USA > Pennsylvania > Lancaster County > The political history and development of Lancaster County's first twenty years, 1729-1749 > 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.
UC-NRLF
B 3 497 530
EXCHANGE
SITAT
NIENSIS
LVX
SIGI
FIAT
MI
EX LIBRIS
.
Digitized by the Internet Archive in 2007 with funding from Microsoft Corporation
http://www.archive.org/details/politicalhistory00eshlrich
PAPERS READ
BEFORE THE
LANCASTER COUNTY HISTORICAL SOCIETY
FRIDAY, FEBRUARY 4, 1916.
" History herself, as seen in het own workshop."
THE POLITICAL HISTORY AND DEVELOPMENT OF LANCASTER COUNTY'S FIRST TWENTY YEARS, 1729-1749.
MINUTES OF THE FEBRUARY MEETING.
VOL. XX. NO. 2.
PRICE TWENTY-FIVE CENTS PER COPY
LANCASTER, PA. .
1916
-
The Political History and Development of Lancaster County's First Twenty Years, 1729-1749 - - - 37
BY H. FRANK ESHLEMAN, ESQ.
Minutes of the February Meeting - - - 69
-
·
The Political History and Development of Lancaster County's First Twenty Years, 1729-1749
Partisan political sentiment existed in Lancaster county at the time of its creation in 1729, the division of sentiment being on the very question of organizing the county. The econ- omical German-Swiss opposed the erection of the county and threw their political influence against the project. They sent two petitions to the Assembly praying that the new county be not erected, because the expense of local government here was unjustifiable, so long as the govern- ment of this section, as part of Chester county, met all needs as they saw it; especially as assessment and taxation were only nominal here un- der that regime. It mattered little to them that there was very poor pro- tection here, so long as demands of governmental support were light. The less government, the better. Lais-
sez faire was their doctrine. On the other hand, the Scotch-Irish, Eng- lish and Quakers favored a separate government, in the region west of the Octoraro, because of its efficiency and of the chance for office holding (Vol. 3, Votes of Assembly, pp. 76 & 78).
But almost coeval with the county's erection two province-wide political questions stirred infant Pennsylva- nia. One was that of the issuance of paper money to relieve the panic of 1723-8, owing to the scarcity of specie or metallic money; and the other was the question of toleration of Catholic-
(37)
(38)
ism in the province. On the money question our county divided, the trad- ers and speculators clamoring for pa- per money and the plain farmers op- posing it. The government issued the money and those who wanted part of it gave mortgages on their land for the same and were compelled to pay back the interest and one-twelfth of the principal each year. Thus the mass of the people opposed the issue of pa- per money and asked the Assembly that coin be raised in value, and that produce be made money (Vol. 2, Votes of Assembly 335 & 6). Specu- lators got much of it (Vol. 2 Votes of Assembly 339 & 40-hereafter cited as V. A.).
On the religious question, the people of this county (as well as of the pro- vince) were divided. February 20, 1729, the Quaker-English Assembly, in a message to the Governor, said "We conceive it to be of greatest conse- quence to the preservation of both the religious and civil rights of the peo- ple to prevent importation of Irish papists into Pennsylvania" (Vol. 3 V. A. 65). The Quakers and Germans both were opposed to them. The Trish and the English favored them. The first distinct political party cleavage in this county was upon the question of "the common people's in- terests versus the proprietors' inter- ests" (The Penns).
1729. Judge Edwards was the favor- ite son in the new county, and for Assembly received the highest vote. John Wright had lost his popularity. He was a member of Assembly in 1726; but was defeated in 1727 and In 1728. In 1729 he received a small vote, compared with Edwards. James Mitchel and Thomas Read were the other assemblymen-elect. Minor figures compared with Edwards and Wright. The members elected stood in the or-
(39)
der of the size of their vote on the returns set forth in "Votes of Assem- bly" (Vol. 3 V. A. 95)
1730. The next year Wright was the reigning political favorite and Edwards fell to second place. Mitch- el and Read were displaced by George Stuart, third place; and John Mus- grove was at the foot (Vol. 3 V. A. 124).
1731. At this election Wright and Edwards were discounted. Edwards tell to fourth place and Wright was not elected at all. Wright was too mild and weak for the rugged border strife on the Susquehanna. Donegal brought out Andrew Galbraith, an idol of the reigning Scotch-Irish element. He received next to the highest vote on the ticket. John Coyle, a new man, stood at the head. All the As- semblymen of 1730 except Edwards were defeated in 1731.
