History of Lehigh county, Pennsylvania and a genealogical and biographical record of its families, Vol. I, Part 31

Author: Roberts, Charles Rhoads; Stoudt, John Baer, 1878- joint comp; Krick, Thomas H., 1868- joint comp; Dietrich, William Joseph, 1875- joint comp; Lehigh County Historical Society
Publication date: 1914
Publisher: Allentown, Pa. : Lehigh Valley Publishing Co.
Number of Pages: 1158

USA > Pennsylvania > Lehigh County > History of Lehigh county, Pennsylvania and a genealogical and biographical record of its families, Vol. I > Part 31

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 (link on the Part 1 page).

During the administration of John Adams, the frequent depredations of the French upon our commerce, and their disregard of our rights on the high seas, as a neutral power to the sanguin- ary conflict then devasting Europe, induced the belief that war with France was unavoidable. Congress, accordingly, made preparation for such emergency should it arise. The military and na- val forces of the country were increased, and Gen- eral Washington, then living in retirement at Mount Vernon, was appointed to the com- mand of the armies about to be called into the field. In view of the impending danger to the country, Congress took such other measures as the President thought requisite, some of which clothed him with almost despotic power. The act, known as the "Alien and Sedition Laws," gave him authority to send obnoxious persons out of the country, at pleasure, and to place others in arrest accused of speaking, or writing, in disre- spectful terms of the government. In connection with these measures Congress made provision to carry on the war, now thought to be near at

hand, by laying a direct tax to be assessed and collected by agents appointed by the Federal government.

On July 9, 1798, an act was passed providing "for the valuation of lands and dwelling houses and the enumeration of slaves within the United States." For making the valuation and enumer- ation, required by the act, the states were divided into districts, and, for each district a commission- er was appointed by the President with a fixed salary. It was made the duty of the commission- ers to sub-divide these districts into assessment dis- tricts, and, for each, appoint one principal and as many assistants as might be required. The as- sessors were to make out a list of houses, lands and slaves, and afterward to value and assess them. On July 14 Congress passed an additional act, entitled "An Act to lay and collect a direct tax within the United States," fixing the amount to be raised at $2,000,000, of which $237,177.72 was the portion allotted to Pennsylvania. The rates of assessments to be made under this act were as follows: Where the dwelling and out- houses, on a lot not exceeding two acres, were valued at more than $100 and not exceeding $500, there was to be assessed a sum equal to two- tenths of one per cent. on the valuation. As the houses and lands increased in value the rates were increased in proportion, so that a house, worth $30,000, would pay a tax equal to one per cent. of its value. By this means rich and poor alike con- tributed their share of the burden according to their ability to pay. Upon each slave there was assessed a tax of 50 cents. The fourth section of the act provided for the appointment of collec- tors, and the duties were to be discharged under instructions from the secretary of the treasury.

Upon the announcement of the passage of these acts of Congress, and their publication, discontent began to manifest itself. They were denounced as unconstitutional, unjust and oppressive, and the government charged with acting in a tyranni- cal manner. The odium already resting on Mr. Adam's administration was increased, and new enemies made on all sides. Politicians, who seized upon it to bring the administration into disre- pute, were governed by selfish purposes, but we must credit the masses with honest motives. Fol- lowing so soon, after the passage of the Alien and

*Acknowledgments due the late Gen. W. W. H. Davis, author of "The Fries Rebellion." 1899.

166

167

THE FRIES REBELLION.

Sedition Laws, gave the House Tax Law greater unpopularity than it really merited, or would have received at any other time. The feeling of the country was very much aroused before its passage, and this added fuel to the flame.

The law was violently denounced in Pennsyl- vania as soon as its provisions were known. At first opposition took the form of noisy declama- tion, and the application of harsh epithets to the President and his cabinet, and was mainly con- fined to the counties of Bucks, Montgomery, Northampton and Berks in the eastern part of the state. From passive resistance the opposi- tion gradually assumed the shape of overt acts. In a few instances, and before any matured plan had been agreed upon, the officers were prevented by threats from making the assessments, and, in others, were hooted at and ridiculed. So odious did it make the administration in Bucks and Northampton, that these counties positively re- fused to furnish their quota, under a law recently passed, for increasing the military force of the country, and not a man was furnished by them. The opposition had assumed such alarming char- acter by the winter and spring of 1799 the Pres- ident deemed it his duty to send a large body of troops into these counties to quell the disturbance and enforce the law. In order to give our readers an intelligent and accurate account of this out- break, it will be necessary to take up the thread of events from the passage of the acts of Congress that led to it.

