Each year I eagerly look forward to the middle of July and the presentation of programs related to the Whiskey Rebellion at our local historical venues. In the past I have greatly enjoyed events in Washington, Pa.; at the Oliver Miller Homestead; and at Woodville. This year’s program at Woodville featured a debate on the Rebellion involving three of my favorite persons – Rob Windhorst, Clay Kilgore, and Brady Crytzer. Brady was selected to be the moderator for the debate, with Rob representing the perspective of the Federal government and Clay that of the local farmers involved in the protest.
All three are uniquely qualified. Brady was a history major at Slippery Rock and has specialized in Western Pennsylvania colonial era history. One of the eight books he has published is “The Whiskey Rebellion: A Distilled History of an American Crisis”. Clay was a history major at Penn State-Erie and has flourished in that field ever since. He serves as Executive Director of the Washington County Historical Society and has been heavily involved with the David Bradford House. I have seen him on numerous occasions re-enacting the Whiskey Rebellion leader John Holcroft. Rob’s degree from Indiana University of Pennsylvania is in Marketing, but his LinkedIn page reports that he has done graduate work in History. His contributions at Woodville to the Neville House Associates and as a re-enactor with Wayne’s Legion give him a remarkable knowledge of local history. This is a powerful trio of historians – I would be thrilled to spend an hour with them discussing the Whiskey Rebellion.
Prior to the debate the three participants explained their interest in the Whiskey Rebellion; they unanimously agreed that it was a seminal event in the early days of our Republic, defining the compromise between Federal authority and the rights of individuals to disagree. The format for the discussion was informal, with the moderator posing questions and asking each participant for his opinion. He began with perhaps the most relevant question, “Was the Whiskey Tax Unfair?” The Federalist advocate reviewed Treasury Secretary Alexander Hamilton’s rationale behind it. The Federal Government had assumed a large debt from the Revolutionary War and was continuing to incur major expenses defending the western frontier from Native American terrorism. Tariffs did not bring in enough revenue to pay off the debt, and it seemed appropriate to introduce an excise tax. The production of whiskey was an attractive candidate. The Whiskey Rebel quickly pointed out numerous inequitable features of the 1791 Excise Tax Bill. It favored large commercial distillers who already had the benefit of minimal transportation costs to their consumers; it required payment in currency, a rare commodity on the Frontier; and disputes were resolved in Federal courts hundreds of miles from the Frontier. Easy for me to side with the Rebels.
By taxing production of whiskey rather than consumption, it punished frontier distillers who already had the expense of transporting the whiskey across the Allegheny Mountains to eastern markets. In the 1790s a gallon of whiskey cost $0.40 to $0.50; hauling it to Philadelphia added another $0.15 to $0.25. Fortunately, the quality of “Monongahela Rye” whiskey relative to the Eastern Rotgut was sufficient to justify a premium. Nonetheless another six or seven cents per gallon punished the Westerners severely.
According to the Excise Bill, the duty was the lesser of seven cents a gallon produced or sixty cents a gallon per gallon capacity of the still. For the typical Western Pennsylvania farmer with a fifty gallon still, that is thirty dollars a year. For reference, in 1794 an unskilled laborer earned $0.50 a day and a skilled laborer, $1.00 per day. Thirty dollars represented three months labor by an unskilled worker.
The next question initiated discussion on the general topic, “Who were the good guys and who were the bad guys?” The specific gentlemen in question were John Neville, David Bradford, John Holcroft, and Alexander Hamilton. The moderator had encouraged the audience to applaud or register disagreement whenever appropriate; I enthusiastically applauded each time the Rebel said something disparaging about Hamilton. There was general agreement that the Treasury Secretary was well-meaning, even when he took advantage of the opportunity to make the Whiskey Rebels scapegoats of dissension. Neville was pictured as a willing opportunist who eventually didn’t fare well. Holcroft apparently was a sincere protestor who bordered on extremism. It is easy for me to imagine Bradford as a villain, with serious intentions to carve out a new nation west of the Alleghenies. His appearance at Braddock’s Field on a white horse, dressed as a General, complete with medals, dominates my perception of him.
A particularly astute question was, “Was the violence at Bower Hill premeditated?” After considerable discussion it was generally agreed that a semi-peaceful protest escalated twice, each time someone in the mansion murdered (my choice of words) a protestor. The first day it was Oliver Miller; the second, Major James McFarlane (a Revolutionary War veteran), allegedly under a flag of truce. A separate, allied question was “What did the Rebels expect to accomplish at Bower Hill?” Perhaps their motives were too extreme and the outcome should have been anticipated. The fact that the Rebels did capture Presley Neville and several soldiers and then release them unharmed suggests that some of them were still rational.
Following the debate the Moderator opened discussion for questions from the audience. The response was hot and heavy, and surprisingly relevant. One of the advantages of a niche interest is that the other folks with that interest are uncommonly knowledgeable. I do agree that this subject warrants continued discussion. We are quite familiar with its general concepts and certain specific details, but woefully ignorant of others. The Whiskey Rebellion is our region’s “Battle of Gettysburg”; it deserves further study. Many thanks to “Woodville Experience” for another impressive presentation and to the three debate participants for their contributions.