Subject Areas |
History and Social Studies
|
|
U.S. History - Civics and U.S. Government |
|
U.S. History - Colonial America and the New Nation |
|
Time Required |
| Two to three class periods
|
|
Skills |
|
historical comprehension
historical interpretation
historical research
historical issues analysis and decision making
critical thinking
argumentation
oral presentation skills
primary document analysis
Internet skills
|
|
Additional Data |
| Date Created: 05/21/02 |
|
Date Posted |
| 4/12/2002 |
|
Feedback |
|
Send us your thoughts about this lesson! |
|
Email this Lesson |
|
Send this lesson to friends or colleagues |
|
|
|
Washington and the Whiskey Rebellion
Introduction
This
lesson plan examines a critical episode in George Washington's second administration,
when federal efforts to collect an excise tax on liquor sparked armed resistance
in the frontier communities of western Pennsylvania. Students first review the
events that led up to this confrontation, then read from the diary that Washington
kept as he gathered troops to put down the insurrection. Focusing on Washington's
account of a meeting midway on his march, with spokespersons for the rebels, students
outline the arguments on both sides and explore the risks and benefits of the
options Washington had before him: whether to uphold the law with military force
or withdraw and let the already-waning rebellion sputter out. After debating this
choice, students consider the political climate of the times, as reflected in
the message Washington delivered to Congress upon his return from the frontier,
and consider how far Washington's actions in the Whiskey Rebellion crisis were
motivated by politics rather than principle. Finally, students return to the central
issue raised by the Whiskey Rebellion to compare Washington's decision with the
those of later presidents who faced this same question of constitutional authority:
When is the federal government justified in using force against American citizens?
Learning Objectives
(1) To learn about the Whiskey Rebellion of 1794 and its
significance in the early history of the United States; (2) To explore how George
Washington made the choice to meet this challenge to federal authority with military
force; (3) To evaluate the extent to which political pressures may have influenced
Washington's decision; (4) To weigh the merit of Washington's policy in light
of more recent challenges to federal authority; (5) To gain experience in working
with private diaries, letters, and public speeches as resources for historical
study.
1
The Whiskey Rebellion of 1794 is regarded as one of the first tests of federal
authority in United States history and of the young nation's commitment to the
constitutional rule of law. Introduce students to the circumstances surrounding
this pivotal event, referring for background to the "Editorial
Note" to George Washington's diary of his campaign against the rebels, available
through EDSITEment at the Papers
of George Washington website. (At the website's homepage, click on "Selected
Documents" in the navigational frame, then select "The
Whiskey Insurrection, from Washington's Diaries.") The following timeline,
drawn from the "Editorial Note," may also prove helpful: - March
1791: Federalists in Congress succeed in passing an excise tax on domestically
distilled spirits (i.e., liquor) and provide an elaborate system of local inspectors
and collection officers to insure that the tax is paid.
- September
1792: The excise tax provokes opposition in frontier areas, where spirits
were distilled primarily for personal use, not for sale, and where a tradition
of militant individualism objected to the presence of tax inspectors. In response,
George Washington issues a presidential proclamation condemning activities that
tend "to obstruct the operation of the laws of the United States for raising a
revenue upon spirits distilled within the same."
- July
1794: Following unsuccessful petitions against the excise tax, an armed group
in western Pennsylvania attacks a federal marshal when he attempts to serve papers
on those who have not registered their stills as required by law. Two days later,
insurgents burn the home of the local tax collector. As the uprising spreads,
government agents and local citizens sympathetic to the government become the
target of violence and harassment.
- August
2, 1794: Washington confers with Pennsylvania officials and his cabinet to
set a course for meeting this emergency. He decides to lay the matter before a
Justice of the Supreme Court in order to determine, as one cabinet member wrote,
"all the means vested in the President for suppressing the progress of the mischief."
Two days later the court rules that circumstances in western Pennsylvania cannot
be controlled by civil authorities and warrant a military response.
