The Whiskey Rebellion – Popular Politics in Early America

October 2, 2013

Ironic Hydra

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

I am excited to learn about more about ships and their role as political spaces since, in reading “The Many-Headed Hydra” by Linebaugh and Rediker, it became apparent to me that, in the cases they discussed, ships served dual roles: (1) to confine and control people, especially slaves and, (2) especially for the African community, to create a sense of cohesion among those who were enslaved and transported on ships. This cohesion served Africans in England well in their London community, according to Linebaugh and Rediker.
Not only cohesion but, as L&R argue, the confinement experienced by all of these groups, including Africans, led to consciousness of freedom, which was an essential element in inspiring the riots and activism of the working class in this period and later.

I found “The Many-Headed Hydra” to be a particularly interested reading. I appreciated the use of the hydra metaphor because, not only did I learn about its use in the past to describe the so-called ‘mob,’ but the authors’ sympathetic treatment of the working class within this piece adds irony to the metaphor.

I think that perspectives on race in “Hydra” is also a worthy topic. Considering the food riots of 1740 and the resistance to the ‘Intolerable Acts’ in colonial America leading up to the revolution, one must challenge the perception of racism and cultural bias as inherent and natural. As my favorite historian, the late Howard Zinn, suggested in his “People’s History of the United States,” perhaps it is possible that racism is a tool with which the wealthy divide the working classes into separate groups. Though perhaps difficult to prove such a hypothesis, the motives for such action are certainly present: nurturing racism solidifies the validity of race-based enslavement, creates hate between groups of people who might otherwise be unified, and distracts from other issues that might upset people.

L&R also document the cohesion with which workers from various industries and even social strata cohere in order to protest and act against what they see as oppression. In the protests before the revolutionary war, workers of both African and European ethnicity, as well as those who were enslaved and indentured and those who were free worked together to accomplish their goals. Similarly, during the 1768 riots in Ireland “tailors, shoemakers, carpenters” all banded together in activism for the advancement of the working class.

Regarding Slaughter and “The Whiskey Rebellion,” I both agree and disagree with Wade’s assessment. Though perhaps not the most inclusive conclusion, Slaughter’s argument that liberty versus order was the most significant paradigm of the Whiskey Rebellion was supported by some evidence. I think that Slaughter’s incredibly detailed description of the events allows and encourages the reader to make their own analysis, especially when considering the roots of the rebellion, leading all the way to independence movements in what is now Tennessee and Kentucky and Vermont.

October 2, 2013

It Was Bound to Happen

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.

September 25, 2013

The Lens of the American Revolution

I am fascinated by the so-called whiskey rebellion and the tax that it sprung from. For me, the most interesting part of learning about it is considering it within the context of the American Revolution. Slaughter seems entirely correct in his subtitle: “Frontier Epilogue to the American Revolution.” The rhetoric regarding the exercise of excise taxes by the federal government, versus the rhetoric used by the founding fathers and later framers of the constitution, is a stark dichotomy. The elite of the period in which the whiskey rebellion took place seemed very willing to discount the ideological arguments of the frontiersmen concerning representation and fair treatment in favor of the practical consideration of money. Cynicism creeps into my perception here, as I wonder whether the ideological arguments made my the signatories to the declaration of independence were actually looking out for their own economic self-interest.

Furthermore, the revolution is apparently relevant in the founders concerns over the possibility that the confederacy and later the United States would crumble from east-west tension. In retrospect, it seems almost inconceivable that the United States would not have grown into the empire it became, but by reading this book I’ve realized that the elite of early America saw the existence of the new nation as highly tenuous, ready to shatter in a moment. “The Whiskey Rebellion” elucidates this fear even further, with the central government’s ability (not to mention right) to collect certain taxes in question.

Unlike Ian, I was not very surprised by the differences of loyalty leading up to the American Revolution versus the whiskey rebellion. To me, the rebellion seems like much more of a grassroots movement, boiling over from popular sentiment and spilling over into violent action, than was the American Revolution, which seems to me to have been a somewhat popular, but predominantly elite action taken to secure the rights and property of the owning class within colonial America from the elites of the British Empire. Additionally, from what I have learned recently, it seems like frontier settlers felt more aggrieved by the actions (or in-actions of the federal and state governments) than did colonists leading up to the American Revolution. Partially, I believe this to be the result of frontiersman believing that the new government would be more representative and receptive to their needs than the British government. Partially, however, I think that the frontiersmen felt cornered–stuck between the demand for taxes from the east, the threat of Indians to the west, and the difficulty of developing economically because of their lack of access to the Mississippi River, the last issue of which being particularly upsetting to many, because they felt that it was congress’ intention to limit their economic growth by not negotiating with Spain on that issue.

September 18, 2013

The Usage of the Word 'Slave'

After finishing our readings for Tuesday of this week and comparing them with the early chapters of Thomas Slaughter’s, The Whiskey Rebellion: Frontier Epilogue to the American Revolution, I noticed contrasts in the use of the word ‘slave’. In the first chapter of Slaughter’s book he states, “During the seventeenth century (in England), opponents denounced the excise tax as ‘the Devil’s remedy’ and the ‘high road to slavery’” (13). Later on when the American protests against the Stamp Act are being discussed Slaughter writes, “Some Americans believed that when Parliament sought ‘to establish stamp duties and other internal taxes’ for the colonies, it threatened to reduce Americans to ‘the miserable condition of slaves’” (21). These quotes, from both English and American men, are very interesting when put looked at next to the very real use of the word slavery in our previous readings.

Almost all of the runaway slave advertisements use the world slave. They are publishing reports of their missing property and referring to them as slaves. Therefore, it is striking that, presumably similar, men would describe their situation involving Parliament and internal taxes as a threat to “reduce them to the miserable condition of slaves”. My first thought is that the men who used slavery to describe tax conditions where simply using hyperbole. They were trying to drum up support against the oppressive government and using the word ‘slave’ was striking enough to grab attention. I figured that this was probably true for most of the situations where the slavery was used in Slaughter’s book.

Mr. Michael Lamoureux, in his blog, discusses how the slaves were described as property and objects. Slave masters described human beings just as I would if I lost a cell phone and described it as an ‘old, white, iPhone’. Michael does a good job discussing the ambiguity found in some of the ads. He makes an excellent point that with some of the ads, it seems very possible that any black man could be returned to an owner for a reward. This could, unfortunately, very well happen to a freed black man. Michael’s thoughtful and creative argument led me to think about the levels and degrees of freedom that we discussed in class on Tuesday.

As I continued to think about our talk in class about ‘unfreedom’ and the Gwenda Morgan and Peter Rushton article and David Waldstreicher’s piece, I realized that there may have been more to the usage of ‘slaves’ by white men than just hyperbole for effect. We discussed how there were people in America that were not just free or enslaved, instead there were degrees to people’s freedom. Most people were in a constant battle to protect whatever freedoms they had against an ever-infringing society. Using this rationale and line of thinking, it seems more plausible that some Americans truly did believe that losing the right to local internal tax levying could very well lead to a form of slavery. An American, Stephen Hopkins, argued that allowing Parliament all of the central authority would, “threaten the property and hence the freedom of the colonists. They who have no property, can have no freedom, but indeed are reduced to the most abject slavery” (22). It seems that some Americans were afraid to lose money unfairly to a government and in turn property and in turn their freedom. So while it seems ironic and self-centered for a white man to use the term slavery, it is very possible that they were truly afraid of becoming enslaved (to a certain degree) by British Parliament and excise taxes.