Author: Megan Salvatore

River Roots: Pontiac’s War & The Paxton Boys

River Roots is Susquehanna NHA’s blog series featuring history from York and Lancaster Counties that showcases the Susquehanna River’s historic, cultural, and natural resource contributions to our nation’s heritage.

RiverRoots Heritage Blog

On December 14, 1763, 56 vigilantes brutally murdered and mutilated six Conestoga Indian women and children. The mob, known as the Paxton Boys, rode into the small village east of Turkey Hill intending to murder all twenty residents.

About fourteen people, mostly men, had happened to be away from the village during the massacre. They were were taken to the Lancaster workhouse for their safety. But, on December 27th, while the people of Lancaster were in church holding a Christmas service, the Paxton Boys broke in and murdered them.

It can be easy to become numb to such atrocities when studying American history, to write it off as another example of frontier violence. However, the Paxton Boys Massacre was the result of a complicated web of social, religious, financial, and cultural tension. By studying it, we can better understand just how turbulent life was in central Pennsylvania on the eve of the American Revolution.

From One War to Another

When the French and Indian War* ended in early 1763, many British colonists would have celebrated. The French had lost all their North American claims. The British empire had also defeated the Native Americans, who had largely allied with the French after decades of trading with them. As far as the colonists cared, the door to the Ohio Valley and the rest of the lands west of the Appalachian Mountains was now wide open. After all, many men who had fought for wealthy land speculators under the impression that they would receive western lands after the war.

British colonists began streaming west, eager to enjoy what they thought of as the spoils of war. However, the Native people (and, to a lesser extent, French settlers) wanted to fight back against British colonization. A mere three months after the Treaty of Paris, Ottawa, Huron, Pottawatomi, and Ojibwa warriors organized by an Ottawa warrior named Pontiac attacked Fort Detroit. Over the next few months, the Native tribes and nations took several forts in the Great Lakes and Ohio Valley regions and besieged others. 

This confederation of tribes that fought in this conflict (which has come to be known as Pontiac’s War or Pontiac’s Rebellion) was one of the first and most wide-reaching inter-tribal alliances in the history of North America. Native tribes did not act as monoliths; for example, some Ottawa leaders chose to join Pontiac, but not all. But, huge percentages of Native America did join together against British colonization. Ottawas, Hurons, Ojibwes, and Potawatomis from the Great Lakes, Miamis, Weas, Kickapoos, Mascoutens, and Piankashaws from the Illinois Country, and Lenape, Shawnees, Wyandots, and Mingos from Pennsylvania and Ohio all attacked the British backcountry. Even some Seneca, who were part of the Haudenosaunee (Iroquois) Confederacy alliance with Great Britain, supported Pontiac’s War. 

After the French and Indian War, many Native people were done with European alliances. After all, their long-standing relationships with France had meant nothing when France gave England huge swaths of Native land in the Treaty of Paris. Even those who had allied with Great Britain, like the Haudenosaunee, were losing more and more land. In addition to the political and economic pressure to ally with each other against Europe, many Native groups were experiencing religious revivals. Leaders and prophets were urging their followers to embrace traditional spirituality and to reject European goods (especially alcohol), beliefs, and practices.

Instead of peace, the end of the French and Indian War brought increased frontier violence. Native people attacked settlers to deter westward colonization and to support their tribes through taking and selling captives. Settlers, in turn, attacked Native people indiscriminately. Many found it easier and easier to dehumanize Native people and to see them as little more than a barrier to westward expansion. 

1763 Proclamation Line

However, the British government did not need western settlement in 1763. Unlike France, who mostly wanted natural resources from the interior, Great Britain wanted her colonies to be a ready market for British goods. Self-sufficient homesteaders, far from ports and harbors weren’t a priority for parliament. Britain was also keen to avoid another expensive war in North America. The National Debt had ballooned from £75 million in 1756 to £133 million at the end of the war.

Hoping to kill two birds with one signature, King George III issued the Royal Proclamation of 1763. It stated, explicitly, that Native peoples were the original owners of all land in North America, and that only the Crown could buy it from them. The document also banned British settlement west of the Appalachians.

King’s proclamation angered colonists. Pennsylvanians, in particular, chafed at the thought of limiting westward settlement. The Ohio Country was one of the biggest prizes of the French and Indian War. Plus, the Proclamation Line effectively cut Pennsylvania in half.

As Pontiac’s War waged in the backcountry, the mostly Scotch-Irish, Presbyterian settlers of western PA grew angry when the pacifist Quakers refused to create a standing army to fight against Native attacks. On the other hand, the Scot-Irish refugees who were streaming east to avoid the violence on the frontier frightened the Philadelphians. Instead of joining the settlers in their war, many of the Quakers in power wanted to focus on ending the conflict by placating Native people. The settlers felt that the British and the Pennsylvanian governments had both abandoned them.

Conestoga Indian Town

In the 1680s, about 200 Susquehannock people founded Conestoga Indian Town. These people, the Conestogas, initially lived under the protection of the Penn family. As Pennsylvania became increasingly settled and that protection waned, the Conestogas largely assimilated into the local, dominant German and English cultures. By the 1760s, even though the Conestogas were technically protected by the Quaker government, Conestoga Indian Town looked very much like other Christian, Euro-American towns in the area.

However, as tensions increased on the frontier, the Conestogas’ settler neighbors trusted them less and less. Some of those neighbors began to refuse to do business with the Conestogas or to provide them with supplies. They feared that the Conestogas were funneling food or weapons to those fighting with Pontiac in the west. Conestoga leaders petitioned the Quakers for supplies in November of 1763:

To the Honorable John Penn, esquire, lieutenant Governor and Commander-in-chief of the Province of Pennsylvania,

Brother: We (the Conestoga Indians) take the present opportunity, by Captain Montour, to welcome you into this Country by this string of Wampum and as we are settled at this place by an agreement of peace and amity established between your grandfathers and ours, we now promise ourselves your favor and protection, and as we have always lived in peace and quietness with our Brethren and neighbors round us during the last and present Indian Wars, we hope now, as we are deprived from supporting our families by hunting, as we formerly did, you will consider our distressed situation and grant our women and children some clothing to cover them this winter. The government has always been kind enough to allow us some provisions, and did formerly appoint people to take care of us, but as there is no person to take that upon him, and some of our neighbors have encroached upon the tract of land reserved here for our use, we would now beg our brother, the Governor to appoint our friend Captain Thomas McKee, who lives near us and understands our language, to take care and see Justice done us.

SOHAYS, his mark

CUYANGUERRYCOEA, his mark

SAGUYASOTHA (JOHN), his mark (Colonial Records 9:88)

Just a month later, the Paxton Boys destroyed the entire town and massacred all of its residents. It can be tempting to see the attack as just another bloody episode of back-and-forth violence during a particularly bloody year. However, the killings were also unavoidably political. By doing their best to destroy even these “friendly Indians,” the Paxton Boys were sending a message to the Quakers. If Pennsylvania wasn’t going to fight the Indians for the settlers, then the settlers would take matters into their own hands and fight all Native people, no matter their relationship with Quakers.

Aftermath

The Quakers’ disproportionate control over the legislature and their failure to defend the frontier angered backcountry Pennsylvanians. After Paxton Boys’ Massacre of the Conestoga, about 600 armed frontiersmen marched to Philadelphia. A delegation of prominent Philadelphians, including Ben Franklin, met the protesters. They stopped the mob from entering the city by promising them that the legislature would hear their complaints. The assembly offered no redress for the protesters’ main grievances and publicized the incident.

