for members of the a.s.sembly, 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 cla.s.s structure. This three-cla.s.s stratification, composed of property owners distinguished by their morality, other property owners, and tenants, was an open-cla.s.s 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 cla.s.s.[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, a.n.a.lyzing 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 att.i.tude 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 inst.i.tutions? The available data suggest that they did.

The democracy of the Fair Play settlers encompa.s.sed popular sovereignty, political equality, popular consultation, majority rule, religious freedom, an open cla.s.s 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 circ.u.mstances lacking in precedents for solution; and perhaps a growing nationalism, marked by an identification with something larger than the mere Provincial a.s.sembly, 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 a.s.sociation, 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, _pa.s.sim_.

[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 t.i.tle 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 pet.i.tioners (p. 520) sought pre-emption, a claim repeated over two years later by some fifty-three settlers. The pet.i.tion 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 a.n.a.lysis 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 partic.i.p.ated in the political, economic, and social life of the community. The fact that these partic.i.p.ants 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_