The Whiskey Rebellion began in January of 1791 when Secretary of Treasury Hamilton proposed a tax upon whiskey in an attempt to produce a stable economy nearly twenty years after the Revolutionary War (PBS 2000). While Hamilton’s intention appeared to be for the sake of the country, however, it instead instilled a revolt which would threaten to destroy the nation that they had spent thousands of lives to create. This rebellion was instigated by those who lived in the western part of Pennsylvania who deemed the tax “an abuse of federal authority wrongly targeting a demographic that relied on cropsto earn a profit” (Kotowski 2016). Clearly the rebels felt that while Hamilton claimed this tax was to help strengthen the bankrupt economy, there was a better solution than attacking those whose living depended on the selling of crops that were utilized in the making of whiskey as well as other things.
Another reason why farmers often used their grain to make whiskey was because it was not as risky, not to mention expensive, to send it East that way (Kotowski 2016). Thus the rebels also argued that Hamilton was encroaching on their profit because whiskey was the simplest way to make the money they needed to survive so instead of finding a safer way to send their grains without distilling them, they chose to revolt. It should be pointed out that most of those who partook in this rebellion were small-time farmers who did not have the means to endure this tax as the big farmers did and, as a result, they were in danger of falling into debt which is probably one of the reasons why President Washington tried to resolve this peacefully before violence broke out (Kotowski 2016). Needless to say, Washington’s efforts for a peaceful resolution was all for naught as the rebels fought for their rights to do with their crops as they saw fit so that they could earn a profit quickly and cheaply leading the nation into yet another conflict as they tried to rebuild after the bloody American Revolution.
The Rebellion itself dominated the western frontier where some chose to ignore the law all together while others answered with physical violence (NPS 2016). They would take advantage of the officers who were to set up an office in each town in order to make sure the tax was enforced by scaring them into not wanting to move there through threats (NPS 2016). If that did not work and the officer decided to stay despite being bullied then the rebels would commit “such humiliations as tarring, feathering, and torturing the offender” which would then, not surprisingly, get the officer to leave (NPC 2016). The fact that those who are in opposition to the tax would go to such lengths is terrifying as well as an illustration of why Washington tried so hard to get the rebels to reach a peaceful resolution before unnecessary violence such as this broke out. It is also amazing how many of the opposition would be so quick to commit violent acts after witnessing the horrors of the Revolutionary War.
As noted before, it was those who lived in Western Pennsylvania who played a crucial role in this rebellion for it was due to their violent acts that Washington had to send in his militia in an attempt to break the rebels up (NPS 2016). One such notable act is when a mob attacked John Neville’s home and burned it to the ground in what they proclaimed was a way for the rebels to distinguish who was against them (NPS 2016). Thus it makes sense that Washington would send in his militia for even if the acts of the rebels is somewhat justified it does not mean they can go around shooting other Americans and burning down their homes just so they can make sure that those who oppose them are not a threat. Once again this all seems a bit extreme considering how this all started with a tax on alcohol such as whiskey but then again our own revolution was waged because the colonials felt Britain was overstepping its bounds making this event not that remarkable after all.
Another major figure in the Whiskey Rebellion was Albert Gallatin who moved to America in hopes of studying how a republican democracy works (Montpellier 2016). He was also a professor of Harvard who taught French before relocating to Pennsylvania where he would become part of the political world (Montpellier 2016). During the rebellion, Gallatin would argue for moderation that would eventually win him enough respect to get him a seat in the House of Representatives (Montpellier 2016). Gallatin would go on to claim that the military was spending way too much and protest treaties such as Jay’s Treaty were negatively affecting American trade (Montpellier 2016). Thus it can be said that Gallatin was very involved, not to mention outspoken, in everything which was going on at the time during his term in the Republican Party.
Not only that but while Western Pennsylvania was creating its own assembly of representatives whose role was to drive the residents to join the rebellion, Gallatin was one of those who urged moderation (NPS 2016). Since he was also a representative of Fayette County, Gallatin “had to transmit the sentiment of the meetings even though he may have disagreed” (NPS 2016). In other words, it was Gallatin’s job to record the result of each meeting as he attempted to keep the riots from breaking out into full on rebellion which would not only hurt the economy even more but would result in the loss of many lives as well as the possible dissolution of the entire nation. Clearly Gallatin was a hero who, like President Washington, wanted to settle this without bloodshed even if it meant going against his own views.
The only problem with Gallatin delivering the sentiments of the moderates attending these meetings to the armed radicals was that the government did not take the effort to distinguish between who was a moderate and who was a radical (NPS 2016). In fact the government deemed any who attended such meetings as guilty which seems to be counterproductive to the so-called peaceful resolution they were trying to achieve (NPS 2016). Furthermore this appears almost as if the government had another agenda for which they utilized this rebellion as a means to enact on this separate set of goals for there could have been alternative ways to reach an amiable revolution between the rebels and the government that would not result in more amnesty or violence. Nevertheless the rebellion was not resolved until Washington moved in his militia and utilized physical force.
In conclusion the Whiskey Rebellion was a time in American history where men like George Washington and Albert Gallatin were trying to keep the new nation intact especially after the Revolutionary War where countless lives were loss. Not only did this rebellion nearly destroy everything the colonials had strove to achieve but it also illustrated how the need to protect one’s individual rights was alive as well for the rebels clearly felt their rights were being neglected as the government abused its power to make sure they got the result they wanted. No doubt this must have appeared eerily similar to how the British treated them when they were still the colonies of the King of England who abused his power of monarch time and again even after the colonies left their mother land in fear of being persecuted for their beliefs. This abuse of power appeared in the form of taxes such as the tax on tea which resulted in the historical moment that would be known as the Boston Tea Party. Thus it makes sense that the rebels who were old enough to remember the oppression they suffered to view this tax on their whiskey as yet another example of how those with power use it to bend those to their will as they take away their rights.
Work Cited
"Albert Gallatin." James Madison's Montpellier. Home of James and Dolley Madison, 2016. Web. 29 July 2016.
Kotowski, Peter. "Whiskey Rebellion." George Washington's Mount Vernon. Mount Vernon Ladies' Association, 2016. Web. 29 July 2016.
"The Whiskey Rebellion." National Park Service. Friendship Hill National Historic Site, 2016. Web. 29 July 2016.
"The Whiskey Rebellion." PBS. American Experience, 2000. Web. 29 July 2016.