The government issued proclamations ordering the Paxton Boys’ arrest. However, many frontiersmen were sympathetic to their actions. None of the men were arrested and they were so well protected that most of their identities are unknown to this day.

The “Conestoga Indians” descended from the Susquehannock and refugees from other tribes. Historians often use the massacre as a convenient way to end the Susquehannock story. However, other Susquehannock people had spread far and assimilated into the Seneca, Cayuga, and Oneida nations in New York’s Finger Lakes Region. Others married European traders and settlers, entering into the new American culture. John Skenandoa, a noted Oneida pine tree chief more widely known as Shenandoah, was born Susquehannock. A seventh-generation descendant, Joanne Shenandoah, continues the Susquehannock legacy as a Grammy Award-winning singer and composer.

*  The French and Indian War (1754-1763) is the name for the North American phase of a war between France (and French-Allied Native Americans) and Great Britain (and British colonists and some British-Allied Native Americans). It eventually spiraled into a larger conflict involving most of Europe and parts of Asia. This larger war is called the Seven Years War (1756-1763), but the two names are sometimes used interchangeably. Just to make it even more confusing, some historians argue that the entire conflict was just part of the War of Austrian Succession, making it a 23-year-long war, not seven!  

Learn More

Brubaker, Jack. Massacre of the Conestogas: On the Trail of the Paxton Boys in Lancaster County. (Available on the SNHA online store)

Green, John. “The Seven Years War: Crash Course World History #26.” CrashCourse (Youtube Channel) 

RiverRoots: Susquehannock Culture

Sources

“Proclamation Line of 1763, Quebec Act of 1774 and Westward Expansion.” Office of the Historian. 

“Confronting the National Debt: The Aftermath of the French and Indian War.” LumenLearning.

Goode, Michael. “Pontiac’s War and the Paxton Boys.” The Encyclopedia of Greater Philadelphia. 

Green, John. “The Seven Years War: Crash Course World History #26.” CrashCourse (Youtube Channel) 

Greenspan, Jesse. “How the Proclamation of 1763 Sparked the American Revolution.” History. 

Kirk, Andrew. “Desperation, Zeal, and Murder: The Paxton Boys.” Pennsylvania Center for the Book.  

Martin, Darvin L. “A History of Conestoga Indiantown.” Digital Paxton. 

McCutchen, Jennifer Monroe. “Proclamation Line of 1763.” George Washington’s Mount Vernon.   

“Royal Proclamation, 1763.” Indigenous Foundations. 

Stewart, Austin. “Proclamation Line of 1763.” The Encyclopedia of Greater Philadelphia. 

Columbia & Susquehanna
Through the Lens of John Reitzel

Now on display at Columbia Crossing River Trails Center, Susquehanna NHA presents: “Columbia & Susquehanna: Through the Lens of John Reitzel.” Reitzel is a Columbia native and amateur photographer. Visitors to this brand-new exhibit will see his photography of scenes from around Columbia and along the lower Susquehanna River in handmade frames.

John Reitzel is an Air Force veteran and has 35 years of experience as a color analyst in the catalog and magazine printing industry. He has captured the river and the town in a variety of forms, colors, and seasons. Enjoy some of his favorite works alongside a brief historical note related to the view. Reitzel’s talent extends beyond the camera to woodworking, which he has been doing for nearly 30 years. All the photo frames in this exhibit are handmade by John.

“My passion for photography started 2 years ago when my wife and I went on a trip to Yosemite. I bought a camera to document the trip and realized how enjoyable it can be to take pictures. I’ve always felt a close connection to nature, and being a lifelong resident of Columbia, photography helped me discover the amazing things we have right in our backyard.” – John Reitzel

Enjoy Reitzel’s perspective of his hometown, Veterans Memorial Bridge, and Susquehanna River wildlife. Recently Reitzel was recognized in the Susquehanna Greenway Photo Contest, in which he won first place in the River Towns category and second place in the Susquehanna Adventures category. “Columbia & Susquehanna: Through the Lens of John Reitzel” will be on display at the Columbia Crossing River Trails Center through November. Visitors are welcome during operating hours: 10 am – 4 pm Tuesday through Saturday and 12 pm – 4 pm on Sundays. The exhibit is free, but donations are appreciated. Order forms are available in the exhibit at Columbia Crossing for those who wish to purchase any of Reitzel’s artwork.

River Roots: America’s Greatest Sonneteer

River Roots is Susquehanna NHA’s blog series featuring history from York and Lancaster Counties that showcases the Susquehanna River’s historic, cultural, and natural resource contributions to our nation’s heritage.

RiverRoots Heritage Blog

For National Poetry month, SNHA is featuring notable Columbia resident, Lloyd Mifflin, known for his success in the arts. His story is that of a talented painter and poet, whose love of the local native landscape was reflected in his work. Mifflin’s Susquehanna river scenes have served as representation of the Susquehanna River corridor’s exquisite natural beauty to the rest of the world. His poems convey a love affair with the river landscape. More celebrated for his poetry than his art, he was acclaimed as “America’s Greatest Sonneteer.” His legacy left his mark on the region and continues to captivate visitors 100 years after his death.

The Boy

Lloyd Mifflin was born on September 15, 1846 to John Houston Mifflin and Elizabeth Ann Bethel Heise in an elegant brick Federal-style townhouse on Walnut Street in Columbia, Pennsylvania. The Mifflin’s lived comfortably in their townhouse in Columbia, built by the Bethel family. They summered at their country estate, Norwood, just outside of Columbia on a hilltop overlooking the Susquehanna River. John Houston Mifflin built Norwood, named after the Mifflin’s family home in Warminster, England in 1850.

John Houston Mifflin raised his family in the virtues of old-fashioned chivalry, to be upholders of the American upper-middle class Victorian establishment. Lloyd Mifflin had a happy childhood, enjoyed a comfortable life, and never wanted for anything. In the Mifflin household, art and literature were important. Lloyd’s father was an amateur poet and had studied at portraiture at The Pennsylvania Academy of Fine Arts. He encouraged Lloyd to think for himself and develop his own tastes. Lloyd was sent to nearby country school in Norwood then attended the public schools in Columbia, although most of his education came from private tutors.

Lloyd was one of three children that survived to adulthood. Lloyd’s mother died when he was just eight years old. Elizabeth Ann Mifflin was buried in Mt. Bethel Cemetery in 1855. After his wife’s death, John Houston Mifflin inherited extensive land and financial holdings in Columbia. He gave up his art career to become a successful land developer and businessman.

Lloyd was drawn to the Susquehanna early in life. He grew up on the riverbanks drinking in the natural wonders of his local landscape. Mifflin developed a deep love of the Susquehanna river and spent most of his free time among its natural beauty reading his favorite poets or adventuring with friends. He developed a passion for the arts and a love of poetry. By age 14, Lloyd decided he wanted to be an artist.

The Artist

Acquiring talent and skill from his father, Lloyd continued to develop as an artist. He studied under Thomas Moran in Philadelphia from 1869 to 1870. Moran would go on to become famous for paintings of western mountains. Lloyd began to fall in love with landscapes. In 1871, Mifflin traveled the Susquehanna River from its source in Lake Otsego, Cooperstown, New York to Chesapeake Bay, making sketches of Pennsylvania towns and bridges during his journey.

The following year, Mifflin left for Europe where he studied the great masters in the galleries throughout Europe. During his European tour, he learned from many successful artists of the time. He studied various landscapes and acquired a much more sophisticated use of color and light in his artwork. He returned home from Europe in 1873 a far more talented painter. Mifflin had a special talent for skillful depictions of landscapes with radiating light from the center of the picture that reflects off streams or objects. He was a master of tonality and luminosity.

