whiskey rebellion – Popular Politics in Early America

October 2, 2013

The Whiskey Rebellion as a Head of the 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

After reading Part III of Slaughter’s The Whiskey Rebellion, despite his eloquent narration of arguably every event leading up to and culminating in the Whiskey Rebellion, I was left largely unsatisfied by the conclusions he made, or for that matter failed to make, with regards to the event he considers an overlooked turning point of American culture. While successfully revealing the complexity of the rebellion through his analysis of the conflict through the eyes of both the frontiersmen of the West and policymakers of the East, Slaughter ends his book weakly. As discussed in class, he ultimately rests the book on a hesitant claim that the “liberty-order paradigm” is the most effective method of summarizing the Whiskey Rebellion. In addition, on pages 182-183 Slaughter writes off a list of how events that led up to the Whiskey Rebellion could have transpired differently and potentially eliminated conflict. However, amidst his string of “what if” musings, Slaughters misses an opportunity to answers questions about why the “string of tragic ironies and coincidences” did occur (183). For example, what might have been the motivations behind summoning the indicted distillers to Philadelphia? Or, why did the Mingo Creek militia feel the need to capture the federal marshal summoning the distillers to court? Slaughter, in his attempt to forge an extraordinarily thorough commentary on the Whiskey Rebellion, misses the mark in several facets and leaves many interesting historical questions unanswered.

Fortunately, after reading Linebaugh and Rediker’s article “The Many Headed Hydra,” I found a handful of broader questions about the motivations and implications of eighteenth century uprisings, like the Whiskey Rebellion, have been answered. In a convincing piece, Linebaugh and Rediker demonstrate that revolutionary motivation and discourse had been fostered since the 1740s with the Knowles Riot (225). More importantly for discussing the Whiskey Rebellion, however, is their Linebaugh and Rediker’s assertion of a “many-sided struggle against confinement” as an organizing theme in popular revolt of the eighteenth century (244). This argument is further supported in The Whiskey Rebellion through the paradigms that Slaughter generously provides in his book. In illustrating the Whiskey Rebellion as a conflict of East versus West, upper class versus lower class, Federalist versus Antifederalist, and the like we see that the rebellion was in many ways a struggle from many sides. Moreover, it is well documented throughout Slaughter’s book that the frontiersmen felt their rights were being encroached upon with the excise tax on whiskey, fostering a feeling of confinement. Linebaugh and Rediker’s conclusions are further reinforced when taking into account the ethnic tensions of the Whiskey Rebellion as frontiersmen often constituted diverse groups of both white Americans and immigrants, emphasizing the multi-ethnic movements that pervaded rebellion in the eighteenth century (225).

With this in mind, I would challenge AJ’s claim that Washington and Hamilton could have averted crisis had they set aside their personal grudges with the West. Could doing this have settled some tensions? Undoubtedly it could have. On the other hand, as portrayed in Linebaugh and Rediker, revolts like the Whiskey Rebellion were many-sided affairs. Slaughter’s book supports this as his reluctance to definitively choose a “best” framework in which to view the Whiskey Rebellion emphasizes the complexity of the layered tensions in the affair. While a struggle of liberty versus order may have ceased with the retreat of Washington or Hamilton, frontiersmen would still have held their grievances, and several other paradigms of conflict would have remained unresolved. While the obstinacy of Washington and Hamilton definitely facilitated the materialization of the Whiskey Rebellion, the struggle to mend relations with the central government had endured for so long that the confinement felt by the frontiersmen would likely have come to its tipping point regardless of the actions taken by the President and his Secretary of the Treasury.

October 2, 2013

Washington's Attacks on the Liberties of the People

Thomas P. Slaughter’s “The Whiskey Rebellion” presents the Whiskey Rebellion as the idea of liberty v. order. In support this idea, Slaughter presents a particular series of quotes by President Washington on the rebellious frontiersmen. In summary, Washington states that the democratic factions of the Whiskey Rebellion were out to destroy the order of the government, but luckily, the army of the constitution was there to stifle their attempts (221). Washington’s comments against these factions not only disagree with their course of action but, also somewhat attack the liberty of the people.

