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 institutions.
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 class or classes, but in the members of the community as a whole.[1]
Analyzing 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 institutions. Fair Play society did not constitute 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 institutions 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 participates in the decision-making process.
(4) "Not in any particular class or classes, 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 class or classes 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 institutions. 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 institutions, the class 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 class structure to ascertain whether or not a superimposed caste system ordered the class 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 class 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 analyze 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 participated 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 participate 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 titles, 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 assembly, provided the settlers with the opportunity to become acquainted with the circumstances 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 petitions 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 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.