The Fair Play Settlers of the West Branch Valley, 1769-1784 | Page 6

S. Maynard, a lesser
nineteenth-century historian, whose work is obviously based upon the
research of Meginness. Maynard repeated the evidence of his
predecessor from the account of Thomas Sergeant by describing the
Stanwix Treaty line of 1768 as coming "across to the headwaters of
Pine Creek." Maynard's utter dependence upon Meginness suggests that
his evidence is more repetitive than substantive.[17]

A more recent student of local history, Eugene P. Bertin, of Muncy,
gives Pine Creek his undocumented support, which appears to be
nothing more than an elaboration of the accounts of Meginness and
Linn.[18] Dr. Bertin's account appears to be better folklore than
history.[19]
Another twentieth-century writer, Elsie Singmaster, offers more
objective support for Pine Creek, although her argument appears to be
better semantics than geography.[20]
Edmund A. DeSchweinitz, in his biography of David Zeisberger, errs
in his interpretation of the term "Limping Messenger" (Tiadaghton),
used by Bishop Spangenburg in his account of their journey to the West
Branch Valley in 1745. He notes that on their way to Onondaga
(Syracuse) after leaving "Ostonwaken" (Montoursville) they passed
through the valley of Tiadaghton Creek. They were following the
Sheshequin Path. But he identifies the Tiadaghton with Pine Creek.
There was an Indian path up Pine Creek, but it led to Niagara, not
Onondaga.[21]
Aside from the designation by the Indians at the second Stanwix Treaty,
there is only one other source which lends any credibility to the Pine
Creek view, and that is Smith's Laws of the Commonwealth of
Pennsylvania. After the last treaty was made acquiring Pennsylvania
lands from the Indians, the legislature, in order to quell disputes about
the right of occupancy in this "New Purchase,"[22] passed the
following legislation:
And whereas divers persons, who have heretofore occupied and
cultivated small tracts of land, without the bounds of the purchase made,
as aforesaid, in the year of our Lord one thousand seven hundred and
sixty-eight, and within the purchase made, or now to be made, by the
said commissioners, have, by their resolute stand and sufferings during
the late war, merited, that those settlers should have the pre-emption of
their respective plantations:
Be it therefore enacted by the authority aforesaid, That all and every
person or persons, and their legal representatives, who has or have

heretofore settled on the north side of the west branch of the river
Susquehanna, upon the Indian territory, between Lycomick or
Lycoming creek on the east, and Tyagaghton or Pine creek on the west,
as well as other lands within the said residuary purchase from the
Indians, of the territory within this state, excepting always the lands
herein before excepted, shall be allowed a right of pre-emption to their
respective possessions, at the price aforesaid.[23]
It may be worth observing, however, that legislation tends to reflect
popular demand rather than the hard facts of a situation. In this case the
settlers of the region prior to 1780 stood to benefit by this legislation
and formed an effective pressure group.
The contrary view in this long-standing geographical debate is based,
for the most part, upon the records of journalists and diarists who
traveled along the West Branch prior to the first Stanwix Treaty and
who thus had no axe to grind.
That the Lycoming Creek was in fact the Tiadaghton referred to by the
Indians at Fort Stanwix in 1768 is strongly indicated by the weight of
evidence derived from the journals of Conrad Weiser (1737), John
Bartram (1743), Bishop Spangenburg (1745), Moravian Bishop John
Ettwein (1772), and the Reverend Philip Vickers Fithian (1775). In
addition, the maps of Lewis Evans (1749) and John Adlum (1792), the
land applications of Robert Galbreath and Martin Stover (1769), and a
1784 statute of the Pennsylvania General Assembly all tend to validate
Lycoming's claim to recognition as the Tiadaghton. Each datum has
merit in the final analysis, which justifies the specific examination
which follows:
Supporting evidence is found in Weiser's German journal, which was
meant for his family and friends, and translated into English by his
great-grandson, Hiester H. Muhlenberg. (Weiser also kept an English
journal for the Council at Philadelphia.) Weiser wrote: "The stream we
are now on the Indians call Dia-daclitu, (die berirte, the lost or
bewildered) which in fact deserves such a name."[24] (This is an
obvious misspelling of Diadachton.) Weiser was following the
Sheshequin Path with Shickellamy to Onondaga and this entry is

recorded on March 25, 1737, long before there was any question about
the Tiadaghton.
There seems to be some confusion over Bishop Spangenburg's use of
the term "Limping Messenger" in his journal for June 8, 1745. He too
was traveling the Sheshequin Path with David Zeisberger, Conrad
Weiser, Shickellamy, Andrew Montour, et al. He describes the
"Limping Messenger" as a camp on the "Tiadachton" (Lycoming),
whereas DeSchweinitz in his Zeisberger interprets the term to