George Washington at Millers Run in 1784 |

George Washington at Millers Run in 1784

A portrait of George Washington, first president of the United States serving from 1789 to 1797. (Photo by National Archive/Newsmakers)

Last month, the Bridgeville Area Historical Society presented a workshop on George Washington’s visit to Western Pennsylvania in 1784 as part of its “Second Tuesday” series.

Following the cessation of hostilities in 1783, Washington returned to civilian life at Mt. Vernon. The estate there was an extremely valuable property, 8,000 acres and four productive farms.

In addition, Washington had thousands of acres of property elsewhere. The portions that were developed had been left in the care of agents, many of whom he felt had not been good stewards of the property. Consequently, he decided to make a trip west to inspect his holdings in person.

Accompanied by Dr. James Craik and three servants, he headed west on Sept. 1, 1784. After visiting several properties in western Virginia, on Sept. 12 he arrived at his agent Gilbert Simpson’s plantation at Washington’s Bottom, now Perryopolis, Pa.

Washington’s 1,644 acres there were not generating the income he had anticipated. He decided to terminate his relationship with Simpson and attempt to sell or lease the property at public auction. A large group attended the auction, but no one bid on the property.

While at Simpson’s plantation, Washington was visited by a delegation of people living on his Millers Run property, attempting to ascertain his intentions about it. He promised to meet them at Millers Run later in the week. On Sept. 18, Washington and his party arrived at the estate of Col. John Canon, whom Washington described as “a kind hospitable Man; & sensible.”

Two days later, Washington visited the property, 2,813 acres near Venice. In 1771, Col.William Crawford had surveyed it and built a small cabin on it. At that time, the area was still claimed by both Pennsylvania and Virginia. Pennsylvanians encouraged a group of Scotch-Irish to settle on Washington’s land. They moved in, built cabins and barns, and generally improved the land, despite being warned by Crawford that they were squatters.

Washington dined with one of them (David Reed), and then met with the full group of 14 settlers to resolve their differences. Their spokesman, James Scott, reported that they felt their claims to the land were superior to Washington’s but that they would be willing to discuss a compromise.

It appears that the meeting was completely cordial, on both sides. Washington offered to sell his rights for 25 shillings an acre, the going rate for such property at that time. After some discussion, Scott replied courteously that they would prefer to have this settled in court.

Washington returned to Simpson’s plantation, then rode south to Beason Town (now Uniontown) to engage attorney Thomas Smith to represent him in litigation versus the squatters. He arrived back at Mt. Vernon on Oct. 1.

Two years later, Washington’s case against the squatters was heard by Pennsylvania State Supreme Court Justice Thomas McKean in Washington, Pa. The jury ruled in favor of Washington; the squatters then moved to other nearby sites. In 1796, Matthew Ritchie purchased the entire property for $12,000.

It is interesting to imagine Washington as he was in 1784. Then 52 years old, he was still thrilled at the prospect of exploring the frontier on horseback. One wonders if he had ambitions to become president of the new nation at this time.

Categories: Local | Carlynton
TribLIVE commenting policy

You are solely responsible for your comments and by using you agree to our Terms of Service.

We moderate comments. Our goal is to provide substantive commentary for a general readership. By screening submissions, we provide a space where readers can share intelligent and informed commentary that enhances the quality of our news and information.

While most comments will be posted if they are on-topic and not abusive, moderating decisions are subjective. We will make them as carefully and consistently as we can. Because of the volume of reader comments, we cannot review individual moderation decisions with readers.

We value thoughtful comments representing a range of views that make their point quickly and politely. We make an effort to protect discussions from repeated comments either by the same reader or different readers

We follow the same standards for taste as the daily newspaper. A few things we won't tolerate: personal attacks, obscenity, vulgarity, profanity (including expletives and letters followed by dashes), commercial promotion, impersonations, incoherence, proselytizing and SHOUTING. Don't include URLs to Web sites.

We do not edit comments. They are either approved or deleted. We reserve the right to edit a comment that is quoted or excerpted in an article. In this case, we may fix spelling and punctuation.

We welcome strong opinions and criticism of our work, but we don't want comments to become bogged down with discussions of our policies and we will moderate accordingly.

We appreciate it when readers and people quoted in articles or blog posts point out errors of fact or emphasis and will investigate all assertions. But these suggestions should be sent via e-mail. To avoid distracting other readers, we won't publish comments that suggest a correction. Instead, corrections will be made in a blog post or in an article.