The Whiskey Rebellion 1791-1794, Research Paper Example

The act of civil disobedience has been present in American society from the beginning. People have used civil disobedience to resist and protest against what they believed was unfair government treatment. The United States was founded on the premise of protesting laws that were seen as unfair. The founding fathers purposely gave each person the right to freedom of speech and assembly in the constitution. In many cases, incidences of civil disobedience are met by government power to repress the protest. Throughout history, and even today, the government uses brute force to stifle displays of civil disobedience. Most people have been in a situation where they felt they should intervene, but chose not to. These situations are just as prevalent today as they were during Colonial American or the 1950s and 1960s in the midst of the Civil Rights Movement. However, today intervening may not be as dangerous as it was then. The struggles that people encountered during the early days of the nation were difficult to say the least. When people have been raised to believe in something, it directly affects their morals, beliefs, and way of life. Farming and distilling whiskey was a way of life for the farmers in Pennsylvania.  Any person, who opposed the laws, had to be willing to meet with stiff consequences. Some of those consequences may have even been loss of life; especially those rebels who were using violence as a way to protest what they believed was stifling their way of life.

Thousands of farmers in Pennsylvania, during the year of 1794, took up arms against the federal government in rebellion against an excise tax that was passed in 1791 by Congress (Whiskey Rebellion, 2005). This became known as the Whiskey Rebellion, which was also the largest organized rebellion against authority since American Revolution and before the Civil War. A group of farmers in the Allegheny Mountains used bartering as their main form of currency. Distilled liquor was often traded for other commodities. Cash was obsolete in western Pennsylvania during the eighteenth century. However, whiskey was as valuable as gold, especially Monongahela Rye. Whiskey was used for many purposes by locals. They used it to cook with, as a pain killer medicine, and for social gatherings. The government decided to tax distillers based upon the size of their stills. Each distiller who has annually produced a minimum of 400 gallons of whiskey were taxed anywhere from 7 to 18 cents per gallon (Lurie, 2013).  If the distiller produced stronger whiskey, their taxes were higher. Those who had smaller stills were taxed a lower amount. Tax collectors of the times were met with great distaste. They were shot upon, tarred and feathered, and terrorized by rebels who did not want to pay taxes. In 1794, the tax had been uncollected. The rebel farmers had about five thousand followers. Finally, President Washington sent nearly 15, 000 troops to quiet the rebellion. The government troops were led by Alexander Hamilton, the secretary of state. The government troops were able to quiet the rebellion in less than a month. By the end of the rebellion, more than 150 people had been arrested for their involvement in the incident.  Many of the rebels were prosecuted under the charges of treason.  In the 17^th century America, backcountry people often resorted to violence as a way to show their disagreement with political laws.

The Whiskey Rebellion origins are almost too complex to pinpoint any one trigger. In early 1791, President Washington and his administration realized that in order to effectively run the country, finances were needed. To ensure adequate money, Congress created a tax to be placed on distilled liquor. Almost immediately, the farmers in four western counties of Pennsylvania began to protest. Allegheny, Fayette, Washington, and Westmoreland saw the tax as unreasonable financial burden. Many of these farmers turned their grain crop into whiskey because they were not financially able to transport their crop across the Appalachians. For example, “The entire Allegheny frontier resisted the whiskey tax, but western Pennsylvanians regarded it as especially onerous. They were mostly farmers who grew grains, and their location west of the mountains made it economically impossible to ship that grain east over poor roads” (Brandt,  pg. 42). One reason they chose to do this was because whiskey was much easier to transport than grain. Another advantage of making whiskey was that it could be done at home and was very easy to barter for other products. With an excise tax placed on whiskey, these poor farmers felt they would be unable to live on what they made in profits. In conjunction, any farmer who was charged with failing to pay the excise tax would be tried in the District Court in Philadelphia. Many farmers did not have the time to waste traveling to court, while even more could not even afford to pay for the trip. Meanwhile, many of the poor farmers in Pennsylvania had become suspicious of government officials. They felt government officials were undoing the American heritage. For example:

