Warning: Undefined variable $num in /home/shroutdo/public_html/courses/wp-content/plugins/single-categories/single_categories.php on line 126
Warning: Undefined variable $posts_num in /home/shroutdo/public_html/courses/wp-content/plugins/single-categories/single_categories.php on line 127
AJ’s claim that the Whiskey Rebellion could have been avoided if personal grudges had been put aside, is a nice thought (it also provides a great image of a 1980s television freeze frame where Washington and Hamilton jump in the air and high five a group of westerners to show their differences are settled as the credits roll) but in no way was going to happen. Rebellions were occurring across the globe at this point in history and the number of similarities between the Whiskey Rebellion and these foreign revolutions are numerous as pointed out by Linebaugh and Rediker’s work The Many-Headed Hydra. Using only a sampling of rebellions occurring across the globe one can see similarities when they compare them to the Whiskey Rebellion situation. Boiling these numerous revolts down to the simplest of terminology I feel that these revolts are “the poor against the wealthy in attempt to even the playing field.” Now poor and wealthy doesn’t necessarily mean money, as many of these poor were simply trying to gain influence, but often times the individuals revolting were in worse financial shape. Looking at the Whiskey Rebellion, anger over taxes that were to be imposed on those out west was the straw that broke the camel’s back. Prior to this tax those out west felt that the government truly did not care for their well being, was the government providing westerns guns to fight off the Native Americans? No. Was the government putting any effort into staring western settlements? No, the government was relying on those out west to settle the land, so that easterners later could step in and live similarly to how they did originally. Westerns were upset with their situation and finally hit a boiling point, much like others across the globe were.
Going back to AJ’s point could Hamilton and Washington have put aside their issues with the west and maybe given them what they desired, a voice? Yes. But why would they? These men just outlasted the largest empire in the world and prior to outlasting them were able to pick up some notable military victories. What were a few thousand farmers to an entire army? It is not the nicest view of Washington and Hamilton, who are undoubtedly among the legends of revolution time America, but it is a realistic view. Furthermore, who is to say that if Washington and Hamilton were to give into the desires of the west that the west wouldn’t want more. I think the idea of give them an inch they take a mile truly was at play here as those out west were trying to see where their voice stood amongst those out east. Sadly for them they found out they simply didn’t have a voice.
Ultimately this revolt was bound to happen due to simply a difference of views and opinions of how each participant of the Whiskey Rebellion saw themselves. Would the way that the rebellion have played out been any different if those out west made in an issue of being an American? Slaughter points out that many westerners were people of multiple races and didn’t fall under the traditional scope of “an American” at this time. Answering that question I’d say probably not. The only difference I can see in that scenario in the way that the rebellion would have played out were the possible repercussions of foreigners or free blacks living in the colonies.