1732. This year Judge Edwards stood next to highest on the ticket. He was an austere judge, and sentenc- ed the Maryland border rogues severe- ly. George Stewart stood head. Samuel Blunston now appeared and stood third. He was very active in keeping the unruly element on and over Susquehanna, orderly and was in great favor in the county and among the political leaders of the province at Philadelphia. (Pa. Arch. 314). An- drew Galbraith this year had a hard political fight with John Wright and barely secured election, standing lowest in the vote. Had not Wright's friends used a ticket which could not be counted, because not correct in form, he might have defeated Gal- braith. Wright had his friends use a "short ballot;" and this, instead of helping him, was his undoing. Those tickets under the law could not be counted. This is the first use of a short ballot in Pennsylvania. The
( 40 )
law required each voter to vote for four members of Assembly. Wright had a number of his friends not to do so, and instead put only two names on the ticket besides Wright's; and neither of those names to be Galbraith's. If he had simply had them put a name on instead of Galbraith's, so that the ticket had four names on them, these ballots would have been good and Wright would have been elected. Maryland contended that the Susque- hanna River was the boundary of Pennsylvania, and Wright was not strenuous enough in defending our province against this encroachment. The Governor of the Province paid little attention to our border struggle and disavowed countenancing the bat- tle in Wright's wheat field where 300 soldiers of our county, under the sheriff, moved against an almost equal number of desperadoes of the Mary- land wilds under Cresap (1 Pa. Arch. 314 and 317). The report, says Blun- ston, was current that the Assembly also apologized to Maryland and blam- ed it on "the Irish of Lancaster coun- ty." (Do.). Blunston said the Ger- mans took no part in defense and "do nothing but give their opinions and find fault" (Do.). The political ques- tion in our county in 1732 was the Scotch-Irish policy of driving Mary- land below the 39th degree of north latitude (Do. 334) versus the "Dutch" policy of allowing Maryland to en- croach to the west bank of the Sus- quehanna and the south bank of the Juniata. The attorney general of the province was given 20 lbs. extra salary on condition he would overcome crime "more particularly in regard to the county of Lancaster" (3 V. A. 164).
.
According to Rupp (p. 264) Andrew Galbraith's wife went out electioneer- ing on horseback in the fall of 1732
( 41)
for her husband and made him many votes.
Wright contested his defeat in the Assembly Oct. 16 on the ground that many tickets containing his name were thrown out and that if they had been counted he would have won. (3 V. A. 184). The Assembly heard the mat- ter fully and decided that his short tickets were invalid and illegal. He was not out of Assembly long, since George Stuart died soon after his election, and Wright was elected to his place, and took his seat March 18th, 1733 (Do. 185).
The political leaders at this time in our county were John Wright, Samuel Blunston, Robert Barker, Tho- mas Edwards, Andrew Galbraith, An- drew Cornish, Joshua Low, Samuel Jones, Tobias Hendricks, John Mus- grave, Caleb Pearce, Edward Smout, James Mitchel (Donegal) and George Stuart.
1733. In the autumn of 1733 Lan- caster county's members in Assembly stood in the following order, as to the number of votes received from high- ust to lowest: Galbraith, Edwards, Wright and Coyle. Wright held the position of trustee of the general loan office and also that of member of Assembly. His enemies at home, to oust him, tried to have a law passed against holding plural offices (3 V. A. :00). The Scotch-Irish of Lancaster county were banded into a political party by reason of the border struggle. 'The German-Swiss had crossed the Susquehanna river to settle, and a few Scotch-Irish were there (3 Col. Rec. 477-hereafter cited C. R.). In every county of the Province, the political party lines were drawn between those who would strengthen proprietary- ship in Pennsylvania, and those who would weaken it-those who favored government by the common people.
V
.
(42)
Our county was, for many years, strongly against the proprietary party. The Scotch-Irish and Germans held similar views on this subject. The As- sembly consisted of only one body of men. There was no Senate as now. But the Lieutenant Governor had au- thority to appoint a council of 6 to 15 ·nen, to whom legislation was referred, and who acted much as the Senate acts to-day. The Governor usually made up his council of men of the aristocratic order, men who were fa- vorable to the Penns. During forty- two years there was not a single Lan- caster county man on the Council. But in 1771 Edward Shippen, of Lan- caster, became a member. (9 C. R. 745). There were few prominent men in our county favorable to the pro- prietor. Most members of Council were Philadelphia men, where there was strong proprietary sentiment. And for a long time the alignment was Philadelphia against the rural dis- tricts. But there were Chester and Bucks county men in council.