As is described in The Federalist #10, factions are nothing more than a person’s expression of their liberty. They come about as a result of the vast number of opinions that various men have throughout a republic. Generally, they a good thing, as they represent the ideas of different groups of people, which all come together to vote on the country’s directive. In terms of their negative effect on liberty, it only occurs when the faction becomes so large that it becomes the majority and infringes on the rights of groups of people. This was not the case for the Whiskey Rebellion though, as the rebellious individuals only sought to maintain the liberties they saw as endangered, not interfere with other peoples’ rights.

Yet, Washington seems to have viewed the factions under the Whiskey Rebellion as a true threat to the order of America. He, as well as his class (elites) seemed to have felt threatened by the frontier rebels. Though the frontiersmen were only expressing their rights as history had shown them to do, Washington and the elites did not enjoy their authority being threatened. In portraying Washington’s statements as he did, Slaughter seemingly frames the American government as an Oligarchy, where the few rule the many, suppressing their voice. It also shows Washington as an enemy against liberty, which most would not believe to be the case but, his statements about factions indicate otherwise. Regardless of if Washington was or was not a proponent for liberty in his own right, he is cast as a defender of order, similar to the role of his former enemy, the British, a few years prior.

After reading Aj’s post, I would have to agree with him that part of this conflict developed out of Hamilton’s own personal vendetta against the frontiersmen. It seemed as though he kept pushing and pushing, rather than actually allowing the republican system to take affect and let the complaints of the people be heard. Furthermore than this though, it was also Washington’s disdain for Frontiersmen that also pushed this rebellion to the brink. Slaughter had previously described Washington as a man who had many ill feelings towards frontiersmen after spending some of his younger years amongst them. From how Slaughter portrays certain actions by Washington, like sending somewhat fake peace delegates to Pittsburgh while also constructing his army, it appears that Washington had his own agenda at heart, rather than the country’s. Like Hamilton, if Washington had put aside his own conflict with Westerners, this conflict could have been abated sooner without as much effort as had to take place. Though only a few men were killed, this event marks the efforts of elites attempting to act on their own ambitions over what could have been best for the people as a whole.

October 1, 2013

Honestly, come on Hamilton

As class evolved today, the questions began to center around the validity of Thomas Slaughter’s work and a more slightly hidden question of what role should the Government had played back in its beginning stages; a question that everyone in the country at that time was asking, especially Alexander Hamilton and George Washington alike. Slaughter’s, Whiskey Rebellion, makes it very apparent that this question was very much on the minds of our Founding Fathers as the country first hit adversity and details how many of them decided to deal with it.

As discussed at length today in class after Ian’s initial comment, we all agreed that Slaughter did use this work to explore his personal observations, but rather meticulously fills the pages with historical facts supported with numerous primary or secondary sources. Agreeing with Ian, this often makes the read pretty boring and unclear at times, however, inevitably leaves you possibly questioning the ideas of the Founding Fathers and their decisions at the time.

The extremely comprehensive book thoroughly covers the “famous Non-Rebellion” that took place in outskirts of Western Pennsylvania in 1794, its resulting in President George Washington actually taking the field of battle for the first and last time under the new Federal forces, and everything that lead up to its initial tensions; properly giving attention to the reasons for rebellion, Alexander Hamilton’s master plan to retire the national debt, and the drama surrounding the “east v. west” dilemma. More importantly, Slaughter takes the energy to explain to his audience all of the groundwork of this national argument; the same groundwork that drove our discussion in class today regarding the more detailed reasons and explanations as to why some citizens believed the tax to be fairly acceptable and necessary and why others thought it was abusive and targeting.

Clearly, this book isn’t meant for the average history goer, the details provided by Slaughter are meant for historical scholarship. As we unpacked in class, Slaughter illustrates why this whiskey tax issue actually began to be interpreted many different ways; from a “Class Warfare” Marxist argument which divided the country along geographic and political lines to East v. West to finally liberty v. order and many more along the way. Deeply delving into his explanations and clarifying, for example that the wealthy, elite land owners on the urban, east coast appeared not to have a problem with the Tax or Hamilton’s idea of taxing this commodity in order to solve national debt. Then goes on to explain, on the other hand, that the poor, frontier farmers in the West found the Tax overbearing and targeting because it demanded them to solve an issue they felt had nothing to do with them, essentially became a luxury tax on spirits on the frontier and once again exemplified the issues of the national government not protecting the frontier’s best interests and safety.

