The Whiskey Rebellion examined |

The Whiskey Rebellion examined

The Tipperary, an Irish whiskey drink.

For its May program meeting, the Bridgeville Area Historical Society welcomed back one of its favorite speakers, Todd DePastino, and was rewarded with an entertaining presentation on the Whiskey Rebellion. His talk turned out to be an excellent complement to the society’s recent “Second Tuesday” workshop, which focused on George Washington’s role in that significant event.

DePastino is a legitimate historian, gifted with the ability to place specific events in context with the overall trends in history when they occurred. In this case, he described the Whiskey Rebellion as merely one event, albeit a very relevant one, in a long-term class struggle in the early days of our country.

He described three major schisms in the society of our brandnew nation, schisms which to a certain extent have survived until today — those between the rich and the poor, rural areas and cities, and the frontier versus the establishment.

The settlers in this area, for the most part, were poor, rural and frontiersmen who believed no one in the new government had any interest in helping them. Secretary of the Treasury Alexander Hamilton’s Distilled Spirits Tax was the final straw when it was passed by Congress in 1791. To the settlers west of the Alleghenies, it appeared to be specifically intended to punish them.

DePastino described the reaction on the frontier as being a replay of the days immediately preceding the Revolution, when the Sons of Liberty performed violent, obviously illegal actions while the Continental Congress provided a facade of responsibility. In 1791, it was the Mingo Creek Association burning barns and tarring and feathering tax collectors, while high-level citizens’ committees met and presented the appearance of trying to work within the system.

David Bradford, deputy attorney general for Washington County, was the leader of a faction advocating independence for the frontier settlements and the establishment of Westylvania, the 14th state that never was. His ambitions were opposed by other prominent citizens, notably Hugh Henry Brackenridge, Albert Gallatin and William Findley.

The events of mid-July 1794, culminating in the destruction of Tax Inspector John Neville’s mansion, Bower Hill, gave Hamilton the excuse to carry out his plans. Militias from Pennsylvania, New Jersey, Maryland and Virginia were combined to form an army of 13,000 men that marched across the mountains to Pittsburgh and convinced the locals that rebellion was a bad idea. An estimated 2,000 rebels followed Bradford west and escaped arrest.

We local history buffs tend to view the Whiskey Rebellion as an extremely exciting series of local events with national significance. It is interesting to consider its place in the “Big Picture” and to realize that many of its aspects are still relevant today and have not been resolved.

July 20 and 21 are already circled on our calendar — that is the weekend of “Woodville Market Faire” at Woodville Plantation, an 18th-century market featuring entertainment, sutlers and craftsmen. Rumor has it Secretary of the Treasury Alexander Hamilton will be there, collecting his onerous excise tax on whiskey!

The Historical Society’s final program for the 2018-19 season is scheduled for 7:30 p.m. June 25 in the Chartiers Room, Bridgeville Volunteer Fire Department. Cortney Williams will discuss “The 1927 Brinks Armored Car Robbery in Bethel Park by the Flathead Gang.”

Categories: Local | Carlynton
TribLIVE commenting policy

You are solely responsible for your comments and by using you agree to our Terms of Service.

We moderate comments. Our goal is to provide substantive commentary for a general readership. By screening submissions, we provide a space where readers can share intelligent and informed commentary that enhances the quality of our news and information.

While most comments will be posted if they are on-topic and not abusive, moderating decisions are subjective. We will make them as carefully and consistently as we can. Because of the volume of reader comments, we cannot review individual moderation decisions with readers.

We value thoughtful comments representing a range of views that make their point quickly and politely. We make an effort to protect discussions from repeated comments either by the same reader or different readers

We follow the same standards for taste as the daily newspaper. A few things we won't tolerate: personal attacks, obscenity, vulgarity, profanity (including expletives and letters followed by dashes), commercial promotion, impersonations, incoherence, proselytizing and SHOUTING. Don't include URLs to Web sites.

We do not edit comments. They are either approved or deleted. We reserve the right to edit a comment that is quoted or excerpted in an article. In this case, we may fix spelling and punctuation.

We welcome strong opinions and criticism of our work, but we don't want comments to become bogged down with discussions of our policies and we will moderate accordingly.

We appreciate it when readers and people quoted in articles or blog posts point out errors of fact or emphasis and will investigate all assertions. But these suggestions should be sent via e-mail. To avoid distracting other readers, we won't publish comments that suggest a correction. Instead, corrections will be made in a blog post or in an article.