Talk:Hill's Tavern

Possible corrections
These comments were added to the article by an IP user - they should have been added to the talk page. I've moved them here and deleted them from the article so that they can be considered and more properly integrated into the article.


 * comments from ip user 24.3.73.100:
 * (1)According to R. T. Wiley, who wrote "Lafayette in Western Pennsylvania" published in The Western Pennsylvania Historical Magazine Volume 21, Number 2, June 1938, the following quote should be noted: "The only break in the journey from Washington to Uniontown, as far as record has been found, was at Brownsville, where a stop was made for lunch." There is no mention of Lafayette stopping at Scenery Hill, and unless he signed a guest book and the signature can be authenticated, claims he was there should be taken with a grain of salt.


 * (2) Andrew Jackson is known to have visited western Pennsylvania, once. Following his election to the U.S. Presidency, Jackson travelled from his home in Nashville, to Pittsburgh by steamboat. The river route from Nashville was first by the Cumberland River, then following it's junction with the Tennessee River, and in turn, a junction with the Ohio River. From Pittsburgh, Jackson travelled east to Washington, D.C. by coach. There is a Wikipedia article ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_inauguration_of_Andrew_Jackson) that discusses this. Jackson appears not to have stopped at the tavern.


 * end of comments from ip user. Generic1139 (talk) 04:36, 19 August 2015 (UTC)


 * On item 2, the inauguration article, and its reference to the WSJ simply says that Jackson went from Pittsburgh to Washington, D.C. via carriage. That could well have been on the national road, and therefore passing though Scenery Hill.  I have no other info one way or the other, I'm just saying that the wikipedia article and the WSJ don't preclude a stop at the tavern in 1829. Generic1139 (talk) 17:40, 19 August 2015 (UTC)

Got documentation for those claims?
There are numerous claims various dignitaries stopped at the tavern, with no supporting documentation whatsoever. There is a difference between passing by on the National Pike, and actually stopping, and walking inside the building. Claiming famous people actually stopped, when there is no proof given is not real history. For example, Lafayette was western Pennsylvania one time and that was in 1825. A source providing his actual itinerary, and a statement from the source specifically mentioning Lafayette did not stop on the way from Washington to Brownsville was deleted. Someone probably didn't like that fact, because it didn't fit the narrative they preferred.

Following the fire, the National Register status may be reviewed and the criteria for continued status re-evaluated on the basis of four different criteria. Rebuilding may trigger a review and modification process. Claims famous people stopped there will require documentation, something lacking in this Wiki-article, and removed when proof to the contrary was provided.24.3.73.130 (talk) 13:27, 20 August 2015 (UTC)


 * The only intent of my comments on "passing by" was simply to point out that the reference cited by 24.3.73.100 did not say anything about "Jackson appears not to have stopped at the tavern" - and on the basis of that article alone, a visit wasn't ruled out. I have no opinion one way or the other about the claims in the article.  I removed the update to the article because adding corrections in the middle of the article as were done by 24.3.73.100 is not the right way to update an article.  I moved it to the talk page so that it could be discussed.   The right way would be to remove the claims as being made on a corporate web site with no backup from a reliable source - after at least a cursory search for such a source had been done.  24.3.73.100's (1) case is compelling, I though I'd give a quick look to see if, if fact, any additional information had turned up since 1938. Generic1139 (talk) 14:34, 20 August 2015 (UTC)
 * After a lot of looking, the only mentions I could find online were "(inmportant person) stayed at (somewhere else) and probably had breakfast at Hill's Tavern, as was commonly done".  I'll change the article accordingly.  The other original references don't repeat the claims either, only the Inn's web site.Generic1139 (talk) 19:39, 20 August 2015 (UTC)

Log or Stone
This part was added by one user, then deleted by someone who must not have liked specific facts that can be checked by looking up the 1798 Direct Tax information for Stephen Hill's property:

"1798 Direct Tax for Stephen Hill, provides specific information regarding the building at that time. According to the "A" list entries for Hill, here were two structures on his land, both made of logs, not stone. The first measured 24x22 feet, was one and a half stories high, with three windows made up of 27 glass panes. The second log structure was 20x18 feet, with no windows. The absence of any information about stone buildings indicates the stone building dates after 1789. The amount of effort required to mine, cut/shape and haul stone would require time, effort, and money. It's possible the current stone structure dates closer to the time when road traffic on the National Road expanded to the point that Hill was making enough money to justify expanding his business from a 1 1/2 story log structure to a 2 story stone building."

