One of the main reasons that the Constitution replaced the Articles of Confederation was to provide a way for the government to raise taxes and pay off its debts from the war.
The bulk of federal revenue came from tariffs on imported goods. These were collected at eastern ports like Boston, New York, Philadelphia, and Charleston. The various revenue acts passed in 1789 and 1790 had to do with various rates and methods for taxing foreign imports.
The Excise Act
In 1791, however, Congress passed the Excise Act. It imposed a tax on distillers who produced liquor. For Americans, this meant a tax on whiskey. Alexander Hamilton, in his Report on Public Credit in 1790, recommended an excise on domestic distilled spirits.
 |
| Tar and feather the tax man (colorized) |
A few months later, Congress considered a proposal to create an excise tax, and rejected it. At the time, Congress was fighting over a host of issues, including whether or not to assume state debts. The excise tax proposal got caught up in that fight and got pushed aside.
Hamilton and other proponents, however, were confident that they could get a bill passed once they had dealt with assumption and other issues. In early 1791, they tried again. Opponents argued that the proposal would particularly fall on poor frontier farmers who could least afford it. On the frontier, liquor was not a luxury. It was used instead of money. People exchanged bottles of liquor for other items in this cash-strapped society. The tax imposed was up to 25 cents per gallons. This was pretty high, even in the east, where the price of whisky could often be $1 per gallon. In the west, where whiskey often sold for 25 cents, the tax could be 100% of the price. Even worse, the tax was based on a still’s capacity. So if your still was big enough to make 200 gallons per year, you paid the tax based on that, even if you only actually made 50 gallons per year..
Requiring farmers to pay a cash tax was an impossibility. Because the Allegheny mountains made it impossible to ship grain to markets in the east, the only way to earn cash was to convert those grains into liquor. Those bottles could be shipped far more efficiently than the grain used to produce them. Because many of the stills were on small farms, the only way to enforce the tax would be to have government officials searching private homes, something the American people found abhorrent.
Opposition came from all the states with large frontier populations, including Georgia, North Carolina, Virginia, and Maryland. But some of the strongest opposition came from Pennsylvania.
Despite the opposition Congress passed the excise bill on March 3, 1791, the last day of the congressional session. President Washington signed the bill into law.
Earlier Incidents
Complaints over the taxation of whiskey was nothing new. It was also not limited to federal taxation. State tax laws also had met with resistance for years. The issue was not just the tax, which people thought was unfair. It was also that agents had the authority to trespass on private land looking for violations.
While the new federal law was exceptionally controversial, any excise tax had been a source of contention. In 1786, agents in western Pennsylvania attempted to enforce its own state tax on whiskey. The government sent a revenue agent named William Graham to Washington County. The community was united in its opposition to permitting the enforcement of this tax.
A mob of men in disguise broke into his house. Graham was armed but opted not to fire on the mob, believing that if he did, they would almost certainly kill him. The mob disarmed him and destroyed all of his tax documents. They forced Graham to curse himself, his commission, and then government officials who sent him.
Next, they shaved half of his head, and braided the other half. They put him on his horse and paraded him through the countryside, having him stop at each of the stills that he was supposed to visit as an agent and have a drink. Graham passively accepted all of the abuse, knowing that any response or resistance would likely only make things worse.
Eventually the mob let him go and he fled the region. He never attempted to press any charges or accuse any individuals of a crime.
This was only one example of how revenue agents were routinely treated in western Pennsylvania. The result was that few agents were willing to try, and the revenue laws went unenforced.
When the federal government passed its first excise tax in 1791, the people of western Pennsylvania held public meetings to organize a response. They posted articles in the Pittsburgh Gazette making clear that any agents attempting to enforce the revenue laws would be treated as public enemies. When an agent named Robert Johnson rode into the area, he was met by a mob of 15-20 disguised men armed with muskets, rifles, and clubs, on an isolated road near Pittsburgh. The men stripped him naked, cut off his hair and covered him with tar and feathers.
