What do you think?
Rate this book
The Whiskey Rebellion: Frontier Epilogue to the American Revolution
When President George Washington ordered an army of 13,000 men to march west in 1794 to crush a tax rebellion among frontier farmers, he established a range of precedents that continues to define federal authority over localities today. The "Whiskey Rebellion" marked the first large-scale resistance to a law of the U.S. government under the Constitution. This classic confrontation between champions of liberty and defenders of order was long considered the most significant event in the first quarter-century of the new nation. Thomas P. Slaughter recaptures the historical drama and significance of this violent episode in which frontier West and cosmopolitan East battled over the meaning of the American Revolution.
The book not only offers the broadest and most comprehensive account of the Whiskey Rebellion ever written, taking into account the political, social and intellectual contexts of the time, but also challenges conventional understandings of the Revolutionary era.
The book not only offers the broadest and most comprehensive account of the Whiskey Rebellion ever written, taking into account the political, social and intellectual contexts of the time, but also challenges conventional understandings of the Revolutionary era.
300 pages, Paperback
First published January 1, 1986
37 people are currently reading
316 people want to read
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 21 of 21 reviews
January 18, 2013
I read a lot of history and was particularly interested in the Whiskey Rebellion in the 1790's because my wife and I had ancestors in the area at that time. As a matter of fact, my wife's ancestor, Johann Adam Wise was a distiller who produced Old Monongahela whiskey in Washington County, Pennsylvania in the late 18th century, so he was undoubtedly involved in the rebellion. History is always more interesting if it is relevant to you.
That may be the only reason I finished this book. It is very scholarly done and obviously meticulously researched which is a polite way of saying that it is dry. Good history should also be engaging prose which this is not. It is by no means poorly written, but it does not address the topic from a position of entertainment. It's more like a textbook.
I was further disappointed to find how little attention was paid to the heavy handed response that George Washington paid to the recalcitrant distillers when he led an army of nearly thirteen-thousand troop against them. It was a bigger army than he had during the Revolution.
The one point of history with which I was in sympathetic agreement confirmed my contention that the saddest thing about the founding of the United States is that Aaron Burr didn't shoot Alexander Hamilton thirty years earlier.
That may be the only reason I finished this book. It is very scholarly done and obviously meticulously researched which is a polite way of saying that it is dry. Good history should also be engaging prose which this is not. It is by no means poorly written, but it does not address the topic from a position of entertainment. It's more like a textbook.
I was further disappointed to find how little attention was paid to the heavy handed response that George Washington paid to the recalcitrant distillers when he led an army of nearly thirteen-thousand troop against them. It was a bigger army than he had during the Revolution.
The one point of history with which I was in sympathetic agreement confirmed my contention that the saddest thing about the founding of the United States is that Aaron Burr didn't shoot Alexander Hamilton thirty years earlier.
February 19, 2014
The author's work reveals the dramatic impact the national government of the 1790s had on frontier populations, and the injustice imposed on them through a tenacious effort to enforce excise taxes on those who stood the most to lose in terms of livelihood and liberty. The test of wills between the Washington administration and settlers beyond the Allegheny Highlands represented a sharp departure from the former's passion to defend the Republican principle of self-determination, but established a precedent in an enduring fiscal policy favoring an aristocratic elite. After reading this book, I realized that this epilogue to the American Revolution is much more significant than its mention in high school history classes.
February 24, 2017
Just awful. I said at one point that I felt like I was reading someone's PhD dissertation. You know what? . . . . I was right. I should be careful though, I would not want anyone to read mine and write a comment. I did really the short vignettes at the beginning of each chapter, they were more the sort of history that I enjoy reading.
March 4, 2013
The Whiskey Rebellion was the first serious challenge to the powers of the U.S. government under the new Constitution. It also saw the first and, so far, only time a U.S. President was in the field with a U.S. armed force in his capacity as Commander-in-Chief. Thomas Slaughter’s history of this conflict covers it well.
