|
1.
British
Settlement & Wars
2. Antifederalism
3. Whiskey
Rebellion
4. References
Western Pennsylvania (primarily incorporating
what is now four
counties: Allegheny,
Washington,
Westmoreland, and Fayette) was a sparsely settled frontier area
throughout the
Revolutionary years. Settlers had been living there, some
"squatting" illegally, since about the 1760s, but true settlement had
not occurred until after the Revolution in the 1780s when conflicts
with the
Indians were less frequent, having moved further west to
Ohio.
Settlement of the area peaked in the 1790s.
I became interested in the history of this region when I began
researching my Marshall
family
line. In the midst of many of the key historical events for
the region
was a man named James Marshel. Although virtually every book
regarding
early western Pennsylvania
politics and the Whiskey Rebellion mentions him, I have been unable to
discover
much about him personally or his family. His life, however,
was very
interesting, wrapped up as it is in many key historical
events. I am very
interested in learning more, in part because I believe that my Marshall
family, of Washington and Allegheny
counties, may trace their ancestry back to him or one of his
relatives.
Below is some of what I have learned about him, spliced with a large
portion of
western Pennsylvania
history.
As I currently don't have access to most of the primary sources, I have
had to
rely on secondary sources and transcriptions. These are less
than ideal, so please use any information below as a guide only
(especially if it is only referenced from one source). Unless
I am
quoting a book
or a fact found in only one location, I do not specify my
sources;
however, a reference
list is enclosed at the bottom
of the page. If you have more
information, please contact
me!
British
Settlement & Wars
The effective British settlement of western Pennsylvania
was in large part delayed by
its strategic location. Located at the juction of several
major rivers
(the Ohio,
Allegheny, Monogahela, and Youghiogheny), the region was contested at
various
points by the French, English, Indians, and Americans.
The Indian nations occupying the area in the mid to late 1700s included
the Six
Nations Iroquois (a loose confederation of the Mohawks, Oneidas,
Onondagas, Senecas, Cayugas, and Tuscaroras) along the northern border
up along
the Great Lakes mostly in what is now New York.
The Lenni Lenape (Delaware), Conestoga
(Susquehannocks), Conoys, and Shawnee were originally settled in
eastern and
middle Pennsylvania, but with the increasing British settlement were
pushed
further and further west throughout the eighteenth century, mostly
ending up
along the Ohio River, straddling the border of what is now Pennsylvania
and
Ohio, then into the southern Ohio Valley and Missouri. The
Mingo also
occupied this area. The Wyandot (Huron), Ottawa,
Potawatomis, and Miami
were settled in what is
now Ohio
and Michigan,
mostly in the Great
Lakes region.
Each
of these Indian natons had their own distinct culture and their own
claims to
certain lands. Alliances with other Indian nations, the
French, and
English shifted constantly throughout the century, according to the
best
interests and needs of the tribes. It is impossible to convey
the details
of these interactions completely in a summary, so throughout this
essay, I typically
refer to "Indians" generally if more than one nation took
part.
I use the term "Indian" instead of "Native American", as
this seems to be the preferred term among today's American Indians and
historians. Please see the reference list
for several texts
that provide
more detail on the Indian cultures, wars, and migrations.
French traders had been sparsely settled over the region for many years
prior
to the first British movements, and forts had been set up along the
Ohio River
and Great
Lakes. In
fact, the region
played a central role in the beginning of the French and Indian War. It
is the
location of George Washington's first military experience, the
surrender of Fort
Necessity to the French in
1754. The English lost another major
battle in the area in 1755, under the command of General
Edward
Braddock, who
was killed in the assault. The English were expelled and the
French
maintained control of the area until 1758, when General John Forbes
successfully drove the French from Fort
DuQuesne
and built Fort
Pitt
on
its former site (later to become Pittsburgh).
This did not bring an end to the conflict, however, as the French and
their
Indian allies continued to attack settlements in the area until the end
of the
French and Indian War with the Treaty of Paris in 1763. With
this treaty,
the French agreed to cease hostilities in the area and ceded the land
to the
British. During this time frame, much of the frontier was
abandoned by
English settlers.
Conflicts with the Indians, however, continued for many more
years. In
fact, Pontiac's
War broke out in 1763 with the departure of the French, and was an
extremely
bloody conflict. Indians had benefited from the battles
between the
French and English over the area, as they were able to play one against
the
other, decreasing the ability of either to achieve dominance in the
region and
increasing the markets for trade. With the defeat of the
French, however,
British colonization of western Pennsylvania
increased (despite a 1763 ban on British settlement, expressly designed
to
decrease regional tension with the Indians). Hostilities
between the
British settlers and Indians, especially the Lenni Lenape (Delaware),
Shawnee
and
Wyandot (Huron), continued without abatement in the vicinity for the
next
twenty years, with full-scale wars breaking out at several points
during this
time . Atrocities and massacres were common on both sides and
the region
was an extremely hazardous place to live.
Officially, Indian lands were purchased by Pennsylvania
from the Six Nations Iroquois
by treaties in 1768 and 1784. Several other treaties were
also arranged
in this time period, purchasing land from the Lenni Lenape (Delaware)
and Wyandot (Huron) nations.
However, there was not general agreement regarding who initially held
the
lands, and Shawnee
tribes in particular were incensed by the treaty. All of the
Indian
nations had been forced to repeatedly migrate from their homelands as
both the
French and English settlers encroached upon them. The first
treaty at Fort
Stanwix
(by the British) was designed to keep settlements east of the Appalachian mountains,
and was primarily unsuccessful.
In 1777, several of the chiefs of the Six Nations wrote, "To the
Virginians
and Pennsylvanians now at Venango. You have feloniously taken
possession
of a part of our country on the branches of the Ohio,
as well as the Susquehanna. To
the latter we have some time since sent you word to quit our lands, as
we now
do to you, as we don't nkow we ever gavve you liberty nor can we be
easy in our
minds when there is an armed force at our very doors; nor do we think
you or
anybody else would. Therefore, to use you with more lenity
than you havve
a right to expect, we now tell you in a peaceful manner, to quit our
lands
wherever you have possessed yourselves of them, immediately, or blame
yourselves for whatever may happen." (Hildreth, 117)
As the colonies were in the midst of the Revolutionary War with England
at the
time, national leaders tended to be as conciliatory as possible during
this
time frame, so as not to start war on the frontier as well.
British
forces, however, armed Indians in order to fight against the
Americans.
While some nations took the American side, others continued to fight
for the
British even beyond the end of the Revolutionary War.
Settlers in Pennsylvania
also
committed murders and massacres that tended to spark renewed conflict,
and
which frustrated the colonial military powers.
The second treaty with the Six Nations in 1784 (by the new American
government)
expanded the region that was claimed for American use and appears to
have
encompassed most of what is now western Pennsylvania,
as well as parts of Ohio.
Although the treaties did not cease hostilities, the combination of
those and
military action gradually pushed the conflicts further west into Ohio,
so that by the 1790s, western Pennsylvania
was a relatively safe location
for American settlement. The new American government began
selling off
western lands at this point, as well, in part to pay down the
government's
post-war debt.