Johnson, who lived in the community, recognized several of the men and filed criminal complaints. The federal marshal refused to serve the warrants for fear of their personal safety. Instead the marshal hired a cattle drover named John Connor as a deputy to deliver the warrants. The locals captured and whipped Connor, then tarred and feathered him, stealing his horse and money, leaving him tied to a tree for over five hours. That attack also went unprosecuted.
Remember that during this era, professional police forces did not exist. Sheriffs and marshals depended on the cooperation of the community in bringing criminals to justice. If the community as a whole opposed the prosecution, as in these cases, law enforcement was simply unable to enforce the law. Most Americans favored this system. It ensured that laws were supported by the people. Where the people as a whole opposed a law, it would be an act of tyranny to enforce it against the public will.
Resistance Begins
Congress made some changes in the new excise act of 1792 attempted to mollify the opposition by reducing the initial tariff rates. But it also increased the penalty for failing to register a still to $250, more than most westerners made in a year. Another criticism of the original federal law was that any legal challenges to a tax collection had to be held at the district court in Philadelphia. The cost of traveling to Philadelphia from western Pennsylvania would cost more than the tax itself. Therefore, the people argued that there was effectively no due process.
After passage of the 1792 tax, the Pennsylvania legislature, which had already voted to have their federal representatives oppose the bill, condemned its passage. In June, about three months after Congress passed the bill, the Pennsylvania Assembly passed a resolution calling the tax “subversive of peace, liberty, and the rights of citizens.”
Some noted that the state legislators were being hypocrites and were only seeking to win political points with their rhetoric. They pointed out that the state still had its own excise tax on the books. Given that they were unable to enforce it in the western part of the state, which is where almost all the liquor was distilled, the legislature ended up simply repealing their own excise tax.
The apparent support of the state government encouraged the westerners to continue their own resistance. They held two conventions in Pittsburgh. The first one convened in September 1791, before the federal bill passed. Representatives from Allegheny, Fayette, Washington, and Westmoreland counties participated, drawing wealthy and highly respected members of the communities. The primary goal was to address their concerns peacefully and hopefully avoid more violence. The convention passed a resolution arguing that the taxes infringed on their liberty and discriminated against western settlers. They protested not only the tax, but the unfair methods of collection. The resolutions called for the repeal of the state tax, and a petition to Congress not to pass a new federal tax.
The second took place about a year later, in August of 1792, after passage of the federal bill and the repeal of the state bill. The convention passed a resolution proclaiming that any person accepting a position as a tax collector as “unworthy of our friendship.” That person would be ostracized from the community and no one would have anything to do with him. While it did not explicitly advocate violence, it would “withdraw from them every assistance, withhold all the comforts of life, … and upon all occasions treat them with that contempt they deserve.” The convention also set up committees of correspondence to coordinate opposition with other eastern counties.
Resistance was not limited to Pennsylvania. Opposition organized throughout the frontier. Groups in western Virginia, Maryland, North Carolina and South Carolina all proclaimed opposition and in many cases engaged in outright resistance. Pennsylvania, however, became a center of resistance and a focus for the federal government since Philadelphia newspapers highlighted the resistance happening there.
Organized Attacks
Despite the Pittsburgh conventions’ advocacy of non-violent resistance, the locals had not given up on the use of violence. The focus of their wrath fell on locals who were facilitating enforcement of the law.
Benjamin Wells became an obvious target. Wells had been a wealthy member of the community. In 1791, he accepted an appointment at the tax collector for Fayette and Westmoreland counties. In April, 1793, while Wells was away, a mob broke into his home terrorizing his wife and children. The attackers made clear to his family that he needed to resign his commission or suffer real harm.
Despite wearing disguises, Mrs. Wells recognized some of the attackers. She filed a complaint with the sheriff, but he was afraid to act. Wells was a tough frontiersman and not one to back down from a fight. It was not uncommon for him to have physical confrontations, and outright fights with land owners while he was investigating their properties. He retained his commission and continued in vain efforts to bring the attackers to justice.