The historical documentation from the 1798 Direct Tax indicates the present stone structure can not be earlier than 1798, which specifically indicates the structures were logs, not stone, and smaller than the current stone building. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:543:4301:A333:85FF:D792:BFE3:7B57 (talk) 22:00, 10 November 2015 (UTC)


 * Can you provide a link to the reference? It is (apparently) a primary reference, if it needs interpretation, it will need a secondary reference. Generic1139 (talk) 23:15, 10 November 2015 (UTC)

Please read the entry for the United States Direct Tax of 1798, found at the Pennsylvania Historical and Museum Commission's website, halfway-down the page. http://www.portal.state.pa.us/portal/server.pt/community/genealogy/3183/census_records/385521

The PHMC has this to say about the Direct Tax of 1798:

Manuscript Group 262: Special Collections Microfilm

United States Direct Tax of 1798: Tax Lists for the State of Pennsylvania - Compiled to facilitate the first federal tax based on wealth (Act of July 14, 1798), these lists and summary abstracts not only document property owners but also the number and types of buildings and slaves that they owned. The 1798 Act established nine divisions in Pennsylvania. The National Archives arranged the volumes by divisions and thereunder by district, county, township, or other subdivision.

The primary tax lists include "Particular Lists" (Form A, B, and C) and "General Lists"( Form D,E, and F) of dwelling houses and other buildings, land, lots, wharfs, and slaves; and Summary Abstracts (Forms G, H,I, and K) compiled from the General Lists.

The Particular Lists for Dwelling Houses (Form A) give information generally on locations, dimensions (footprint), number of stories, number of "lights" (i.e. glass window panes, which were considered to be an indication of prosperity considering the relative expense of glass, hence the other name by which this tax is known: The Glass Tax), and predominant construction material of each dwelling; similar descriptions of barns and other outbuildings; and the names of the owners or occupants. This information can be particularly valuable to those researching, preserving or reconstructing a historic property. The Particular Lists of Lands, Lots, Buildings and Wharfs (Form B) show in general the size of each tract or lot, and the claimed exemptions; the number, description and dimension of wharves and buildings except dwellings over $100.00 in value; and the names of owners or occupants. The Particular Lists for Slaves (Form C) usually gives the name of each owner, the total number of slaves owned, the number exempt from taxation because of disability, and the number between the ages of 12 and 50 subject to the tax.

All Tax Lists for the third District of the Second Division (part of Chester County) and for the First District of the Fourth Division ( part of Berks County) are known to be missing. There is no general index to the records but some entries in some volumes are alphabetical by the first letter of the person's surname. Miss Martha Simonetti and Mr. William Work from the Pennsylvania Historical and Museum Commission, aided in the identification and arrangement of these volumes. There is an Alphabetical List of Place Names in the Introduction Section of the first roll of microfilm. The first two columns give the names of the places and counties. In the third column are given the numbers of the rolls on which the information is filmed. The Introduction also contains a Table of Contents which lists the roll number, the volume numbers, the Division number, the District number, and the County.

IF you knew about the Direct Tax of 1798, you wouldn't be asking for a "primary reference" because the name/source is well-known among people who research old buildings, genealogists, et cetera. It's an invaluable source, unfortunately only available in it's entirety, on microfilm, and not formally published as a complete printed series. The Church of Later Day Saints (Mormons) has a complete set of microfilm copies of the original documents, as does ancestry.com. The Ancestry.com entries contain individual pages for property owners in Pennsylvania, and in particular all of Washington County land owners. Apparently, no one has ever bothered to look for Stephen Hill in the list before now, otherwise, they would learn what buildings actually existed on his land in 1798, their size and material used for construction. The information I cited, and you deleted, comes directly from the microfilmed documents that are quite easily viewed by anyone interested enough to look up Stephen Hill's census and tax listings on "Ancestry", and in particular the Direct Tax of 1798 information.

