USA > Pennsylvania > Lancaster County > Lancaster > The early settlement and population of Lancaster County and city > Part 1
Note: The text from this book was generated using artificial intelligence so there may be some errors. The full pages can be found on Archive.org.
Digitized by the Internet Archive in 2007 with funding from Microsoft Corporation
http://www.archive.org/details/earlysettlementp00diffrich
The Early Settlement and Population of Lancaster County and City.
It is to be regretted that our fathers and grandfathers were so indifferent to the important events of their time, to the many stirring scenes and occur- rences of that early period, as not to have put them on record for the in- struction and entertainment of those who were to come after them. Among them were men strong of mind, vigor- ous of intellect, students of history and well equipped in every way to picture for us the many stirring inci- dents and experiences that must have fallen into their lives. And yet, the fact is, that of all the men who lived and died in this city and county be- tween 1730 and 1825 there is hardly one who has left behind him an auto- biography, memoir or diary of the events that fell into the first hundred · years of our recorded history.
There is so much that we would like to know, so much of interest to us now, but which must ever remain un- revealed, that I sometimes feel that I cannot forgive those old-time worthies for their indifference to the needs and wants of their posterity. It is very true that much has come down to us, but indirectly and unintentionally. They led busy lives, each one in his chosen path, but when the times and the occasion demanded it lent their services to the public weal and it is through official letters and public documents that most of what we know concerning them has reached us.
Blot out, in your imagination, all the Court House records, all the offi-
( 152)
cial papers written by citizens of Lan- caster before, during and after the Revolutionary War, and what worth the reading would there be left to us? The remainder would hardly be worth the preservation. We fail to under- stand why those intelligent men did not, for their own private satisfaction, . as well as for ours, their descendants, pass down to us in tangible form the story of their lives and times. The student of our early local history is confronted all along the way with un- settled questions, matters merely hinted at and doubts without number, the solving of which will always re- main to vex and puzzle him.
Indeed, I may almost say that we have more direct information concern- ing our ancient burg through the notes and journals of strangers who passed through the place or spent a few days here than we have from the men and women to the manner born. How satisfactory, for example, is the old journal of Witham Marshe, of Maryland, written at the time of the big treaty here, in 1744, or the follow- ing extract from the diary of Lieuten- ant Anbury, of the British Army, who was brought here as a prisoner and related what he saw. The following extract, copied for me by Mr. Sener from the manuscript diary in the library at Harrisburg, will serve to show how we appeared in the eyes of the foreigners and what they had to say about us:
Lieutenant Anbury's Account.
"December, 1778. At Lancaster met with a curious reception. Story afloat that the country round about was to be given to Baron Reidesil as a reward for his services. People excited and had to be convinced to the contrary. Lancaster was the largest inland town in the United States, containing
( 153)
about 3,000 Germans and Scotch-Irish. Most of the houses had an elevation before the front door and were entered by ascending high steps, resembling a small balcony, with benches on both sides, where the inhabitants sat and took in the fresh air and viewed the people passing. Many mechanics. Three or four churches (7). Largest pipe organ in America, built at Lititz, now in use at the Lutheran Church. Some of the officers went to see this wonderful piece of mechanism, and sent descriptions of it to their homes. Manufacturer had made every part of it with his own hands. It had not only every pipe and stop, but had some pipes of amazing circumference and had keys to be played by the feet, in addition to the regular keys." Such contemporary details are historical in the fullest sense of the word, and of exceeding interest and value.
The story of our early local history has been so often and so well told that the subject has been worn almost threadbare. In reality there is little left to tell and my only intention in the paper I am about to read is to en- deavor to make clearer some few points relating to the early settlement and population of the county and city, concerning which I have frequently found there is no little misapprehen- sion. I have little regard for a class of men, who, for want of a better name, I may term hair-trigger his- torians, who accept tradition for facts, who jump at conclusions and so con- found fiction with facts as to cast sus- picion on all they say. Truth is said to lie at the bottom of a well, but no one knows how deep that well is until he tries to hoist the truth into the light.
With this introduction, I shall now proceed to take up the subject proper of this paper, which deals with the
( 154 )
early settlement of the county and city and the population of the same.
Confusion in Early Accounts.