Throughout the 1760s and '70s what is now western Pennsylvania
was in fact claimed by both Virginia
and Pennsylvania.
The county
of Yohogania,
Viginia was entirely in what is now Pennsylvania.
Other Virginia
counties also included lands
now within Pennsylvania
(to complicate matters
further, most of these former Virginia
counties are now in what is West
Virginia).
Settlers arrived from both states
holding titles to land, under conflicting systems. Virginia
land speculators (including George
Washington) had heavily invested in parcels of land in the area from
about the
1750s and '60s, while the region was still in conflict and such titles
were of
dubious legality. Virginia
lands were cheaper and easier to obtain. However, lands
purchased from Pennsylvania
(the land
office opened in 1769, closed during the Revolution, and reopened in
1781)
tended to be more legally secure, since they were based on the treaties
made
with the Indians. Virginia
and Pennsylvania
came to an
agreement on paper in 1781, but the official surveying and final
agreements
weren't completed until mid-decade, and disputes regarding the land
continued
even longer. In 1781, when the Pennsylvania
land office reopened after the Revolutionary War, it handled only cases
that
had begun before the war. Pennsylvania
owned the lands, but recognized at least 1200 landholders who held Virginia
deeds.
(Harper) Nonetheless, conflicts about the subject remained
for many more
years within the territory with some settlers refusing to recognize Pennsylvania's
jurisdiction.
James Marshel appears to have arrived in western Pennsylvania
in the mid-1770s, making him
among the earlier British settlers to arrive in the vicinity.
(According to
Harper, in 1784, the population of Washington
County
was just under
16,000.) The Pennsylvania Magazine of History and
Biography of
Washington County states that James Marshel "was born February 20, 1753
in Lancaster
County.
He moved to the western
country some three years before the Revolution and settled in what is
now Cross
Creek township, Washington (then Westmoreland) county" (page
252). Butterfield contradicts this, saying that
although Marshel
came to Washington
County
from Lancaster
County
(specifically Dauphin), he was
actually born in the north of Ireland.
Both documents, however, concur on the date though neither gives a
source. At this time, I can find no evidence that Marshel
served in the
Revolutionary War either for Pennsylvania
or Virginia.
If he
did, he may not have claimed a pension.
Although little to nothing can currently be said about Marshel's early
life, it
is certain that he received some form of education, as he regularly
wrote
letters in the course of his political business, many of which are
still in
existence. Marshel may even have attended college, as he was
certainly an
attorney. James Marshel is described in Hogeland as "the
wealthy
lawyer David Bradford['s]... business partner" (page 138).
Harper
notes that Marshel "just misses" inclusion in the top decile of
wealth for the town of Washington,
a category dominated by professional and mercantile men.
Marshel's
taxable wealth, as measured in 1793, was £129 (p.
103).
I know very little about James Marshel's family. Crumrine
notes that,
"Col. Marshel's wife was his cousin, a sister of Robert and John
Marshall.", who also settled in the area, and that "Col.
James
Marshel and his son John always spelled their surname in this peculiar
way -
Marshel. The cousins of Col. Marshel, though of the same family,
spelled their
name in the usual way - Marshall."
The cousins mentioned in this note seem to have also settled in Cross
Creek. Butterfield notes that Marshel left five surviving
children at his
death in 1829: "John, who settled in Washington,
Pa.;
Robert, who settled in Ohio;
a daughter, who married Mr. McCluny;
and two other daughters, who died unmarried at an advanced age." (p.
277)
Also according to Crumrine, " Col. James Marshel was a resident of
Cross
Creek township as early as 1778. On December 26th of that year he
purchased of
Jacob Frederick 'a tract of land situated on the head-waters of Cross
Creek, in
the counties of Yohogania and Ohio, and State of Virginia,' said tract
containing four hundred acres with allowance, and the consideration
being £419
13s. 9d. 'Marshel Hall' was the name given to a tract of four hundred
and
thirty-two acres which was warranted and surveyed to Col. Marshel in
1785,
adjoining the lands of Thomas McKibbin, Robert, John, and Thomas
Marshall, and
Samuel Johnston. The middle branch of Cross Creek runs through this
place. 'Mecklenburg'
must have been Col. Marshel's next land
purchase. This tract he secured from Francis McKinne, to whom it was
warranted
Feb. 13, 1786, and afterwards surveyed as containing four hundred and
one
acres, located next to other lands of James Marshel and those of David
Vance
and John Campbell. 'The Point' was a tract of three hundred and
fifty-eight
acres which Col. Marshel warranted in March, 1786, and then deeded part
of it
to Mr. Johnston, who lived upon it."
James Marshel was definitely in Washington County by 1779, when he is
mentioned
briefly in History of Washington County, PA, 1882 in
reference to the
establishment of the Presbyterian Church of Cross Creek:
"In April 1779, the Rev. Joseph Smith, from York County, Pa., visited
this
region and preached several sermons. These sermons greatly stirred up
the
people to obtain the stated ministrations of the gospel among them. In
the early
summer of 1779... the two companies met at the house of James Marshel,
midway
between Buffalo
and Cross Creek, and made out a
call for the Rev. Joseph Smith, who had been their minister in York
County.
This call was dated June 21, 1779. The salary promised was seventy-five
pounds.
This call was carried
down to the Presbytery of
New Castle, then
met at Carlisle, by Mr. Edgar, and was accepted on the 27th of October
1779." (page 736)
According to Butterfield, Marshel offered 200 acres of his land in
order to
hire someone to bring the new minister from over the
mountains. From
these brief mentions, we can infer that Marshel was a staunch
Presbyterian,
probably one of the Presbyterians of Scotch-Irish descent, who were
numerous in
the region. Dunaway remarks that the "Scotch-Irish
population
of the county [Washington] became m ore noticeable about 1773 and
thereafter
increased steadily; it came mainly from the Cumberland Valley and from
other
Scotch-Irish centers in Chester, Lancaster, York, and Dauphin Counties,
but was
augmented by a goodly number of immigrants coming directly from
Ulster."
(p 82). Other histories also back this up. In his History of
Washington
County, Forrest relates of Cross Creek: "this section was settled by
Presbyterians, of that God-fearing, hard-fighting type of men and women
who,
with a Bible in one hand and a rifle in the other, carried civilization
into
the Western wilderness. Of such stock were... Col. James
Marshel in
1778" (page 488). However, he notes of Marshel, "it is said that
he was not very pious in his later years." (p. 150). Dunaway
cites freedom from religious
persecuton
and economic opportunities as the primary causes of Scotch-Irish
immigration to Pennsylvania
during the colonial period.
Marshel is listed in the 1790 U.S. Census in Washington
County
(town not specified). It is possible that he was in Cross Creek
at this time, although he is also sometimes listed in Washington,
Buffalo, and Hopewell townships. His name is spelled Marshall,
instead of Marshel on this
document. The return is loosely alphabatized, so it is
unclear who his
neighbors were. In the household were two males over the age
of 16, three
under the age of 16, and three females. No slaves or free
blacks lived in
the house. This is the only census in which I am relatively
certain of
James Marshel's identity. In other census reports, it is
unclear which of
several James Marshels he might be. It is also possible that
he was not
the head of household after 1800, and so is not enumerated.
