AREA HISTORY: History of Adams County, Chapter XXI, Adams County, PA Contributed for use in the USGenWeb Archives by Kathy Francis Copyright 2005. All rights reserved. http://www.usgwarchives.net/copyright.htm http://www.usgwarchives.net/pa/adams/ _______________________________________________ History of Cumberland and Adams Counties, Pennsylvania Chicago: Warner, Beers & Co., 1886 _______________________________________________ Part III, History of Adams County, Pages 135-137 CHAPTER XXI. DEBATING SOCIETIES-THE GETTYSBURG SENTIMENTAL SOCIETY-POLUGLASSIC SOCIETY-THE GETTYSBURG DEBATING AND SENTIMENTAL SOCIETY. In studying a people who have passed away there is nothing that so readily gives us insight into their intellectual life - and, after all, this is the only part of the history of the human race that is both interesting and instructive - as the papers they wrote and the discussions they had. It is here we reach the regions of mind growth; how and what they concerned themselves about as thinking and reflecting beings. The questions discussed in the ancient style of debating societies tell much of the people. These societies, in their original style, have mostly passed away. Then the whole male population of the village, attended with interest all their meetings. A question for the next week would be proposed, and two leaders named, and they would choose every one in the room, alternately, and even the boys would taper off the end of the many debaters. A president chosen, and, after listening to all the speeches, decide the question. They were valuable schools for old and young. Here were often fostered and developed the orators who were destined “to hold Senates spell-bound.” “The Gettysburg Sentimental Society” was the first debating club organized in the county. Its first meeting was on the night of October 2, 1807. William Reed was secretary. Question: “Are our senses fallacious?” The question was argued long and fairly, it seems, by volunteer speakers, and the decision, by a vote of the house, was unanimously in the affirmative. But disputants had become excited, especially those who did not agree with the decision, and they poured long communications into the columns of Harper’s paper. They finally forced a re-argument in, but were again voted down; and for years afterward discussions on the vexed question were to be heard by those who regularly occupied seats on store boxes in front of the store in all good weather. The next question was more practical, but did not elicit such earnest disputants. It was “Should a Representative be guided by the will of his constituents instead of his own?” The question as the reader will see, was loosely stated, but closely and ably argued. The next: “Should bank notes be made legal tender?” These old-fashioned statesmen decided this in the negative. At the next meeting John Edie became secretary, and the question discussed was “Is female timidity constitutional or acquired?” This called out a torrent of the latent eloquence of the village. The bald heads and gray beards in eloquent measures said it was “acquired;’ the callow brood of young Demosthenes vowed it was the most “constitutional” thing in the world. And thus back and forth they plied each other with pelting quibs and quillets of the brain, but when the momentous hour arrived, late at night, for a vote as to which side had the best of the discussion, it was overwhelmingly voted in favor of “acquired.” A. M. McIlhenny was now elected secretary. Question: “Are theatrical performances injurious to society?” As there was no immediate prospect of any of the cheap humbug troupes that now so frequently inflict their presence upon the town, this question did not elicit such intense interest as the girl question. Then in its order the society discussed the subject “Is duelling a mark of courage?” This was decided in the negative. Then came the tremendous question “Idomeneus, king of Crete, made a vow to Neptune, to sacrifice the first he should meet on his return from Troy. He met his own son. Was he in the right to fulfill his engagement, or not?” This was a ponderous and intricate problem of life. It had a classical twang, and a spice of mythology, fable and moral duty about it that set it to bumping around in the brain of every classical mind in the community. These people were the immediate descendants of an age of intolerance; when men were prone to discussions on the most nebulous subjects which they did not at all understand; an age when every one had to profess to believe, without the ability or the effort to understand, when the generality believed, or be looked upon as a proper subject for extermination. These people were then just building the American head upon the Old World German trunk, with its Anglo-Saxon mask. They were the sons of the men of such an age and of such blood as we have described, and, therefore they could find in this question a field for endless disputation. This question at all events seemed to fill out the remainder of the season and the “Sentimental Society” adjourned sine die. It was revived again the next winter, but it was in an enfeebled condition. The last winter’s question probably had overtaxed it; at any rate it now seems to have gone into a dormant state that lasted some years. In 1809 another debating society was formed in the town, called the “Poluglassic Society;” heavens, what names! This club met at the house of Nathaniel Paxton. The first question discussed was “Whether is the prodigal or miser the worst member of society?” We are not informed how it was decided. Did the good people of those primitive days have either misers or prodigals? A communication from J. Howard Wert, of Harrisburg, who has his father’s papers, give the particulars of the revival of the Sentimental Society. Mr. Wert wrote under the impression that this was the original organization of the club, and was not aware of the previous history of the society as given above. He says: “December 9, 1813, there was organized in the schoolhouse of Robert Horner, Gettysburg, a society styled ‘The Gettysburg Debating and Sentimental Society.’ The schoolhouse stood on the corner where the school property now is, and the teacher was the grandfather of the present Dr. Horner. “The society appears to have been flourishing for a time, but to have gone down about September, 1816. I have the records now in my possession, and the last meeting recorded was August 31 of that year. There were on that occasion but five members present, when the meeting commenced; one expelled member was readmitted by a vote of three to two, and another member presented himself and took his seat before adjournment. “The last record in the book is in the handwriting of Adam Wert, recently deceased, and the records have been in his care ever since that time. About ten years ago Judge Zeigler visited father for the purpose of seeing these old records. As far as he knew there were at that time one or two survivors besides father and himself. “The first member to die was George W. Spencer (the first signer of the constitution), killed at the battle of Bridgewater, in Upper Canada, July 25, 1814. To the best of my knowledge father was the last survivor, dying November 17, 1885, more than seventy-one years after Spencer.* The book contains the resolutions adopted at the reception of the intelligence of Spencer’s death; also a copy of the same printed in the office of the Centinel. “The original members numbered thirteen; the added members thirty-one; total, forty-four. I append the list. Some are quite familiar names to a majority of your citizens, but many are but dimly recollected even by the oldest inhabitants.” ORIGINAL MEMBERS. George W. Spencer, Richard Abbott, James McFarland, David Middlekauf, John Agnew, George McKnitt, Henry Welsh, David Horner, R. G. Harper. Isaac R. Smith, James Galloway, Adam Wert, Thomas J. Cooper, ADMITTED MEMBERS. David Garvin, John Scott, Matthew Gegan, John M. Duncan, William Miller, James Cornelius, David Brown, James B. McCreary, Thomas Durborow, Alfred Crawford, Horatio Wales, Alexander McIlvain, Philip Varnum, Jacob Middlekauf, Henry H. Owings, Hugh McKalip, Evan Watkins, William Scott, Samuel McFarland, David Sweeney, Alexander Cobean, Clement McKnitt, T. Lloyd, James Gettys, John Horner, Daniel Ogden, James Rowan. David Zeigler, Solomon Hetser, Samuel Cobean, Simon Shoppy, *A mistake. James McCreary is now living in Great Bend, Penn., aged eighty- seven years. A younger brother, Henry McCreary, though not a member of society, is living near Pittsburgh.-ED.