Book Review: The Whiskey Rebellion
Thomas P. Slaughter Examines the First Test of Federal Authority
Aug 1, 2008
Thomas P. Slaughter, The Whiskey Rebellion: Frontier Epilogue to the American Revolution, New York: Oxford University Press, 1986.
The Thesis
Slaughter’s thesis is that the Whiskey Rebellion is not only important in American history, but that it is connected in ideology and action to the American Revolution as well as a history of rebellion against internal taxes in England. The motto “No Taxation Without Representation,” which is so identified with the Patriots, was carried West by backwoodsmen seeking liberty in America.
The Tax Man Cometh
The book is divided into three sections. The first deals with the context and background of the Rebellion. Slaughter first examines the general Anglo-American dislike of “internal” or excise taxes. There is a tradition, both in early seventeenth century England and in the colonies, to despise the excise collector, as well as burdensome taxes they collected. The taxes, taken without consent, represented the crux of the American argument against England. It with this as the backdrop that Slaughter presents the sectional strife that occurred between the Easterners and Westerners, or the federalists and anti-federalists.
The Whiskey "Rebellion"
The second section presents a chronology of the Rebellion, beginning with the Indian War to the excise rebellion and finally to the beginning of hostilities with England in 1794. Throughout, the internal governmental workings are detailed, giving the reader Slaughter’s view of both President George Washington and Secretary of Treasury Alexander Hamilton.
The final section, the shortest by far, details the actual Whiskey Rebellion and the government’s response. Slaughter suggests that while the rebellion lacked any “coherent purpose,” some strongly desired to achieve regional independence. Washington’s response was to create a militia, paid for by internal taxes, and put down the insurrection.
An Unconvincing Thesis
Slaughter’s thesis, that the Whiskey Rebellion was connected to the Revolution, is not as well proven. He takes a considerable amount of space in making the case, but all he does is prove there are many people who dislike excise taxes and who will do much in order to avoid paying them. He does not convincingly prove there was anything but a series of mob actions by unconnected groups, hardly anything worthy of being called a rebellion.
Dualism
Another problem in Slaughter’s work is his treatment of Washington and Hamilton. Dualism is a problem throughout, but he is especially critical of these two politicians. For example, he presents Washington as having written to John Jay that the Whiskey Rebellion came at a “fortunate time” (224). While it is true that Washington wrote these words, it is within the context of negotiations Jay was having with the British. Washington’s desire was that asserting such authority would aid Jay’s negotiations. Slaughter, on the other hand, portrays Washington as a land speculator, believing this fortunate incident would gain land rights.
Oversimplification
This dualism causes Slaughter several problems. First, he casts the so-called Whiskey Rebellion as a conflict between federalists and anti-federalists, between greedy Eastern politicians and businessmen and liberty loving Western frontiersmen. This is an oversimplification at best, an outright lie at worst. Second, Slaughter’s dualism leads him to force a diversity of people into one of the two groups. Similar to what the consensus historians do with the Patriots, Slaughter examines two groups, either forcing everyone into two molds or ignoring them altogether.
Conclusion
Slaughter’s writing is clear, but often confusing. At times it reads like a novel, giving a compelling narrative, but frequently shifts to analysis. These transitions are not handled well and prove to disorient the reader. While there is a clear antagonist, Washington and Hamilton, there is no clear protagonist except for an amalgam frontiersman who is never adequately characterized. The book is well organized, but he gives too much attention to the background and not enough on the actual rebellion. In all, he spends 15 pages describing what he claims is a pivotal event in American history.
Ultimately, while Slaughter presents a highly researched work with a compelling thesis, he fails to prove his case. His is a work that falls prey to an anti-federalist bias and dualistic thinking.
 |
