History of Washington County, Pennsylvania : with biographical sketches of many of its pioneers and prominent men, Part 60

Author: Crumrine, Boyd, 1838-1916; Ellis, Franklin, 1828-1885; Hungerford, Austin N
Publication date: 1882
Publisher: Philadelphia : H.L. Everts & Co.
Number of Pages: 1216

USA > Pennsylvania > Washington County > History of Washington County, Pennsylvania : with biographical sketches of many of its pioneers and prominent men > Part 60

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).

The reader will recollect the pompous petition to the Continental Congress for the erection of a new government, copied in our " Boundary Controversy," the date of which is now well fixed as in the summer of 1776.1 The proposed government was to be called Westsylvania, and its boundaries were: "Beginning at the Eastern Bank of the Ohio, opposite the mouth of the Scioto, & running thence in a direct Line to the Owasito Pass, thence to the top of the Allegheny Mountains, thence with the Top of the said Mountains to the Northern Limits of the Purchase made from the Indians in 1768, at the Treaty of Fort Stanwix, thence with the said Limits to the Allegheney or Ohio River, and thence down the said River as purchased

from the said Indians at the said Treaty of Fort Stanwix to the Beginning." He will also remember how that soon afterwards a disloyal combination was discovered, trials for treasonable offenses were had, and the ringleader of the conspiracy, whoever he was, was put out of the way. This in 1777-78. The same condition of disaffection was developed again in 1780, and the scheme for the establishment of a new State resuscitated.

The writer can see no possible connection between the new State project, as developed either in 1776 or in 1780, with the " proposed nevy government" talked of in Dunmore's time, called the Walpole Grant, or " Vandalia ;"2 nor has he seen any evidence whatever, that the desire to set up an independent State estab- lishment was in any way induced by the Pennsylvania enactment to abolish slavery ;3 an industrious reading has brought up no documentary proof of such fact nor contemporaneous complaints on that score ; indeed, the time when the new State was first petitioned for, to wit, 1776, four years before the Abolition act was passed, would seem to relieve the subject from any doubt in that respect.

The Indiana Company, or grant, might have had some connection with the origin of the new State project.^ That company was pressing for a recogni- tion of its claims before the Virginia Assembly in

" See Mr. Veech, Centenary Memorial, 347. " Mason and Dixon's Line," 56.

3 Mr. Veech, Centenary Memorial, 340.

+ As there seems to be great misunderstanding relative to the Indiana Company, and where its grant lay, a brief notice of it is proper, though its lands lay beyond the Pennsylvania boundary. If, however, the boundary line between Pennsylvania and Virginia had been established near Pittsburgh, east or west, that grant would have included the lauds now in Washington County.

In 1763, during the French and Indian war, William Trent, with about twenty other Indian traders, among whom was George Morgan, then of the firm of Wharton, Baynton & Morgan, sustained losses by the depredations of the Shawanese, Delaware, and Huron tribes, aggre- gating a very large amount. At the treaty of Fort Stanwix, on Nov. 3, 1768, the Six Nations, as the head of the tribes, were held responsible for these losses, the aggregate amount ascertained at £85,916 10g. 8d, New York currency, and through the influence of Sir William Johnson, the Indian agent, the Six Nations, as a compensation for them, executed and delivered to " His Majesty," etc., for the use of William Trent, in trust for himself and the other sufferers, a deed for " all that tract or parcel of land beginning at the southerly side of the little Kanhaway Creek, where it empties itself into the river Ohio, and running thence southeast to the Laurel Hill; thence along the Laurel Hill until it strikes the river Monongahela; thence down the stream of the said river according to the several courses thereof to the southern boundary line of the province of Pennsylvania; thence westwardly along the course of the said province boundary line as far as the same shall extend; thence by the same course to the river Ohio; and thence down the river to the place of beginning, inclusively." It is seen that this grant does not, as many have written, embrace the present State of Indiana. The Indiana Company, for so the traders organized, failed during colonial times to acquire the royal confirmation of their claim under their deed, and in 1776 endeavored to obtain a recognition of their grant by the Virginia government, but again failed ; in 1782, however, a committee of Con- gress reported favorably, but Congress itself declined the power to recog- nize. As late as 1791 the company was vainly attempting to obtain a rehearing before the General Court of Virginia, and an effort was also fruitlessly made by a bill in equity in the Supreme Court of the United States. Thus this immense grant, containing millions of acres, amounted to nothing.

1 See ante, p. 187.

232

HISTORY OF WASHINGTON COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA.