Connected with early Lancaster county is an interesting question that deserves attention, not only because it is germane to the location of the county seat itself, but also because it does not appear to have received the attention its importance deserves. We all know that Lacastern town was laid out in the year following the erec- tion of the county, that is, in 1730. We are also aware that, prior to that time, the best known man in the place was a tavern-keeper, George Gibson by name, whose place was rear a spring, a big hickory tree standing near by it, with a representation of the same on the tavern sign. But who knows who George Gibson was, where he came from and when he came or even the origin of the little information we have concerning him and his tavern, and much else connected with the town, its name, settlement and popula- tion? Whenever you come across statements bearing on these questions they appear with quotation marks at- tached to them, indicating they have been taken from some ancient author- ity which is not mentioned, and is now unknown.
Is there anywhere an authority, written or printed, that clears up these questions or even throws any light upon them? I confess I have been unable to discover any. Hazard, Day and Rupp and Mombert all quote the story, but they all give it at second hand. The first named says: "When first laid out there was one house in it and that was a tavern, the occupant being a man named Gibson."1 That is such a glaring misstatement as to be
'Hazard's Register, vol. 4, p. 391.
( 155 )
almost ridiculous, as can be easily proven. Again Hazard says: "When Lancaster was laid out Governor Ham- ilton offered two places, one known as 'High Plain,' or 'Gibson's Pasture," and the other as the 'Roaring Brook,' which was on the west. Both sites were final.‹ united and there was a Black Swamp running through it." 2
That "Roaring Brook" was a con- siderable water course in early times may be inferred from the fact that a stone bridge was thrown across it on West King street by Councils in 1771, which was the first bridge built within the borough limits. Even as late as 1825 it must have been a brook of some importance, for in that year City Councils granted to Samuel Fah- nestock, for a period of twent -- five years, the use of the water in the stream for some establishment he was about to erect on lots 335, 336, 337 and 338 fronting on Water street; the water to be conveyed in pipes not to exceed one foot in diameter and be laid in the middle of the stream; with the further privilege of erecting dams 12 inches high across the waterway. 3
Let me now direct your attention to a quotation from Rupp's History of the County, which is also marked as having been taken from an earlier authority. He says: "Governor Ham- ilton made an offer of two places, the 'Old Indian Field,' 'High Plain,' 'Gib- son's Pasture,' 'Sanderson's Pas- ture;' the other, 'Waving Hills,' em- bosomed in wood, bounded by 'Roar- ing Brook,' on the west. Gibson re- sided near a fine spring with a large hickory tree before his door. This was the favorite tree of the Indian tribe who lived in the vicinity, and were called by the whites from that
2'Hazard's Register, vol. 8, p. 60.
8 See ordinance passed by City Coun- cils, on April 15, 1825.
( 156 )
circumstance the 'Hickory Indians.' "4
There is confusion here which is not easily straightened out. Were these names, "Old Indian Field," "Gib- son's Pasture," "High Plain" and "Sanderson's Pasture," all applied to the same piece of ground or did they represent distinct parcels named after different owners or after some other special locality? And who was San- derson himself? Hazard clearly says the "High Plain," or Gibson's Pas- ture," which would indicate that the two names were applied to the same piece of ground. Both Hazard and Rupp agree in saying that Governor Hamilton offered two places or sites for the erection of the Court House and Jail. Here again there is a con- flict of authorities. The site finally agreed upon for the public buildings was found to be still vested in the Penn heirs. How, then, could Gov- ernor Hamilton have been able to offer them to the county authorities for their uses? However that may be, the lands known by the above names were evidently very small tracts, because we know pretty defin- itely that Gibson's tavern was located on East King street, not far from the Square, while "Roaring Brook," which was the Water street creek, bounded the second tract offered, "Waving Hills," on the west. These two offer- ed sites were not more than two blocks distant from each other. The inference, therefore, is that these various "pastures" or fields were merely small clearings in the woods that then covered most of the Lancas- ter-town site. Perhaps if we could trace these early descriptions and designations to their original sources we would know more about them, but that seems impossible at the present
4Rupp's "History of Lancaster County," p. 243.