In 1800, he
had likely moved to Virginia,
where the census has been lost.
James Marshel was involved in the civic life of Washington
as well. In the records of the
first school, Crumrine notes that Col. James Marshel was one of the
first
trustees. This school, Washington
Academy,
would later become Washington
College,
and finally merge with Jefferson
College
to become Washington
& Jefferson College,
still in existence today. James Marshel also apparently
loaned a fire
engine to the town of Washington
: "The
first fire which occurred in the town of Washington
of which any account is obtained was the burning of the log court-house
in the
winter of 1790-91. The accounts of the commissioners of 1791 contain
the
following: "To pay James Marshel for the use of his engine, $25."
What kind of an engine was owned by Col. Marshel, or for what purpose
he
obtained it, is not known, as no further reference to it is found."
(Crumrine)
Like other men of the era, James Marshel served in a variety of
political
offices. In Westmoreland
County,
he was the
captain of the militia and was appointed a justice of the peace on June
11,
1777. On April 2, 1781, days after the establishment of Washington County,
Pennsylvania,
Marshel was
commissioned as its county lieutenant and one of the presiding justices
(Ferguson).
Under
the constitution of the United States,
Marshel held the office of register
and recorder from April 4, 1781 to November 19, 1784.
Governor Mifflin
reappointed him register and recorder August 17, 1791 continuing in
office to
March 6, 1795 (throughout the Whiskey Rebellion). In the mean
time, he
filled the position of sheriff, from November 3, 1784 to November 21,
1787.
According to Harper and Crumrine, although Marshel owned 1200 acres of
land in
Cross Creek, he spent most of his time residing in Washington,
carrying out his political
offices. He is mentioned in Crumrine several times in the borough of Washington.
He was the
purchaser of the second lot sold in the town: "Col. James Marshel, a
settler
in Cross Creek township, purchased lot No. 90 of David Hoge on a
certificate,
receiving his deed from Mr. Hoge in February, 1785. This lot was where
Morgan
& Hargreave’s store now stands. He sold it the next
year to Hugh Wilson. He
lived in the town during the terms of the various offices he held of
county
lieutenant, register, recorder, and sheriff. In 1794 the military
headquarters
were upon the lot he then lived on, and the United States
forces were encamped
on the college grounds. " (Crumrine).
As mentioned above, James Marshel served as county lieutenant and
colonel of
the Washington
County
militia, beginning in 1781.
In this office, he held the highest local position of the
militia. Raymond Bell notes that in 1781, "Five battalions
were formed, each with 8 companies -- a total of nearly
3000 men were enrolled. All able-bodied men between 18 and 53 were in
this draft. The battalions were headed by Lieutenant Colonels: Thomas
Crooke, Henry Enoch, John Marshall, George Vallandigham, David
Williamson. Captains were elected."
However,
Washington
County,
Pennsylvania
overlapped in boundaries with Yohogania
County, Virginia.
This caused some difficulties when the militia was to be called out to
serve in
the war against the Indians, as some men would not report to a Virginia
draft. James
Marshel held allegiance to Pennsylvania in this dispute, and may have
actually
exploited the boundary dispute to avoid sending men on a military
mission away
from home, when they were needed for defense more locally:
"There is
a greater necessity for the service of the Militia of this frontier
County
against the Immediate Enemies of the Country, and it would have a
greater
tendency to promote our own safety, than their best services with
General Clark
at Kaintucky possibly Could do." (Downes, 267-8)
In fact, Crumrine quotes Col. Pentecost of Yohogania County, Virginia
as saying
of Col. Marshel: "And he accordingly did all he could to perplex the
People, and advised them to pay no obedience to Draughts that I had
ordered for
Gen’l Clark’s assistance, & has actually
offered Protection to some of ‘em,
though he before, on a Request of Gen’l Clark’s,
declared he could do nothing
as an officer, wish’d well the Expedition, & as a
Private Person would give
every assistance to promote it.” In response, Col. Marshel
wrote to the Council
president:
“Washington
County,
8th August, 1781.
“Sr, – When I began to organize the Militia of this
County, I expected the line
between the States would have been run (at least by the Commissioners
of this
State) in May last; but Finding they did not arrive at neither of the
periods
given us to expect them, I thought it my duty to take the most
favourable
Opportunity that would Offer to form the Militia. About the fifteenth
of June
last, I apprehended Appearances favourable and accordingly advertised
two
Battalion Elections, but soon found that General Clark’s
preparations for his
Expedition and the Extraordinary Freedom with which he and his party of
the old
Virginia Officers used with the people of this County stood greatly in
the way;
they were Indefatigable in propagating reports of the General being a
Continental Officer, having extraordinary Countenance and Authority
from the
State of Pennsylvania, in pulling down my Advertisements, dissuading
the people
from attending the Elections, crying out that I was everything that was
bad,
and was doing all this to hurt the Expedition, &c.; all which,
however
false, produced a Visible Indisposition in the people towards attending
the
Elections; and altho’ I was not attempting anything with
design to Injure his
Expedition, I could not do anything to fill up the General’s
troops out of the
Militia of this frontier County, not having Council’s orders
for that purpose.
. . . I can only say at present I have acted such a part as I thought a
faithful Officer ought to do in similar cases; and that I Ever
Conceived I had
no right so much as to say any of the people of this County had a right
to go
with general Clark without your Excellency’s Orders for that
purpose; much less
that I should ly still on purpose that the Virginia Officers should
draft the
Militia of this County for that service. If any complaint of what kind
soever
should be lodged against me, I hope your Excellency will favour me with
a Coppy
thereof, that I may have an Opportunity of doing myself Justice; and as
the
Manner in which the Genl and his Underlings have treated the people of
this and
Westmoreland Counties has been so arbitrary and unprecedented, I think
it my
duty to inform your Excellency the particulars of a few facts. The
first
instance was with one John Harden, in Westmoreland, who, with a number
of
others, refused to be drafted under the government of Virginia,
alleging they were undoubtedly in Pennsylvania,
and declared if that government ordered a draft they would obey
cheerfully, and
accordingly elected their officers and made returns thereof to Col.
Cook. After
this the general, with a party of forty or fifty horsemen, came to
Harden’s in
quest of him to hang him, as the general himself declared; but not
finding the
old gentleman took and tied his son, broke open his mill, fed away and
destroyed upwards of one hundred and fifty bushels of wheat, rye, and
corn,
killed his sheep and hogs, and lived away at Mr. Harden’s
expense in that
manner for two or three days; declared his estate forfeited, but
graciously
gave it to his wife; formed an article in which he bound all the
inhabitants he
could lay hands on or by any means prevail upon to come in to him;
under the
penalty of ten months in the regular army, not to oppose the draft.