In the end, after countless recollections of poor frontier experiences and urban elite sentiment, Slaughter in my opinion, as I stated in class, provides me with enough solid evidence to prove that superstar Hamilton could have avoided this encounter if he had been just a bit more diplomatic and sensible about the current situation of the country and surrounding post-revolutionary spirit. If he could have put aside his personal grudge with the Western settlers, Hamilton and inevitably Washington would have avoided this potential crisis. Really, after all that led up to the rebellion, only a few frontiersmen went to jail, essentially all to establish the right of the new Federal Government to levy taxes on its own people (an example of the many parallels Slaughter makes to British authority years earlier). At the end, Slaughter wraps up by telling us this was a battle between the Federalists and the Anti-Federalists, liberty and order, elite and poor and the Federalists won out.

September 26, 2013

Slaughter Slaughtering the Whiskey Rebellion?

This week’s reading of Slaughter’s The Whiskey Rebellion– to paraphrase the thoughts of several of my colleagues – was undoubtedly a work marked by thorough research and writing. While I agree with Ian, AJ, and CT in saying that Part II of The Whiskey Rebellion was indeed dense, I think Slaughter did this intentionally to demonstrate the complex narrative that culminated in the Whiskey Rebellion. This way he forces us to realize that the rebellion was not a mere short-lived affair often written off as an honorable mention in a list of the historical turning points of the United States. Rather, he argues that the Whiskey Rebellion was the product of continued and escalated tensions between various groups of people throughout the young nation, and – at least through the first two sections – that it was nothing short of a miracle that the country did not split amidst the conflict. This collectively contributes to his broader argument that the Whiskey Rebellion, particularly because of the conflicts harbored within the affair, should be thought about as a defining moment in the course of American history.

With that being said, I think Slaughter’s attempt to provide such a vivid, detailed account of the events preceding the Whiskey Rebellion ultimately leaves his work vulnerable to several criticisms. His writing, especially so in Part II, seems to become a pattern. As Slaughter begins to place every group, ideology, or concern into a contest with a conflicting group, ideology, or concern, the work quickly became monotonous for me and lost some persuasive value. His constant pitting of East vs. West, rich vs. poor, big business vs. small business, educated vs. uneducated, liberty vs. order, Federalist vs. Antifederalist, etc. dilutes the effectiveness of his argument. While revealing that the origin of the Whiskey Rebellion cannot be neatly pointed to a single cause, Slaughter’s constant pairings lead to a superficial understanding of each of the potential causes he emphasizes.

Moreover, the strategy pursued by Slaughter has made his narrative very dry, thereby losing some his argument’s persuasiveness. There are times when Slaughter hints at aligning with the frontiersmen at the time, as on page 112 when he writes “The excise constituted a unique threat because it embodied in one law so many evils.” However, instead of continuing this narrative and emphasizing the abuses the national government were making upon the West, Slaughter quickly turns away from this argument to present an objective account of what transpired leading up to the Whiskey Rebellion. I believe Slaughter’s book would have become more persuasive had he chose a side in his monograph. Rather, he leaves us with what might amount to an almanac of events and conflicts leading up to the rebellion with commentary, but no adamant opinions or analyses. His constant back and forth with pairings, people, and occasional scholarly interpretation only leads – as many of my colleagues are likely willing to agree – to confusion among his readers.

My last point of contention with Slaughter is that he seems to have a faint idea of the image he wants to portray of Alexander Hamilton. While Hamilton was one of the key figures of the Whiskey Rebellion, Slaughter fails to characterize Hamilton with respect to the context of his book. At times, Hamilton appears to be a man looking out for the best interest of the United States – a mediator of sorts – trying, as seen on page 145 “to avoid conflict between collectors and distillers who honestly misunderstood the law.” However, only pages earlier, Slaughter appears to write about Hamilton as something of an antagonist, a man who “In every respect…defined his views on taxation in opposition to the ideology shared by friends of liberty” (140). This is only exacerbated by the point made by Ian that men like Washington and Hamilton believed 80 percent of frontiersmen were disloyal to the American government. This leads me to question whether Slaughter intends to depict Hamilton as a hero, a villain, or perhaps if Slaughter even thought about how he to represent Hamilton at all. While I do not have the answers to these questions, I do think that in Part II of The Whiskey Rebellion Slaughter took on a project much too vast for the 81 pages he allotted for it.