Immediately on the passage of the law, the sec- retary of the treasury took the proper steps to carry it out. The act of July 9 divided Penn- sylvania into nine districts, the third being com- posed of the counties of Bucks and Montgomery, and the fifth of Northampton, Luzerne and Wayne, with the following named commissioners :

Ist District, Israel Wheeler,

2nd District, Paul Zantzenger,

3rd District, Seth Chapman,

4th District, Collinson Reed,

5th District, Jacob Eyerly,

6th District, Michael Schmyser,

7th District, Thomas Grant, Jr.,

8th District, Samuel Davidson,

9th District, Isaac Jenkinson.

Jacob Eyerley, commissioner for the fifth district, and a resident of Northampton, was commission- ed sometime in the month of August and took the oath of office. Almost as soon as qualified, he was requested, by the secretary of the treasury. to find suitable persons to serve as assessors in his division. He had no trouble as far as the coun- ties of Luzerne and Wayne were concerned, but, in Northampton, only two persons were named in connection with the appointment. There ap-

peared to be a general indisposition among the people to accept office under the law.

The fourth section of the act of July 9 required the commissioners, as soon as possible after their appointment, to meet and make provision for carrying out the act. The board assembled at Reading, Berks county, October 22, nearly all the members present. Each commissioner pre- sented a plan of his division and divided it into a suitable number of assessment districts. They also furnished a list of persons for assessors, which was forwarded to the secretary of the treasury who was authorized to reduce the number. A form of warrant was agreed upon and signed by the commissioners. The assessors were ordered to meet at an early day, when the commissioners would qualify and give them the necessary in- structions.

Bucks county was divided into two collection districts, one composed of the twelve upper town- ships, for which were appointed one principal and five assistants; James Chapman, Richland, being the principal, and John Rodrock, Plumstead ; Everhard Foulke, Richland; Cephas Childs, Samuel Clark, Milford; and one other assistant. Childs took the oath of office November 5, and no doubt the others were qualified about the same time. The assessors met at Rodrock's the latter part of December, after being qualified. Here the last preliminaries were arranged prior to making the attempt to carry the law into effect. Each assessor was given charge of two townships, and allowed a choice of the ones he would assess.

When it became known the assessments were actually to be made and the tax collected under the "odious" law, the hostility of the people, which had somewhat abated since its passage, broke out anew in some localities. The excite- ment soon reached fever heat. The tax became the general subject of conversation throughout the country, and was discussed in the taverns, stores, at all public gatherings, and at every point where two or more persons came together. As is always the case in times of high excitement, the authors of the law were denounced in un- measured terms, and both its object and provisions misrepresented. The most extravagant stories were put in circulation as to the intention of the government, and such a state of fear had seized upon the minds of the middle and lower classes, people were really alarmed for their personal safety. Many considered Mr. Adams a despot, and the act was viewed as the most oppressive that had ever disgraced a statute book. In this con- dition of things it is not in the least strange that a determination to resist the law should manifest itself. The opposition appears to have been more general in Milford township, in Bucks, and in

168

HISTORY OF LEHIGH COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA.

some of the border townships of Northampton county, where the inhabitants early made open demonstration to resist the assessors. In Milford the officers were wholly unable to comply with the law, and there the houses remained unassessed for some time after the assessment had been made in other parts of the district. The most active man in stirring up opposition to the Federal authorities, and who, in fact, was the head and front of all the disturbance, was John Fries, of Milford, who had the countenance and support of many of his neighbors and friends, of whom John Getman and Frederick Heaney, after himself, were the boldest and most active participants in the rebellion.

It would be an easy matter, were we disposed to indulge in romance and present fictitious char- acters to the reader, to convert the leaders in this disturbance into heroes and clothe them with im- aginary qualities ; but as we profess to deal only with facts, and intend to write a correct account of the outbreak, 1798-99, such license is forbidden. Fries, Heaney and Getman were plain, honest Germans only, and it is extending ordinary chari- ty to suppose them to have been governed by sin- cere motives in the course they took.

