Negotiations and escape. McFarlane’s funeral took place on the eighteenth. Main sources for this section: Brackenridge’s Incidents; Findley; Lenox’s report to Hamilton, cited above; Craig to Knox, 7/25/1794, Isaac Craig Papers. The vessel in which Neville and Lenox escaped is called a small boat by Craig, a barge by Lenox.
CHAPTER EIGHT: A NEW SODOM
The Mingo church meeting. The meeting took place on the twenty-third. The main source is Brackenridge’s Incidents, which presents depositions and vouchers from Pittsburghers who attended the meeting and from the rebel David Hamilton. Bouton, in “A Road Closed,” explicates David Bradford’s involvement in road closings; the radical Washington County resolutions of 1791, appointing Bradford a delegate to the Green Tree meeting, appear in a copy of the Pittsburgh Gazette, sent by Neville to Clymer, in the Wolcott Papers. Addison’s letter to Brackenridge of 1/18/1795, Pennsylvania Archives, states that Bradford and Marshall discussed robbing the mail on the way to the meeting.
The robbing of the mail; the militia circulars. I’ve taken the story mainly from Alexander Fulton’s long, self-justifying letter to Washington, in the Whiskey Rebellion Collection. Copies of the Bradford committee’s circular, dated 7/28/1794, calling out the militias, as well as the countermand of 7/30/94, are in both the Yeates Papers and the Whiskey Rebellion Collection. Findley is the source for the Washington County courthouse meeting.
Braddock’s Field. The march took place on August 1. In Incidents, Brackenridge covers the mood of Pittsburgh and the plans of the committee; the other key source for action before, during, and after the muster is the report of Wilkins, Sr., to Irvine, Pennsylvania Archives, where the town committee’s resolutions also appear. Fennell’s studies demonstrate the paucity of still owners at the muster. Discrepancies: As Baldwin points out, Wilkins estimates there were five thousand to six thousand men at Braddock’s Field and is likely to have made the best count; he’d been an officer in the revolution and was counting while men were strung out on the march. Brackenridge estimates as many as seven thousand men on the field; according to him there was some coming and going, far more coming than going. Baldwin also gives Gallatin’s estimate of fifteen hundred to two thousand, which seems uselessly low, a probable attempt to minimize the significance of the action.
The Wells and Webster attacks. Reagan’s and the Wellses’ abduction and trials and the destruction of Benjamin Wells’s home are documented by Wells himself and by eyewitnesses John and Jeremiah Woodruff in the Wells Claims, HR 21A–G3.1. The Webster events are described by Findley.
The position of moderates. In Incidents, Brackenridge outlines his own and other moderates’ thinking and describes being prevailed upon to serve at Parkinson’s Ferry. Brackenridge’s letter to Tench Coxe is in the Tench Coxe Papers, along with Coxe’s response and an interesting further letter from Brackenridge, showing rising anxiety.
The Parkinson’s Ferry congress. The flag is described by Brackenridge in Incidents, by Gallatin in his statement to U.S. Attorney Rawle in Incidents, and in the federal commissioners’ letter to Randolph of 8/17/1794. Gideon, a vexillologist with a special interest in the rebellion and local history, reviews those references and cites other sources on the slogans and symbols flying from liberty poles, arguing persuasively that the flag now displayed at the Century Inn in Scenery Hill, Pennsylvania, widely regarded as having been flown by the Whiskey Rebels, is unlikely to have been a flag of the rebellion—and might have been a regimental flag of the suppressing federal army. For the broad, radical social agenda and commitment to secession and war held by many attendees of the congress, see Brackenridge in Incidents.
CHAPTER NINE: TALKING
The 7/25 cabinet meeting and Wilson’s certification. Kohn notes that while there is no record of a cabinet meeting on the twenty-fifth, the meeting is evidenced in Randolph’s letter to Washington of 8/5/1794; the editors of Hamilton’s Papers agree that an undocumented meeting took place prior to the documented meeting of 8/2/94. Kohn cites William Bradford’s letter of 8/1/94 to Elias Boudinot as evincing genuine suspense over Wilson’s agreeing to certify, but Holt, noting that Wilson made no independent investigation, sees the certification as a rubber stamp; Randolph in his 8/5/94 letter to Washington sees it the same way.