“But whisky was much more than just a commodity or currency on the frontier; it was a way of life. Whether sweetened with tansy, mint, or maple sugar or swallowed straight, whiskey lubricated nearly every rite of frontier existence. No marriage, baptism, contract signing, brawl, trial, election, meal, or funeral took place without generous helpings of the local brew. Doctors prescribed it for nearly every ill; ministers sipped it before services, field workers demanded it as a refreshment; and the United States Army issued a gill each day to soldiers” (Brandt, 2015).

He went on to say that, “Given the importance of whiskey on the frontier, it is not surprising that residents on the trans-Appalachian counties violently opposed the federal excise tax” (Brandt, 2015). Many of the rich in Pennsylvania were constantly engaged in land speculation at the financial expense of the poor farmers. The poor farmers were especially suspicious of the President and Alexander Hamilton, who were accused of breaking the rules of democracy and equality in order to make the rich richer and the poor poorer.  The farmers of the four counties banned together and began protesting.

The farmers used many forms of rebellion prior to armed fire. First, the rebellious farmers urged everyone else to refuse to cooperate with the excise tax collectors. Many of the farmers took this as their cue to inflict violence and other tactics upon the tax collectors. The rebellious farmers also retaliated against other farmers who abided by the excise tax laws. These submissive farmers had their barns burned, stills destroyed, and any form of intimidation that might cause them to submit to the rebellious will. For example, “The men were in blackface and many wore women’s dresses, but Johnson, a local, recognized some of them. One was Daniel Hamilton, the bully of his clan, who seemed to be in charge. The men pulled Johnson off his horse and ordered him to strip to the skin. Then they cut off his hair, poured hot tar on his body and dumped chicken feathers over the tar. When they were done, they took Johnson’s horse and left him in the forest” (Brandt,   pg. 41). Tarring and feathering was a common act of violence that the rebels used.  Within a year, the western portion of Pennsylvania resembled the lawless early frontier. The Whiskey Rebellion actually began when a group of rebellious farmers went to a home owned by John Neville- the excise tax collector for the area, to confront Neville and David Lenox-a United States Marshal. A total of about 1200 men gathered at Neville’s house. This incident took place over two days and by the end of the encounter, Neville’s house had been burned to the ground. Neville escaped unhurt and it was later discovered that Lenox had not been in the house. Two of the rebellious farmers were killed and six had been wounded. After this attack, violence spread throughout Allegheny, Fayette, Washington, and Westmoreland counties. Brankenridge says, “The whole country was one inflammable mass…I had seen the spirit which prevailed, at the time of the stamp act, and at the commencement of the revolution from the government of Great Britain; but it was by no means so general and so vigorous, amongst the common people, as the spirit which now existed in this country” (1794). The farmers began discussing the possibility of breaking free and gaining their independence.  In a meeting they had, the rebels declared: “In future we will consider such persons as unworthy of our friendship; have no intercourse or dealings with them; withdraw from them every assistance, and withhold all the comforts of life which depend upon those duties that as men and fellow citizens we owe to each other” (Lurie, 2013) Many researchers have speculated that the Whiskey Rebels were planning to start their own state within the federal union.  The rebels tried to bring other counties into their cause. Eventually, counties from Virginia, Ohio, and West Virginia joined the rebels. Later, parts of central Pennsylvania joined too.