It's interesting to me that you ask for "primary sources" while using newspaper articles which are not alwaysa reliable, particularly when it comes to discussing the age of buildings and other details. Reports of a fire are one thing, but "historical" details from news or public interest sources are acceptable? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:543:4301:A333:4C2E:A04F:4F06:184F (talk) 13:10, 11 November 2015 (UTC)


 * I'm using primary and secondary in the sense the Wikipedia uses them, see WP:PSTS. I wasn't asking for a primary reference, I was saying that Direct Tax of 1798 is a primary reference.  And, as such, its use comes under the "use to a lesser extent" policy, "Wikipedia articles should be based on reliable, published secondary sources and, to a lesser extent, on tertiary sources and primary sources".  In this case, someone added information, without a proper citation, that contained analysis - "The absence of any information about stone buildings indicates..." and "It's possible the current stone structure dates closer to the time ..."  If that information is not referenced to a source, then it might be original research, with wikipeida defines as "..includes any analysis or synthesis of published material that serves to reach or imply a conclusion not stated by the sources".   Based on the edit summary, which was "unsourced", that is why the information was removed in the first place - neither the data or the analysis was referenced to a source.  The best response would have been to add a full citation for the original data, and find a source that added the analysis.  And now, asking because I want to know, because I haven't seen the source information - does the Direct Tax of 1798 document identify the property as what became Hill's Tavern?  Is it talking about the same property?  I think we'd all be happy to add something to the article about the Tavern starting as a log construction and becoming stone, if there was a source that said it was so. I'm looking... Generic1139 (talk) 15:43, 11 November 2015 (UTC)

I answered this previously, however, the reply was removed.

Your questions regarding Hill's property and what buildings were on it, is to ask someone to search Ancestry.com and look up Stephen Hill's listing in the 1789 Direct Tax records for Washington County, and Bethlehem Township. If you don't have an account, someone can do it for you. That ought to permanently resolve and remove any doubts the buildings were log, not stone, and the current stone building could only have been built after 1789.

It should be pointed out, that sources you cited as references such as the Washington County Landmarks, did not provide any references for their statements about the age of Hill's building or anything else. They were simply assertions with no references to back them up. Yet, you used them as references while expecting me to provide you with a "source" for what is known and referred to as the Direct Tax of 1789 (for Pennsylvania and Washington County). You can and should verify this for yourself, instead of continuing to ask for details when they can be easily verified by you or someone who can log on to Ancestry.com, visit the PHMC archives in Harrisburgh for a microfilm copy, or ask the Church of LDS to send a loan copy to one of their ancestry research locations nearest your house. If you truly are curious, you know where to find the answer which will end the matter and ought to provide you with positive proof the only buildings Stephen Hill owned were log, not stone, and the stone house did not exist prior to 1789. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:543:4301:A333:C154:7299:80A9:F26D (talk) 22:07, 11 November 2015 (UTC)


 * Which access method did you use for 1789 Direct Tax records? Generic1139 (talk) 18:46, 12 November 2015 (UTC)

I used two methods. At first I borrowed through the Church of LDS; then later through Ancestry.com. The Mormons charge you to make copies, and the item must be viewed only at one of their centers, and then is returned within a few days. Ancestry requires paying for an account (or going through someone who does), however, downloading and saving the information directly from the tax list page doesn't cost anything. The PHMC has a program for Pennsylvania residents only, that allows a limited used of Ancestry.com for free. I've used the PHMC-Ancestry method, however it didn't seem to work all that well and has limitations. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:543:4301:A333:3CF2:1BA4:49DA:DF13 (talk) 19:07, 12 November 2015 (UTC)


 * I'm looking at it now. Any idea what the "of William" notation on the line after the name means?  And Ancestry or someone has apparently interpreted the notation after "Hill Stephen" as Junior, but the Tavern owner's name is siad to be George, so Jr doesn't make any sense.  Any chance a third building was on another list, and not the dwelling list? Generic1139 (talk) 21:23, 12 November 2015 (UTC)

I will look at ALL of the Bethlehem entries on the "A" list over the weekend and see what the "William" is about. George was Stephen's father, however, Stephen, not George is said to have "built" (or started operation?) of the tavern. Although George conveyed property to Stephen in 1800, that was could have been additional land around the tavern site.