- August
7, 1794: Washington calls up the militia in Pennsylvania, New Jersey, Maryland,
and Virginia to assemble a force of nearly 13,000 men, "feeling the deepest regret
for the occasion, but withal, the most solemn conviction, that the essential interests
of the Union demand it." He also offers amnesty to all insurgents who "disperse
and retire peaceably to their respective abodes" by September 1.
- August
21, 1794: Washington sends three federal commissioners into western Pennsylvania
in a final attempt to resolve the situation peacefully. Their efforts are met
with violent resistance, and on September 24 they report that "there is no probability
that . . [the laws] can at present be enforced by the usual course of civil authority,
and that some more competent force is necessary to cause the laws to be duly executed."
- September
25, 1794: Washington issues a proclamation ordering the militia to assemble
and march against the insurgents: "Every form of conciliation not inconsistent
with the being of Government, has been adopted without effect . . . [and]
Government is set at defiance, the contest being whether a small portion of the
United States shall dictate to the whole union, and at the expence of those, who
desire peace, indulge a desperate ambition; Now therefore I, George Washington,
. . . deploring that the American name should be sullied by the outrages
of citizens on their own Government; . . . but resolved . .
. to reduce the refractory to a due subordination to the law; Do Hereby
declare . . . that a force . . . adequate to the exigency,
is already in motion to the scene of disaffection; . . . And I do,
moreover, exhort all individuals, officers, and bodies of men, to contemplate
with abhorrence the measures leading directly or indirectly to those crimes, which
produce this resort to military coercion."
2 As
Washington's consultations with the Supreme Court suggest, the Whiskey Rebellion
raised questions about governmental authority under the new Constitution. Was
this a situation in which the President was empowered to "take care that the laws
be faithfully executed" (Article II, Section 3)? Was it a situation in which the
Congress was required "to provide for calling forth the militia to execute the
laws of the Union, suppress insurrections and repel invasions" (Article I, Section
8, Number 15)? Or was it simply a local matter, a breakdown of law and order in
western Pennsylvania which the state should deal with on its own (as implied by
the Tenth Amendment)? Have students
consult these sections of the Constitution, which is available through EDSITEment
at the CongressLink
website. (At the website's homepage, click on "Classroom
Resources " in the navigational frame to the left, click on "Lesson
Plans ," and scroll down to the link to the Constitution.
The Constitution contains links to Article
II and the Bill
of Rights.)
3 Turn
from these constitutional issues to Washington's handling of this crisis by having
students read his Diary
for the period from September 30 to October 20, when he rode west to review his
troops at their assembly points and issue commands for their march into western
Pennsylvania. Focus attention on Washington's entry for October 6 to 12, where
he describes a meeting with two representatives from the insurgent region, William
Findley and David Redick, both prosperous landowners who had infiltrated the rebel
movement. Divide the class into study groups and have each group outline the arguments
made on either side. Then stage a Nightline-style investigative report
into what happened at the meeting. Assign students to speak for Findley, Redick,
and Washington, and after each explains his objectives in the meeting and his
views on why negotiations "broke down," have members of the class raise questions
about the positions each side took and about options they might have considered.
For example: - Why did Findley and
Redick attempt to halt Washington's army? Were they seeking to protect the rebels?
If they were really as frightened by the rebels as they claimed, why did they
resist this chance to restore law and order?
- Why
did Washington reject the argument that he should turn back since the insurgency
was losing steam and would soon blow over anyway? Wasn't he worried that bringing
federal troops into the area might stir up fresh trouble, as federal tax inspectors
had done in August? What was he trying to accomplish by marching 13,000 men into
this remote part of the country against a rag-tag array of small farmers?
- When
Findley and Redick asked Washington what proof he wanted that the rule of law
had been restored in their region, he answered that "they knew as well as I did."
What proof did Washington require? What would have satisfied him? Could any community
produce proof that its citizens are in "absolute submission" to the law?
- Why
did Findley and Redick emphasize that the rebels were ignorant and "men of little
or no property"? Were they implying that the insurgency was really the work of
an underclass, people who would sink back into impotence and insignificance now
that the excitement was over? To what extent did Washington share this "blame
it on the riff-raff" view of the situation? Would he have marched an army into
a prosperous community that took up arms when its petitions had been ignored?