L
But in some respects, and at certain times, the provincial powers in Phila- delphia gave heed to popular will in our county. The law allowed the peo- ple to elect in each county two per- sons for Sheriff and two for Coroner; and then the Governor and Council would select one of those two for Sheriff and one for Coroner. Very often the appointee was the person re- ceiving the smaller vote, thus ignoring the people's first choice. But in 1732 and 1733 they selected the one having the highest vote in Lancaster county (3 C. R. 464 and 521). During this period our local politics was dull. It was stated in council that the As- sembly as then constituted were "chiefly the same who have represent- ed the Province the past many years." (4 C. R. 41).
.
( 43)
1734. This fall a new political power appeared in Lancaster county. He seems to have bounded into lead- ership at once-James Hamilton. Of the four members elected to Assembly, he received the highest vote by far. There was another new figure-John Emerson, of Blue Rock. He was next highest in the vote. Galbraith stood third and John Wright scarcely se- cured election, standing lowest of the four elected.
The most remarkable political event in our county's first ten years of ex- istence was the appearance and six years leadership of James Hamilton. From 1734 to 1739, inclusive, he was political boss of the county. He was of Scotch-Irish parentage, though born in Virginia in 1710. But from early childhood until 1734 he lived in Phila- delphia. Thus it is very remarkable that coming to Lancaster county to live in May, 1734, a young man of 24, he should in the fall of that same year be elected to Assembly by the highest vote of all the candidates and be five times consecutively re-elected and al- ways by the highest vote. A stranger could not do that to-day.
This was due most prominently to two powerful causes: First, to the great fame of his wonderful father, and, secondly, to the young man's ownership of nearly a square mile of land, right in the center of Lancas- ter.
The father of James Hamilton was then the greatest lawyer of America- for ten years Speaker of the Assem- bly, from 1729 to 1739, when he declined to serve longer. He was in the very zenith of glory and power; he was in the ripest maturity of wis- dom; he was the idol of the common people, loved above every other man in Pennsylvania, during the very time
( 44 )
his son appeared on the scene here. And in 1735, when all the other law- yers feared and refused to defend the liberty of a poor printer in New York against the King's charge of libeling the Government,Andrew Ham- ilton volunteered to defend him, and he did so, acquitting Zenger, the de- fendant, though the Court, the people, and even the jury, at first, were against him. In defending this hum- ble man he well knew that he was defending the liberties of the whole American people against the tyranny of England; and for his known stand for popular liberty, freedom of trade and conscience, and for his achieve- ment in this Zenger trial, Gouvenor Morris has called him "the day star of the Republic." The son of such a popular hero, if he were, like his fath- er, also a discreet man,naturally drew much prominence to him, and gave him great advantage over other men equally good, but less fortunate. All the ages prove this, and likewise does the present age prove it. Thus when James Hamilton arrived in Lancaster in 1734 he was known-known better than many estimable men who lived here all their lives.
James, being the son of a great father, the great man who presided with such fairness and power over the people's Assembly, naturally all local politicians would be over-zeal- ous to help James, if not for love's sake, then for the sake of the polit- ical advantage that would come to them. I have no doubt at all that Galbraith, Hendricks, Barber, Blun- ston, Emerson, and other politicians on the Susquehanna, helped him in the river section, knowing that he would help them in all parts of Lan- caster county. The Hamiltons (An-
(45)
drew and James) and their relatives, and among them, particularly, the great political power, Wm. Allen, who was married to Hamilton's daughter, were all close to the Governor and Council. Nearly all political officers were appointed by the Governor, and this was another reason why anyone desiring or holding office, any one in politics, should flock to the sup- port of a man who stood so close to so much appointive power as did James Har ilton.
Here at Lancaster, too, James Ham- ilton was making a new fame all his own. He was not a lawyer, but a business man. All the people of this section needed a town with indus- tries, and with people who could con- sume farmers' products. The market at Philadelphia was far away, and profits were lost in transportation. Our people were sending petitions to the Assembly to be allowed to make whisky and rum out of their grains and fruit, without paying a license, so they did not need to transport their grain and flour to Philadelphia, anu lose their apples and peaches entire- ly. James Hamilton was the very man to give them what they wanted and needed, and to solve the difficult problem, which affected Scotch-Irish, Germans, Jews, and all who lived here.