From the perspective of protecting one's assets, people are not likely to build on land they might be forced to turn over to the "real owner" if they are forced to leave. The tavern-business, and building, are not dependant on the first building being made of stone. Stotz by way of example, says many early settlers initially build log structures, and then transitioned to stone if they had the means to do so, replacing earlier structures.

Any stone building was considered expensive at the time, and if it's not on there, it didn't exist. Stone buildings were considered major structures and would have been valued over $100. Jerry Clouse's inventory of Whiskey Rebellion and National Road associated buildings notes that most people in the region, before 1800, lived in small one story log cabins (roughly less than 400sf). Karen Koegler (in "Building in Stone") rightly points out stone houses, even small ones, were considered mansions at the time. In short, there's no way a stone house would have been valued under $100, and not have made the A-list.

I can say from previous research, that tax (and often census) records were taken by locals who knew their neighbours, and therefore knew when someone owned land but did not record their ownership in an attempt to dodge census and tax takers. I researched on piece of land that was bought in 1783, but the deed was not recorded until 1800. In the intervening years, census records identified him and others who rented from him, and in land surveys done for neighbouring properties his name is marked as the parcel owner next door. The 1798 Direct Tax specifically mentions him, including A-list property that he did not record the bill of sale and acquire a formal deed to until two years later.

Stephen Hill was born in 1768, and died in 1834, which means he was 30 or 31 in 1798. He had several children, one of them also name Stephen who would not have been an adult in 1798. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:543:4301:A333:E171:AE0A:4E34:5BB1 (talk) 13:19, 13 November 2015 (UTC)


 * For what its worth, the Inn History page (and I'm not trying to pitch that as a reliable source) says that "...It is believed that George Hill began construction of the Inn in 1788 and his son, Stephen, finished it in 1794" and "The stone used to build the Inn was quarried from the surrounding area. The original structure is still intact with additions located behind the Inn." That implies, but doesn't state, that the buildings were stone.  I've also been stepping through page by page to see what else pops up.  I agree with you that a stone building is unlikely to have been overlooked, but, if it wasn't classed as a "dwelling" (with only a dining room and kitchen) would it have been on the A list?  Possibly as an outbuilding.  But a commercial building might be on another list. You are more familiar with that than I.


 * It seems reasonable to assume that the two log cabins, one with a kitchen, are in fact the first incarnation of Hill's Tavern based on the description of the 1788 and 1794 buildings in the 2nd paragraph of the inn history page above- but that's an assumption. It would be nice to get a date for the construction of a later stone incarnation.  Interestingly, a Joesph Hill did the assessments for the adjacent Morgan Township, but there doesn't seem to be an signature on the West Bethlehem section. Generic1139 (talk) 16:17, 13 November 2015 (UTC)

I spent a few minutes checking the entire A-list for the township, and the only stone building that turns up on there for anyone is for Ealeazor Jenkins, measuring 40x30 and another one under his name as a brick 18x30 structure. Neither of these are likely to be the current Century Inn building.

I also checked each and every Hill, and none of them have anything other than log buildings.

George Hill's name appears elsewhere in the listings as the reported owner of land used/occupied by Stephen. George was born in 1725, and died in 1812. In 1798, George was 73, and getting a bit old. George's wife died in 1797, and may have been more or less retired and let Stephen runs things. The fact Stephen's name comes up and his father is listed as the owner, implies this.

I wouldn't rely too heavily on some of the histories, since these sometimes get things garbled, especially after one or two generations post fact. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.3.73.239 (talk) 17:23, 13 November 2015 (UTC)

You asked whether a stone building might be classified as something other than a house. Eleazar Jenkins who is on the same page, has two buildings listed, one stone and the other brick, both assessed at over $100. Neither is designated specifically as a house or dwelling, yet both appear on the same category list. That indicates, buildings whether they are separate kitchens, dwellings of any king, or glorified barns, are listed once they exceed $100 in value. Bear in mind, only one acre of land is included with all A listed buildings, and not the entire owner's tract which was subject to taxation under another category of the Direct Tax.