Another man
in Westmoreland, being in Company with Clark’s
troops, happened to say the draft was Illegal, upon which he was
Immediately
Confined, and Ordered to be hanged by the General. Col. Penticost,
being
willing to assist the General, issued Orders to the Commanding officers
of the
old Militia Companys, to Raise an armed force and Collect the Delinqts;
and
altho these orders were Chiefly disobeyed, yet there has been several
armed
Banditties in the County under command of a certain Col. Cox and
others, who
have acted nearly in the same manner as the general himself has done.
“They being in Quest of John Douglas (a Gent.
Elected one of our Justices for this County) and not finding him the
first
attempt, broke open his house in the night time, Fed away and destroyed
such a
part of Rye and Corn (his property) as they thought proper; Drew their
swords
upon his wife and Children in order to make them Discover where he was;
the sd
Cox and his party have taken and confined a Considerable number of the
Inhabitants of this County, amongst which were Hugh Scott (one of the
acting
trustees of the County), altho’ he was not drafted; in a word
the Instances of
high treason against the State are too many to be Enumerated, therefore
shall
not trouble your Excellency any more on the subject at
present.”
President Reed replied that he was well aware of the draft, that it was
ordered
by Washington,
and that it was intended to
include Westmoreland and Washington
Counties.
He added that
although he disapproved of the methods used by General Clark, yet he
hoped that
the draft would be successful. He felt that perhaps some of the
settlers were
"avail[ing] themselves of a pretense" in order to avoid the draft.
In March 1782, a collection of men from western Pennsylvania
entered a peaceful Indian village at Gnadhutten on the Muskigum,
took prisoners, and killed approximately 90-96 Indians, including women
and
children, all of whom had surrendered. It is unclear whether
the men
believed that the Moravian Indians were in league with others who had
recently
attacked and killed western Pennsylvania
settlers. Certainly, in accounts given later, the settlers claimed that
they
found evidence of collaboration in the hostilities. In The Men from
Western
Pennsylvania who Murdered 96 Moravian Indians, Williston offers
evidence that
Marshel, as a ranking officer, must have known in advance about the
planned
massacre and that this was an official militia
expedition. Crumrine
attributes the calling out of the militia to Col. Marshel, authority he
had in
an emergency. Crumrine also notes that there would have been enough
volunteers
to go without a draft, but that Marshel wrote to General Irvine that he
was
"heartily tired out with volunteer plans." There is
not
evidence of his further participation in the massacre, which was led by
David
Williamson, another colonel.
Later that same month and into April, Marshel apparently tried to raise
the
militia to go with General Crawford and fight Indians who were raiding
and attacking the western
counties (probably partially in retaliation for the Gnadhutten
massacre). Crawford was defeated in a particularly brutal battle
at Sandusky, and he was tortured to death. Dr. Knight, a witness
and prisoner, wrote of
Marshel's
participation: "In consequence of these predatory invasions,
the
principal officers of the above mentioned counties, namely Colonels
Williamson
and Marshall, tried everything in their power to set on foot an
expedition
against the Wyandot which they could effect no other way than by giving
all
possible encouragement to volunteers." (PA Archives, Sixth
Series)
Marshel was apparently having difficulty raising enough men to fight in
the
ongoing battles, as he had to offer considerable inducement to
potential soldiers,
including the opportunity to keep plunder found in the Indian villages.
Marshel,
however, also did not go on this expedition. Forrest notes,
"although [Marshel was] not a member of Crawford's
expedition, took a prominent part in its organization, and in the
Indian wars. His reason for not participating in the campaign was
that
he would not accept a position lower than third in command. He
was a
candidate for first major at the election of field officers at Mingo
Bottom, but was defeated by Thomas Gaddis of Westmoreland County.
Marshel then refused to go and returned home." (212).
In
November 1787, Marshel wrote to President Benjamin Franklin (then
president of the Supreme Executive Council for Pennsylvania) of various
families who
had recently been killed by the Indians. He stated: "we are
at
present in a very bad situation for Defence, and our Circumstances in
general,
more Especially that of the frontier Inhabitants, is such that very few
are
able purchase even a Small Quantity of Ammunition..." Marshel
recommended that at least one hundred troops be sent to defend the
frontier, as
it would take at least that many simply to stand guard at one per
mile.
He continues, "I well know the circumstances of the people on the
frontier
and that however well disposed they may be to support the Government as
well as
preserve their property, yet I am assured that without the special aid
of
Government, a very Considerable part of Washington County will be
Evacuated,
should the Indians make incursions on our, or the neighboring frontiers
next
spring" (PA Archives, Vol. XI)
As late as February 1791, Col. Marshel wrote to Governor Mifflin for
assistance
in defending the western Pennsylvania frontier from the Shawnee:
"From the fullest evidence of the hostile intentions of the Indians, I
have no doubt but that the service of our Militia will be necessary the
ensuing
Summer; our situation on the frontier at this time is truly alarming;
the late
Expedition under the command of Gen'l Harmar has had a very different
effect
from what was expected; the Indians appear elated with their success on
that
occasion, and are roused by a Spirit of Resentment. It is
evident that
nothing prevents their crossing the Ohio River,
but the inclemency of the Season, and the danger attending their
Retreat by the
Running of the Ice. They have, subsequent to the Excursion in
the depth
of Winter, committed frequent murders on the west side of the River,
and had
the Insolence, after killing a family a few days ago on the bank of the
River,
to call to the people to, 'come over and bury their dead, that it would
be
their turn next, and that they would not leave a Smoking Chimney on
this side
the Alliganey Mountains..." (PA Archives Second Series)
Antifederalism
James Marshel served as representative from Washington
County
in the state convention that ratified the Constitution. Hugh
Henry
Brackenridge, one of the participants in the Whiskey Rebellion, later
wrote a
history of the rebellion in which he describes his relationship with
James
Marshel, including Marshel's early history in Washington County and his
opinions of the Constitution at the time of its ratification:
"James Marshall was a man for whom I had all along entertained
respect. When I came to this country in the year 1781, a
strong party
existed in favor of the establishment of a new state comprehending the
[western] Pennsylvania
and Virginia
counties. Marshall
was county lieutenant in Washington
and had exerted himself greatly in opposition to this
measure. I was with
him in all endeavors to compose the country and establish the Pennsylvania
jurisdiction. This produced
an intimacy. After his lieutenancy he was sheriff of the
county and
discharged this office with general approbation from the court, the bar
and the
country. During my political debates with Findley and others,
he leaned
in my favor to a certain extent, I had believed from personal
engagements. When a member of the convention for the purpose
of adopting
the Federal Constitution, he was the most moderate of all the
Antifederalists
and refused to sign the Protest, as reasons were alledged in it which
did not
weigh with him. I had flattered myself with thinking that my
opinion and
representations in favor of the Constitution had contributed to make
him
moderate; for he is naturally a democrat, perhaps in the extreme."