John Fries, the leading spirit of the insurrection who came of parentage in the lower walks of life, was born in Hatfield, Montgomery county, about 1750. At 20 he was married to Margaret Brunner, daughter of David Brunner, of White Marsh, near Mather's Mill. John was brought up to work, and, when old enough was appren- ticed to the coopering trade, which he learned. At twenty-five himself and wife, and their two chil- dren, removed to Bucks county settling in Mil- ford township. We are not informed as to the exact locality, but were told by his son Daniel that Joseph Galloway gave him permission to build a house on his land at Boggy Creek, and occupy it as long as he wished, which offer he ac- cepted. We have no means of knowing what length of time Fries lived there, nor when he changed his residence, but, at the time of the out- break, we find him living in a small log house near the Sumneytown road, two miles from Charlestown, "on a lot that belonged to William Edwards, father of Caleb Edwards, deceased, of Quakertown." He probably did not follow the coopering business long, if at all, after his re- moval into Bucks county, for the earliest infor- mation we have of him shows he was then per- suing the calling of a vendue cryer, which he followed to the day of his death, and for which he seemed to have been especially adapted. This occupation led him to travel all over his own, and neighboring townships, affording him an oppor- tunity of becoming well acquainted with the

country and the people. He had ten children : Solomon, John, Daniel, a second John, and a fifth which died in infancy before it had been named; Mary, Elizabeth, Sarah, Catharine and Margaret. Of these ten children Solomon and Daniel were the last to die, both aged men, who had already reached more than man's allotted years. Daniel, the younger of the two, was born at "Boggy Creek," May, 1782.

When the contest between Great Britain and her American Colonies came on, 1776, John Fries espoused the cause of his country, and became an active patriot. He was already enrolled in the militia and had command of a company. We are not able to say at what period he was called into service, but we know he was on active duty 1777, for, in the fall of that year, his company being of the militia was called out from Bucks county to re-enforce the Continental Army, and was with Washington at White Marsh and Camp Hill. In the spring of the following year he commanded a company in the action at Crooked Billet, under General John Lacey, and shared the dangers and defeat of the day. Nearly twenty years later, we find him in command of a com- pany of militia, from Bucks county, in the Whis- key Insurrection. In these military positions it is to be presumed he served his country faithfully.

At the period of which we write, Fries was about fifty years of age. In person rather small in stature and spare, but active, hardy and well made. He was without education, except being able to read and write, with a knowledge of the rudiments of arithmetic. Nature had endowed him with good natural abilities, and he possessed a shrewd and intelligent mind. He was an easy and fluent talker, and somewhat noted for his humor and cunning; was possessed of good hard sense, and, had his mind been properly cultivated, would doubtless have been a man of mark. Per- sonally he was brave and resolute, and unknown to fear. He is said to have possessed a species of rude eloquence which was very engaging, and gave him great control over the multitude. He was a sworn enemy to all kinds of oppression, fancied or real, and was esteemed a quiet and in- offensive man until this outbreak aroused the latent fires within him, made him notorious and his name a terror to the administration of Mr. Adams. He had brown hair, quick and steady black eyes, of which an old neighbor, and one who formerly knew him well, told us "were as keen as the eyes of a rabbit." He had a pleasant dis- position, was well liked by all, and, with many, quite a favorite. His character for honesty was above suspicion, and he was considered a sober man, though he occasionally indulged in strong drink. These personal and other qualities gave

169

THE FRIES REBELLION.

him, to a considerable degree, the confidence of the community in which he lived, and enabled him to exercise a controlling influence over his neighbors and friends.

In following his occupation of vendue cryer he generally traversed the county on horseback, and, in all his wanderings, was accompanied by a small black dog named "Whiskey," to which he was greatly attached. When he entered a house it was his habit to call for "Whiskey," when the faithful little animal would come and take a seat by his side and remain until his master got up to go away. Master and dog were inseparable companions, and aged persons who knew Fries stated to us that his approach was often heralded some time before he came in sight by the appear- ance of "Whiskey" trotting along in advance. The favorite little dog, as will be seen, before we conclude, was the means of the betrayal of his master into the hands of his enemies.