He resumed his sketching expeditions, capturing the ageless beauty of Pennsylvania river valleys and towns. Lloyd Mifflin’s deep love of nature drew him to the Susquehanna time and time again. His “View of the Susquehanna Looking Toward Turkey Hill”, one of the first American scenes painted after his return from Europe, demonstrates his newly acquired skills. His best known and most widely admired works are those depicting the scenery of the Susquehanna River. He held a certain provincialism for his native region and refused to move to New York, even though Moran encouraged him to do so. During his lifetime, Mifflin did not need to sell his paintings to earn his livelihood. He lived a life of the landed gentleman that some described as a “highly sensitive, elitist dandy.”

Mifflin lived a style befitting a gentleman of means. He drove a coach-and-four, visited friends and relatives, “mixed with the very best sort of society”, and took up photography, creating thousands of glass-plate negatives and lantern slides. He developed into a good photographer over the years; the glass plate negatives served as photographic studies for his landscape paintings. Mifflin continued to take photographs until he suffered a heart attack in 1892. Convinced that the chemical fumes were harmful to his health, he gave up photography, although he continued painting sporadically.

John Houston Mifflin died in 1888. As oldest son, Lloyd inherited the Norwood estate and a large portion of the family’s real estate holdings. This included not only land but extensive rental buildings, many in prime locations in Columbia. He took up residence in his fathers’ Norwood estate and greatly expanded it in 1901.

The Poet

In the 1890s, he was forced to give up the outdoor art of landscape painting due to continuing ill health, he focused on writing poetry that he had always enjoyed. Mifflin turned to poetry at the age of 51. He devoted his greatest efforts to the sonnet, considering it the most distinguished and exalted of all forms of English poetry. Mifflin aspired to write the perfect sonnet, a poem consisting of fourteen lines usually in iambic pentameter. He enjoyed the structure, lyrical beauty, the plan of metrical rhyme and diction. The rhyme schemes and diction include many metaphors and extensive use of vocabulary.

During his lifetime, Lloyd was widely recognized for his poetry. His work was very popular in England. His earliest commercial collection, “The Hills”, was published in 1896. He wrote more sonnets than William Shakespeare, John Milton, and William Wordworth in his lifetime. He published fourteen books, including 500 sonnets in his lifetime.

Mifflin never married; it is assumed that his work was his love. Through the years Lloyd was very generous in giving to causes, people and organizations. He donated paintings and books to be auctioned. He wrote many poems for organizations to commemorate special events. For years, Lloyd donated many of his books of poetry to colleges, libraries, and other institutions.

He suffered a stroke in 1915 while completing his last collection of sonnets, “As Twilight Falls”, which was published in 1916. He survived another 5 years before dying at his home on July 16, 1921. He was buried in the Old Brick Burial Yard within Mount Bethel Cemetery. He received honorary degrees in literature from University of Pennsylvania and Franklin Marshall College. Author, E. Hershey Sneath, wrote a book in 1928 that called Mifflin “the most prolific writer of sonnets in the history of English and American poetry.” The work was entitled America’s Greatest Sonneteer, which gave Lloyd the popular title, he is now known for.

In his will, he bequeathed land to the Columbia schools on both sides of Taylor school for a playground, with the conditions the land is not developed and that a student from the school place a flower on his grave every year on his birthday. The first tribute began that September and the tradition continues today, 2021 marks the 100th year. Typically, various sonnets of his are read aloud, hymns are sung, and sometimes guest speakers are featured.

The Mifflin family also supported local education by bequeathing two houses from their estate, the cottage known as Norwood and the grand house, Cloverton, to be sold to benefit local schools.  Lloyd’s brother, Houston also donated land for a school playground. After Houston Mifflin’s death, a flower was also placed on his grave during the annual Lloyd Mifflin memorial ceremony.

Most of Lloyd Mifflin’s paintings that remained at the family summer home and were later acquired by the Pennsylvania Historical and Museum Commission. His drawings and manuscripts were acquired by Franklin and Marshall College in Lancaster, Pennsylvania. Many of his glass plate negatives remain in private hands, including one lot rescued from a refuse dump in Columbia.

This region was Lloyd Mifflin’s local landscape and his primary interest, as a boy, an artist, and a poet. The characteristics of his landscape paintings and the themes of many of his poems came from what he saw and experienced in his neighborhood. He left a legacy that showcases his natural talents, his passion and love for the Susquehanna, and generosity live on throughout the community he once called his home.

Learn more about Lloyd Mifflin

Want to learn more about Lloyd Mifflin’s well-known works? Read some of his river related poetry here. View the Visions of the Susquehanna exhibit is on display at the Zimmerman Center for Heritage or visit the State Museum of Pennsylvania, which holds the largest collection of Lloyd Mifflin paintings.

View the Lloyd Mifflin mural on the back on the Forrester’s building, near the entrance of the Columbia Historic Preservation Society, and visit the Columbia Historic Preservation Society to view their Lloyd Mifflin exhibit.

Take a scenic drive to view Norwood (511 Norwood Rd. Columbia, Pa) and Lloyd Mifflin’s Birthplace, the Cottage. (165 Walnut St. Columbia, Pa) Please remember these are private residences and do not trespass but view from afar.

Use the Mount Bethel Cemetery Brochure to locate Lloyd Mifflin’s gravesite and learn more about the annual memorial.

Sources

C. (2020, Spring). Lloyd Mifflin. Historic Times, 75, 1.

W., W. P. (1965). Lloyd Mifflin: Painter and poet of the Susquehanna. Harrisburg Pa.: Pennsylvania Historical and Museum Commission.

Mifflin family papers (1689-1877). (n.d.). Retrieved April 15, 2021.

PA state archives – MG-165 – scope and Content note – lloyd Mifflin collection. (n.d.). Retrieved April 15, 2021.

Mifflin: Lloyd MIFFLIN Collection, 1751-1965. (2019, July 22). Retrieved April 15, 2021.

Lloyd Mifflin. (2018, August 10). Retrieved April 15, 2021.

Scribbler, J. (2018, September 19). Columbia schools present annual rose to Poet lloyd MIFFLIN [The Scribbler]. Retrieved April 15, 2021.

Our history. (n.d.). Retrieved April 15, 2021.

21 Sep 1920, 7 – Lancaster examiner and the Semi-weekly new era At Newspapers.com. (n.d.). Retrieved April 15, 2021.

Lloyd Mifflin Obituary. (n.d.). Retrieved April 15, 2021.

Lloyd Mifflin: Artist of the Susquehanna. (2019, September 26). Retrieved April 15, 2021.

Susquehanna’s painters. (2017, July 27). Retrieved April 15, 2021.

River Roots: Underground Railroad at Hybla

River Roots is Susquehanna NHA’s blog series featuring history from York and Lancaster Counties that showcases the Susquehanna River’s historic, cultural, and natural resource contributions to our nation’s heritage.

RiverRoots Heritage Blog

Stories of the Underground Railroad are inherently difficult to uncover and share. Unlike military or political history, few primary written records exist because assisting those escaping slavery was illegal and punishable with prison time and fines. Many enslaved people escaped without assistance and many supporters of the underground railroad were involved only periodically or occasionally. Stringing together the routes of the network, safe houses, and transportation methods has become a challenging but essential research interest of historians across the United States.

