Student Handout 3- The Whiskey Rebellion Mock Trial Play
“Rebels or Resisters?”
Cast of Characters
Narrator
Bailiff
Judge Higgins
Prosecuting Attorney (Plaintiff)
Defense Attorney
Jury (no direct speaking role during the play-only during the deliberation)
Prosecutor’s Witnesses (Represents the Federal Government)
John Neville- Tax Collector
George Washington- President of the United States
Thomas Mifflin- Governor of Pennsylvania
Alexander Hamilton- Secretary of the Treasury
Defense Witnesses (Represents the Whiskey Rebels)
David Bradford-lawyer and appointed deputy attorney general of Washington
County; active political leader of the Whiskey Rebellion
Albert Gallatin-Pennsylvania state representative; active political leader of the
Whiskey Rebellion who helped to bring a peaceful end to the event.
Reverend John Corbley- noted Baptist minister and vocal opponent of the whiskey
tax
Farmer
Introduction:
After the American Revolutionary War, the new federal government faced many challenges. Some of these challenges included debt as a result of the war, settling the west, conflicts with Native Americans in the Northwest Territory, and determining what powers the federal government had and how to enforce the law. The Whiskey Rebellion of 1794 was the first major conflict that tested the power and authority of our new national government.
In March of 1791 Congress passed an excise tax on American-made whiskey. The primary economic activities in western Pennsylvania included grain foods and the manufacturing of whiskey. Farmers on the western frontier could not afford the tax and refused to pay it. Not only did they refuse to pay the tax, they also showed their disapproval by attacking tax collectors, destroying property, and threatening to break away from the union. They believed that the government did not have the right to impose a tax on money they had already earned. Also, they lost faith in a government that they felt was not protecting them from the Native Americans. What started as the complaints of a few turned into the Whiskey Rebellion of 1794. David Bradford, a Whiskey “Rebel,” led approximately 7,000 men into various parts of Pennsylvania in an attempt to have the excise tax abolished.
President George Washington felt that the federal government under the new constitution had the legal right to pass the tax. He feared that if the “rebels” succeeded in opposing the tax by force, it would show that the government was weak and unable to enforce the law. Therefore, he assembled approximately 13,000 state militias and became the first president to ever lead troops into battle. President Washington led his troops through WashingtonCounty and as far west as Bedford, Pennsylvania. By this time, most of the rebels had fled, and the Whiskey Rebellion ended without a battle.
- Were the farmers in western Pennsylvania “rebels” or tax resisters?
- Were the actions of the Whiskey “rebels” justifiable?
- Did the federal government have the right to pass and enforce the law, including the imposition of a tax?
- Was the Whiskey Rebellion significant in the development of our federal government? Why?
You be the judge….
Scene 1:
Narrator: The year is 1794 in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania. A case between the Federal Government and the Whiskey “Rebels” of western Pennsylvania comes before the court.
Bailiff: All rise. The Federal District Court of Philadelphia is now in session. Honorable Judge Higgins will preside.
Judge Higgins: Today we will here the case between the federal government and the Whiskey “Rebels”. It will be the jury’s job to listen carefully to the arguments presented by both sides. Record the facts and opinions presented by both the witnesses of the prosecution and the defense. It will be your job to determine who was unjust in the case of the Whiskey Rebellion.
Narrator: The Prosecuting Attorney is called to explain their evidence and what they will try to prove against the Whiskey “Rebels”.
Prosecuting Attorney: Today we will provide evidence that the Federal Government had the right to pass and enforce the law, including the imposition of a tax. We will also prove that the Whiskey “Rebels” had indeed violated the laws of the Federal government and unjustly committed atrocities and destruction in various parts of Pennsylvania.
Narrator: The Defense Attorney is called to explain their evidence and what they will try to prove against the federal government.
Defense Attorney: Today we will provide evidence that the Federal Government did not have the right to pass or enforce laws, including the imposition of a tax. We will also prove that the defendants had the right to resist the tax on whiskey because the government failed to protect their rights and interests.
Narrator: The Defense and Prosecution will call forth witnesses. The first question to be discussed is, “Does the federal government have the right to pass and enforce laws, including the imposition of a tax?”
Defense Attorney: The Defense calls Alexander Hamilton.
Narrator: Alexander Hamilton takes a seat at the witness stand beside the judge.
Prosecuting Attorney: Mr. Hamilton, please state to the jury your title and position.
Alexander Hamilton: I am the Secretary of the Treasury for the federal government.
Prosecuting Attorney: What is an excise and what was it used to tax in Pennsylvania?
Alexander Hamilton: An excise is a tax on a commodity. The tax was placed on whiskey and other grain crops.
Prosecuting Attorney: Why was the tax imposed?