September 19, 2013

Clash of America

In Thomas P. Slaughter’s The Whiskey Rebellion, he recounts the context and progression which ultimately resulted in one of the most violent civilian events in the nation’s history, the Whiskey Rebellion. It is amazing to look back on the norms of the western frontier at this time. They were so far removed from the eastern city hubs that they never received consistent information regarding the revolution and endured intermittent raids from their hostile native American neighbors. It was this space, literally and figuratively speaking, which allowed the rural peoples of the frontier to distance themselves further from the alien peoples of the east who attempted to tax, manipulate and exile them.

Throughout the rise of the American state there became a divide, often present among large nations, between the rural westerners focusing on farming and the urban easterners benefiting from mercantile trade. There was a complete clash of interests which demonstrated itself on a micro-level of the problems the fledgling nation had previously endured with Britain. The Americans hoped to engage in British politics and have a greater say in how their country was administered while the frontiersmen did the same with the new state, hoping to have a local government to represent their own needs and grievances more appropriately. Wade brought up a good point last week in his post when he said, “these colonial governments were not oppressive as much as they were disconnected or aloof to colonists’ demands. It was this disconnectedness moreover which fostered such tensions-often going unnoticed-between the east and west. Slaughter then states how the crux of the problem was the implementation of an excise tax which effectively taxed anything and everything that was produced internally and through which the government hoped to raise the most revenue (and boy was it effective).

As one might expect, the wealthier urbanites and politicians advocated for the excise taxes because they catalyzed a powerful central government and boosted the potential for merchants. This group would of course soon call themselves Federalists. The Westerners would have none of it though, hoping that they could somehow break off and create their own state or at the very least conduct a governing body which could voice their specific concerns and not fall privy to the national politics. The frontiersmen felt completely detached from the body politic which levied taxes and controlled much of the land out west without actually having a personal stake in the community. The illogical conclusions of some people and the influence of group thought led many people to assume that being tied to a hypocritical nation (not following the virtues it set forth in it’s Declaration of Independence), would eventually result in the downfall of their way of life. Many melodramatically believed that their human liberties would be revoked and that they would be consigned to a life of slavery which is a bit hyperbolic for me. It all seems a bit irrational when you look at it now, but you must remember that these were real people with real problems. They experienced the oppressive presence of the easterners who wielded the vast majority of power and dictated the path of politics, and felt threatened. What would you do?

September 19, 2013

The Great Chasm: Disconnect on the Frontier

Through his frontier analysis The Whiskey Rebellion, Thomas Slaughter argues that the largest internal American conflict between 1780 and 1860 was more than just a scuffle about an alcohol excise; it was a culmination of years of turmoil between two distinctly different Pennsylvanian groups. The politically powerful “easterners” who occupied the halls of power in Philadelphia and the “westerners” who lived precariously on the fringes of American society had been at odds for decades, from the Paxton Boys to the Westsylvania movement. Even the Revolutionary War did little to ameliorate the political divide between the two groups, as they had entirely different views on what the new Republic should look like. After a decade of conflict and tension over land, Indian wars, and taxes, the westerners decided to take up arms and dare the federal government to challenge them. Rather than being an idealist uprising against despotic taxes and abuse, the Whiskey Rebellion was instead a manifestation of years of frontier frustration that reached its tipping point after the passing and attempted enforcement of a whiskey excise tax in 1791.

By the time of the American Revolution, the men of the frontier from North Carolina to New York had established themselves as a separate entity from the elite interests in state assemblies and landed commerce. Bacon’s Rebellion solidified this distinction and exemplified the power that the united frontier could display when aggravated. Many of the grievances expressed by the Westsylvanians in 1775 remained unchanged from those expressed by Bacon: little state support in defending against Indians, overrepresentation of the rich and corruption public offices, and unfair property laws. While viewed by many easterners, including George Washington, as unkempt, troublesome, and “as ignorant a set of people as the Indians,” the westerners viewed themselves as the defenders of American borders and the expansionists of civilization (79). The Paxton Boys exemplified this disparity, with some treating them as frontier saviors and others declaring them bloodthirsty outlaws. In reality, it’s all about perspective.