The Lower Susquehanna River Valley is particularly unique as the counties of York and Lancaster were hotbeds of abolitionist sentiment and Underground Railroad activity. Stories have been passed down from generation to generation about barns, basements, and cellars being used as hiding places. Historians sift through wills, deeds, newspaper ads, and genealogical information across multiple states and countries to tell the story of enslaved people, who became the agents of their own liberation. These accounts should not go unnoticed because the Underground Railroad story is a classic American story of “underdogs fighting the system with or without outside assistance.” (Leroy Hopkins in introduction to The Ground Swallowed Them Up.)

In the Susquehanna National Heritage Area, one site holds more definitive Underground Railroad history and significance than many others. It is the Hybla property just outside the town of Wrightsville in Hallam Township. Many people may know this property as the Mifflin Farm or Wright Mifflin Farm.

The Home at Hybla

The first purchaser of the property was John Wright Sr., who established the ferry across the Susquehanna River in 1730 from present-day Columbia. He purchased hundreds of acres on the west side of the river in what became Hallam Township and passed it down to his children. There is contradicting accounts as to whether John Wright Sr. or his son James Wright erected the home on the property. James Wright died in 1788 and divided the property between his children. James’s daughter, Susanna, was given a 108-acre tract on which the Mifflin house is located. Susanna Wright Mifflin and her husband Jonathan Mifflin moved into the home on the property in 1800 after they married. They named the property Hybla.

After their deaths in 1829 and 1840, their son Samuel W. Mifflin lived at Hybla until 1846. During the nearly 50 years that the Mifflin family called Hybla home the Underground Railroad became the primary method to free enslaved people from southern states that refused to abolish the practice. Pennsylvania and many other Northeastern states had enacted gradual abolition of slavery before the turn of the century.  The Wright and Mifflin families were staunch abolitionists. Their Quaker religion held that all people were equal under the eyes of God. Therefore, they should all be treated equally. It was not overnight that the Quakers chose to vehemently oppose slavery, but over the course of a century between 1675 – 1775 the religion developed a solid stance against the practice. Susanna, Jonathan, and their son Samuel were committed abolitionists publicly denouncing slavery at Quaker meetings and privately channeling freedom seekers across the Susquehanna River for half a century.

Underground Railroad at Hybla

In the early 1880s, Dr. Robert C. Smedley decided to record and publish accounts of Underground Railroad experiences in Southeastern Pennsylvania from interviews with its agents, conductors, and stationmasters. His narrative showcases primarily the free white supporters of freedom seekers and captures their memories of Underground Railroad activities. Smedley features Samuel W. Mifflin in his work History of the Underground Railroad in Chester and the neighboring counties of Pennsylvania. The account offers multiple stories of fugitives staying on the Hybla property, in the home, as well as being shuttled across the Susquehanna. Each short narrative showcases an important element or principle of the Underground Railroad’s operation.

“As far back in his boyhood as he can remember Samuel was accustomed to seeing fugitives passed along by different members of their family.” On one occasion, he recalled a freedom seeker was hidden in a cornfield and fed day after day by a cousin. The cousin would go out with his gun as if to hunt but his game bag was filled with provisions. (p. 48-49) It was very common for Quakers or abolitionists to offer a safe location on the property but not necessarily in the home. Cellars, barns, and in this instance, cornfields could be used to conceal freedom seekers, allowing them a few hours or days rest and recuperation before continuing their journey.

On a visit home to see his ailing father, Samuel found “the parlor occupied by thirteen fugitives. They comprised two families of men, women, and children whom his elder brother found wandering in the neighborhood. The windows were closed to prevent discovery, and a lamp kept burning all day. They were thus guarded during two days and nights of stormy weather and high water in the Susquehanna which prevented their crossing the river. On the third night they were transferred to the care of Robert Loney who ferried them over to the Columbia shore.” (p. 49)

This story, in particular, reveals an important element of the Underground Railroad that can be misunderstood – that African Americans were only shuttled to freedom by white abolitionists. In reality, African Americans were not passive figures but agents of their own liberation. These two families were found wandering and brought to the home. It is possible they had been assisted by a free Black or another white abolitionist and were told to head to Wrightsville on their path to freedom. It is also possible they headed to Wrightsville from rumors that the river there was the border with Canada. It was a common misconception because of how wide the river was at Wrightsville. Either way, it is important to remember that African Americans undertook the primary risk and struggle for freedom. There was a broad range of experiences and many made it without the support of the Underground Railroad network.

By far the most detailed story Smedley recounts about Hybla is that of Perry Wilkinson, an enslaved man and Baptist preacher. He was brought by a guide to the Mifflin’s at ten in the evening. Although he was offered a bed, Perry would not eat and paced the floor all night. He was thinking of his wife and family whom he had left behind. Perry had been enslaved in Anne Arundel, MD and was hired out on a boat that traveled between his master’s wharf and Baltimore. When his master died, Perry received word from a friend that his widow had decided to sell Perry. As soon as the boat landed in Baltimore, Perry journeyed north, traveling by night and hiding in the woods each day until he reached York and was brought to Samuel Mifflin. (p. 50-51) Although some freedom seekers had the opportunity to plan their journey, many others were forced, like Perry, to make a quick, deliberate, and difficult decision. No matter the choice that Perry made he would be separated from his family in a matter of days. Perry’s story is a representation of a truly dehumanizing nature of the chattel slavery in the United States.

Hybla’s Place in the Network to Freedom

Although there were thousands of unique experiences for fugitives on the path to freedom, historians have found some patterns in the routes. Dr. William Switala, a former professor at Duquesne University, studied these patterns and consistently found that the Underground Network between York and Lancaster County was connected across the river in three primary locations: York Haven – Middletown; Wrightsville – Columbia; and at the Peach Bottom Ferry. The York Haven – Middletown ford and ferry were used by freedom seekers that came through Lewisberry, a primarily Quaker town. Peach Bottom Ferry was primarily used by a conductor in Havre de Grace who would shuttle freedom seekers up through southern York County. The Wrightsville – Columbia connection was used more frequently than the other two for two primary reasons.

• Columbia had a large free black population. When the town was laid out in 1787 the northeastern corner of town was set aside for manumitted slaves. Plus, both Columbia and Wrightsville had many Quaker residents who opposed slavery – particularly the Wright Family.
• The network of Underground Railroad supporters in Wrightsville and Columbia crossed racial lines. There were not white abolitionists working separately from free black abolitionists, they worked together, which offered a variety of safe options even when those hunting fugitives were nearby.

Susanna, Jonathan, and Samuel primarily used the service of Robert Loney to move freedom seekers across the Susquehanna. Robert Loney was an African American boatman who was born enslaved in Virginia in 1815. Loney had settled in Columbia in 1819 when his family arrived after being manumitted. He would utilize a rowboat or raft to carry freedom seekers over to Columbia in the dark of night.

Samuel lived at Hybla until 1846, when his profession as an engineer took him out of state on projects. In the first half of the nineteenth century, the Underground Railroad evolved from a rough network of safe houses to a well-organized system. By 1850, when Congress passed the Fugitive Slave Act, the network had multiple layers, passwords/phrases, and travel tactics. For example, there were many Quaker women who were making large quantities of clean and mended clothing to be used by Underground Railroad station masters to help freedom seekers travel without being spotted as people formerly enslaved. By 1847, African American businessman William Whipper had begun an active role in the network. His lumberyard on the Columbia riverfront modified rail cars used in his business with secret compartments for fugitives from slavery.