There are ways to date houses, such as dendrochronological examinations of logs with remaining tree bark on them, or using C-14. After the fire, those methods are probably not going to provide useful results.

Based on the absence of any stone buildings in the township other than Eleazar Jenkin's building, the earliest possible date for the current stone building has to date later than 1798. The earliest known reference of the -stone- tavern can be dated to circa 1819, and in the absence of any other concrete date, date range for the earliest part of the stone tavern can be said to date somewhere after 1798 and before 1819.


 * I'm taking a trip to Washington county next week, I'll see what I can find at the historical society. Generic1139 (talk) 17:40, 14 November 2015 (UTC)

You are going to encounter resistance and disbelief to the idea the stone building does not date before 1798. I would advise making copies of the entire A-list for starters, because they will raise many of the questions for alternative answers you did. The entire A-list of the Direct Tax is relatively short and not more than twenty or so names of what would have been the richest in the township. If you can, reading what you can find about the Direct Tax of 1798, and what it is and the information in it, will help you if whoever you talk to who isn't familiar with it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:543:4301:A333:34CD:9284:F611:1464 (talk) 18:31, 14 November 2015 (UTC)

PHMC requirement for re-evaluation of prior listings or nominations
The PHMC web-site discusses the nomination process for listing sites/buildings on the National Register. This is relevant to the discussion of how old the stone tavern is, and whether it should be re-evaluated by the PHMC.

http://www.portal.state.pa.us/portal/server.pt/community/national_register_of_historic_places_in_pennsylvania/3780/process/417976

The following excerpt is especially important:

"National Register Eligibility Re-evaluation

The Bureau for Historic Preservation requires that properties evaluated for National Register eligibility five or more years ago must be re-evaluated. The intent is to ensure that original evaluations (previously determined eligible or ineligible) were based on adequate information, that additional information about the property is/or is not available, and that the subject property retains integrity.

Interpretation of a property, or a property's eligibility, may also change if new contextual information is available, such as a new statewide or regional context. The BHP may request any one or all of the following: current photographs, additional research, and/or information newly available through internet resources (such as census data, historic maps, historic aerial images, tax records, periodicals and newspapers, etc.). "

The original nomination is several decades old, and does not meet current standards. PHMC guidelines call for older nominations to be re-evaluated. Considering the damage to Hill's Tavern during the fire, the matter of how old the PHMC considers the building to be, may be resolved by an agency that routinely deals with determining the age of buildings, the use of Direct Tax information as a means of deciding whether a building dates before or after 1798, and related issues, could be in the making.

A re-evaluation is not likely to remove the building from the Register, although it will undoubtedly result in requiring documentation to support claims of age, if the tavern was originally wood or stone, whether various people said to have visited the tavern were actually there, and so on. The original nomination by Van Trump simply stated things as if they were facts, with no supporting documentation. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:543:4302:94AA:612C:EAF6:B2E0:156 (talk) 16:39, 5 December 2015 (UTC)


 * If a reevaluation is done, any new information can be added to the article, and I, for one, would welcome it. In the meantime, I've made such changes as the current sources allow.  There seems to be a wide range of interpretation on who the original proprietor was, and what the name was, and when it was built, and of what.  The 1910 History of Washington County on page 366 says "as early as 1794", but asserts it was run by Thomas Hill at that time, and it was called Hill" Stone Tavern.  I think this may be from the national road histories where Thomas was the proprietor and is then projecting back in time still as Thomas's hill tavern.  However, page 765 of Crumrine says, about the 1790 split of Bethlehem into east and west, that there was a recommendation for "a division line, "Beginning at the mouth of Daniels' Run, thence with a straight course to Adam Weaver's, which has always been allowed to be the Central house, thence with a straight course to Thomas Hill's, tavern-keeper", implying that Thomas had a tavern, though possibly a different one. Anyone, Wikipedia's job is to quote the sources, with a neutral point of view, with sufficient references to allow the reader to judge their efficacy. Generic1139 (talk) 21:31, 7 December 2015 (UTC)