His father, about 1730, became the equitable owner of about 500 acres of land in the heart of what is now our city, and May 1, 1734, he and James Steel, holder of the legal title, turn- ed it over to James Hamilton. An- drew Hamilton had already made a partial plan of lots out of the tract, and James completed the plotting and bought additions to it, laying the additions out in lots also. (Evans & Ellis, No. 359 and. 361.)
(46)
Thus was James Hamilton giving to this section great material blessings and, the people were ready to give him any additional means of public usefulness in their power. A place in the Assembly would widen his oppor- tunities to help them with their trade troubles and their boundary disputes with Maryland. This land-developing project was a mammoth affair in those early days. The 500 acres would make 2,500 lots about 50 by 1vy feet in size; 10,000 people could be accommo- dated with homes and business places upon them; the people could get lots for a trifle, provided they did not mind a fair-sized ground rent being collected out of them annually for- ever; a population would be gathered together; manufactories, trade and the arts would grow; labor and the markets would be stimulated, and alt would prosper. No wonder Hamil- ton could be the local leader political- ly and otherwise, even if he were only twenty-four years old.
Political success in Lancaster coun- ty, in those days, at times turned upon smaller events than in our day. Heroism counted for more than now; individuality had great opportunity to make itself felt.
John Emerson owned Blue Rock Ferry, on the Susquehanna (1 Pa. Archives 413, hereafter cited A.), in 1734. He was a valiant fighter for Lan- caster county's rights. Maryland put a reward of fifty pounds upon his head and a like sum on Samuel Blunston. Cresap was working very hard to capture Emerson or to kill him and get the reward (1 A. 413). On the other hand, Emerson offered fifty pounds reward for the capture of Cresap, and gave his ferrymen orders to go across (a mile below Washington Borough) and capture Cresap (1 A.
( 47)
411). Seven of his men went over and attacked him. Blunston de- plored the act in a letter to the Gover- nor (Do. 410). It made Emerson a hero among the Scotch-Irish and such Germans as were not disaffected, and he was sent to the Assembly as a reward. This more gladiatorial role of Emerson, to some extent, left the doughty Galbraith in the twilight. The new hero cast a shadow on him. He stood in two shadows-Hamilton's and Emerson's. Wright stood lowest. He was too pacific for these trouble- some times on Susquehanna.
The political vortex of our county during these days was in the western part. All the county's Assemblymen were from the river except Hamilton. Robert Buchanan and Joshua Lowe, Sheriff and Coroner, were from the western border, too. The eastern por- tion's events were of minor importance during the border warfare. The Pro- vincial political issue at this time (what we would now call the State's issue) was the increase of paper money; and the local or county is- sue was the border warfare.
1735. In the fall of 1735 Hamilton, Edwards, Galbraith and Armstrong were elected members of Assembly, and their votes stood in the order named. Thomas Armstrong got Coyle's place. The clash of interests between the proprietor and people continued. Penn's absence made it stronger and his death caused the feeling to be still more intense. His sons were regard- ed as intermeddlers by the people. The question did not affect Lancaster county politics.
1736. This year Hamilton, Gal- braith, Armstrong and Edwards were elected to the Assembly from Lan- caster county. Edwards fell from sec- ond to fourth place. Neither this year nor in 1735 was John Wright elected.
( 48 )
Wright was successful only four times in his candidacies for Assembly in these first eight years of our county's history-1729, 1730, 1733 and 1734.
This year was one of many troubles in our county. In 1731 the Palatines began settling across the Susque- hanna (1 A. 483). By 1736 there were many families on the west side and a plot to drive out sixty families was discovered (3 V. 288). Many of these families accepted Maryland rule (4 C. 56). A battle occurred in Wright's wheat field over the question (Do. 73). The Five Nations claimed land anew on Susquehanna (4 C. 88 and 94.) As a plot originating in the southern part of Chester county to steal the Ger- man's land was discovered (4 C. 100 and 1), Higginbotham, a Maryland desperado, and others, determined to drive the Germans to the east side of the Susquehanna (4 C. 149). He and his party chopped down doors and de- molished houses. Lancaster county blamed the Provincial government for inactivity (1 A. 530). This became a political issue in our county, between the fighters and non-resistants.