The Hybla property will forever hold a pivotal place in Underground Railroad history, as an early, consistently used safe haven for African Americans seeking freedom. Whether they wandered into the neighborhood or were guided there, Hybla was central to the evolving network of black and white abolitionists and the freedom seekers who used that network to gain freedom over bondage.

Preserving the Mifflin House and Its Historic Landscape

Susquehanna National Heritage Area (SNHA), Preservation Pennsylvania, The Conservation Fund, and other partners have collaborated on a project to preserve the c.1800 Mifflin House and farmstead as an Underground Railroad and Civil War historic site since 2017. Kinsley Properties of York has been developing an industrial park around the site since the 1990’s with the Blessing family, long-time owners of the farm. As industrial development moved farther east toward the historic farmstead in 2017, demolition of the house, barn, and outbuildings was proposed, leading to much community debate and legal challenges.

As an alternative to demolition and development, the preservation partners proposed acquisition and adaptive use of the buildings and site as a regional heritage center and visitor attraction, with a historic park, nature preserve, and interpretive trails connected to a river park. The project concept plan, posted on SNHA’s website here, includes over 80 acres of Blessing/ Kinsley property and adjacent public and semi-public lands, including riverfront parcels owned by SNHA. In early 2019, the Blessings, Kinsley, and Hellam Township agreed to a two-year moratorium on demolition to allow the project partners time to develop a viable preservation, reuse, and funding plan for the site. These efforts have generated much local, state, and national support and a positive outcome for this important historic site is expected soon.

Learn More

Learn the Language of Slavery from the National Park Service. https://www.nps.gov/subjects/undergroundrailroad/language-of-slavery.htm

Susquehanna Discovery Center at Historic Mifflin Farm.

Foner, E. (2016). Gateway to Freedom: The Hidden History of the Underground Railroad. New York, NY: W.W. Norton & Company.

Kreutz Creek Valley Preservation Society. “Historic ‘Hybla’ under threat In York County, PA.” http://undergroundrroriginspa.org/wp-content/uploads/2017/03/Case4Pres.Mifflin-2-27-17-R-9RD.pdf

Lloyd, June. “Colonel Jonathan Mifflin, Revolutionary War Patriot and Master of Hybla at Wrightsville.” York Daily Record. PPYR, December 7, 2016. https://www.ydr.com/story/news/history/blogs/universal-york/2016/12/06/colonel-jonathan-mifflin-revolutionary-war-patriot-and-master-of-hybla-at-wrightsville/95089776/.

Merrill, John Houston. Memoranda Relating to the Mifflin Family. Washington: L.C. Photoduplication Service, 1985. https://archive.org/details/memorandarelatin00merr/page/n5/mode/2up?q=hybla

Mingus, Scott L. The Ground Swallowed Them up: Slavery and the Underground Railroad in York County, Pa. York, PA: York County History Center, 2016.

Mingus, Scott. “Historic House Was UGRR Station.” York Daily Record. PPYR, June 15, 2016. https://www.ydr.com/story/news/history/blogs/cannonball/2016/06/15/historic-house-in-wrightsville-was-ugrr-station-and-later-a-confederate-artillery-position/85915916/.

Mingus, Scott. “Jacob Huber Farm Was Rebel Artillery Position during the Skirmish of Wrightsville.” Cannonball, October 9, 2020. https://yorkblog.com/cannonball/jacob-huber-farm-was-rebel-art/.

Schaefer, Elizabeth Meg. Wright’s Ferry Mansion. Columbia, PA: Von Hess Foundation, in association with Antique Collectors’ Club, Wappingers Falls, NY, 2005.

Smedley, R. C. (2005). History of the Underground Railroad in Chester and the neighboring counties of Pennsylvania. Mechanicsburg, PA: Stackpole Books.

Switala, W. J. (2008). Underground Railroad in Pennsylvania (Second ed.). Mechanicsburg, PA: Stackpole Books.

University of Chicago Press. “Founders Online: Virginia Delegates to Supreme Executive Council of Pennsylvani …” National Archives and Records Administration. National Archives and Records Administration. Accessed January 15, 2021. https://founders.archives.gov/documents/Madison/01-03-02-0092.

Wright, Samuel C. Hempfield: the Beginning of Columbia. Lancaster, PA: Lancaster County Historical Society, 1913.

River Roots: Shad Wars

River Roots is Susquehanna NHA’s blog series featuring history from York and Lancaster Counties that showcases the Susquehanna River’s historic, cultural, and natural resource contributions to our nation’s heritage.

RiverRoots Heritage Blog

The river is home to many different species of fish including, smallmouth bass, walleye, catfish, musky, northern pike, American shad, and many other smaller panfish. The American Shad on the Susquehanna River has the most interesting and violent history.

Each year millions of migratory shad flooded the river from the Atlantic Ocean and surged upstream to reproduce in the Susquehanna’s North Branch at Cooperstown, NY and streams near Lock Haven. Men and women all along the river from the Chesapeake to New York state relied on the abundance of shad. Known as the “poor man’s salmon,” shad runs lasted for about a month. That brief season provided a burst of protein after a long, lean winter. It also caused disputes, battles, and violent riverfront confrontations for nearly a century.

Shad

Shad are a schooling ocean fish. When they migrate north into fresh water to spawn, buck shad (males) usually come first followed by roe shad (females). Roe shad are generally twice the size of buck shad. Temperature of the water decides when the journey begins. The water must be warmer than 40 degrees Fahrenheit. Shad runs happen all along the Atlantic Coast beginning in January in Georgia’s rivers while in the Northeast the runs are in May or June. However, you will not find a mature shad spawning in Georgia one year and Pennsylvania the next. They will return to their natal river to spawn. That means each river has a distinct spawning stock. On the Lower Susquehanna River, shad runs are normally between mid-April and June.

Schools of fish will follow the deep channels of the river as they travel north. When they reach their spawning location they will normally spawn between sunset and midnight. Shad prefer a gravel or sandy bottom in 4-8 feet of slow-moving water. They are sensitive to light so the brightness of a full moon on a clear night could delay the spawn. Spawning behavior includes a pairing of male and female shad. The pair will swim close together releasing their eggs and milt simultaneously. The shad will normally descend from the river back to the ocean shortly after spawning.

Shad eggs can take between 7 and 21 days to hatch depending on the water conditions. Larvae drift in the river until they mature into juveniles. Juveniles will stay in the river a few months feeding on zooplankton and insects. By late fall, most juvenile shad will migrate south of coastal waters. These juveniles will not return to the river for three to six years until they are ready to spawn.

America’s Founding Fish

Native Americans used nets and weirs to catch shad. They would nail the fish to cedar planks and slow cook it over and open fire. In the course of cooking, the tiny shad bones dissolve. The cooking technique was passed to early English settlers and generations to come and is commonly called shad planking. European colonists also kept barrels of salted shad in their homes.

It was such a valuable staple that it was one of Colonial America’s first exports back to Great Britain and Europe. One Columbia man wrote ‘they were so plenty that five to ten dollars per hundred was esteemed a fair price.’ It was so important that access to shad fisheries could be used to settle bills and fathers willed islands and fishing spots to their sons.

Columbia was a hub for shad distribution. The fruits of the river were distributed not just in local markets but also hotels, inns, and restaurants. The Tremont Hotel in Columbia was famous for its planked shad dinners. A visitor from Pittsburg described the Columbia planked shad dinner:

Fresh from the Susquehanna, nailed to a smoking pine plank, broiled thereon before a hot fire, brought to the table on the wood on which it was cooked; steaming hot, brown and crisp on the outer surface; white, juicy and flaky just underneath and clear through, with an indescribably delicate flavor possessed by a shad cooked in no other way, served with crisp, green lettuce and Saratoga chips; served in a cool dining room looking out toward the broad bosom of the sun-kissed river; gentle zephyrs playing in and out of the open windows, a pleasant, jolly, brilliant company, full of jest and song and story-there is nothing under the blue skies that can equal it, save the except more of the same. It is a revelation.  – Pittsburg Dispatch, May 13, 1889.