October, 1776, and in 1781-82 was making a like fruitless endeavor before the Continental Congress. And as the lands claimed all lay within the bounda- ries of the new State, it may have been that among the promoters of the project under consideration were, some of them, members of the Indiana Company.

Believing, then, that neither the old " new govern- ment" scheme mentioned nor the abolition of slavery in Pennsylvania had much if anything at all to do with the new State project of 1780, which created so much alarm east of the mountains, it is thought that a sufficient cause for the agitation is found in the peculiar condition of affairs in Southwestern Pennsyl- vania at that time.

There was, first, the unrest natural to the pioneers of any new country, leading them, after having en- What wonder then that Col. Daniel Brodhead, in command of Fort Pitt, should write, Sept. 23, 1780, as quoted by Mr. Veech :2 "The emigrations from this new country to Kentucky are incred- 1780. ible, and this has given opportunity to disaf- dured the dangers and hardships of the wilderness, to seek like trials and excitements farther away in the backwoods. This, perhaps, carried off the early em- igration from these parts into Kentucky and Ten- nessee. Then again, with those who remained, the | fected people from the interior to purchase and settle long-extended range of mountains to the eastward formed a barrier which not only shut them out from the seaboard markets but also weakened the protective power of the State government ( for of national power there was none), and the people felt that, unaided and unprotected in the past, in the future their com- mon weal was dependent upon their own autonomy. What one of them ever imagined that the future would provide the force which would break down that mountain barrier ?1 But looking westward and

1 " The two great emigrant and pack-horse routes up to 1800," says Mr. Veech, " Monongahela of Old," 37, " were the Pennsylvania [ Pittsburgh, via Hanna's Town, Ligonier, Bedford] and the Virginia [Braddock's] roads heretofore noticed. 'The writer has seen as many as thirty pack- horses in a caravan, pass through Uniontown in a day,-an occurrence so frequent as not to attract unusual notice. ... They were freighted with salt, sugar-kettles, bar iron, nail rods, glass, kegs of rum, powder, lead, &c. &c. A good horse carrried from two hundred to three hun- dred pounds besides provisions and feed. These they would take up along the way at places they had dropped them in going down; having no other heavy down loading, merely peltry, ginseng, feath- ers, &c. The provisions consisted generally. of pone, cheese and dried venison. A bear skin to each horse was an indispensable accompani- ment for a bed to the drivers and to protect the cargo from rain. Each horse had his bell, silent by day, but let loose at night when browsing. Two meu generally managed ten or twelve horses, one be- fore and one behind each train, to guide them among the trees, and pro- tect the loading from side contact. Strength was also needful to load and unload daily. Emigrants would have their little all slung across one, two, or more horses, according to their abundance, surmounted by their wives and children, or the old folk, with the little bag, or stocking of guineas, joes, or pistareens, snugly ensconced in the salt or clothes bag, after the manner of Joseph's brethren on their trip to Egypt for corn. In 1784 the freight on goods from Philadelphia to Uniontown, was Five Dollars per one hundred pounds. In 1789, thirty shillings, (Four Dolllars,) from Carlisle,-the beginning of the pack-horse transporta- tion. . .. This state of things made goods, even the necessaries of life, very high. The best of alum salt rated here at from 84 to $5 per bushel, of ninety six pounds; ground alum salt, at from $3 to $3.50; coffee 33 cents per pound ; sugar, 25 cents ; Jamaica spirits, $2.33 per gallon. In 1784, wheat sold for 67 cents per bushel ; corn, 22 cents ; rye, 50 cents. But flour at Natches, if you could get it there, was worth $25 per barrel ! A good two horse wagon and gears could be bought for two pack-horse loads of salt, or a good tract of land of four hundred acres for a rifle gun and a horn of powder."

southward they saw the broad waters of a magnificent natural outway, inexpensive and with an unlimited capacity, and at the farther terminus twenty-five dol- lars per barrel for their flour. And across the Ohio lay a boundless acreage, much of it ready for the plow ; and down the southern bank of the beautiful river a garden-spot, an El Dorado. And remember, too, that the people were already taught the principles of lib- erty and self-government, and, further, that the then union of the States, being but a confederacy, wielded no power and could command no allegiance. Beside all, there was the unsettled state of affairs arising out of the "unrun" boundary, the source of many woes for so many years. Anarchy and confusion was in- deed the rule, order and stability the exception.

their lands," and that he should write also, on Dec. 7, 1780, to Richard Peters,3 " I learn more and more of the disaffection of many of the inhabitants on this side the mountains. The King of Great Britain's health is often drunk in companies, and I believe those wish to see the regular troops removed from this department, and a favorable opportunity to sub- mit to British government!" But of this state of public sentiment it has been wisely said,4 "This opinion was based not solely upon the disaffection of the people, but also upon the weakness of the govern- ments, State and national. There was a deeply seated, sulky disappointment at having been aban- doned by Virginia and Pennsylvania, which readily soured into aversion to both and to the United States, who they thought had failed to afford them due pro- tection against the savage foes in their rear."

