08.07.03

Today, a made-for-HK story about something dear to all our hearts: whiskey. And rebellion. And America. Especially the America that had fighting Indians, founding fathers, and hard-living, hard-drinking frontier people. In this episode, HK asks Mr. Michael Fox questions sort of like, how did Washington save the young Republic by showing the anti-tax whiskey-makers the error of their rebellious ways? Could you compare that to how a modern leader (say, our GW) might handle such an uprising? Also, do you think it's possible the Whiskey Rebellion leaders Millers-of-Pittsburgh are ancestors of my own Millers of Pittsburgh? So, without further ado....

Washington's success in quelling the Whiskey Rebellion was a very important step in the creation of a viable US of A. For folks who can't exactly remember what all the Whiskey Rebellion fuss was about, here's the situation in the summer of 1794: the nation is about 5 years old and is barely functioning as anything more that a loose conglomeration of very different countries. Bankers in New York City worry about trade with Europe, southern plantation owners are entrenching themselves in a slave-based economy and meanwhile pioneering types in the wilderness that is western Pennsylvania, Maryland and Virginia are fighting Indians...and losing. These westerners were the people who invaded Indian lands which were then claimed by the United States in treaty after treaty. Once an area was opened up for settlement, speculators grabbed huge expanses of land and made large fortunes. Essentially, the pioneer types were doing all the dirty work and the speculators back in New York and Philadelphia (and Mt. Vernon) got the cash. There had been a lot of loose talk about creating a new nation in the west. The United States seemed incapable of fighting the Indians in the Ohio Valley region and it galled settlers to be forced to support a government that did so little to support them. Aside from some fairly minimal governmental representation in the larger towns, settlers were on their own. Even federal currency was tough to come by.

That's where the whiskey enters into the equation. As you probably know, Americans drank a LOT more in the 1790s than we do today and on the frontier the primary staple was whiskey. Wine had to be shipped in from long distances, beer tended to go bad in the weather, but anyone could make whiskey. On the frontier, whiskey even served as a sort of currency. So when Congress enacted a tax on whiskey, these pioneer types took it personally. Most of these folks were somewhere between poor and starving, now they were being gouged by a bunch of rich bastards out in Philadelphia who really didn't seem to give a damn about how hard the living really was out west. One overly diligent tax collector set off the rebellion and within days a mob of growling backwoods types was ready to pitch the US out of Western PA.

Washington saw the danger of this situation: if every state, or every mob, was allowed to decide which laws it would follow and which ones it would not the nation would fail. The government had to act as a representative of all sections of the nation and of all of the citizens. Washington called out the militia, left the capitol city of Philadelphia and headed for Carlisle, PA. He appeared in uniform before his troops...and declared an amnesty for the rioters. His reputation alone, combined with the threat of military intervention had crushed the rebellion. The Whiskey rebels never believed that the president would send the army out after them. When he did, they gave up. Washington proved that the laws of the federal government applied to all of the states in the union and that these laws would be backed up at the point of a bayonet if need be. It was a message that even the most primitive frontiersman could apprehend with crystal clarity.

The lessons of the whiskey rebellion were well learned by succeeding presidents who utilized the national guard as a federal force in times of emergency and to directly enforce federal law when the states can't or won't. The integration of the Little Rock schools is a good example. Don't think George Bush won't call out the army to put down modern-day rebellions should they arise. Hell, he'd just be following George Washington's lead. I'm pretty sure the sheer force of Bush's personality alone won't be enough to put down a riot, even a small one.

And yes, it's entirely possible that your Millers were whiskey rebels. Check it out. My own PA relatives were Quakers living at a crossroads known as Valley Forge.

HK: Why, thank you Mr. Fox for that wonderful and fascinating lesson! Would you mind doing a series on Washington for HK? Or would that besmirch your scholarly reputation?

MF: Oh, that is so very nice of you! Yes, a series would be fun. And don't worry about my scholarly reputation. The duty of a historian is present the past to anyone who will listen. I take this charge with the utmost level of seriousness and try not make the story too tedious. I'm always glad to help HK. (editor's note: change of subject here) I am very jealous of the time you get to spend with that adorable Purple cat. I love giant cats. I met one on a residential street in Arcata one day. It looked to be about the same size as Purple. I'm trying to grow my cat Swiss up to be an overweight slug but he won't go for it. He's too vain.

HK: Well, I was very proud of myself yesterday, because I thought I'd been keeping Purple on a diet. I thought I'd put the Other Cat's food dish on a shelf too high (and small) for Purple to reach (and fit within). This morning, however, I discovered Purple on said shelf, eating Other Cat's food as always.

Today's lessons: Shock and Awe wasn't born this year, and no obstacle will stand for long between Purple and his food. Thanks for tuning in. Tomorrow: All those stories you people have been sending me. Happy Thursdays all around. And thanks again to Mr. Fox.