Alexander Hamilton had been keeping a close eye of the Whiskey Rebels, and by 1794 the federal government had nearly worked out a plan to end the rebellion. Hamilton felt the rebellion was nothing more than a challenge to the federal government. He believed that if the farmer rebels were able to challenge federal authority in this manner, the entire government structure was in danger. Hamilton felt that supporters of Thomas Jefferson might take advantage of the political chaos. As a result, Hamilton was willing to use whatever means necessary to force the Whiskey Rebellions to back into submission. On the 7^th day of August in 1794, President Washington issued a proclamation asking militias in Pennsylvania, New Jersey, Maryland, and Virginia to help suppress the Whiskey Rebels. Consequently, the Federalist and the Democratic parties united because neither supported rebellion against the government. By September 25^th little progress had been made. Reluctantly, President Washington issued an order to send a marching army.  Ironically:

“Washington had assembled a 12, 950 man army from the state militias of Pennsylvania, New Jersey, Virginia, and Maryland. In many ways these forces were no more disciplined or well-organized than the dissidents they opposed. A curious blend of lower-class and gentleman volunteers, the impromptu army suffered from high desertion rates, squabbles over chains of command, and persistent rumors that it was really sent to fight Indians or seasoned British regulars” (Lurie, 2013).

Once the army arrived, it was difficult for the army to discern that a rebellion had taken place. When the Whiskey Rebellions realized they were on the brink of an all out war, they dissipated.  Law was restored in Allegheny, Fayette, Washington, and Westmoreland counties by late 1794.

Although the Whiskey Rebellion is not widely referenced today, its effects can experience today in American society. Because of the Whiskey Rebellion, the states formed a new relationship with the federal government. Now, each state has more say so in how it is politically run. This is also believed to be directly linked to the break-down of the Federalist Party.  Also, George Washington was the first and only president to go into battle with his troops. In the aftermath of the Whiskey Rebellion, many believed that the Federalist Party was betraying what the American Revolution ensured each citizen-the promise of equality and liberty. To the contrary, the people began to see the Democratic Party as supporters of the heritage of the American Revolution. The Whiskey Rebellion has been summarized as:

The story of the Whiskey Rebellion is one that has been largely misunderstood. Historians usually characterize it as a frontier uprising against a precarious federal government who responded militantly in recognition of its own vulnerability. This has led to the mistaken interpretation of these events as the ironic epilogue to the American Revolution in which the radicals-turned-politicians followed in the footsteps of their former British oppressors” (Brandt, 2015).

The root cause of the Whiskey Rebellion was the threat of losing a way of life. Whiskey making was a unique characteristic of frontier life in the late 1780s. The lives of the people who inhabited the rugged wilderness of the Appalachian Mountains were characterized by isolation, poverty, financial uncertainty, and violence. The frontier families lived in constant fear of attacks by hostile Indians. From 1783 through 1790 more than fifteen hundred frontier’s people were captured, killed, or injured by the Native Americans (Whiskey Rebellion, 2015). Due to the destitute conditions they lived in, the settlers lead a life of squalid conditions comprised of excessive drinking. The settlers had been pleading with the federal government to assist them. Eventually, all of their troubles were blamed on the government. Consequently, when the government enacted the excise tax on their livelihood, violence seemed to be the last resort. The same government that was unable or unwilling to help them in their economical impoverished condition or protect them from the Native Americans, was now asking them to pay for services they had not receive. When the Whiskey Rebellion came to a halt, only twenty rebels were capture, none of which were key players in the disorder. Only two of those were convicted of treason, but they were pardoned by President Washington. After the rebellion, the economic status of the area improved because a great deal of money had been spent during the Whiskey Rebellion.

Works Cited

Brackenridge, Hugh Henry. Incidents of the Insurrection in the Western Parts of Pennsylvania in the Year 1794. Philadelphia, 1795.

Lurie, S (2013). Taxation and Representation: The Whiskey Rebellion and the Tyranny of the Minority. Past Tense: Graduate Review of History 2: 1-17.

“Whiskey Rebellion.” West’s Encyclopedia of American Law. 2005. Encyclopedia.com. (April 6, 2015). http://www.encyclopedia.com/doc/1G2-3437704697.html

Brandt, A. Rye Whiskey, Rye Whiskey! American History 49(3): 40-47. History Reference Center Web. 7 Apr.2015