-
( 157)
time. It is not improbable that both Hazard and Rupp during their searches among the State Archives found some document or authority from whence they drew their informa- tion. It is well known that many doc- uments have been lost or stolen from the Archives, and there are still thou- sands that are now being carefully overhauled and bound, and this miss- ing link may yet turn up. Until that time comes we will, no doubt, con- tinue to wander among these uncer- tainties; for the present we have to leave the question as we found it.
Town Site Occupied Before Gibson's Time.
The common belief is that Gibson was one of the earliest settlers, but the belief also prevails that he was not there long prior to the organiza- tion of the county, that is, in 1729. This latter view I do not believe ten- able. Rupp says he kept tavern in 1722.
Gibson was undoubtedly himself a squatter. It can not have been other- wise, else his "Pasture" lot could not have been in the ownership of the Proprietaries, as the Commissioners reported, nor could Hamilton have of- fered it to the county for building pur- poses. The fact is, Gibson disappears as an innkeeper before 1729. His name is not one of the nine who were granted licenses at the August Quar- ter Sessions in that year. Indeed, he does not appear as a landholder until 1740. He was County Treasurer in 1730, and later a prominent member of St. James' Episcopal Church.
It must not be inferred that, be- cause Lancaster was not laid out un- til 1730, there were no people living here before that time. Such a view is wholly erroneous. The Mennon- ites, as we know, made their first set- tlement on the Pequea in 1709, but
( 158 )
two years later they were followed by other settlers, who went westward beyond them, so that as early as 1712 there were already lands taken up on what later became Lancaster town- stead. That was at least ten years before George Gibson and his Hickory Tree Tavern appear on the scene. In- deed, what use could there have been for a tavern but the accommodation of the traveling public, and that there was a traveling public as well as a stationary one to cater to I think can be satisfactorily shown. The evi- dence is overwhelming that as early as 1717-1718, not only on the lands of the site of Lancaster, but in the ad- joining districts, on every side, there was a thrifty and prosperous agricul- tural population.
No White Settlers Before 1700.
It is a well-known fact that prior to the year 1700 no white men had set- tled within the territory now known as Lancaster county. There were Indian traders, however, who, under license from the Proprietary Government, had established trading posts at various points for traffic with the aborigines. It is sufficient for my purpose to name only a few of the earliest of these traders. The earliest were Canadian Frenchmen, who, from their acquaint- ance and relations to the Five Nations, gradually found their way as far south as Lancaster county, where some of them established their headquarters. Among these were Martin Chartiere, his son, Peter, a troublesome fellow, James Le Tort and Peter Bezallion. Later the Scotch-Irish took up this line of trade and some of the best known names in our history were engaged in it.
It was not until 1711 that we find the first official recognition of the planting of a colony of white men
( 159)
within the present borders of Lancas- ter county. In June of that year, Gov- ernor Gookin and several members of the Assembly visited the Indians at Conestoga, and the Governor made the following brief address to the red men assembled, after having made them presents of powder, bullets and cloth: "Governor Penn upon all occa- sions is willing to show how great a regard he bears to you; he, therefore, has sent this small present (a fore- runner of a greater one to come next spring) to you, and hath required me to acquaint you that he is about to settle some people upon the branches of the Potomac, and doubts not but the same mutual friendship which has all along as brothers passed betwixt the inhabitants of this Government and you, will also continue betwixt you and those he is about to settle; he in- tends to present fine belts of wampum to the Five Nations, and one to you of Conestoga,and requires your friend- ship to THE PALATINES SETTLED NEAR PEQUEA." To this the Indians made answer that they were well pleased with the Governor's speech, but were afraid if the people spoken of were settled near the Potomac, they would not be safe, as they would be between them (the Indians) and the Tuscaroras, with whom they were at war, and added, "As to the Palatines, they are, in their opinion, safely sealed." 5
Settlements Rapidly Developed.
From that time onwara the settle- ment of Lancaster county progressed with great rapidity. I shall direct at- tention to the extent and the direc- tion it took in order to show that when George Gibson and Lancaster town loomed up the county throughout the greater part of its extent was
5 Colonial Records. vol. 2, p. 533.
( 160 )
dotted with the farms and homes of German, Scotch-Irish and Quaker set- tlers.