Alexander Hamilton: The Congress imposed the tax in 1791 in an attempt to do several things. First, money was needed to pay for the nation’s debt caused by the American Revolutionary War. Second, funds were needed to supply the militia with weapons and other items as they fought the Native Americans on the western frontier. We were also working on negotiations with Spain to gain access to the Mississippi River so that the people could use the river to transport their commodities to other parts of the country. Therefore, it is the responsibility of the citizens to help support their government if their government is going to protect their interest.
Narrator: The Defense Attorney cross-examines Alexander Hamilton.
Defense Attorney: Is it true that you and other Federalists were eager to use the destructive behaviors of the rebels to test or demonstrate the power of the new federal government to raise armies and stop rebellions; therefore, unfairly imposed a tax against the citizens in western Pennsylvania to accomplish this goal?
Alexander Hamilton: Again, it is the responsibility of the citizens to help support their government.
Defense Attorney: Thank you Mr. Hamilton. I now call John Tailor to the stand.
Narrator: John Tailor is a farmer from western Pennsylvania who opposed the excise tax on whiskey. He takes the stand.
Defense Attorney: Mr. Tailor, please inform the jury where you are from, what you do for a living, and your present economic situation.
John Tailor: I’m from BedfordCounty, which is located in western Pennsylvania. My family and I make a living by farming grain crops. Financially, we are poor, but we have attempted to improve our standard of living through what we have available to us.
Defense Attorney: Explain what you and many other farmers developed to improve your standard of living and why.
John Tailor: Our economy is based upon farming, specifically grain crops. Unlike our eastern neighbors, we are blocked by mountains which made it very difficult for us to communicate and bring our products to sell in either grain or meal form. We did not have access to the West because the government was slow to end the conflicts with the Native Americans. They also failed to negotiate an agreement with the Spanish so that we could float our products down the Mississippi River to sell in New Orleans, who in turn would sell the products to other markets. Some of us turned our grain into whiskey and transported the kegs on horses or mules through the mountains; however, this was very slow and expensive. Small distillers were a necessity not a choice. Turning grain into whiskey reduced the size and weight and made the products cheaper and easier to transport.
Defense Attorney: Thank you Mr. Tailor.
Narrator: Prosecution calls Reverend John Corbley to the stand.
Prosecuting Attorney: Mr. Corbley, please state your title and position for the jury.
Rev. John Corbley: I am a Baptist Minister and vocal opponent against the whiskey tax.
Prosecuting Attorney: Rev. Corbley, isn’t it true that the production and consumption of whiskey is morally wrong, especially when you are using it as a source of income?
Rev. John Corbley: We do not deny that we, like others, use the consumption of whiskey and other spirits for enjoyment. However, laborers are scarce in the West and are expensive to hire. Many farmers found it necessary to use liquor as a form of payment for their service. Therefore, it was necessary to introduce several small distilleries into the settlements to help pay for labor during important seasons of the year. They saw it as unjustifiable to have a tax for drinking grain more than eating it. Cash was scarce; commerce was not, meaning that there was not enough cash among the farmers in the West to pay the tax. This tax threatened the whole economy of the region whose livelihood relied on whiskey. Many have supported the government in the past by paying taxes that were fair in proportion to the amount of money that they made.
Prosecuting Attorney: Thank you Reverend Corbley.
Narrator: Reverend Corbley returns to his seat as the defense calls George Washington to the witness stand. George Washington had been appointed the first President of the United States.
Prosecuting Attorney: Mr. Washington, please state your title and position for the jury.
George Washington: I am the first President of the United States.
Defense Attorney: President Washington, do you feel the federal government had the right to impose a tax on whiskey, as well as pass and enforce the law?
President Washington: Yes, the excise tax on whiskey was a legal tax. Other states are paying taxes to support their federal government and we need the unity of all states to financially support those actions that benefit these new United States. I simply wanted western Pennsylvanians to make some contribution toward the government that was spending so much of its own energy and money to secure their interests. These interests included a military that was fighting Native Americans in the western frontier to help protect the citizens and settle the area. Tax funds would go to secure and open up the area of the OhioValley in which the land is rich for farming and to support the working negotiations with the Spanish to gain access of the Mississippi River for the transportation of commodities. In order to demonstrate that our US Government was strong and able to enforce the laws for the benefit of the country and to protect the citizens, it was in our best interest to punish lawbreakers.
Narrator: The defense attorney cross-examines President Washington.
Defense Attorney: President Washington, do you own land in western Pennsylvania and if so, how much?
President Washington: Yes, I own approximately 5,000 acres.
Narrator: Analyze what that fact might say about President Washington.