1737. And now came on the elec- tion of 1737 in Lancaster county. For Assembly James Hamilton received 753 votes; Andrew Galbraith, 540; John Wright, 394, and Samuel Smith, 388. (American Weekly Mercury, October 6, 1737.) Gordon Howard was elected Commissioner of the county, and six assessors were elected by the following votes: William Maxwell, 673; Gerard Graham, 553; James Mor- rison, 402; James Evans, 346; William Allison, 383, and Thomas Elliot, 228. (Do). This is the earliest list of Lan- caster county election figures, that can anywhere be found. The votes cast for the year 1737 and 1738 appear in the newspaper I have mentioned above; but not for any other years,
-
( 49 )
even to the end of that paper's exist- ence in 1746, nor even in the next thirty years in the Pennsylvania Ga- zette. And the earliest election figures for Lancaster county, in the "Archives" are those of 1757. (Sixth Series of Penn, Arch. Vol. 11, p. 215).
In Lancaster county elections for Assembly this year we observe that Hamilton is still the leader-the poli- tical boss of the county. His vote is forty per cent. above Galbraith's, and nearly double that of John Wright. Galbraith has grown in popular favor, rising from lowest vote in 1732, to the next to lowest in 1734 and 1735 and next to highest in 1736 and 1737. Judge Edwards is again defeated by Sheriff Samuel Smith and Armstrong by John Wright. This clearly shows that all the politics of the county cen- tered in the excitement on the Susque- hanna river.
It is interesting to compare Lancas- ter county's vote with those of the other counties this year. Our highest vote was 753 for Hamilton, and for the highest of the assessors (Maxwell) it was 673. Philadelphia county's vote (excluding the town) was904; Ches- ter county's 724 and the Bucks county figures are not given; but in 1738 that county had 522. The city of Philadel- phia cast for assessor, in 1737, only 207 votes (Weekly Mercury, Supra). Thus we see our county was casting as large a vote as Chester, larger than Bucks and not much less than Phila- delphia county-though each of these counties were nearly fifty years older than Lancaster county. We were ac- cused, however (as I shall show) of being most malignant "repeaters and ballot-box stuffers." We were a rough frontier county.
1738. At the election this year in Lancaster county for members of the Assembly, James Hamilton received
( 50)
1,019 votes; Andrew Galbraith, 933; Samuel Smith, 795, and John Wright, 758 (Penna. Gazette, October 5, 1738). The members were the same four who were elected in 1737, and the only dif- ference in their standing is that John Wright, who received a larger vote than Samuel Smith in 1737, now falls below Smith, and received the lowest vote on the successful ticket. The county's vote this year all around was 50 per cent. larger than that of 1737. And I find about 35 per cent. increase in the votes of the other counties The highest vote for Assemblyman from Philadelphia was 1,303, from Chester, 98, and from Bucks county, 522 (Do).
The newly-aroused political inter- est seems to have been due to the ar- rival of Governor Thomas during this year, who superseded Gordon (4 C., 288); the agitation about reviving the ¿tax on liquor, which tax, nor any other tax, had been needed since the first issue of paper money in 1723 (3 V., 302); and the hard times which were now approaching because of the scarcity of money (the paper money allowed by England to be issued be- ing short of that needed for business and of the jaw authorizing its use), (3 V., 304 and 305). Lancaster county, in common vith the rest of the prov- ince, complained of the hard times, and began to complain loudly against Penn's quit rents (3 V., 329).
This year Lancaster county elected Andrew Douglass a member of its Board of Commissioners; and George Gibson, Andrew Work,Christian Stone- man, John Powell and Emanuel Car- penter, its Assessors. As candidates from which the Governor should se- lect a Sheriff the county returned Rob- ert Buchanan and James Galbraith;
(51)
and as candidates for Coroner Joshua Lowe and William Caldwell; and the Governor selected Buchanan for Sher- iff and Lowe for Coroner, these hav- ing received the highest votes of the people (4 C., 309).
Politics in the province at this time was still; but a storm was coming. Two political parties were about forming in our county, as well as throughout the province those hola -. ing appointive offices, their friends, the Governor and his lesser dignitar- ies and satellites in one party; and the common people in the other. (Bolles Pa. Prov. and State, 269). There were also two other parties more or less defined in the county and prov" ince, lacking in leadership and pur- pose-one believing in narrowing the functions of government and oppos- ing possession of power for exclusive use. They were opposed to public as- sistance to paper money and the pub- lic loan system, to inspection laws, regulating of wages. Against them were those who believed in equalizing the advantages of men by public ac- tion. They believed in the omnipo- tence of the province to cure all evils by legislation. They were socialistic in its better sense (Do., p. 270). Lan- caster county found itself in polit- ical sympathy with this latter party; but some few-the more prominent personages-in our county, allied themselves with the other party, not desiring to help or interfere with pri- vate life, modes and affairs.
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.