One Rudy Mayer squatted on what is probably the very ground where we are gathered to-night, as early as 1712, and he had a number of neighbors, Michael Shank, Jacob Im- ble, Jacob Hostetter, John Mayer and Henry Bare. Conestoga township was organized and had regularly ap- pointed officials in the same year. As early as 1714 the tide of immigration, following up the eastern side of the Susquehanna, had reached the valley of the Chiquesalunga, and the Done- gal Presbyterian congregation was organized in that year.6 In 1715, the Rev. Mr. Gillespie, of Chester county, extended his pastoral labors as far westward as Paxtang, near Harris- burg. There was a burying ground there as early as 1716, showing that the frontier settlements had at that early period gone far beyond Lancas- ter.7 East Donegal received its first settlers in 1716, and seventy heads of families were located there prior to the erection of the county in 1729.
Settlements were made in Earl town- ship as early as 1717, and in the same years Lancaster township began filling up. In that year Peter Lemon had settled on the very land which now comprises the County Poorhouse farm. In the same year Dr. Neff, so far as known, our first regular physi- cian, located in the county,and erected a mill. As early as 1717 as many as 5,000 acres of land had been applied for in, and immediately around, the site of Lancaster by German immi- grants, and in that year Michael
6 West's "Origin of Donegal and Car- lisle Presbytery," quoted by Ziegler in his "History of Donegal Church," p. 9. 7 Egle's "History of Paxtang Church," p. 5.
8 Ellis & Evans' "History of Lancas- ter County," p. 905.
( 161 )
Shank, Theodorus Eby and others had patented large tracts of land on the town site. 9
Indians Become Alarmed.
So numerous had the settlers be- come that in 1718 Conestoga town- ship was cut off from Chester county and erected into a township embracing all the portions west of the Octorara creek and along the eastern branches of the Conestoga. The list of the heads of families and single men is still to be seen in the Commissioners' office, and includes about 120 names. In the same year, on a petition of the inhabitants on and near the Cones- toga, a road was laid out from that stream to Thomas Moore's and the Brandywine. At a conference held at the Conestoga Indian villages, with the Six Nations, in June, 1719, the chiefs of that noted delegation ex- pressed dissatisfaction with the numerous settlements of whites made along the Susquehanna.10
Conrad Beissel and a few com- panions had erected their huts on Mill Creek, in the neighborhood of Bird-in-Hand, as early as 1721. Others were there still earlier,in 1719 and 1720. The Dunkers were all along that stream and the Cocalico in those years.
The heads of families in old Cones- toga numbered 250 in 1724, indicating a population of perhaps 1,000 at that time, in that single district. By 1721 settlers had already crossed the Sus- quehanna and taken up lands in the territory claimed by Lord Baltimore, the proprietary of Maryland, and in 1722 the warrant for the survey of Springettsbury Manor, in York county, was issued-the largest of all the
"Ellis & Evans' History of Lancas- ter County. p. 360.
10 Colonial Records, vol. 2, pp. 47-48.
( 162 )
Penn Manors. Proud, the early his- torian, tells us that "the settlements about the Indian villages of Conestoga were considerably advanced in im- provements at this time (1720); the land thereabouts being exceedingly rich, and is now surrounded with divers fine plantations, or farms, where they raise quantities of wheat, barley, flax and hemp."11
The London Land Company.
In fact, so numerous had the set- tlers become in the valley of the Con- estoga and its tributaries at the time of the founding of Lancaster Town, and in many cases, I fear, without pay- ing the slightest attention to the legal requirement of procuring land from the Proprietary Government, or any one else, that in 1730 the London Land Company, part of whose lands lay in this county, through its agent, Henry Hodge, Esq., on June 30, issued a hand-bill, which was widely dis- tributed throughout the region where these lands lay, among the squatters who had located upon them without consulting or paying for the same to the company, warning them to leave within one month of the date of the notice. Application was at the same time made to the local Court to eject them from the lands on which they had settled. As no further action is recorded, it is likely that these peo- ple complied with the demands of the owners and made payment for the lands they had taken without first se- curing right and title by purchase."12
'Proud's "History of Pennsylvania," vol. 2. p. 128.
12 The following is a copy of the cir- cular alluded to above:
"Philadelphia, 20th of the 6th Month, 1730.
"WHEREAS divers PERSONS have (illegally) settled themselves and fami- lies on several Tracts of Land, known by the Name of the London Companys Land, and that to the Damage of the Owners thereof:
( 163 )
A Large Population by 1729.