He starts out with a thematic overview setting the context. Although I was already aware of the basic issue over whether the new federal government ought to be able to levy internal taxes (that is, levies not taken at customs), the analysis of the ideological dispute over them, which included the excise tax on spirits that was at the heart of the controversy, elucidated it quite well and with a level of detail I wasn’t heretofore familiar with. There was sectional strife between East and West, with the federal government giving frontier interests short shrift by not making the opening of the Mississippi River, the economic lifeline for frontier exports, a diplomatic priority. The early failures of the federal army in the ongoing war against the Indians of the Old Northwest were also a factor as the low-level war between the Indians and settlers was ruthlessly pursued by both sides. The frontier’s extreme poverty exacerbated the situation as whiskey became a more portable version of grain and a form of barter in a cash-poor economy. The excise tax hit their main trade good and demanded payment in cash. Particularly illuminating was the portrayal of George Washington’s greed for land, which included a willingness to bend the rules and gave him a disdain for the frontier settlers who were sometimes an impediment to his real estate acquisitions.
One important point which Slaughter covers is that, even prior to the creation of the excise tax; western settlers were flirting with the idea of seceding and placing themselves under Spanish and/or British protection.
One factor that wasn’t present was how the conflict was also caused by the different British cultures the groups came from. Slaughter’s book came three years before David Hackett Fisher’s Albion’s Seed and it would’ve been interesting to see how he would’ve incorporated the fact that the frontier settlers came from the Scots-Irish borderers while the groups running the central government came from other cultural backgrounds.
The actual account of the conflict is quite good as well. Resistance started non-violently, with several local assemblies petitioning for redress. The elitist nature of the Federalists who ran the government, particularly Alexander Hamilton, in considering such extra-electoral responses inappropriate was well discussed. Slaughter generally does a good job in outlining Hamilton’s defense of the tax, including some tweaks he put through in response to some of the complaints and his advocacy of a military response. One note not covered was Hamilton’s ambition for military glory and what affect that may have had in shaping Hamilton’s approach. Four years later, at the outbreak of the Quasi-War with France, Hamilton successfully pushed for an appointment as a Major-General, which would’ve made him the senior army commander after Washington himself.
Overall, this is a fine study of the subject. I’d like to compare it with William Hogeland’s later work at some point.
He starts out with a thematic overview setting the context. Although I was already aware of the basic issue over whether the new federal government ought to be able to levy internal taxes (that is, levies not taken at customs), the analysis of the ideological dispute over them, which included the excise tax on spirits that was at the heart of the controversy, elucidated it quite well and with a level of detail I wasn’t heretofore familiar with. There was sectional strife between East and West, with the federal government giving frontier interests short shrift by not making the opening of the Mississippi River, the economic lifeline for frontier exports, a diplomatic priority. The early failures of the federal army in the ongoing war against the Indians of the Old Northwest were also a factor as the low-level war between the Indians and settlers was ruthlessly pursued by both sides. The frontier’s extreme poverty exacerbated the situation as whiskey became a more portable version of grain and a form of barter in a cash-poor economy. The excise tax hit their main trade good and demanded payment in cash. Particularly illuminating was the portrayal of George Washington’s greed for land, which included a willingness to bend the rules and gave him a disdain for the frontier settlers who were sometimes an impediment to his real estate acquisitions.
One important point which Slaughter covers is that, even prior to the creation of the excise tax; western settlers were flirting with the idea of seceding and placing themselves under Spanish and/or British protection.
One factor that wasn’t present was how the conflict was also caused by the different British cultures the groups came from. Slaughter’s book came three years before David Hackett Fisher’s Albion’s Seed and it would’ve been interesting to see how he would’ve incorporated the fact that the frontier settlers came from the Scots-Irish borderers while the groups running the central government came from other cultural backgrounds.
The actual account of the conflict is quite good as well. Resistance started non-violently, with several local assemblies petitioning for redress. The elitist nature of the Federalists who ran the government, particularly Alexander Hamilton, in considering such extra-electoral responses inappropriate was well discussed. Slaughter generally does a good job in outlining Hamilton’s defense of the tax, including some tweaks he put through in response to some of the complaints and his advocacy of a military response. One note not covered was Hamilton’s ambition for military glory and what affect that may have had in shaping Hamilton’s approach. Four years later, at the outbreak of the Quasi-War with France, Hamilton successfully pushed for an appointment as a Major-General, which would’ve made him the senior army commander after Washington himself.
Overall, this is a fine study of the subject. I’d like to compare it with William Hogeland’s later work at some point.
notes-on-unfinished-books
January 17, 2021I found this book difficult to navigate. It was the least helpful to my Whiskey Rebellion research.