The 8/2 meeting with Mifflin. See American State Papers, misc., volume 1, for minutes; there also see Mifflin to Washington, 8/12/1794, for Mifflin’s recollection that Washington viewed the state militia as a “preliminary measure.” Tinkcom is my source for Mifflin’s personality and political career, as well as for state-federal disputes on Presque Isle.
Hamilton’s report. “Report on Opposition to Internal Duties,” 8/5/1794, Hamilton’s Papers.
Madison, Hamilton, and force. See Farrand, Madison’s notes, 5/31/1787. Kohn, whose interpretation inspires my discussion here, also cites Madison’s remarks at the Virginia ratifying convention. In 1787, Hamilton and Madison agreed that coercion—as the ultimate foundation of government, once law has failed—cannot operate effectively in a confederated system but requires national government, which thus requires at least a small regular army, to be used against rioters only when “the penal system and the courts, marshals, posse comitatus, militia” (Kohn, p. 76) have failed. Whether Hamilton ever concurred in Madison’s underlying rationale for the principle is unclear to me. As early as the summer of 1792, Hamilton was defining such conflicts as existing between the national government and the whole people of a region; by early 1799 (see Chapter Eleven, below) he was imagining the federal government’s attacking the state of Virginia, a condition of civil war that national government had once been intended to avoid. For Madison’s own development from positions once shared with Hamilton, see especially Elkins and McKitrick.
The cabinet debate and the decision to negotiate. For Randolph’s views on negotiation, see Randolph to Washington, 8/5/1794, Washington’s Papers. For the Knox-Hamilton view, see Hamilton to Washington, 8/2/94, in Hamilton’s Papers, and Knox to Washington, 8/4/94, in Washington’s Papers. Holt bluntly calls the negotiations “sham”; Kohn lists the purposes of negotiation as dividing the rebels, gathering intelligence, and gaining time to prepare the public for invasion. But Kohn also says that federal negotiating may have been sincere until August 24. His own argument seems to suggest otherwise: as he pointedly notes, the commission wrote its most damning report, calling for military suppression, on August 17, before even starting negotiations, in which it acted as if holding off troops were still an option. Bradford’s plan for the negotiations, which went into effect as early as August 6, when Washington appointed the commission, was never intended to avoid a military solution: for Bradford’s correspondence and actions during this phase, see various notes on the commission, below. Craig’s correspondence with Knox and Hamilton can be found in the Isaac Craig Papers; the letter I cite is from Hamilton on 8/23/94. Chernow cites, as evidence that Hamilton never wanted a military suppression, Hamilton’s note to the commissioners of 8/8/94, in Hamilton’s Papers—which does permit the commissioners to discuss with the rebels changes in the tax law and expresses the desire for peaceful resolution. Yet the note also passes on the suggestion of Neville that rebels show their submission by publicly asking Robert Johnson to resume his office, a suggestion that, had the commission made it, would have inspired the opposite of submission, as Neville and Hamilton knew. Much else in the primary record, for this and other chapters, reveals Hamilton’s early and late eagerness to use force; see also my notes on Hamilton, Washington, and military force in Chapters Four and Six. Chernow’s view, like that of many other Hamilton biographers, is the official one of the administration.
“Civil war.” Gibson to Mifflin, 7/18/1794, Pennsylvania Archives.
Knox’s orders. “Secretary of War to Governor Mifflin,” 8/7/1794, Pennsylvania Archives.
Washington’s proclamation. Washington’s Writings, 8/7/1794.
The arrival of Neville and Lenox. Lenox’s report, Pennsylvania Archives.
>
The commissioners on the road. The story is drawn from drafts of letters and other documents in the Yeates Papers and the Wallace Papers, Historical Society of Pennsylvania, and from Bradford’s and the commission’s letters, reports, and log in the Whiskey Rebellion Collection. Much of the commission’s official reporting is also collected in the Pennsylvania Archives and American State Papers, misc., volume 1. Bradford is surprisingly blunt (in a letter of 8/8/1794, in the collection) in describing to Randolph his assurances to Neville and Lenox regarding the real purpose of the mission.