(page
68 in Boyd)
Like most of the delegates from the western counties of Pennsylvania,
Marshel voted against the
ratification of the Constitution. The votes for the western
counties were
seven to two against ratification; nonetheless, the vote passed
forty-six to
twenty-three (Ferguson,
90). Ferguson
contends that this vote ratio was probably an accurate sentiment of the
backcountry feelings toward the Constitution. Most of the
western
population was anti-federalist at the time, although Washington
and Pittsburgh
(the two seats of larger manufacturing) were
exceptions.
Despite James Marshel's vote against the Constitution, however, he did
not sign
the Protest letter that Brackenridge mentions, and which was signed by
many of
the other western delegates. In this letter, the delegates
criticized the
Constitution for giving the federal government too many powers at the
expense
of the state and claimed that only a "despotic power" could govern a
country as large as the United States
(Ferguson,
91). These feelings would come to a head several years later
in the
Whiskey Rebellion. Marshel also opposed a petition initiated
by John
Nicholson, state comptroller general, in which Nicholson tried to
reverse Pennsylvania's
ratification. Marshel wrote to Nicholson that he doubted
"that a
petition would be very generally signed," and that "I feel inclined
to wait... for it may be that I shall be obliged to live under it [the
Constitution]" (page 75 in Boyd).
Marshel did, however, participate in a follow-up meeting in Harrisburg
in 1788 with other
anti-federalists after the ratification of the Constitution.
The organizers were "inviting to a conference such of the citizens of
this state who
conceive that a revision of the federal system, lately proposed for the
government of these United States, is necessary"
(Elliot). In this
meeting, a number of concerns were raised, although the participants
agreed that "it be recommended to the people of this state to acquiesce
in the
organization of the said government; but, although we thus accord in
its organization, we by no means lose sight of the grand object of
obtaining very considerable amendments and alterations, which we
consider essential to preserve the peace and harmony of the Union, and
those invaluable privileges for which so much blood and treasure have
been recently expended" (Elliot). Accordingly, a petition
with amendments to the
document
was proposed. Some of these amendments were similar to those
later adopted in
the Bill of Rights, although no direct line of origin can be drawn
(Ferguson,
99). The recommended amendments were as follows:
"
I. That Congress shall not exercise any powers whatever, but such as
are expressly given to that body by the Constitution of the United
States; nor shall any authority, power, or jurisdiction, be assumed or
exercised by the executive or judiciary departments of the Union, under
color or pretence of construction or fiction; but all the rights of
sovereignty, which are not by the said Constitution expressly and
plainly vested in the Congress, shall be deemed to remain with, and
shall be exercised by, the several states in the Union, according to
their respective Constitutions; and that every reserve of the rights of
individuals, made by the several constitutions of the states in the
Union, to the citizens and inhabitants of each state respectively,
shall remain inviolate, except so far as they are expressly and
manifestly yielded or narrowed by the national Constitution.
Article
1, section 2, paragraph 3.
II. That the number of representatives be, for the present one for
every twenty thousand inhabitants, according to the present estimated
numbers in the several states, and continue in that proportion until
the whole number of representatives shall amount to two hundred; and
then to be so proportioned and modified as not to exceed that number,
until the proportion of one representative for every thirty thousand
inhabitants shall amount to the said number of two hundred.
Section
3. III. That senators, though chosen for six years, shall be liable to
be recalled, or superseded by other appointments, by the respective
legislatures of the states, at any time.
Section
4. IV. That Congress shall not have power to make or alter regulations
concerning the time, place, and manner of electing senators and
representatives, except in case of neglect or refusal by the state to
make regulations for the purpose; and then only for such time as such
neglect or refusal shall continue.
Section
8. V. That when Congress shall require supplies, which are to be raised
by direct taxes, they shall demand from the several states their
respective quotas thereof, giving a reasonable time to each state to
procure and pay the same; and if any state shall refuse, neglect, or
omit to raise and pay the same within such limited time, then Congress
shall have power to assess, levy, and collect the quota of such state,
together with interest for the same, from the time of such delinquency,
upon the inhabitants and estates therein, in such manner as they shall
by law direct; provided that no poll tax be imposed.
Section
8. VI. That no standing army of regular troops shall be raised or kept
up in time of peace, without the consent of two thirds of both houses
in Congress.
Section
8. VII. That the clause respecting the exclusive legislation over a
district not exceeding ten miles square be qualified by a proviso that
such right of legislation extend only to such regulations as respect
the police and good order thereof.
Section
8. VIII. That each state, respectively, shall have power to provide for
organizing, arming, and disciplining the militia thereof, whensoever
Congress shall omit or neglect to provide for the same. That the
militia shall not be subject to material law, but when in actual
service, in the time of war, invasion, or rebellion; and when not in
the actual service of the United states, shall be subject to such
fines, penalties, and punishments, only, as shall be directed or
inflicted by the laws of its own state: nor shall the militia of any
state be continued in actual service longer than two months, under any
call of Congress, without the consent of the legislature of such state,
or, in their recess, the executive authority thereof.
Section
9. IX. That the clause respecting vessels bound to or from any one of
the states be explained.
Article
3, section 1. X. That Congress establish no other court than the
Supreme Court, except such as shall be necessary for determining causes
of admiralty jurisdiction.
Section
2, paragraph 2. XI. That a proviso be added at the end of the second
clause of the second section of the third article, to the following
effect, viz.: Provided, that such appellate jurisdiction, in all cases
of common-law cognizance, be by a writ of error, and confined to
matters of law only; and that no such writ of error shall be admitted,
except in revenue cases, unless the matter in controversy exceed the
value of three thousand dollars.
Article
6, paragraph 2. XII. That to article 6, clause 2, be added the
following proviso, viz.: Provided always that no treaty, which shall
hereafter be made, shall be deemed or construed to alter or affect any
law of the United States, or of any particular state, until such treaty
shall have been laid before and assented to by the House of
Representatives in Congress." (Elliot)
Marshel
likewise opposed the revision of the state constitution of Pennsylvania.
Originally, this document had been very democratically written, but
conservatives wanted revisions. A convention was called in
1789, through
some rather dubious political methods, which westerners were quick to
denounce. To a letter from Albert Gallatin urging Washington
county to boycott the convention,
Marshel replied: "am happy to find that the good people of your County
are
not disposed to Elect members for the proposed Convention. I
heartily
agree with you that the Measure is Unconstitutional, Unnecessary, and
highly
Improper and that the most prudent step for us at present is the
measure
proposed by the people of your County" (Ferguson, 102).
Whiskey
Rebellion
The Whiskey Rebellion took place in western Pennsylvania,
beginning in the fall of 1791
and coming to a climax and end in 1794. (Although other
frontier regions
participated in protesting the tax, I consider only Pennsylvania
in this discussion.
Certainly, Pennsylvania
was a center for the rebellion, and was the focus of the military
effort to
quell the insurgency.)
Western
Pennsylvania settlers
were rebelling
against the whiskey excise tax that had been passed by the new American
government.
The rebellion was then, and remains, extremely controversial.
It
incorporates elements of many of the debates of the age, including how
much and
what kinds of powers were held by the new federal government and how
that
authority could be used and enforced. The Whiskey Rebellion
was one of
the first instances in which the federal government had to exert itself
to
enforce a law, in this case calling out the militias to put down the
rebellion.