January 18, 2016
In October of 1794, President Washington sent an army nearly 13,000 strong across the Allegheny Mountains into the frontier regions of Western Pennsylvania to suppress a popular uprising against the federal government. This event marked the greatest internal crisis of Washington's administration, and the most significant crisis of disunion to the United States prior to the Civil War. This significance of this event, both at the time, and to the continuing debate about the meaning of America, has often been overlooked or forgotten in popular histories. Thomas Slaughter's book goes a long way toward correcting that oversight.
The Whiskey Rebellion was a reaction against an excise tax place on spirits, and shared much in common with the similar tax revolt against the Stamp Act that ignited the flames of the American Revolution. Indeed, the Whiskey rebels saw themselves as upholding the spirit of the Revolution, and believed that the leaders of the federal government had abandoned those principles in favor of personal gain.
Slaughter does an outstanding job of telling each side of the story without a strong bias toward either side. He paints the rebellion as a massive failure to communicate between the parties involved. The conflict illustrated a deep divide between the East and the West of the country, setting urban against rural interests, localist ideologies against nationalist, and of course, all the familiar divisions that are inherent in class and economic differences. Slaughter describes the federal government and its supporters as having "generally shared a Hobbesian-type fear of anarchy as the starting point for their consideration," while he says that the Whiskey Rebels and their friends "took a more Lockeian-type stance," believing "that protection of liberty, not the maintenance of order, was the principal task of government." The federal government emphasized the power of the Constitution, while the Whiskey Rebels emphasized the much more radical Declaration of Independence.
The Whiskey Rebellion was a turning point in America's history. It showed the central government's willingness and ability to enforce its laws even at great distance from it center of power. It was a midwife to the birth of true political parties that emerged in the following years. And it set the parameters of the great political debate of just what the meaning of the American Revolution and what it means to be an American really is, a debate that continues along remarkably similar lines to this day.
This book will be of particular interest to those interested in the early Republic and the Washington Administration, the career of Alexander Hamilton, the Federalist - Anti-Federalist question, or the early American frontier. It is well written, well reasoned, and highly recommended.
The Whiskey Rebellion was a reaction against an excise tax place on spirits, and shared much in common with the similar tax revolt against the Stamp Act that ignited the flames of the American Revolution. Indeed, the Whiskey rebels saw themselves as upholding the spirit of the Revolution, and believed that the leaders of the federal government had abandoned those principles in favor of personal gain.
Slaughter does an outstanding job of telling each side of the story without a strong bias toward either side. He paints the rebellion as a massive failure to communicate between the parties involved. The conflict illustrated a deep divide between the East and the West of the country, setting urban against rural interests, localist ideologies against nationalist, and of course, all the familiar divisions that are inherent in class and economic differences. Slaughter describes the federal government and its supporters as having "generally shared a Hobbesian-type fear of anarchy as the starting point for their consideration," while he says that the Whiskey Rebels and their friends "took a more Lockeian-type stance," believing "that protection of liberty, not the maintenance of order, was the principal task of government." The federal government emphasized the power of the Constitution, while the Whiskey Rebels emphasized the much more radical Declaration of Independence.
The Whiskey Rebellion was a turning point in America's history. It showed the central government's willingness and ability to enforce its laws even at great distance from it center of power. It was a midwife to the birth of true political parties that emerged in the following years. And it set the parameters of the great political debate of just what the meaning of the American Revolution and what it means to be an American really is, a debate that continues along remarkably similar lines to this day.
This book will be of particular interest to those interested in the early Republic and the Washington Administration, the career of Alexander Hamilton, the Federalist - Anti-Federalist question, or the early American frontier. It is well written, well reasoned, and highly recommended.
December 3, 2023
Thomas P Slaughter is a history teacher at the University of Rochester. He earned his Bachelor of Arts in history and political science from the University of Maryland. He obtained his Master of Arts in American history at the University of Maryland. He attended Princeton University for his PhD in American history. A prolific writer, Slaughter has authored or co-authored several books on the topic of American history including: Independence: The Tangled Roots of the American Revolution in 2014 and Bloody Dawn: The Christiana Riot and Racial Violence in the Antebellum North in 1991. Slaughter has the credentials to write on the subject of the Early Republic and the Whiskey Rebellion.