When, therefore, the act of May 10, 1729, was passed for the erection of the new county to be called Lancaster, there was already a large body of set- tlers around the little hamlet which was made the shiretown, and, perhaps, fifty families in the place itself. Nine years after the county was organized, the number of taxables in it was 2,560, indicating a population of perhaps 11,000. We shall, therefore, be not far from the mark if we put the popula- tion of the county at the period of its organization at about 11,000 souls. An- other evidence of a numerous popula- tion at that period is the fact that at the May term of the Court in 1730, no fewer than thirty-six tavern licenses were granted.
Under the act passed for the erec- tion of Lancaster county, four men, John Wright, Caleb Pierce, Thomas Edwards and James Mitchell, or any three of them, were empowered to pur- chase for the use of the county a con- venient piece of land whereon to build a Court House and Prison, and they certified to Governor Gordon that they had done so, the land agreed upon for the purpose lying on or near a small run or water course between the plantations of Roody Mire, Michael Shank and Jacob Imble. This also shows that lands already occupied
"THESE therefore to give Notice to all such Persons, that if they (within one Month after the Date hereof) shall refuse or neglect to make Satisfaction for the damages already done, and shall presume hereafter to cut any Timber- Trees or Underwood, etc., they may expect to be proceeded against accord- ing to a Law of this Province, made and provided in that Case.
"HENRY HODGE, "Attorney."
A fac-simile of the original ap- pears in Sachse's "German Sectarians of Pennsylvania, 1708-1742," of which the above is a copy.
UN195
( 164 )
were selected to build the public build- ings upon. The circumstance that further investigation brought to light, the fact that the title of the selected plot was still vested in the proprietary Government, and that the men who had settled upon it had not purchased it nor even located it by warrant, does not change the fact that the town site had been occupied years before there was any thought of locating the shire- town on this spot. 18
13"At a meeting of the Provincial Council, held at Philadelphia, Feb'y. 19, 1729-30. The Governor (Gordon) ac- quainted the Board that, whereas, by the law Erecting Lancaster County, John Wright, Caleb Pierce, Thomas Ed- wards & James Mitchel, or any three of them are empowered to purchase for the use of the said County, a con- venient piece of Land, to be approved of by the Governor, & thereon to build a Court House and Prison, and that now the said John Wright, Caleb Pierce & James Mitchel, have by a Certificat under their hands, signified that they have agreed upon a Lott of Land for the Uses aforesaid, lying on or near a small Run of Water, between the Plantation of Roody Mire, Michael Shank and Jacob Imble, about ten miles from the Sasquehannah River, and prayed his approbation of the same. The Governor therefore referr'd the matter to the Consideration of the Board, whether the Situation of the Place those Gentlemen had pitched on for a Town might be fitt to be con- firmed, & that a Town should accord- ingly be fixed there. But the Question being asked to whom the land they had made choice of now belongs, & who has the Property of it, because it may be in such hands as will not part with it, or at least on reasonable terms for that use, & this not being known by any of the Board, it was deferr'd till such a time as that Point could be ascertained. But as it is presumed for anything that is vet known, to be un- surveyed Land, & that the Right is only in the Proprietor, It is the oninion of the Board that it is more to be granted by the Proprietor for such uses. than by any other Person.
"Mem. The Governor having under- stood that the Right of the Land pitched upon for the Townstead of Lan- caster remains yet in the Proprietaries, was advised to approve of the Place agreed on by Messrs. Wright, Pearce & Mitchel, & the same was con- firmed accordingly. by a Writing dated May 1st. 1730."-Colonial Records, vol. 3, pp. 380-381.
$
( 165 )
Population of Lancaster City.
There can be no more interesting subject connected with our local his- tory than the population of Lancaster during the successive periods of its history from the time of its becoming the county seat until the period of the first national census in 1790. I have long tried to ascertain with some de- gree of accuracy what the figures really were. I have found eight esti- mates, made at six different periods by different individuals. All are guesses except the last, which was the first census, and, therefore, correct. Rupp says that the population at the time the town was laid out was 200. He does not say whence he derived his
Need help finding more records? Try our genealogical records directory which has more than 1 million sources to help you more easily locate the available records.