ion Act of 1785, there was little chance for the
development of an aristocratic class.[20] It was a society of
achievement in which the race was open to anyone who could acquire land,
with the approval of his neighbors and the Fair Play men, and "improve"
it. There is no evidence to indicate that the availability of land was
restricted because of national origin, religious affiliation, or a
previous condition of servitude. This is not to say that the judgments
of neighbors may not have been based upon these criteria, but, at least,
there is no record of such discrimination. The Fair Play settlers were
eighteenth-century souls and romantic egalitarianism was not a
characteristic of such persons. The frontier, however, broke "the cake
of custom" and the necessities of that experience contributed to the
development of democracy as we have defined it.

A recent writer, analyzing the "democracy" of the Scotch-Irish, made his
evaluation on the basis of the contemporary French definition of
liberty, equality, and fraternity.[21] On this basis, the Scotch-Irish
fail; but if we equate democracy with self-determination, the
Scotch-Irish and the Fair Play settlers of the West Branch Valley can be
seen as thoroughgoing democrats.

The value system of the pioneers on the West Branch of the Susquehanna
reflected, at least in part, the democracy of the frontier. The spirit
of cooperation and mutual helpfulness was a prime characteristic of this
frontier, as it was of others. Cabin-raisings, barn-raisings, and the
cooperative enterprises at harvesttime enhanced the spirit of community
and brought the settlers together in common efforts, which demonstrated
their equality. Individualism could be harnessed for the common good,
and such was the case among the Fair Play settlers in the struggle for
economic survival.

Faith, patriotism, and temperance were not necessarily democratic, but
they also were part of the value system of the Fair Play settlers. In
matters of faith, there was a certain "live and let live" philosophy,
which had democratic implications. Despite the conflict between
Methodists and Presbyterians, the members of the Presbyterian majority
made their homes available to Methodist preachers.[22] This demonstrated
a willingness at least to hear "the other side." Such an atmosphere is
conducive to democracy, if not to conversion. There is little doubt,
however, that this receptivity was due in part to the absence of any
"re