The new State project broke out afresh early in 1780, and, as will be inferred as the history of its re- suscitation is unfolded, was supported chiefly by the Virginia adherents, discontented probably by the late adjustment of the boundary by the Baltimore agree- ment then before the Virginia Assembly for ratifica- tion. On May 31, 1780, Alexander McClean wrote from Redstone to Thomas Scott,5 then the member of 1 the Supreme Executive Council for Westmoreland County :

" Mr. Adams was with me the other day, who seems greatly concerned about the progress of the new state ; he informs me that a number of the persons over the River [i.e., in the present Washington county] who had signed the Petitions in your hands have been prevailed upon to vote for a new State, and he informs me that there is to be a meeting at Colo. Cooks 6 the 25th if I mistake not of June in order to take the Sense of the people largely. Woe unto the Virginia lawyers, for they have (I

2 Centenary Memorial, 340.

: II. Olden Time, 378.

4 Mr. Veech, Centenary Memorial, 340.

6 VIII. Penna. Archives, 280.

6 Edward Cook's, east of the Monongahela.

233

CIVIL AND LEGAL-THE NEW STATE PROJECT.

believe) taken away the key of knowledge and are never likely to re- turn again themselves. They have so blinded the Western world that they will not see, they have become so obstinate that nothing less than a new State can come under Consideration. I hope they will at last consider it properly. Mr. Adams was to have wrote largely, but this op- portunity could not be made to suit us both. . . . We have had a very dry season so far ; the worms have been very destructive to flax &c., but I think this morning will find them other employ, Viz, swimming."

What was done at the proposed meeting, and what further transactions there were relating to the new State during the subsequent part of 1780, there is no definite information; but it was during this period that the letters of Col. Brodhead, referring to the emigration to "Kentucke" and the disaffection of the inhabitants, heretofore quoted, were written. And it was at this time that the Continental Congress was endeavoring to have the seaboard States,-Virginia, New York, Massachusetts, and Connecticut,-all hav- ing claims westward towards the "South Sea," to cede their claims to the United States, and that on Oct. 10, 1780, Congress made an earnest appeal to that end, accompanied with an assurance that out of the Territories so ceded should be formed new States, not less than one hundred nor more than one hundred and fifty miles square.1 It was at this time, too, that a pamphlet was written by the celebrated Thomas Paine, having the following title: "Public Good, being an Examination into the Claim of Virginia, to the Vacant Western Territory, and of the Right of the United States to the same; to which are added Proposals for Laying off a New State, to be applied as a Fund for Carrying on the War, or Redeeming the National Debt; written in the year 1780." It was not, therefore, an altogether unauspicious time to discuss the propriety, on the part of the Monongahela and Ohio valleys, of remaining in Pennsylvania or of joining in the new project. Even Thomas 1781. Scott was not astounded at the idea of the new State, for on Jan. 24, 1781, he wrote to President Reed,2 referring to the measures pending in Congress of the nature stated, and propounding certain interrogatories :

"Ist. Dors Congress expect any land off Pennsylvania? 2d. Do they mean by the promised reimbursements to pay a just proportion of the But due the proprietary family as well as other expence ? 3d. Will the State come into the measure? 4th. Will Pennsylvania let all the settle- ments ou the Western waters [i.e., on Monongahela and Ohio] go with or be part of what they will relinquish ? If the two first are in the affirmative, and the whole Plan calculated, as it appears to be, to bring the States into a firmer boud of union than they at present are, I can Intertuin but Littell doubt of the third. And if the fourth is in the affirmative also, I believe it will meet but very few objections on this side the mountains; but should the unsettled part of Pennsylvania's claim be relinquished,3 and the settlements Retained, the people would certainly think themselves Intolerably agrieved. Give up all and let us take our chance, or keep all mind let us grow to be a considerable part of you, is the cry of many. Others say let us by mere dint of opposition force those States [Pennsylvania and Virginia] to relinquish us to Congress (on the present recommendation). w huse procrastinated quarrel about our Coun- try hath hung us, our wives, Children and Living, up an easy pray to the savages these su many years, the settlement whereof hath in so many in-