Slaughter’s book is a three part analysis of the Whiskey Rebellion. The book begins by giving context for the “how” and “why” of the Rebellion. The second part gives a chronological account of the events, answering the “when” question. The third part ties it all together with the outcomes of the Rebellion. Slaughter’s main goal is to inform the reader from the perspectives of both sides of the rebellion; the taxed frontiersmen and the eastern politicians. His thesis is that neither side was right in their positions but that they were simply looking after their own interests.
The rebellion spawned from early fiscal measures of the new Congress in the whiskey excise of 1791. The threat of a civil war over taxes by a large central government that didn’t have much knowledge about the many regions it tried to govern led to unrest. The whiskey excise brought the nation to the brink of an internal war. Slaughter argues that both British opponents of excises and American opponents of excises ten years later predicted the catastrophe of such rebellions.
After the Great War for the Empire was over, the settler’s mindset out west differed greatly from those in the east. The calls for independence during the Revolutionary era from the likes of Thomas Paine didn’t go far enough to protect liberties that those in the west sought. Slaughter mentions that some of the settlers entertained a union with Spain or even a reunion with Great Britain. This is something I hadn’t ever heard before but seems obvious as a unified vision for the colonies was absent. Slaughter argues that the idea of colonial civil war in the late eighteenth century was common not only for American settlers but for European countries as well. It seemed like the country was destined to split.
Many conflicts and protests erupted during the late eighteenth century further dividing the country. Frontiersmen suffered under the conditions of a lack of representation in state legislatures and state assistance. Violent acts of rebellion for the cause of liberty and justice was the norm. True to their stance against monarchical rule, the Shaysites (rural rebels) refused to relinquish their rights as free men to politicians in Boston any more than they had to rulers in London. 9000 men took arms against the state. To easterners, the frontiersmen appeared to be a party of madmen. To many settlers, these eastern politicians seemed unbending in their pursuit of Atlantic mercantile interests against those of western agriculturalists. Unity was dependent upon policies that secured navigation of the Mississippi, assistance in defense of the frontier, equitable methods of taxation, and recognized statehood of frontier peoples.
Conflicts with Indians, rough and desolate landscapes, and poor living conditions riddled western settlers, much to the shock of easterners. The frontiersmen received absolutely no help in their plight but were expected to pay taxes back east. The East’s taxes on domestic products like whiskey created unbearable conditions. An ebb and flow of law concerning these taxes led to temporary beliefs that they made headway when the taxes were repealed, but they were wrong.
Excise and tax collectors were attacked with fervor. One such instance was a man named Robert Johnson, whose hair was cut and then he was tarred and feathered. A hired hand to deliver the warrant for two of the men responsible was whipped, tarred and feathered, and robbed. These measures in Pennsylvania were in protest to the excise law. These acts of violence were successful and no excise was collected in western Pennsylvania for almost a year and a half after the law was passed in 1791.
The brutal hunting of Indians by angry frontiersmen was detestable and after reading about their treatment of innocent, christianized groups of natives, I’m inclined to side with the easterners in their summation of the frontiersmen as “mad farmers.” Nonetheless, increasing hostilities between the Indians and US troops was blamed on frontiersmen by the eastern peoples and the frontiersmen blamed a lack of support out west on the eastern peoples which led to more acts of violence.
Hamilton advocated for exerting the full extent of the law against the rebels which was endorsed by Washington. However, Hamilton took it a step further, issuing a proclamation on the excise disorder at the Pittsburgh meetings, which Washington never endorsed. Still two years after the passing of the law, most frontiersmen hadn’t paid a dime. From Philadelphia’s perspective, they had been patient and had amended the tax in response to reasonable complaints. Frontiersmen thought the government was grossly overreaching.
The rebellion came to a head when an attempt to get the distillers to pay the tax via a summons to court was delivered. A huge gathering of famers, distillers, and other western settlers in response to the writ promoted military action. The army was sent to deal with the opposition which effectively ended the violence. Very few of the rebels were actually punished. Judges trying those accused were liberal in their pardoning citing a lack of evidence. Slaughter ends his work by pointing out that the founding fathers, who are known as opposing taxation without representation, were somewhat hypocritical in their part of employing the full extent of the law to impose taxes.