Next to John Fries, Frederick Heaney and John Getman were the most active instigators of the dis- turbance. They were both residents of Milford township at the time, the former living two miles from Charlestown, the latter within half a mile of Fries' house; they were tailors by trade, and in an humble condition in life. Of their history we have been able to learn but little. Heaney was born at what is now "Stover's Mill," Rock- hill township, but we do not know at what period he changed his residence to Milford. At one time he kept the tavern at Hagersville, of which Christian Hager was landlord forty years ago, but we have not been able to learn the date of his residence at this place. After his pardon by Mr. Adams, Heaney returned to his home, Mil- ford township, whence he removed to Plainfield, Northampton county, where he died. He gained there not only a respectable, but a somewhat in- fluential standing in the community. He was ap- pointed justice of the peace, and also commanded a volunteer company, which his grandson, George Heaney, commanded, 1860. After his death, which did not take place until he had reached a green old age, his widow was twice married, and died in Plainfield, 1855, at the age of eighty-nine years. He had three sons, Charles, Samuel and Enoch, and one daughter, Elizabeth. It is re- lated by his descendants that while the troops were in pursuit of him, a party of soldiers came to his house one night, when his wife was alone, except her little daughter, Elizabeth. They heard of threats against his life, and, hearing them com- ing, she jumped out of bed and put a spike over the door to prevent them getting in, and, leaving her child in the house, ran out of the back door and across the fields to alarm a neighbor. When she returned with help the soldiers were gone.

This child was Mrs. Edmonds, living, 1860, in Bushkill township, Northampton county, whose son, Jacob B. Edmonds, resided in Quakertown.

Getman is supposed to have been born in Rock- hill township, also, but we have not been able to learn anything of his history. His brother George died near Sellersville, Bucks county, March 4, 1855, at the advanced age of 92 years, 2 months and 10 days, respected by all his friends and neighbors. He, likewise, was arrested during the trouble; was tried and convicted but received a much lighter sentence than his brother John, being fined one hundred dollars and sentenced to undergo an imprisonment of 6 months. Heaney was the owner of a small house and lot. These two men were the advisers and confederates of John Fries, Getman being the most in his confi- dence. They lacked the intelligence and shrewd- ness of their leader, but were active in the cause and rendered him important service. Such were the head and front of the "Fries Rebellion."

John Fries was probably the first to array him- self against the law, immediately upon its passage and promulgation. His own intense hostility begat the desire with him in feeling, and he labor- ed with great zeal to this end. When going about the county crying vendues he was careful to sound the people as to how they stood upon the subject of the new tax, and was never backward in ex- pressing his own opinion. From a warm sup- porter of Mr. Adams and his administration, he suddenly became of unmeasured denunciation. He reasoned with, persuaded, and threatened all and seemed to make it his business to create enemies to the act. He was thus active during the fall months of 1798, and, by the end of the year, had raised a fierce opposition to the law and those who were to carry it into execution. He was particularly hostile to the house-tax, and declared openly that no assessments should be made in Milford township, nor tax collected if he could prevent it. We were informed by his son Daniel, then about eighteen, who had a dis- tinct recollection of the events transpiring, that several private meetings were held at his father's house before any public demonstration was made. His friends and neighbors met there to talk about the law and determine, in a quiet manner, what was best to be done. At these conferences Fries always took the lead, and his stronger mind as- sisted to mould the opinion of others.

The time had now arrived when some more active measures must be taken and opinion changed to deeds. The period approached when the as- sessors were to commence their duties, and some public demonstration was necessary to prevent them carrying the law into effect. With this ob- ject in view, about the first of February, 1799:

170

HISTORY OF LEHIGH COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA.

notices, without any names signed to them, were put up at various places in the township, calling a public meeting for Friday, the eighth, at the public house of John Klein, on the road leading to Gary's tavern, two miles southwest from Charlestown. On the day appointed, a number of persons assembled at the place of meeting late in the afternoon. The two most active and noisy men present were John Fries and George Mitchell, who then kept the public house more recently oc- cupied by Eli Zeigler, at the west end of Charles- town. This tavern was one of the places where the malcontents of the neighborhood assembled at evenings to talk over their grievances. Few, if any, at the meeting appeared to have had a very definite idea of what should be done; they dis- liked the house-tax and were opposed to paying it themselves, or permitting others to do so; but, beyond this, there was no plan of opposition, at this time. The law was discussed and its authors denounced in violent terms.