The whiskey excise tax was passed by Congress in March 1791.
The tax was
levied primarily to help the federal government recover from the debts
incurred
by the American Revolution and the recession that occurred in its
wake.
As inflation went up and the government's currency was devalued, people
everywhere were struggling to make ends meet. This was
particularly true
for former soldiers who had been paid primarily in the form of
government
paper. Many of these soldiers sold their devalued bonds to
speculators,
who began to petition for an absorbtion of debts by Congress.
The first
Congress, led by Alexander Hamilton's proposals, agreed to try to
absorb some
of the debts. However, once absorbed, a form of
income had to be
created to pay off the debt. Thus came the whiskey tax.
Whiskey was a popular beverage at a time when much of what was drunk by
children and adults alike was alcoholic. It is made by
fermenting grains
such as corn or rye, and gradually distilling the alcohol into purer
and purer
forms. This was done in a pot still over a fire, running the
finished
product into barrels. When the process is complete, whiskey
is
practically clear and very strong, similar to vodka. At that
point, it
may be drunk immediately or aged in casks, a process which darkens it.
Western Pennsylvania farmers, especially those living in the forks of
the Ohio
River (near present-day Pittsburgh),
were among the most prodigious producers of whiskey in the
country. In
part, this is because of simple economics and geography.
Farmers were
blocked from using the Mississippi
River to
ship crops to market, as it was still controlled by the
Spanish. This
meant that they had to get their crops over the Allegheny
Mountains
in order to find a market for them in the east.
The cost and the time involved in getting crops to market was
considerable. In
order to make a profit, it was in the best interests of western farmers
to grow
grains, then distill them into whiskey. The leftover
fermented grains
could be fed to animals that would help to feed a family, and the
distilled
whiskey could be taken to market in eastern Pennsylvania.
Since whiskey does not
spoil as the grains would, and since a large quantity of grains could
be made
into a relatively small amount of whiskey, the distillation process was
key to
the economy of western markets.
While much whiskey was exported from the region, certainly it served a
social
purpose as well. In 1786, a surveyor from Massachusetts
visited western Pennsylvania
and wrote: "I found a number of the neighbors seated in
social glee
around a heap of corn. The inspiring juice of rye had
enlivvened their
imaginations, and given their tongue such an exact balance, that they
movved
with the greatest alacrity, while relating scenes of boxing, wrestling,
hunting, &c. At dusk of evening the corn was finished, and the
company
retired to the house, where many of them took such hearty draughts of
the
generous liquor as quite deprived them of the use of their
limbs. Some
quarreled, some sang, and others laughed; while the whole displayed a
scene more
diverting than edifying. At ten o'clock all who could walk
went home, but
left three or four round the fire, hugging the whisky bottle, and
arguing very
obstinately on religion;
at which I left them and went to
bed." Apparently, the neighbors returned the next day to
continue
drinking.
In western Pennsylvania,
there were some larger distillers who would distill whiskey for smaller
farmers
in exchange for a portion of the product. However, many small
farmers
were able to operate their own stills, some only seasonally and some
primarily
for their own use. Given the devaluation of paper currency
and the
relative rarity of coin in the western frontier, whiskey could often be
used as
a form of currency, since it always had value somewhere. It
was a cornerstone
of the economy.
Therefore, when Congress passed the whiskey excise tax, western farmers
were
particularly incensed. Many of the western farmers were
veterans of the
Revolutionary War, some of the French and Indian War. They
felt betrayed
by their new government. Protests and meetings began almost
before the
excise tax was passed. When the tax was passed and as the
federal
government tried harder and harder to enforce the law, the tax officers
(many
of them local citizens) were physically attacked, tarred and feathered,
and/or
had their houses and other property burned.
Attacks continued and became more violent climaxing in the summer of
1794 as
the federal government continued to try to enforce the law and make
farmers
register their stills. The turning point came when a federal
marshal began delivering processes to those who had failed to register
their stills. Farmers would be expected to attend a court hearing
in eastern Pennsylvania -- at a cost that none could afford. In
western Pennsylvania,
some began to discuss secession. Those who registered their
stills or who
tried to remain neutral on the subject were harassed and
intimidated. The
western Pennsylvania
militias were organized to attack the federal officials enforcing the
tax
collection. Several of these men holed up in Pittsburgh,
and were forced out when the
country militias threatened to burn the town. The Pittsburgh
militia joined the others,
possibly under duress.
In 1794, the federal government finally sent negotiators to discuss a
possible
reconciliation. Even as the negotiations were underway,
militias were
being called out in several states to put down the rebellion.
The federal
government had a lot to lose in the face of western
rebellion. It was so
new that this threat to its power had to be taken extremely seriously.
Although the negotiations were somewhat successful (mostly because
rebel leaders
quickly saw that they had no hope of defending themselves against a
federal
army), the federal militias were marched through the area in
1794. No shots were fired at the militias.
Negotiations had required that all men sign a loyalty oath to the new
government and promise to obey the laws. In return, they
could expect
amnesty for their actions. Most men appear to have signed the
pledge. In the end, only a few men were taken to Philadelphia
for trial; only two were found
guilty
In the beginning of the Whiskey Rebellion, Marshel appears to have
actively
supported the rebellion, through writing and action. In the
summer of
1791, shortly after the excise law was passed, James Marshel was
appointed a
representative of Washington
County
to a larger meeting of delegates from western Pennsylvania.
This
committee passed several resolutions against the whiskey tax which were
published in the Pittsburgh Gazette that fall. Marshel was
also a member
and officer of the Democratic Society of the County
of Washington
in Pennsylvania,
a political and social group
which gathered and wrote a protest letter to President George
Washington in
spring 1794.
Brackenridge concludes that James Marshel's opposition to the whiskey
excise
tax was a political move to beat out Thomas Ryerson in a House
race. In
an earlier election, Ryerson had been opposed to a state tax and had
soundly
beat Marshel. Brackenridge thus concludes that Marshel's
opposition to
the whiskey excise was an electioneering move. Certainly, Marshall
does appear to
have used the opposition to network with others. Here is
Brackenridge
again:
"James Marshall... who doubtless had the same general impressions with
the
others, had been at Pittsburgh occasionally, having at that time a
contract
with the public for the purchase of horses for the wagons of the army;
had
conversed with me on the subject of the excise law; and finding my
sentiments
in unison with his, not only with regard to the excise law, but the
funding
system in general, expressed a wish that I would come forward and get
myself
elected a member from Allegheny County. I declined it... Marshall
excused me, but thought I could have
no objections to assist in drawing up the addresses proposed to the
public or
to the representatives in Congress. I had no objections to that." (page
69
in Boyd)
Despite Marshel's opposition to the excise law, he seems to have had
misgivings
about the use of violence, at least initially. Hogeland
mentions,
"James Marshall... declined to join in the attack" (page 151) on
General Neville's home at Bower Hill. General John Neville
was a local
citizen who was registering stills and collecting taxes. The
attacks
occurred on the evening after General Neville had ridden out with the
federal
marshal to deliver processes against those who had not registered their
stills. In the notes, Hogeland suggests that rather than a
public
declaration against the violence at Bower Hill, Marshel may have simply
not
shown up. Given the escalating attacks and intimidation of
those who were
seen to be in league with the tax collectors, trying to register their
stills,
or remain neutral, Marshel's decision not to participate would probably
have
been safest if made privately.