His efforts led to another attack six months later. Six armed men broke into his home again at 2:00 AM on November 22. The men had blackened their faces and wore handkerchiefs as masks. They pointed pistols at Wells’ head and told him he would die right there and then unless he turned over all of his books and papers related to the excise tax. At first Wells refused, but eventually complied. Before the intruders left, they ordered Wells to publish his resignation from office in the Pittsburgh Gazette, or they would return. They strongly implied that the next visit would be a fatal one for Wells.
Wells published his resignation, but secretly continued his duties. He sought to have his son, John Wells, appointed to continue the work. He also traveled to Philadelphia to provide testimony before the federal district judge regarding the attacks on his home.
Protests began to grow. In early 1794 anonymous posts began to appear in the Pittsburgh Gazette notifying farmers that if they registered for the tax their stills would be destroyed.
John Neville became one of the primary targets of local wrath in 1794. Originally from Virginia, Neville had been an old friend of George Washington’s. The two men had been neighbors in Winchester. Neville had been a part of the Virginia militia that Washington commanded at the Jumonville Massacre back in 1754, one of the events that started the French and Indian War. He also fought alongside Colonel Washington during the Braddock Campaign in 1755.
Before the Revolution, Neville had been sheriff and a justice of the peace in Winchester. In 1775, Virginia sent Neville, a colonel in the militia, to take command of Fort Pitt, which Virginia called Fort Dunmore at the time. Neville built a home near the fort and lived there for about a year before joining the Continental Army. He served under General Washington at places like Trenton, Germantown, and Monmouth. He was captured in 1780 and became a prisoner of war. He was released and ended the war in 1783 as a brevet brigadier general.
After the war, General Neville settled on his 400 acre plantation just outside of Pittsburgh, in an area now considered part of Pennsylvania. He was one of the wealthiest and most politically powerful men in the area. Over time, his landholdings grew to around 10,000 acres. He was also one of the few large scale slave owners in Pennsylvania. As did most farmers in the region, Neville produced a large amount of whiskey and was a vocal opponent of the whiskey tax. He controlled the sale of whiskey and other military supplies to the army, which was garrisoned at Fort Pitt.
Neville had been a leading opponent of the excise tax, and was generally popular in the region. In 1793, his old friend President Washington gave him a commission as the Inspector of Revenue for Western Pennsylvania. His neighbors saw this as a betrayal. Many also believed that he would use the office to destroy the smaller distilleries that were his competition, and consolidate a monopoly in the whiskey business for western Pennsylvania.
Battle of Bower Hill
The spark that ignited the Whiskey Rebellion came in July of 1794. A month earlier, Congress had addressed one of the concerns of the opponents, that was being dragged to federal court in Philadelphia to contest any indictments for violations of the excise law. Congress allowed local state courts to hear the matter, meaning that accused people would not have to make the 300 mile journey to Philadelphia.
Neville decided to stick it to some of the farmers in the area who he didn’t like. On July 15, 1794 Neville accompanied US marshal David Lenox to serve summonses on several delinquent distillers that had been used before the changes. This meant they were still in federal court. Because the law was not retroactive, these farmers would have to travel to Philadelphia to contest these claims.
The following day, around dawn, a group of about 50 armed militia on horseback rode toward Neville’s home at Bower Hill. One of them was William Miller, a small farmer who had been served the day before with a summons to pay a $250 fine for operating an unregistered distillery.
After shouting out a warning, Neville fired on the group, killing Miller’s nephew, Oliver Miller. This began a firefight that lasted nearly half an hour. The militia outnumbered the defenders, but were unwilling to storm the well-fortified house. Neville continued to fire on the attackers while his wife and her friend reloaded his guns for him. He managed to hit four more attackers before they finally withdrew.