Knox’s departure. It is Kohn’s speculation that, as Washington and Hamilton did not see Knox as a quick administrator, Washington’s response to Knox’s request for leave to go to Maine—8/8/1794, in Washington’s Writings—reflects a prior understanding; also that, in meetings about the rebellion, Hamilton encouraged Knox’s desire to inspect lands personally.
Radicals and moderates at Parkinson’s Ferry. As noted above, in Incidents Brackenridge gives his impression of the broad social agenda and commitment to secession and war held by many attendees. He also describes his interactions with Gallatin and Husband. Findley praises Gallatin as an openly moderating influence. Fennell describes the radical scope of what she terms the Parkinson Ferry “resolutions,” although she bases her discussion on the report of the commissioners of 9/24/1794, American State Papers, misc., volume 1, which details the congress’s socially radical demands as relayed by the committee. Fennell also discusses the Virginia militia units’ drafting resolutions focusing on class issues and defining republican government as one that provides for the poor. For more on Virginia’s involvement, see Barksdale and Lee.
The Commission in Pittsburgh. See the commission report of 8/17/1794, Pennsylvania Archives, and Bradford’s private letter to Washington of the same date, in the Whiskey Rebellion Collection.
Brackenridge’s letter. Brackenridge to Coxe, 8/8/1794, Tench Coxe Papers.
Postdating Lee’s orders. Hamilton to Lee, 8/24/1794, Hamilton’s Papers.
“Tully.” Hamilton’s Papers, 8/23/1794, 9/2/94.
Federal-state debate. The argument can be followed in American State Papers, misc., volume 1, August letters of Mifflin to Randolph and Randolph’s replies. In the decisive letter of 8/30/1794, Hamilton is writing for Randolph: see Hamilton’s Papers.
Brackenridge and the commission. Brackenridge’s Incidents. For Gallatin’s view of Brackenridge’s tactics with the rebels, see Gallatin’s statement to U.S. Attorney Rawle, also in Incidents.
The negotiations and the deal. American State Papers, misc., volume 1, commission report of 9/24/1794, with copies of correspondence between the commission and the committee. The complete original correspondence can be found in the Whiskey Rebellion Collection; draft versions are in the Yeates Papers and the Wallace Papers. The tactical benefit of ignoring the Virginia delegation is noted by Bradford to Hamilton, 8/23/94, in the collection; in a letter of 8/22/94, the committee makes clear its eagerness to comply and its belief that compliance will prevent military action. Given lags in east-west communication, the promise to hold back troops at least until after the referendum was academic at best: the commission’s letter to the cabinet of the seventeenth, urging immediate military action, didn’t arrive in Philadelphia until the twenty-third—accelerating military preparations on the twenty-fourth, the very day a deal for compliance was being struck with the rebels. When the cabinet received word that Bradford had promised to hold off troops until September 11, the effort to raise troops was under way; as Bradford knew, they couldn’t have marched earlier than they did in any event.
The Brownsville meeting. Brackenridge’s Incidents; letter from the commissioners to Randolph, 8/30/1794, Whiskey Rebellion Collection.
The spread of rebellion, patriotic fervor, and the oath signing. On the spread of rebellion, I follow Baldwin, Slaughter, and Fennell. Bradford’s letter to Yeates on the new patriotism, 9/19/1794, is in the Tench Coxe Papers. Both Brackenridge and Findley describe the day of the referendum. Returns are in the Whiskey Rebellion Collection; letters to and from Ross regarding the returns are in the Wallace Papers.
The final commission report, 9/24/1794. American State Papers, misc., volume 1.
Hamilton’s desire to accompany the troops. Hamilton to Washington, 9/19/1794 and 12/24/95, Hamilton’s Papers.
CHAPTER TEN: THE GENERAL GOES WEST
Findley. Because he now enters the story as a participant, Findley is unusually compelling on the army at Carlisle, his mission from the Parkinson’s Ferry congress, and his suspicions of Hamilton. For Findley as a moderating politician, see his letter to William Bradford, 9/16/1794, in the Wallace Papers.