Slaughter employs many primary sources including letters, council minutes, depositions, and journals. He uses many secondary sources as well, including his own work on the subject. I recommend the book as I found it insightful and unbiased. I like Slaughter’s writing and I’m thankful that he altered the original spelling of words for modern readers. The book is scholarly in nature but any person interested in early America or the Whiskey Rebellion will find their time reading it worthwhile.
Slaughter’s book is a three part analysis of the Whiskey Rebellion. The book begins by giving context for the “how” and “why” of the Rebellion. The second part gives a chronological account of the events, answering the “when” question. The third part ties it all together with the outcomes of the Rebellion. Slaughter’s main goal is to inform the reader from the perspectives of both sides of the rebellion; the taxed frontiersmen and the eastern politicians. His thesis is that neither side was right in their positions but that they were simply looking after their own interests.
The rebellion spawned from early fiscal measures of the new Congress in the whiskey excise of 1791. The threat of a civil war over taxes by a large central government that didn’t have much knowledge about the many regions it tried to govern led to unrest. The whiskey excise brought the nation to the brink of an internal war. Slaughter argues that both British opponents of excises and American opponents of excises ten years later predicted the catastrophe of such rebellions.
After the Great War for the Empire was over, the settler’s mindset out west differed greatly from those in the east. The calls for independence during the Revolutionary era from the likes of Thomas Paine didn’t go far enough to protect liberties that those in the west sought. Slaughter mentions that some of the settlers entertained a union with Spain or even a reunion with Great Britain. This is something I hadn’t ever heard before but seems obvious as a unified vision for the colonies was absent. Slaughter argues that the idea of colonial civil war in the late eighteenth century was common not only for American settlers but for European countries as well. It seemed like the country was destined to split.
Many conflicts and protests erupted during the late eighteenth century further dividing the country. Frontiersmen suffered under the conditions of a lack of representation in state legislatures and state assistance. Violent acts of rebellion for the cause of liberty and justice was the norm. True to their stance against monarchical rule, the Shaysites (rural rebels) refused to relinquish their rights as free men to politicians in Boston any more than they had to rulers in London. 9000 men took arms against the state. To easterners, the frontiersmen appeared to be a party of madmen. To many settlers, these eastern politicians seemed unbending in their pursuit of Atlantic mercantile interests against those of western agriculturalists. Unity was dependent upon policies that secured navigation of the Mississippi, assistance in defense of the frontier, equitable methods of taxation, and recognized statehood of frontier peoples.
Conflicts with Indians, rough and desolate landscapes, and poor living conditions riddled western settlers, much to the shock of easterners. The frontiersmen received absolutely no help in their plight but were expected to pay taxes back east. The East’s taxes on domestic products like whiskey created unbearable conditions. An ebb and flow of law concerning these taxes led to temporary beliefs that they made headway when the taxes were repealed, but they were wrong.
Excise and tax collectors were attacked with fervor. One such instance was a man named Robert Johnson, whose hair was cut and then he was tarred and feathered. A hired hand to deliver the warrant for two of the men responsible was whipped, tarred and feathered, and robbed. These measures in Pennsylvania were in protest to the excise law. These acts of violence were successful and no excise was collected in western Pennsylvania for almost a year and a half after the law was passed in 1791.
The brutal hunting of Indians by angry frontiersmen was detestable and after reading about their treatment of innocent, christianized groups of natives, I’m inclined to side with the easterners in their summation of the frontiersmen as “mad farmers.” Nonetheless, increasing hostilities between the Indians and US troops was blamed on frontiersmen by the eastern peoples and the frontiersmen blamed a lack of support out west on the eastern peoples which led to more acts of violence.
Hamilton advocated for exerting the full extent of the law against the rebels which was endorsed by Washington. However, Hamilton took it a step further, issuing a proclamation on the excise disorder at the Pittsburgh meetings, which Washington never endorsed. Still two years after the passing of the law, most frontiersmen hadn’t paid a dime. From Philadelphia’s perspective, they had been patient and had amended the tax in response to reasonable complaints. Frontiersmen thought the government was grossly overreaching.