Neville’s son, Presley Neville, was in Pittsburgh at the time and tried to call out the Pittsburgh militia to defend Bower Hill. He was unable to get any militia support, or even a posse. Neville did find support from one man, Major Abraham Kirkpatrick. The Marylander was a Continental veteran who served as a commissary officer in Pittsburgh. He was also married to Mrs. Neville’s sister. Kirkpatrick managed to get ten or eleven soldiers who rode out to Bower Hill to defend the plantation.
Meanwhile the numbers of rebel militia continued to grow as news that Neville had killed a man during the fight. The following day, July 17, more than 600 rebel militia had assembled - some reports say as many as 800. They chose militia Major James McFarlane to lead them. McFarlane was an experienced Continental officer and organized the militia into an organized and disciplined fighting force. The militia army marched on Bower Hill that afternoon.
General Neville had fled his home, but Major Kirkpatrick and his soldiers remained there. Also defending the home were a number of Neville’s armed slaves. After reaching Bower Hill, McFarlane sent a messenger up to the house under a flag of truce. They demanded that Neville come out and surrender his commission. Kirkpatrick informed the attackers that Neville had left the property. They then demanded that six men be allowed to enter the home and search through Neville’s papers and that the defenders must come out of the home and ground their arms. Major Kirkpatrick refused. They did agree to allow the women to leave the home.
After the women had fled, the battle began in earnest. Several militia members began setting fire to outbuildings as both sides opened fire on each other. As the fighting raged, Presley approached his father’s home with the Marshal Lenox. The sight of the marshal had not impact on the attackers. They simply held both men under guard and continued the fighting.
After about an hour, firing from inside the home ceased and a white flag appeared in a window. Major McFarlane stepped out from behind a tree to halt the attack when a shot from inside the home hit him in the groin. It was a fatal shot.
Firing resumed until the attackers were able to set the main house on fire. Kirkpatrick and his defenders finally surrendered and were taken prisoner. That evening, the rebels looted the house and then burned everything to the ground. The only structures that survived on the property were the slave quarters and another building where the slaves stored their food. The slaves had begged the attackers not to destroy them.
This large brazen attack on a federal official would finally get the federal government to act decisively.
Next week, we will see how the government reacts to all of this.
- - -
Next Episode 385 Whiskey Rebellion(coming soon)
Previous Episode 383 Eli Whitney & Dolley Madison
 |
| Click here to donate |
 |
| Click here to see my Patreon Page |
An alternative to Patreon is SubscribeStar. For anyone who has problems with Patreon, you can get the same benefits by subscribing at SubscribeStar.
Signup for the AmRev Podcast Mail List
Further Reading
Websites
The Whiskey Rebellion https://www.ttb.gov/public-information/whiskey-rebellion
The Whiskey Rebellion https://www.mountvernon.org/george-washington/the-first-president/whiskey-rebellion
BRIGADIER GENERAL JOHN NEVILLE 1731 - 1803 https://www.oldsaintlukes.org/wp-content/uploads/2014/03/BRIGADIER-GENERAL-JOHN-NEVILLE-1731-1803.pdf
Cooke, Jacob E. “THE WHISKEY INSURRECTION: A RE-EVALUATION.” Pennsylvania History: A Journal of Mid-Atlantic Studies, vol. 30, no. 3, 1963, pp. 316–46. JSTOR, http://www.jstor.org/stable/27770195.
Davis, Jeffrey A. “Guarding the Republican Interest: The Western Pennsylvania Democratic Societies and the Excise Tax.” Pennsylvania History: A Journal of Mid-Atlantic Studies, vol. 67, no. 1, 2000, pp. 43–62. JSTOR, http://www.jstor.org/stable/27774247
Kohn, Richard H. “The Washington Administration’s Decision to Crush the Whiskey Rebellion.” The Journal of American History, vol. 59, no. 3, 1972, pp. 567–84. JSTOR, https://doi.org/10.2307/1900658.