- Were
there other options open to Washington? Why couldn't he keep his army at the ready
to see if the rebellion had really run its course? Why couldn't he have told Findley
and Redick that he would withdraw if the people of their region would hand over
the rebel leaders? Why did he feel it necessary to press on with the invasion?
- What
was really at stake for Washington in this confrontation? The security of the
nation? Civil order and tranquillity? Respect for federal authority? What mattered
so much that he was willing to run the risk of war between the government and
its citizens?
4 After
students have probed these aspects of Washington's decision, remind them that
during this period he faced increasing political controversy as well. The excise
tax had been a Federalist measure, after all, designed to help pay the costs of
Hamilton's financial policies, and its opponents included those who were organizing
what would soon become the Democratic-Republican party under Jefferson. Antagonism
between these groups deepened over Washington's handling of the Whiskey Rebellion:
"An insurrection was announced and proclaimed and armed against, but could never
be found," Jefferson said of it, whereas Hamilton argued that suppressing the
rebellion "will do us a great deal of good and add to the solidity of everything
in this country." - Have students explore
this dimension of Washington's decision by reading his Sixth
Annual Message to Congress, delivered soon after his return from western Pennsylvania.
The speech is available through EDSITEment at the Presidential
Speeches website. (At the website's homepage, click on "George Washington,"
then select "Annual
Message, 1794-11-19.")
- Divide the class
into two "factions," as they were called at the time, Federalist and Democratic-Republican.
Form study groups within each faction and have each group produce a partisan newspaper
reporting on Washington's address and his recent actions against the insurgents.
In their newspapers, students should comment on Washington's analysis of the situation,
his justification for employing military force, and his claim that "consolations"
have come out of this crisis.
- Have students
on both sides note in particular what Washington had to say about "the origin
and progress of the insurrection," where he fixes the blame on "combinations of
men who . . . have disseminated . . . accusations of
the whole Government." Who are these "combinations of men," which he elsewhere
describes as "certain self-created societies"? And how did his suspicions about
them influence his decision to carry through with the use of military force? To
what degree were his actions, in other words, a show of political power designed
to send a message to his political opponents as well as an exercise of executive
power against those who would defy the law?
5 After
students have produced and shared their newspapers, discuss in class how each
side might have reported on the closing chapters in the Whiskey Rebellion:
- November 17, 1794: Hamilton writes to Washington
from western Pennsylvania that "the list of prisoners has been very considerably
increased, probably to the amount of 150. . . . Subsequent intelligence
shews that there is no regular assemblage of the fugitives . . .
only small vagrant parties . . . affording no point of Attack. Every
thing is urging for the return of the troops."
- November
19, 1794: Hamilton notifies Washington that the army "is generally in motion
homeward," leaving behind a regiment to maintain order.
- July
10, 1795: Washington issues a pardon to those insurgents who were taken prisoner
but were not yet sentenced or indicted. By this time, most had already been acquitted
for lack of evidence.
6 Conclude
the lesson by having students consider how Washington's policy for dealing with
the Whiskey Rebellion, and the reasoning that motivated his actions, would apply
to later examples of civil unrest. Would he have viewed those who fought for racial
equality in the Civil Rights Movement in the same light as the Pennsylvania insurgents
who fought against an onerous tax? Have students offer more recent examples of
citizens threatening civil order in the belief that their cause is just. What
can we learn from Washington's precedent-setting response to the dilemma that
arises in such situations? Did the insurgents' cause weigh in his decision to
force submission to the law? Should the cause for civil disobedience determine
how government responds?
Extending the Lesson
For a different view of George Washington, exploring his
public image, see the EDSITEment Lesson Plan "The
Living Symbol." Further study of the rise of political parties in the United
States should begin with Federalist
Paper No. 9, "The Union as a Safeguard against Domestic Faction and Insurrection,"
by Alexander Hamilton, and its sequel, No.
10, "The Same Subject Continued," by James Madison, available through EDSITEment
at CongressLink's
THOMAS site.
Standards Alignment
View your state’s standards
|