As early as 1700, the province of Pennsylvania had passed legislation relating to fishing access. The first law barred the construction of fish weirs that stretched from shore to shore. The law was not specifically aimed at protecting the fish populations on their migration, rather, it was intended to make fish equally available to everyone that lived along the waterways. In 1731, the Pennsylvania Assembly received a petition from Lancaster County residents. The Conestoga Creek had been dammed by Stephen Atkinson to for his fulling mill operation. The petition complained that the great quantities of fish once available up stream were stuck below the dam. Atkinson offered to leave a 20-foot-wide passage to allow fish to pass upstream. Before the Assembly took any action, locals took matters into their own hands and destroyed the dam.

In 1761, the Pennsylvania Assembly would pass a series of laws for the preservation of fish in the Susquehanna. It called for weirs, racks, baskets, pounds, and similar devices erected in the river to be destroyed and prohibited building in future years. As seines and large fishing operations became popular in the nineteenth century, the farther north you were on the river the less fish you were likely to catch. In 1814, Pennsylvania northerners complained that fisherman in Columbia were ‘constantly scouring’ shad that most had no chance of making it farther upstream. The Pennsylvania Legislature divided the river into sections and staggered fishing days – though they never enforced it.

About 50 years later, public sentiment demanded the government intervene to protect the shad runs. Between 1825 and 1840 multiple dams had been built on the Susquehanna: one at Columbia and two more on West Branch and Juniata tributaries. The Columbia dam was completed in 1839 and although the state had legislation requiring approval of the engineering plans there was no fishway constructed. A fishway would not be added to the Columbia dam until 1866, so for over 25 years frustrated fisherman complained. Legislation edicts were ended when a proper government agency was created in 1866 and expanded in 1871 – it is now known the Pennsylvania Fish and Boat Commission.

Each spring, newspapers announced the shad run had arrived as fisherman’s wagons loaded down with fresh fish rolled into towns. In 1882, the Lancaster Daily Intelligencer reported that fish dealers throughout the streets of the city doing “lively trade” selling Columbia shad for 25 to 65 cents a piece. Between 1831 and 1850, fisherman caught 41,000 metric tons of shad every year in the Chesapeake Bay region. That is equivalent to the weight of a humpback whale taken from the bay every year! As commercial fisheries expanded to answer the demand for shad and overfishing decreased the shad population, it is easy to see how a disagreement over shad could quickly turn violent.

Shad Wars

Violent outbursts over shad were common every spring from the mid-1700s through the Civil War. Weapons ranged from rocks to rifles – and allegedly a cannon – and their actions became locally referred to as the shad wars. Fishermen would fight over best fishing places, accesses to river islands, and mill dams restricting good fishing. Nearly all the confrontations were on the lower Susquehanna River – south of Columbia. There was a great number of islands to be used for fishing on this section. Islands could be bought and sold like any other private property and were highly desirable locations for good shad fishing.

In the 1850s, a series of incidents became known as the Great Safe Harbor Shad War. In the most heated incident, Columbia seine fishermen traveled down to Safe Harbor to destroy weirs, baskets and other ‘shad-killing contrivances’ in use. The Columbia invaders were met by men with rocks and boat poles as their weapons. It is said that the Columbians retreated under threat of fire from a Griffin cannon made at the nearby Safe Harbor Iron Works. The Safe Harbor men long denied using the cannon. At the end of the decade, six Columbia fishermen attempted to take a fishing island by force. It was claimed by residents of Washington Boro. After a physical exchange, the Columbia men returned to town and charged the Washington Boro men with causing a riot. The judge convicted the Boro men with assault and battery and fined them $5 each. (Columbia Spy, June 16, 1860)

In 1862, a group of anglers from Turkey Hill area were caught poaching shad on an island and fired upon a group of York county men who came to remove them from the island. In the exchange, the Turkey Hill men fired four shots, killing one York Countian and seriously wounding another. A court jury sent one of the Turkey Hill men to Eastern State Penitentiary for 11 ½ years for second-degree murder. (Columbia Spy, November 26, 1862)

Laws had also been passed to prohibit fishermen hauling in shad nets within a half-a-mile from any dam. At the Columbia dam, many locals were continuing to fish just south of the dam. In April 1880, five state fish wardens were sent to Columbia to break up the illegal fishing. The fish wardens were met on the river with distain and their boat was overturned. They managed to swim to the canal tow path and shore but were greeted by more locals carrying “black-jacks, empty bottles, and sections of rock. The wardens reached their hotel nearly more dead than alive, and the landlord locked them in their rooms where they could patch up their cracked heads and listen to the serenades of the fishers under their windows.” (Columbia Spy, May 1, 1880) In a state report later recounting the ongoing illegal fishing at Columbia, they noted that a half-dozen or more delinquents eventually were imprisoned and fined.

In an 1879 report form the Fish Commissioners, there were 48 fisheries in the 5 miles between Columbia and Turkey Hill. There were another 200 fisheries between Turkey Hill and Havre de Grace, Maryland. Over fishing had become a significant issue. The fish commission spent the next decade creating hatcheries along the lower Susquehanna to increase shad populations. They stocked the river with over ten million juvenile shad between 1889 – 1891. The real end to commercial shad fishing would come as a result of the hydroelectric dam construction at Conowingo, Holtwood, and Safe Harbor. Although fishways and stocking programs help boost shad populations, the shad runs of the nineteenth century will likely never return to the lower Susquehanna.

Sources

Chesapeake Bay Program: Shad. https://www.chesapeakebay.net/issues/shad

Columbia Spy. (Columbia, PA) 1849 – 1902. Pennsylvania State Newspaper Archive.  https://panewsarchive.psu.edu/lccn/sn83032185/

Crable, Ad. “Shad Wars: A Long, Violent Period in Lancaster County over a Fish in the Susquehanna,” March 31, 2018. https://lancasteronline.com/news/local/shad-wars-a-long-violent-period-in-lancaster-county-over-a-fish-in-the-susquehanna/article_48c6e18a-3281-11e8-bbdd-c3310badc12c.html.

Gerstell, Richard. American Shad: A Three-hundred Year History in the Susquehanna River Basin. Pennsylvania, Pennsylvania State University Press, 1998.

Justice, Chris. “Shad: An Undeniably American Icon,” March 26, 2008.  https://www.popmatters.com/shad-an-undeniably-american-icon-2496164311.html

McPhee, John. The Founding Fish. New York: Farrar, Straus and Giroux, 2003.

River Roots is Susquehanna NHA’s blog series featuring history from York and Lancaster Counties that showcases the Susquehanna River’s historic, cultural, and natural resources contributions to our nation’s heritage.

RiverRoots Heritage Blog

On its journey to the Chesapeake Bay, various rivers, creeks, and streams converge with the Susquehanna as it traverses the terrain. The Susquehanna River is one of the oldest and most important rivers in North America. Flowing 448 miles, the Susquehanna travels through three states: New York, Pennsylvania, and Maryland. The 28,000 square mile watershed is the longest commercially unnavigable river system in North America. The Susquehanna River Corridor provides an excellent glimpse of unique geological land forms. Providing ample opportunity to study a variety of distinct features and examples of geologic processes on display in Lancaster and York Counties.