In Slaughter's review of the Whiskey Rebellion, he likewise concludes
that
"'leaders' were recruited against their will, although some quickly
developed a passion for the role of demagogue. James Marshall
and David
Bradford, later two of the most incendiary favorites of the crowd, were
bluntly
told that 'if you do not come forward now and support us, you shall be
treated
in the same or a worse way with the excise officer'" (page
183).
Certainly other prominent men (notably Brackenridge) who later wrote
about the
rebellion indicated that they sometimes felt coerced or intimidated
into taking
actions. It is difficult, however, to determine how much of
this later
writing was an attempt by the men to exculpate themselves from a
situation in
which they seemed to be guilty of treason.
David
Bradford,
Marshel's business partner, made a speech at Mingo
Creek
Church
in support
of the attack on Neville's house at Bower Hill within a few
days. It
appears that James Marshel may have tacitly agreed with Bradford, for
at any
rate, he went on with the next step Bradford took, intercepting and
reading the
mail from Pittsburgh
to Philadelphia.
Ostensibly, the goal of
this was to see who was writing to the federal government and what was
being
said. At any rate, what was found was disagreeable (at best)
to those who
read it.
Bradford, Marshel, and several other men next signed a letter to
militia
commanders which commanded them to muster in Braddock's Field, near
Pittsburgh:
"the post now being in our possession by which certain secrets are
discovered hostile to our interests, it is therefore come to that
crisis that
every citizen must express his sentiments, not by his words, but by his
actions. You are then called upon as a citizen of the western
country, to
render your personal service, with as many volunteers as you can raise
to
rendezvous at your usual place of meeting..." (Penn Archives, 67).
This was clearly an act of rebellion. It is unclear why
Marshel (and
Bradford) might have had this change of heart related to violent
protest.
Perhaps calling out the militia was not seen as the radical act that it
clearly
became. Perhaps the contents of the read letters was so
incendiary as to
change their minds. Perhaps, too, Bradford and Marshel were
feeling
external pressures to act. Both Marshel and Bradford
suggested later that
week that mustering the militias might not be the right decision,
although Bradford
changed his mind yet again, urging the militias
on. James Marshel (says Hogeland, page 169) found his door
tarred and
feathered that night, indicating that he would have to participate in
the
muster as well. There would be no backing down.
James Marshel did muster at Braddock's Field. When the
militia leaders debated
burning all of Pittsburgh
to ferret out the remaining 'traitors to the cause', he apparently
opposed the
idea, along with others, and they prevailed. A group of soldiers
did burn a house and barn, however, for which Marshel and others
drafted an apology. The tax
collectors and their
supporters were peacefully exiled from the town.
Following
the muster at Braddock's Field and the end of the crisis near
Pittsburgh, a meeting was called to be held August 14th at Parkinson's
Ferry. Delegates were sent from western Pennsylvania, as well as
neighboring counties of Virginia. James Marshel was among the 226
other men chosen to represent the area (Baldwin). At the meeting,
Marshel spoke out in favor of the principles of the whiskey rebellion,
proposing a series of resolutions, which were adopted pending
revisions.
Marshel's
resolutions are summarized in Baldwin: "The first resolution,
adopting the western view that the county was the vicinage,
characterized the taking of citizens from their vicinages for trial as
a violation of their rights... his [second] resolution called for a
committee of public safety to guard against any invasions of the rights
of the people... The third resolution, which called for yet one more
remonstrance to Congress, was carried. The fourth called for the
formulation of a statement and explanation of the motives that had
actuated the people of the western country in the late unhappy
disturbances... The fifth pledged the West to the support of the laws
save for the excise and the removal of citizens for trial outside their
vicinage." (176-7) From the list, it appears that Marshel
may still have been walking a relatively moderate line, trying to avoid
armed conflict and violence, while supporting the cause of the
insurrection.
Even
as the meeting at Parkinson's Ferry was occuring, negotiators from the
federal government were travelling west to meet with the rebels. When
negotiations commenced with federal representatives, James Marshel
was
among the committee of men who participated, as was David
Bradford.
Although the western committee and the federal representatives did
reach an
agreement among themselves, it was rejected by the larger group of
delegates. This suggests that although Bradford and Marshel may
have been
radical in appearance to the federal government, they were actually
less
radical than other neighbors may have been.
Among the men who took the oath of allegiance in Cross Creek on
September 11,
1794, appears the name James Marshel. Thomas, John, John, and
Robert
Marshall also are listed as having taken the oath in Cross Creek in the
presence of Commissioners William Rea, Aaron Lyle, and Thomas Patterson.
In March 1794, at the commencement of the Whiskey Rebellion, James
Marshel was
the president of the Democratic Society of Washington County, which had
apparently been newly established that month.
Democratic-Republican
Societies, popular political-social clubs of the time, were intended to
defend
the Constitution and promote democracy. Specifically, they
tended to be
anti-federalist in nature and to defend the rights of the people above
all. The first action taken by the Democratic
Society of Washington
County, one signed by Marshel as president, was to send a remonstrance
to
President Washington and to Congress regarding the Mississippi,
demanding that navigation be opened through negotiations with Spain.
As
noted above, this would have provided additional markets for the
western
farmers, and was addressed in response to a request from a Kentucky
Democratic-Rupublican Society. It was, however, narrowly
approved by
theWashington Society, passing by a margin of only two votes.
(Foner)
Probably Marshel was no longer president of the Democratic Society of
Washington County by mid-April of that year (1794), when the
constitution of
the group was published in the Pittsburgh Gazette and specifically
banned those
holding "any office of trust or profit" in the state or federal
governments. In June, an anonymous letter from "Democratus"
was
published in the Pittsburgh Gazette decrying this article of the
constitution:
"They think thereby militia officers are excluded, and if so they will
not
encourage the business at all, but will strive to hinder its
progress." (Foner, 139) Democratus also regrets the clause
that
demands that every court case be brought to the society prior to being
filed in
the county courts. He does, however, generally support the
group's
political agenda. It would be interesting to know if Marshel
(a militia
officer and an attorney) was the one who penned this letter or if it
was in
fact related to his involvement with the society.
It would likewise be interesting to know who an anonymous letter
referred to in
its scathing commentary regarding the society. In a letter to
the
Pittsburgh Gazette, the letter comments: "that the members of those
different societies, wherever they have appeared, have had in view
their private
interest and popularity and not the public's welfare, that in times of
real
danger few of them were seen in the field ready to encounter it; that
they are
national bullies
breathing war and confusion, at the same time they have
neither bravery nor patience to support themselves under its trials and
hardships." While this commentary could refer to any number
of
people, it fits Marshel well; his motives for supporting the Whiskey
Rebellion
were questioned by Brackenridge as a political ploy for winning the
election,
and he does seem to have avoided violent confrontations remarkably,
given his
position as a colonel of the militia and leader in the rebellion.