Krom, Cynthia L., and Stephanie Krom. “THE WHISKEY TAX OF 1791 AND THE CONSEQUENT INSURRECTION: ‘A WICKED AND HAPPY TUMULT.’” The Accounting Historians Journal, vol. 40, no. 2, 2013, pp. 91–113. JSTOR, http://www.jstor.org/stable/43486736.
Long, Ronald W. “THE PRESBYTERIANS AND THE WHISKEY REBELLION.” Journal of Presbyterian History (1962-1985), vol. 43, no. 1, 1965, pp. 28–36. JSTOR, http://www.jstor.org/stable/23325997
Nester, William. “The Whiskey Rebellion.” The Hamiltonian Vision, 1789-1800: The Art of American Power During the Early Republic, University of Nebraska Press, 2012, pp. 72–74. JSTOR, https://doi.org/10.2307/j.ctt1djmhp3.17.
Rich, Bennett M. “Washington and the Whiskey Insurrection.” The Pennsylvania Magazine of History and Biography, vol. 65, no. 3, 1941, pp. 334–52. JSTOR, http://www.jstor.org/stable/20087395.
Whitten, David O. “An Economic Inquiry into the Whiskey Rebellion of 1794.” Agricultural History, vol. 49, no. 3, 1975, pp. 491–504. JSTOR, http://www.jstor.org/stable/3741786.
Free eBooks
(from archive.org unless noted)
Brackenridge, H. H. Incidents of the Insurrection in the Western Parts of Pennsylvania, in the year 1794, Philadelphia: John McCulloch, 1795.
Brackenridge, H.M. History of the Western Insurrection in Western Pennsylvania: Commonly Called the Whiskey Insurrection, 1794, Pittsburgh: W.S. Haven, 1859.
Davidson Robert A Sermon on the Freedom and Happiness of the United States of America, Preached in Carlisle, on the 5th Oct. 1794, Philadelphia: Samuel H. Smith, 1794.
Wiley, Richard T. Sim Greene, a Narrative of the Whisky Insurrection; being a setting forth of the memoirs of the late David Froman, Philadelphia: John C. Winston Co. 1906.
Wiley, Richard T. The Whisky Insurrection: A General View, Elizabeth, PA; Herald Printing House, 1912.
Books Worth Buying
(links to Amazon.com unless otherwise noted)*
Baldwin, Leland D. Whiskey Rebels: The Story of a Frontier Uprising, Univ. of Pittsburgh Press, 1968.
Boyd, Steven R. The Whiskey Rebellion: Past and Present Perspectives, Greenwood Press, 1985.
Chernow, Ron Alexander Hamilton, Penguin Press, 2004.
Chernow, Ron Washington, A Life, Penguin Press, 2010.
Chervinsky, Lindsay M. The Cabinet: George Washington and the Creation of an American Institution, Belknap Press, 2020.
Hogeland, William The Whiskey Rebellion: George Washington, Alexander Hamilton, and the Frontier Rebels Who Challenged America's Newfound Sovereignty, Scribner, 2006.
McDonald, Forrest, The Presidency of George Washington, Univ of Kansas Press, 1974.
Meacham, Jon Thomas Jefferson: The Art of Power, Random House, 2012.
Miller, John C. Alexander Hamilton and the Growth of the New Nation, Routledge, 2017.
Myrsiades, Linda Backcountry Democracy and the Whiskey Insurrection: The Legal Culture and Trials, 1794-1795, Univ. of Ga. Press, 2024.
Nester, William The Hamiltonian Vision, 1789-1800, Potomac Books, 2012.
Randall, Willard Sterne Thomas Jefferson: A Life, Henry Holt and Co. 1993.
Slaughter, Thomas P. The Whiskey Rebellion: Frontier Epilogue to the American Revolution, Oxford Univ. Press, 1986.
Unger, Harlow G. "Mr. President": George Washington and the Making of the Nation's Highest Office, Da Capo Press, 2013.
* As an Amazon Associate I earn from qualifying purchases.