Geology is everywhere beneath our feet.

The stories of the Susquehanna wind through time, influencing the lives of those who live along its banks and the landscape itself. On its journey, the river provides abundant resources and connects communities, flowing through ancient rock along the way. The Susquehanna is so old that the mountains and valleys formed around it, rather than the river shaping the valleys.  The river has witnessed mountain building and erosion as the land was shaped and then reshaped around it. Geologists have looked at the Susquehanna for explanations of the formation of the East Coast. It has always inspired visitors, many attempting to unlock the secrets of the Susquehanna.

Just like the river that cuts through them, every rock has a story to tell along the way. The geology of the Susquehanna River is a leading factor in its unnavigability. Even during times when other sections of the river were considered navigable, the Lower Susquehanna remained untamed. The river itself never served as a successful commercial waterway because of rapids and other obstructions. Despite many wholehearted attempts throughout history, nature has held its claim to this part of the watershed. Over time our communities and transportation routes have developed upon the sculpted landscapes, preserving undeveloped stretches of beautiful scenery and important resources along the watershed.

Every year visitors flock to the Lower Susquehanna to see the many geological wonders to be found on the river. We’ll focus on just a few of the most notable features found in the region.

Potholes and Sculpted rock in Falmouth

When the Susquehanna is low the rocks seem to come alive as sculpture-like shaped rocks emerge from the water and stretch across the river below the Conewago Falls in Falmouth, Pennsylvania. Discovered during extremely low water, this otherworldly landscape is one of the most expansive pothole fields uncovered in the United States.

When the York Haven dam was completed in 1904, it was the third largest in the world. The dam follows an existing rock ledge, causing it to cross the Susquehanna river at an angle. Here the river drops 19 feet in 1⁄4 mile. It’s not surprising to find changes in rocks in the riverbed wherever you have a waterfall or otherwise rapid movement in the water. The rocks at the foot of the falls range in size and display various smooth, curvaceous shapes that captivate visitors.

The Conewago potholes and the sculpted rocks found here are composed of diabase, a hard igneous rock, the result of hardened magma emerging during continental drift 200 million years ago. Water and rivers are a major agent of erosion, shaping landscapes over time with the power of water and the sediment it is carrying with it. The potholes were formed as a result of the fast-moving water with the combination of sandy sediment creating underwater vortexes to swirl and carve out the round features in the rock. The igneous rock can withstand the weathering from the water, slowly creating the large smooth boulders… but the hard quartz-sand blasting away with tornado like force did a lot of the carving work, creating a truly unique example of erosion and weathering.

Chickies Rock outcrop in Marietta/Columbia

Chickies Ridge is composed of the uplifted Cambrian Chickies Formation, a mapped bedrock unit in Pennsylvania, New Jersey, and Maryland. It is named for Chickies Rock, a popular rock cliff just north of Columbia along the Susquehanna River. According to the United States Geological Survey (USGS), the summit of the ridge is 587 feet above sea level.

The Chickies Formation is described as a light gray to white, hard, massive quartzite and quartz schist with thin inter-bedded dark slate at the top. Originally the rock was sandstone, but heat and pressure changed the rock into a harder and denser rock. It is a rare metamorphic rock deposit with multiple faults, thrusts, dips, ripples and fossils that can be found throughout the formation. The surrounding rock in the valley was softer compared to the quartzite, leading the softer rock to be weathered and eroded away.

Relative age dating places the Chickies Formation in the Lower Cambrian Period, deposited over 500 million years ago. It was also during this time that the rock was pushed up into an arch. Geologists called this type of fold an anticline.The famous Chickies Rock cliff itself is a classic example. Overlooking the river, Chickies Rock is the largest exposed anticline on the East Coast.

Susquehanna “Deeps”

The Susquehanna Gorge formation starts to take its shape south of Columbia, Pa. Below Turkey Hill, the Susquehanna River is funneled to Port Deposit, MD through a deep canyon-like gorge carved into the ancient rocks of the Piedmont. The river is squeezed through the quarter mile gorge while dropping sharply, roughly 6 feet per mile. On the flat bottom of the 40-mile-long gorge are 6 long spoon-shaped depressions, called the Susquehanna Deeps. These deeps first appeared on Latrobe’s map, derived from his 1801 survey.

During the construction of the Holtwood dam in 1909 some of the deep were exposed, prompting more extensive studies of the depths of all 6 of the Susquehanna Deeps. Some of the deeps are over 100 feet deep, their deepest portions extending below sea level.

Learn more about the geology of the Lower Susquehanna

Use the Geologic Guide of the Northwest Lancaster County River Trail (Columbia to Falmouth) to take a geology tour of the area. A great resource to understanding the unique geology of the Lower Susquehanna River along the scenic Northwest Lancaster County River Trail. Available for purchase in our online store or in person at both Columbia Crossing River Trail Center and Zimmerman Center for Heritage.

Want to visit the Conewago Potholes?  They are best viewed when water is low during the late summer and early fall. Parking is available at the Falmouth Access.

Want to visit Chickes Rock? View it from the NW Lancaster County River Trail or stand on top the anticline at Chickies Rock scenic overloook. Parking is available at Chickies Rock Overlook.

Other Resources 

Brubaker, J. H. (2002). Down the Susquehanna to the Chesapeake. University Park, Pa, PA: Pennsylvania State Univ. Press.

Stranahan, S. Q. (1995). Susquehanna, river of dreams. Baltimore, MD: Johns Hopkins Univ. Press.

Jones, J. L. (2020). Geologic Guide of the Northwest Lancaster County River Trail. Glen Rock, PA: Jones Geological Services.

Mathews, E. B. (1917). Submerged “deeps” in the Susquehanna River. Geological Society of America Bulletin, 28(1), 335-346. doi:10.1130/gsab-28-335

Stose, G. W., & Jonas, A. J. (1933). Geology and mineral resources of the Middletown quadrangle, Pennsylvania. 12-15. doi:10.3133/b840

RiverRoots: Pittsburgh of the East

River Roots is Susquehanna NHA’s blog series featuring history from York and Lancaster Counties that showcases the Susquehanna River’s historic, cultural, and natural resources contributions to our nation’s heritage.

RiverRoots Heritage Blog

Iron was essential in building America. In the 19th century, iron was used in railroads, boats, ships, buildings, and steam engines among other items. Before steel could be easily manufactured, iron was the most popular metal. A small but mighty stretch of iron furnaces could be found along the Susquehanna River in Pennsylvania in the vicinity of Columbia, Marietta, and Wrightsville . In the latter half of the 19th century, eleven iron furnaces were operated between Columbia and Marietta. The industrial complex was expansive enough to rival the Iron City of Pittsburgh, earning it the title The Pittsburgh of the East.

Anthracite Iron Revolution

In the early 1800s, the iron industry went through an important transition from pioneer ironmasters to skilled industrialists. Early iron masters toiled with their workers. To be successful they had to take a real interest in the details of their work, including solving metallurgical problems and transportation logistics. They also had to solve financial problems without the aid of commercial banks. By 1850, progress in technology, banking, and transportation changed the iron industry. Ironmasters could oversee the business operations and hire knowledgeable skilled laborers to lead the furnace operation.

The most important technological change for the Susquehanna River region involved developing the use of anthracite coal in creating pig iron. Charcoal was the standard fuel for combustion but depended on the availability of wood, which was less readily available in the Lancaster area. Anthracite coal was readily mined in Pennsylvania but was too dense to burn productively in blast furnaces. It was so dense it was referred to as ‘Stone Coal.’