Some expressed a doubt whether the bill had yet become a law. The newspapers of the day mentioned that an amendment had lately passed Congress, which seemed to confuse the under- standing of the people, and rendered them unde- cided as to whether the law was actually in force. After the matter had been sufficiently considered and the sense of the meeting fully explained, Fries, with the assistance of the publican, Mitchell, drew up a paper that was approved and signed by about fifty of those present. What the exact import of this paper was has never been deter- mined, as neither the original nor a copy fell into the hands of the authorities. It is supposed, how- ever, to have contained merely a statement of the views of the signers upon the subject of the tax, and their determination to oppose the execution of the law. Before adjournment, however, a reso- lution was passed requesting the assessor not to come into the township to make assessment, until the people were better informed whether the law was really in force ; and one Captain Kuyder ap- pointed to serve a copy of the resolution upon them. Having transacted the business which brought them together, the people quietly dis- persed and returned to their homes. The meet- ing was conducted in the most orderly and peace- able manner, and there was no appearance of dis- turbance on the part of anyone.

Our readers will bear in mind, that Mr. Chap- man, commissioner for the counties of Bucks and Montgomery, met the assessors of the former county at the public house of Mr. Rodrock, the latter end of December, to deliver to them their instructions how to proceed in the assessments. Immediately after this meeting, these officers commenced the assessment in the respective town-

ships assigned them. They proceeded without any trouble, or appearance of opposition, in all the townships but Milford, and even there the people, notwithstanding the late agitation and ex- citement against the law, quietly acquiesced in its execution. It is true they did not like it, and would rather have avoided paying the tax, but they had abandoned all intention of resisting the law. Childs and Clark had both been appointed for Milford, and, before separating, fixed upon a day when they would begin in that township. Childs had also one or two other townships as- signed him, and, it was arranged between them, they should assist each other two days at a time, alternately. As Childs had already made some assessments in his own district, he agreed to help Clark whenever he should be ready to begin the work. Before the meeting adjourned at Rod- rock's, the principal assessor named an early day to meet again, and make return of what they had done. Mr. Childs went to assist Clark accord- ing to agreement, but, when he reached his house, finding the latter was not able to go on with the assessments, he returned to finish up his own dis- trict. In Milford the excitement was still running high; and as threats of serious injury had been made against the assessors, who were forbidden to enter the township, they declined to attempt it.

Fries and his friends had inflamed the minds of the people to such degree, that in some parts of the township they were almost in a condition to take up arms. The assessors met at Rodrock's, to make returns, on February 6, but as they did not complete their business that day they ad- journed to meet on the 16th.

In the unsettled condition of things in Mil- ford, the principal assessor, James Chapman, de- termined to take some steps to satisfy the people of the township in relation to the tax. For this purpose he thought it advisable to have a public meeting called at some convenient place, where he would explain the law, but not trusting alto- gether to his own judgment in the matter, he went to George Mitchell's on Monday, February II, and consulted him. The latter agreeing with the principal assessor, he was requested to lend his assistance in getting up the meeting and as- sented. Word was sent to Jacob Hoover, who owned and lived at a mill on Swamp creek, on the road leading from Trumbauersville to Spin- nerstown, about one mile west of the former place, and the same later occupied by Jonas Graber, to give notice of the meeting to the peo- ple of his neighborhood ; and also to inform them they would be permitted to select their own as- sessor, and that any capable man whom they might name would be qualified. The offer, however, did not meet with much favor in that section of

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.

History of Lehigh county, Pennsylvania and a genealogical and biographical record of its families, Vol. I, Part 31

Author: Roberts, Charles Rhoads; Stoudt, John Baer, 1878- joint comp; Krick, Thomas H., 1868- joint comp; Dietrich, William Joseph, 1875- joint comp; Lehigh County Historical Society Publication date: 1914 Publisher: Allentown, Pa. : Lehigh Valley Publishing Co. Number of Pages: 1158

Author: Roberts, Charles Rhoads; Stoudt, John Baer, 1878- joint comp; Krick, Thomas H., 1868- joint comp; Dietrich, William Joseph, 1875- joint comp; Lehigh County Historical Society
Publication date: 1914
Publisher: Allentown, Pa. : Lehigh Valley Publishing Co.
Number of Pages: 1158