“By 1790, the chasm appeared…wider than ever before” (30). The chasm, of course, refers to the detachment in identity from the urban and frontier peoples of America. The majority of frontier concerns, even requests for greater autonomy and statehood, were generally ignored or denied by the state and federal legislature. While the east was concerned about the big picture (continental Indian peacekeeping, paying off war debts, and international diplomacy), the west was more concerned with daily survival. As their voice in legitimate politics dissipated further, the frontiersmen saw mass organization, or even illegitimate self-government, as their final option. As Wade pointed out on September 12, “Riots were one of a few ways communities could unite behind a common cause and…assure camaraderie amongst themselves”. The westerners found their only political allies to be themselves, and this united identity likely strengthened their resolve to openly challenge the state of Pennsylvania, as well as the federal government and George Washington himself. The uprising was the kind of popular political action that makes Occupy Wall Street look like kindergarten recess.

September 18, 2013

Tension in an Unfree Society

In “Reading the Runaways,” David Waldstreicher shows us how early America was structured in a hierarchy based on what degree of freedom a person had. Obviously, a wealthy white male would be an example of someone who was completely free while an African slave would be at the other end of that spectrum. However, people like indentured servants or slaves of mixed race (who would therefore be lighter skinned and more able to “pass” as white should they escape) would fall somewhere in between the two. Waldstreicher discusses how some slaves, especially more skilled ones, were allowed to go out and seek their own work, giving them a certain degree of freedom, and also making the possibility of escape more likely.
Waldstreicher talks about how unfree people who escaped would try and pass themselves off as free by imitating a more free type of person by taking on the specific qualities of a more free person, such as different clothing, hairstyle, and emphasis on any valuable skills they may have possessed. Slave owners knew this, and therefore any ads for runaway slaves would point out what clothes they were thought to have, their skills, and a multitude of other things aside from their bare-bones physical appearance. Waldstreicher paints a picture, therefore, of an uneasy world in which Americans were constantly on the lookout of anyone suspicious who may be passing themselves off as a more “free” person than they really are. By observing those around them and looking for signs that a person may in fact be “unfree,” the free people exerted a certain kind of power over the unfree in their watchfulness. In his post for this week, Ian Solcz discusses that idea and does a great job of putting it in a modern perspective by comparing that watchfulness to the way people today observe and judge those with tattoos or other forms of body art.
While Waldstreicher focuses on people’s vigilence in their looking out for those less free than them, Thomas P. Slaughter in the first chapter of Whiskey Rebellion reverses that somewhat and focuses on how less free members of society were always on the lookout for any kind of abuse from people above them (or more “free” than them). In that chapter, Slaughter focuses on how upset people, generally those in poorer, more rural regions, would get about the idea of internal taxes, both in England and America. For example, he starts by discussing how the rural parts of England, along with Scotland, Ireland, and Wales, were always the ones most upset my Parliament’s attempts to tax internally. (12) On pages 17-20, he discusses how angry American colonists (who were themselves at the time a fringe part of the British Empire far removed from the true power center in London) became over internal taxes in the lead up to the Revolution in the 1760s. In his post this week, Ben Hartshorn discusses the language of that anger, specifically how colonists conflated internal taxes with a form of slavery being imposed on them.
Waldstreicher and Slaughter both show us that the political atmosphere in early America (and Britain) was one of hyper-awareness of both others’ and their own status in a society where each rung on the hierarchy meant a lesser degree of freedom. It makes sense that American colonists thought of themselves as slaves when they sensed a group of people above them in the British hierarchy (those in Parliament) treating them unfairly would call themselves slaves. After all, they would look at anyone below themselves on the ladder as somewhat of a slave, so what else would they call it when they were suffering from unfair taxation imposed by those above them on that same ladder? Both Waldstreicher’s article and the first chapter of Whiskey Rebellion give great insight into the role of freedom in the structure of early American society.