1 For greater detail see Mr. Veech, Centenary Memorial, 347-49. 2 VIII. Penn. Archives, 713.

3 That is, the parts north and west of the Allegheny River.

stances been totally neglected, and at best considered on a mere by band- ness; which will at oue stroke reconcile all our Territorial differences, and Ineble us to exert our united strength against our common enemy. . . This is the present situation of this country, all in confusion and distraction, helpless for want of Government, and exposed to the Dayly Inrodes of the savage tribes." 4

The whole of this letter is worthy of being read by him who would have full knowledge of the " destrac- tions" of the times. The letter of Col. James Mar- shel to President Reed, of June 27, 1781,5 has already been quoted, wherein the colonel expressed his fear of "Involving the good Subjects of this State in Civil War with Col. Penticost's Banditti and a new Govern- ment party that Exists here, and of Exposing our frontier Settlements to the greatest danger from the Indians." In November, 1781, Brig .- Gen. William Irvine became the commandant at Fort Pitt. He seemed to understand the people and to know how to deal with them much better than did his predecessor, Col. Brodhead. On Dec. 3, 1781, he wrote to William Moore, then president of the Supreme Executive Council : 6

" . . . This misfortune [the fate of Colonel Lochry's command], added to the failure of General Clarke's expedition, has filled the people with great dismay. Many talk of retiring to the east side of the ununlains early in the spring. Indeed, there is great reason to apprehend that the savages and perhaps the British from Detroit will push us bard in the spring ; and I believe there never were posts, nor a country, in a worse state of defense; uotwithstanding, I am well informed thero have been sundry meetings of people at different places, for the purpose of concerting plans to emigrate into the Indian country, there to esta' lish a government for themselves. . . . From what observations I have been able to make, I am of opinion there are many obvious reasons that no time should be lost in running the line between Virginia and Pennsyl- vania. Civil government will never be fairly established till then, nor even the militia drawn out with regularity for their own defense. I have no reason as yet to complain of the people for the refractory, un- governable, loose manners generally ascribed to them. I assure you, sir, my pity for their situation is rather excited thau wrath or indigna- tion kindled. . . . "

President Moore recommended a method of divert- ing the people from their new State emigration by employing them in an invasion of the Indian country.7 On April 20, 1782, Gen. Irvine again writes from Fort Pitt,8 this time to Gen. Washington :

" ... Civil authority is by no means properly established in this country, which I doubt not proceeds in some degree from inattention in the executives of Virginia and Pennsylvania. Not running the bound- ary line is, I think, a proof of this, which is at present an ex-

cuse fur neglects of duty of all kinds for at least twenty 1782. miles on each side of the line. More evils will arise from this

neglect than people are aware of. Emigrations and new States are much talked of. Advertisements are set up announcing a day to assemble at Wheeling for all who wish to become members of a new State on the Muskingum. A certain Mr. Johnson is at the head of this party ; he is ambitious, and some say disaffected. . .. Should these people actually emigrate they must be either entirely cut off or immediately take pro- tection from the British, which I fear is the real design of some of the

4 The foregoing letter, only part of which is quoted, is one of the best summaries of the causes for the encouragement given to the new State project, and there is not a word about the abolition of slavery as one of them.

6 IX. Penn. Archives, 233.

6 Washington-Irvine Correspondence, 229.

7 Ibid., 233. Which, by the way, was done, leading to Williamson's and Crawford's unfortunate expeditions.

8 Ibid., 109.

234

HISTORY OF WASHINGTON COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA.

party, though I think a great majority have no other views than to ac- quire lands.11

There is now given an affidavit relating to the part taken by an old acquaintance, Dorsey Pentecost,2 in the new State project, he at that time being a mem- ber of the Supreme Executive Council of Pennsyl- vania for Washington County :

" WASHINGTON COUNTY, SS,

" Personally appeared before me, the subscriber, one of the Common- wealth's Justices of the Peace for said County, Hugh M. Brackenridge, Esqr., being summoned to give evidence with regard to the conduct of Dorsey Pentecoast, Esqr., in exciting and fomenting the present disturb- ances in the County of Washington ; saith that he heard Mr. Pentecrast on his return from Council declare that the line, meaning that with Virginia and this Commonwealth, would never be run, and that this Country never would be Pennsylvania or Virginia, but a new State. At the time that meetings were frequently held in the County where matters of a seditious nature were proposed, anonymous notes in writ- ing were circulated thro' the County, advertising a meeting under the pretence for consulting measures for the preservation of the County, which notes were in Mr. Pentecoast's handwriting.