The addition of hot air was all that was needed to promote combustion of the dense anthracite coal. The hot blast method was developed in Britain and was then brought to Catasauqua, Pennsylvania. Knowledge of this development spread quickly, which may have led to the construction of the first Columbia area furnace, Shawnee Furnace, in 1844. Just over a decade later in 1856, Lancaster County produced ten percent of all anthracite iron in United States.

Finding the Perfect Location

Compared to Pittsburgh located at the foot of the Allegheny Mountains, the anthracite furnaces of Lancaster County were located near similar geologic conditions. Nearby raw materials like limestone and iron ore inspired savvy entrepreneurs to set up blast furnaces. The nearby flowing water of the Susquehanna could help cool the furnaces and power operations. The towns of Columbia and Marietta were well established and could supply a steady workforce of skilled and unskilled labor.

Like the three rivers in Pittsburgh, the Susquehanna River provided a transportation hub that allowed for the distribution of goods and the success of the pig iron furnaces, allowing for a booming industry. Transportation infrastructure was critical to success. Those businesses and industries along existing or newly constructed routes could easily receive raw materials and ship finished products. For the iron industry in Pennsylvania, canals and railroads were essential. The Eastern Division Canal and the Union Canal in Pennsylvania brought coal from places like Scranton, Wilkes Barre and Pine Grove, and was delivered to Columbia for the nearby furnaces. Much of the pig iron was then shipped east via the railroad to Philadelphia where it was worked and forged into usable products.

Making Pig Iron

Iron ore are rocks from which metallic iron can be extracted. It is extracted through a blast furnace into iron bars or pig iron. The pig iron was then sent to forges where it was worked into wrought iron and, later in 19th century, steel. Pig Iron is produced directly in a blast furnace. Layers of limestone, iron ore, and anthracite coal were dumped into the top of the furnace. Outside the furnace, hot air was made by blower engines powered by water or steam. Hot air was then blasted into the bottom of the furnace which forced the coal to ignite and begin a chemical reaction.

The reaction created molten iron as well as slag. Slag is the waste product of impurities that were removed from the iron ore in the blasting process. The molten slag sits on top of the molten iron so it can be easily poured or channeled out of the furnace.  The molten iron flows from the furnace into a channel consisting of large molds in a sand floor. The flow of molten iron continued into smaller molds attached to the sides of the large ones. The arrangement of smaller and larger molds reminded ironworkers of pigs (the smaller molds) spread at the sides of sows (the larger molds). Thus, ironworkers called the bars made in smaller molds “pigs,” the ones in larger molds “sows,” and the overall product “pig iron.”

Little Pittsburgh in Lancaster County

In the area between Marietta and Columbia eleven furnaces operated between 1845 and the end of the century. It’s important to note that the furnaces did not operate as a lone stack. There were many connected and ancillary buildings to keep the hot blast furnace flowing. It was common to have a casting house, stock house, ore roasters, engine house, as well as houses for the workers. Let’s follow the development and operations of just one of the furnaces: the Chickies Furnace. It is a great example of how iron industry developed and changed quickly in the late nineteenth century. It was the longest operating and most successful furnace in the Columbia-Marietta area.

Chickies No. 1 was constructed in 1845 by Henry Haldeman, who in that same year turned it over to his sons, Samuel and Edwin. Furnaces built by the Haldemans were notable for their advanced technology. Samuel shared information and diagrams of the Chickies No. 1 furnaces in a national journal. Chickies No. 1 went into blast in 1846 and was never out of blast for long periods thereafter. In 1848, it produced 2,464 tons of iron. Letters show us that Samuel Haldeman studied the furnace design and made frequent improvements. In one letter, he wrote that the furnace was built to produce forty ton of pig iron a week but in six days had made seventy-two tons. It was the most productive and technologically advanced of the furnaces on the floodplain.

Chickies No. 1 was originally 32′ high with an 8′ bosh, but the furnace underwent a number of remodeling projects until it was completely rebuilt in 1886. At that time, the stone stack was removed and replaced with an iron cylinder lined with firebrick and set on a mantle ring supported by six cast iron columns. A separate concrete foundation supported the lower bosh and crucible. The resulting furnace was 65′ high with a 12′ bosh and an annual capacity of approximately 17,000 tons, thirty times its output in 1848. All new blast machinery, stoves, and boilers were installed, and a new Romanesque-style brick cast house replaced the earlier one. Special rail connections for moving materials between the two Chickies furnaces were constructed.

The principal ores used at the Chickies furnaces were brown hematite from Chestnut Hill located six miles east and magnetic ores from the Cornwall mines. The pig iron produced was sold under the brand name “Chickies” through agents in Philadelphia, New York, Baltimore, and Pittsburgh. The furnace went out of blast permanently in 1899 and was dismantled not long thereafter. Ten other furnaces operated between 1840 and 1930. To explore the history of each operation visit Rivertownes.org.

Technology Advances Ending Iron Production at Chickies

Just like a change in technology allowed for booming blast furnaces, it was also what ended the era. Between 1840 and 1880 the iron industry experienced profound technological changes, including a shift in fuel from charcoal to anthracite coal and then to bituminous coal and coke. During the 1850s furnaces fueled by anthracite superseded charcoal furnaces. By 1875, furnaces fired with bituminous coal and coke supplanted anthracite furnaces. Bituminous coal allowed for better efficiency and reduced costs for Ironmasters. The iron industry at Chickies was able to produce pig iron for some steel uses and cast-iron products through the 1880s despite the popular fuel change.

In the 1880s, steel mills began to manufacture iron in iron furnaces and then converted the iron into steel. From raw iron ore to steel, the process was under one location and operation. The ironmasters of Columbia and Marietta were quickly unnecessary for steel manufacturing. In 1892, the output of America’s steel mills first surpassed iron production.  Most of the furnaces along the river were dismantled or stopped operating by 1899 and the Pittsburgh of the East faded into history.

Learn More

You can see the remains of the iron furnaces today, most of which can be found along the Northwest Lancaster County River Trail between Columbia and Marietta. Find a map here.

Visit the Musselman-Vesta Iron Furnace Center to learn more about the local Iron Industry. Rivertownes PA USA, operates the Musselman-Vesta Iron Furnace Center and offer guided walking tours.

Run your own furnace! The BBC has created an interactive Blast Furnace Animation. There’s also an option to ‘Build It,’ which allows you to construct all the parts of the furnace stack.

Resources

Rivertownes PA USA: Iron Furnace History: Marietta. Retrieved May 20, 2020, from http://www.rivertownes.org/

Bining, Arthur C. “Early Ironmasters of Pennsylvania.” Pennsylvania History: A Journal of Mid-Atlantic Studies 18, no. 2 (1951): 93-103. Accessed May 27, 2020. www.jstor.org/stable/27769194.

Knowles, Anne Kelly, and Richard G. Healey. “Geography, Timing, and Technology: A GIS-Based Analysis of Pennsylvania’s Iron Industry, 1825-1875.” The Journal of Economic History 66, no. 3 (2006): 608-34. Accessed May 27, 2020. www.jstor.org/stable/3874854.

Overman, Frederick. The Manufacture of Iron. United States: University of Michigan Library, 2012.

Stapleton, Darwin H. “The Diffusion of Anthracite Iron Technology: The Case of Lancaster County.” Pennsylvania History: A Journal of Mid-Atlantic Studies 45, no. 2 (1978): 147-57. Accessed May 27, 2020. www.jstor.org/stable/27772508.