At the conclusion of the Whiskey Rebellion, the Democratic Society
found itself
publicly attacked as one of the primary sources of rebellion.
In a letter
of defense penned by A. Baird, Vice President, the society
stated:
"It has been asserted, on the floor of Congress, in order to prove that
we
have been instrumental in fomenting the late insurrection, that some of
our
members were leaders in it; we admit that a few of them (not more than
seven)
in their individual capacity, were too deeply involved, but, suppose
there had
been twenty, is that any reason that the society should be stigmatized
with being
fomenters of the rebellion..." (Foner, 139)
According to Ferguson,
at the end of the Whiskey Rebellion, "James Marshall was put in an
unpleasant situation that curtailed his political career."
(130).
Still, he fared better than his law partner, David
Bradford, who was
forced to
flee down the Mississippi,
and who lived out the rest of his life in Louisiana.
Crumrine adds the following: "Soon after the close of the
insurrection (in September, 1795) he [Marshel] advertised thirteen
hundred
acres of patented and improved lands on Cross Creek for sale. This must
have
been preparatory to his removing from Cross Creek township to Brooke
County,
Va., which he did at about that time... Col. James Marshel
died at his
home in Brooke County, Va., in 1829. "Marshel Hall." his home in this
township, is now owned by Thomas and Thomas B. McCorkle".
In The Pennsylvania Magazine of History and Biography (by the
Historical
Society of Pennsylvania; published 1887 by The Historical Society of
Pennsylvania) page 252, the following epilogue is
written:
"Captain Marshel died March 17, 1829, at Wellsburg, West Virginia,
whither
he removed toward the close of the century. He left
descendants in Western
Pennsylvania."
One of these
descendants was his son, John: "Their son, John Marshel, was
elected
sheriff of Washington
County
in 1835, served one year, and then resigned to
accept the position of cashier of the Franklin Bank, in Washington,
Pa.,
where he remained several years." (Crumrine).
References
Agnew, Hon. Daniel, LL.D., A
History of the Region of Pennsylvania
North of the Ohio
and West of the Allegheny
River, of the Indian Purchases, and the Running of the Southern,
Northern, and Western
State
Boundries. Philadelphia:
Kay &
Brother, Law Publishers, Booksellers, and Importers, 1887, reprinted
Arno
Press, Inc., 1971.
Ancestry.com. 1790 United
States Federal Census [database
on-line]. Provo,
UT,
USA:
The
Generations Network, Inc., 2000. Original data: Imaged from:
National
Archives and Records Administration. First
Census of the United
States,
1790. M637, RG 29, 12 rolls.
National Archives and Records Administration, Washington,
D.C.
Roll: M637_9;
Image: 0112.
Baldwin,
Leland D. Whiskey Rebels: The Story
of a Frontier Uprising. Pittsburgh: University of
Pittsburgh Press. 1939.
Bell,
Raymond. Washington Co.
Militia.
Keyhole Vol. VIII, No. 3, July 1980. Online.
Boyd,
Steven R., ed., The
Whiskey Rebellion: Past and Present Perspectives.
Westport,
CT:
Greenwood
Press, 1985.
Brackenridge, Hugh Henry, Incidents
of the Insurrection in Boyd,
Steven R., ed., The Whiskey
Rebellion: Past and Present Perspectives.
Westport,
CT:
Greenwood
Press, 1985
pp61-76.
Butterfield, C.W., Washington-Irvine
Correspondence. Madison,
Wis.
: D. Atwood, 1882. Online. Retrieved 4/22/07 from:
http://digital.library.pitt.edu/cgi-bin/t/text/text-idx?idno=00hc08025m;view=toc;c=pitttext
Crumrine, Boyd, ed., History
of Washington County,
Pennsylvania.
Philadelphia:
L.H. Leverts, 1882.
Dowd, Gregory Evans. War
under Heaven: Pontiac,
the Indian Nations, & the British Empire.
Baltimore: The Johns Hopkins University Press, 2002.
Downes, Randolph C. Council
Fires on the Upper Ohio.
Pittsburgh:
University of Pittsburgh Press, 1940.
Dunaway, Wayland F. The
Scotch-Irish of Colonial Pennsylvania.
Hamden:
Archon Books, 1962.
Elliot,
Jonathan. (ed) Elliot's
Debates: The
Debates in the Several State Conventions on the Adoption of the Federal
Constitution.
Philadelphia, J.B. Lippincott & co.; Washington, Taylor
& Maury, 1836-59. Online.
Ferguson,
Russell J., Early
Western pennsylvania Politics.
Pittsburgh: University of Pittsburgh Press, 1938.
Fischer, David Hackett and James C. Kelly. Bound
Away: Virginia and
the Western Movement. Charlottesville:
University Press of Virginia,
2000.
Foner, Philip S. (ed.) The
Democratic-Republican Societies, 1790-1800: A
Documentary Sourcebook of Constitutions, Declarations, Addresses,
Resolutions,
and Toasts. Westport, CT:
Greenwood Press. 1976.
Forrest, Earle R., History of
Washington County.
Chicago: S.J.
Clarke Pub. Co., 1926.
Harper, R. Eugene, The
Transformation of Western Pennsylvania 1770-1800.
Pittsburgh: University of Pittsburgh Press, 1991.
Hazard,
Samuel (ed). Pennsylvania
Archives, Vol. XI.
Philadelphia: J. Severns & co. 1855. Online.
Hildreth, S. P. Pioneer
History. Cincinatti: H. W.
Derby & Co.,
Publishers, 1848. Reprint 1971 by Arno Press, Inc.
Historical Society of Pennsylvania, Pennsylvania
Magazine of History and
Biography. Historical Society of
Pennsylvania, 1887, p252.
Hogeland, William, The Whiskey
Rebellion: George Wahington, Alexander
Hamilton, and the Fronteir Rebels who Challenged America's Newfound
Sovereignty.
New York: Scribner, 2006.
Linn,
John. and William H. Egle. Pennsylvania
Archives, Second Series, Vol.
IV. Harrisburg, PA: E.
K. Meyers. 1890. Online.
Merrell, James H. Into the
American Woods: Negotiators on the Pennsylvania
Frontier. New York:
W.W. Norton & Company, 1999.
Montgomery,
Thomas Lynch (ed). Pennsylvania
Archives, Sixth Series, Vol. II.
Harrisburg, PA: Harrisburg Publishing Company.
1906. Online.
Slaughter, Thomas P., The
Whiskey Rebellion: Frontier Epilogue to the
American Revolution. New York:
Oxford University Press, 1986.
Taylor, Alan, American
Colonies: The Settling of North America.
New York: Penguin Books, 2001, pp 421-443.
Tinkcom, Harry Marlin. The
Republicans and Federalists in Pennsylvania
1790-1801. Harrisburg:
Pennsylvania Historical and Museum Commission,
1950.
|