Scene 2
Narrator: The Prosecution and Defense Attorneys will call forth witnesses to discuss the next issue. “Were the actions of the “Whiskey Rebels” justifiable? Were they “rebels” or tax resisters?”
Narrator: The defense calls John Neville to the witness stand. Mr. Neville takes his seat on the witness stand. John Neville served bravely as a general during the American Revolution.
Defense Attorney: Mr. Neville, please state to the jury your title and position.
John Neville: I’m a tax collector appointed to my position by President George Washington.
Defense Attorney: Did you support the excise tax?
John Neville: At first I did not agree with the excise tax, but later saw justification for its implementation.
Defense Attorney: Why?
John Neville: I was the only tax collector in the country who tried to enforce the law; after all, we were fighting to protect the citizens in the western frontier from Native Americans and negotiating with the Spanish to gain access to the Mississippi River for trade. Also, I believe those who petitioned the federal government to repeal the tax were really politicians seeking a position in Congress.
Defense Attorney: Did you use force to collect the tax?
John Neville: Yes, I was concerned about my own safety. Angry citizens were tarring and feathering those who collected the tax.
Defense Attorney: Did you bring harm or death upon those who requested your resignation as tax collector?
John Neville: Death did come to a man named John McFarland and Oliver Miller Jr. However, they led approximately 500 angry men to my home, Bower Hill. To protect myself and my home, my slaves and a small group of soldiers fired into the rebels. They killed one of my army officers and burned my house to the ground. I had to protect my life and my home.
Defense Attorney: Thank you Mr. Neville.
Narrator: The Prosecuting Attorney cross-examines Mr. Neville.
Prosecuting Attorney: Mr. Neville, would you please state to the jury why your slaves and a small group of soldiers fired into the rebels.
John Neville: Yes, I feared for my safety. What would you do if 500 angry men came to your home? They not only threatened to tar and feather tax collectors, but also kill them. It’s obvious what their intentions were. They burned my home.
Prosecuting Attorney: Please display Exhibit A: Tarring and Feathering. Jury, please take notice to the kind of atrocities committed by these “rebels” against the tax collectors.
(Image: Tarring and Feathering)
Prosecuting Attorney: No further questions. Thank you Mr. Neville.
Narrator: Mr. Neville returns to his seat as the defense calls Thomas Mifflin. Mr. Mifflin takes his seat on the witness stand.
Defense Attorney: Mr. Mifflin, please state to the jury your title and position.
Thomas Mifflin: I’m the Governor of Pennsylvania.
Defense Attorney: Mr. Mifflin, as Governor of Pennsylvania, would you please provide your views on the excise tax and your role in its collection.
Thomas Mifflin: Only the state has the right to levy an excise tax; therefore, no whiskey taxes were collected in western Pennsylvania in 1792 or 1793. In 1794, I arranged for the Pennsylvania courts to hold their cases involving the excise tax in the West.
Defense Attorney: Did these cases take place in the local areas in which the crimes occurred?
Thomas Mifflin: No they did not. The farmers who refused to pay the tax were ordered by the marshal to stand trial in Philadelphia.
Defense Attorney: Isn’t that a little far for the poorer farmers in the frontier to travel? Why not be tried locally?
Thomas Mifflin: This case involved the state, not the local government.
Defense Attorney: Did you use force to suppress the rebels?
Thomas Mifflin: No, in fact, I refused to follow President George Washington’s request to send a Pennsylvania militia to enforce the law. The country was not at war and we Pennsylvanians did not request help from the federal government; therefore, the federal government had no authority to direct a state governor to use a state militia for any purpose.
Narrator: As a result of Governor Mifflin’s refusal to send a state militia, he is famous for setting a precedent that will still use today.
Defense Attorney: Thank you Governor Mifflin.
Narrator: The Prosecuting Attorney calls David Bradford to the stand.
Prosecuting Attorney: Mr. Bradford, please state to the jury your title and role in the Whiskey Rebellion.
David Bradford: I’m a lawyer and appointed deputy attorney-general of WashingtonCounty. I was also an active political leader of the Whiskey Rebellion.
Prosecuting Attorney: Did you lead 500 angry farmers in a rebellion against the federal government? Did you encourage these men to attack and kill tax collectors, destroy property, and break from the union if President George Washington tried to enforce the tax?
David Bradford: Yes, we repeatedly requested that the tax be abolished and gave just cause for its removal as indicated in the many petitions we sent to the House of Representatives. It was time to show our disapproval.
Prosecuting Attorney: According to the residents of Pittsburgh, you marched approximately 7,000 to FortPitt and threatened to take control of the federal arsenal. You also threatened to take over FortLafayette, which was a supply depot for the federal army. Why would you attack the facilities that were being used for your protection?