Moderation at the Forks. Both Brackenridge’s Incidents and Findley attest to the changed mood at the Forks. In Pennsylvania Archives, “Pittsburgh Resolves Relative to Proscriptions” rescinds the banishings; “Resolutions of the Pittsburgh Meeting,” 9/27/1794, describes a general submission and the urgent need to communicate it to the government. Kohn quotes Ross on the commission’s having cut off the rebellion’s “hydra heads.”
The Neville campaign against Brackenridge. Findley and Brackenridge, rarely in agreement, agree on Brackenridge’s plight and its main source. The Nevilles’ role with the army is described well by H. M. Brackenridge.
Washington, Hamilton, and the troops. According to Slaughter, the number of troops ultimately raised was almost thirteen thousand—though it also seems that there was an attempt to keep some men east of the mountains when it became clear that fighting would be minimal and supply a problem. For the president’s impressions of the trip, see his diary dedicated to the expedition, Washington’s Papers, “The Diaries of George Washington,” volume 6. The journey west is very closely traced by Freeman. Flexner describes Washington as experiencing back pain. For Washington’s continued focus on his lands in this period, see his letters to Ross, 8/1/1794 and 8/6/94, in Writings. Flexner describes Washington’s skepticism about Lee’s judgment; Hamilton expresses his own sense of Lee’s need for supervision—supervision by Hamilton—in a letter to Washington of 12/24/95. The army’s movements are brought to life by Paul Ford and by William Gould, two of Baldwin’s main sources, also cited by Slaughter. Gould describes the review of troops, Washington’s driving his own carriage, and the various corps and units. For an example of Hamilton’s thoroughness in supervising supply, see Hamilton to Hodgdon, 9/30/1794, in Hamilton’s Papers.
The two-class army. I closely follow Slaughter’s exhaustively researched chapter on the “watermelon army.” William Gould describes the bivouacs; Ford complains about drinking water and food. The claim that Howell wrote “Jersey Blue” appears in an addendum to William Gould.
Washington and Findley on discipline. See Hamilton to Mifflin, 10/10/1794, in Hamilton’s Papers. Miller is my source for Mifflin’s drunken exploit. Findley gives his eyewitness impressions of the scene at Carlisle. H. M. Brackenridge has a shrewder analysis than Findley’s of the role of poor troop discipline in the operation yet—like Findley—refuses to place responsibility with the president, blaming Hamilton alone.
Washington’s meeting with Findley. Washington’s diary cited in the fourth note for this chapter describes the meeting, as does Findley. Findley’s impression that Hamilton was running things is borne out by the memory of a messenger quoted by John Church Hamilton, cited by Chernow: According to the messenger, Washington tended to be aloof, talking mainly about roads and distances; Hamilton was “the master spirit.” In Vindication, Randolph refers to an unfortunate impression that the president needed to have Hamilton always at his elbow.
Washington’s decision to return east. Washington to Randolph, 10/9/1794 and 10/16/94, in Washington’s Writings.
The army in Bedford. William Gould gives his impression of Bedford. Fennell describes the review of troops and cites the Gazette of the United States, 10/18/1794, on the transparency.
Hamilton, Lee, and Washington on the suppression. For Wash
ington’s orders to Lee, see Hamilton to Lee, 10/20/1794, American State Papers, misc., volume 1. For Washington on troop discipline, see Washington to Hamilton, 10/26/94 and 10/31/94, Washington’s Writings. Slaughter describes Hamilton’s legalizing pillage and cites one of the impressment officers on the obvious consequences for poor families; Findley describes the officers’ references to Hannibal’s crossing the Alps. For Hamilton’s and Washington’s shared and divergent understandings, both tacit and explicit, of the purpose of the military presence, see letters from Hamilton to Washington of 10/25/94, 10/31/94, 11/8/94, and 11/15/94, in Hamilton’s Papers; and for Washington’s worries about the consequences of Husband’s early arrest, 10/19/94, in the diary cited above.
The Whiskey Rebellion Page 31