"On oath before me this 4th day of July, 1782. " JOHN DOUGLASS."

To show that the new State advocates were not con- fined to Washington County, or to the vicinity of Pittsburgh, to which that county then extended, there is a letter from Christopher Hayes, of Westmoreland County, to President Moore, dated "September ye 20th, 1782 :" 3

" After my best Compliments to you I enform your Excellency that the Commission for the Courts of Oyer and Terminer is Come to hand, and also Mr. McClean's Instructions for the Running of the Pennsyl- vania line, which is now sevarlly Threatened by those who Opposed it before, and our Lives Much Threatened by those who formerly held to the Government of Virginia and now to a New State. . . . As our Asses- sors was taking their Returns According to Law, the Opposers Assem- bled under arms, Drove them off From their Deauty, Fired Guns at them, and say they will not pay any Taxes nor be Obedient to our Laws, being they never took the oath of Fidelity to this State, But means to support a New State."

In a letter dated Washington County, Nov. 6, 1782,4 directed to President Moore, Col. Pentecost, in his own peculiar way, and with a " Degree of warmth in Some Expressions," replies to the charges made against him in the affidavit before quoted, professing, how- ever, a want of information as to their real nature, but dealing in truly vigorous language. A portion of his letter is as follows :

". . . The gentleman tells me that if he understood Mr. Bracken- ridge right, some depositions has reached the State House the Subject of which He could not perfectly collect as Mr. Brackenridge dealt in that amiable Doctrine of Enuendves, and his Invictives was rather in the Generals; However they ware (or ware made) so Consequential as to be referred to a Committee, who called on Mr. Brackenridge for Informa- tion on the subject. That truly wise and good man (no doubt with the Sanctity of a Divine) told them that the Charges were true, but the Com- mittee with some members of your Board Concluded that I was a Char- acter too Insignificant for their notice. . ..

1 See letter from same to President Moore, May 9, 1782, Wash. and Irv. Cor., 244.

2 IX. Penn. Archives, 572.

8 Ibid., 637. A special commission had been sent July 24th to Chris- topher Hayes, Dorsey Pentecost, and Edward Cook to hold a Court of Oyer and Terminer.

4 IX. Peun. Archives, 661.

The result of which was, as intimated, that the government, pursuing as heretofore a policy of con- ciliation, instituted no proceedings against individ- uals.

But soon afterwards, to wit, on Dec. 3, 1782, the General Assembly passed an act5 upon the subject, a portion of which is here given :

" AN ACT to prevent the erecting any new and independent State within the Limits of this Commonwealth.

"SECT. 1. Whereas, by the Separation of the Thirteen United States from Great Britain, the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania hath become a sovereign and independent State, and, in Consequence of such Separa- tion a Government, established solely on the authority of the People, hath been formed ; and it being evident that every County hath by the Constitution, or by Laws enacted for that Purpose, an incontestible Right to send Deputies to represent them in the General Assembly, and that they have exercised that Right, they being now actually repre- sented in this House; therefore all the Inhabitants of this Common- wealth, as they are under the protection of its Laws, are bound by and do owe Allegiance thereto;

"SRCT. II. And Whereas great Exertions have been made for the De- fence of the Frontiers, and large Sums expended therein, notwithstand- ing the Embarrassments and Difficulties under which the Commonwealth bath and still doth labour in its Finances;

"SECT. III. And Whereas this Commonwealth is indebted to the late Proprietaries of Pennsylvania in a large Sum of money, payable to the End of the War, and each and every County ought to contribute its just Part or Proportion for that End, and the unlocated Lands within this State are and always have been considered a valuable Fund towards pay- ing and discharging the said Debt ; .

"SECT. IV. And, Whereas, notwithstanding the Premises, this house hath received Information that divers ill disposed Persons, setting at naught every Principle of public Virtue, and pursuing their ambitious and interested Views, have caused great Uneasiness among the good people of this State, by manifesting the most criminal Design of setting up a distinct State or Government within this Commonwealth ;

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 Washington County, Pennsylvania : with biographical sketches of many of its pioneers and prominent men, Part 60

Author: Crumrine, Boyd, 1838-1916; Ellis, Franklin, 1828-1885; Hungerford, Austin N Publication date: 1882 Publisher: Philadelphia : H.L. Everts & Co. Number of Pages: 1216

Author: Crumrine, Boyd, 1838-1916; Ellis, Franklin, 1828-1885; Hungerford, Austin N
Publication date: 1882
Publisher: Philadelphia : H.L. Everts & Co.
Number of Pages: 1216