The rebellion came to a head when an attempt to get the distillers to pay the tax via a summons to court was delivered. A huge gathering of famers, distillers, and other western settlers in response to the writ promoted military action. The army was sent to deal with the opposition which effectively ended the violence. Very few of the rebels were actually punished. Judges trying those accused were liberal in their pardoning citing a lack of evidence. Slaughter ends his work by pointing out that the founding fathers, who are known as opposing taxation without representation, were somewhat hypocritical in their part of employing the full extent of the law to impose taxes.
Slaughter employs many primary sources including letters, council minutes, depositions, and journals. He uses many secondary sources as well, including his own work on the subject. I recommend the book as I found it insightful and unbiased. I like Slaughter’s writing and I’m thankful that he altered the original spelling of words for modern readers. The book is scholarly in nature but any person interested in early America or the Whiskey Rebellion will find their time reading it worthwhile.
June 2, 2012
This book discusses the Whiskey Rebellion, a forgotten piece of American history. It's hard to encapusulate all the various sides and rationales and such. I think there's more that could have been written about here -- it focused more on two sides instead of giving a fair aspect to all bits of it. I found some of Slaughter's word choice problematic -- especially when referring to indigenous people and the poor indigent people in the western parts of the states. I think it was hard to read -- a lot of it got repetitive and boring. Not a big fan, but I am interested in learning more on the subject.
November 8, 2015
An engaging read about a little-known movement opposing the new U.S. government in the largest citizen uprising before the Civil War. The Whiskey Rebellion prefigured quite a number of conflicting dynamics in American history: East vs. West, North vs. South, Jeffersonians vs. Hamiltonians, Democrat vs. Whig/Republican, moneyed interests vs. ordinary people, Anglos vs. Indians, taxers vs. tax-cutters, you name it.
September 16, 2013
it was interesting to learn about this more obscure, but important, incident in the formational years of our country, but the author spent way too much time explaining the circumstances and then rushed through the small bit of action. it made for a dry read that was pretty repetitive.
October 26, 2014
Following the American Revolution the fledgling United States needed revenue. A tax was placed on whiskey and many on the frontier started revolting against the taz. President George Washington was forced to call out the army. An excellent telling of a little know event in American history.
January 19, 2018
An informative discussion of the contrasting perceptions and ideologies between the eastern and frontier societies. A little repetitive and though it attempts to bring its information together, it at times fails and leaves some loose ends.
May 16, 2012
Enjoyed the book. Got a little confused with the timeline. Learned a lot about how our banking system struggled to get started.
July 26, 2012
always like to read history of colonial america. the stories of what happened to our ancestors makes me appreciate what we have today.
November 27, 2012
A strategic and concise analysis of the political side of the Whiskey Rebellion, which I find to be an important part of early American history that is often overlooked.
July 21, 2018
Interesting piece of history this book is. It was required reading for a Pennsylvania History course I took, but it did tell me a lot of information I never really knew
January 29, 2021
Really illustrates the cracks in the early republic. The struggle between whigs, federalists, oligarchs and the lower class over whether America would be a society based on small holder liberty or a society of central power that promotes commerce and industry. Really made me think that perhaps the first government administration of president Washington and secretary Hamilton had felt that the revolutionary spirit of ‘76 had gone too far and they were the heads of a reactionary movement by the new American elites to rein in the spirit of liberty for the sake of building a great nation. Perhaps though Washington’s and Hamilton’s actions were necessary to keep the Union together, strengthen industry and commerce, and to keep European powers from reinserting itself into North America.
March 4, 2024
Solid account of the events (and local climate) that led to the Whiskey Rebellion and the US government response. Missing much of the details in the way of the leaders of the rebellions themselves (many meetings and documentation was destroyed/lost to history).
March 18, 2025
The definitive account of the whiskey rebellion
July 20, 2024
Good analysis of the Whiskey Rebellion and the ironic parallels between the American Revolution and the Rebellion. It was interesting to see how our founding fathers switched positions regarding excise taxes after they came into power. There were a lot of good facts and stories about live on the frontier. There are a lot of lessons to be learned 200 years later as urban oriented law makers lose touch with conditions in rural areas.
The only down side of the book is that I felt like I was reading the same thing over and over, just with a slightly different slant.
The only down side of the book is that I felt like I was reading the same thing over and over, just with a slightly different slant.
March 31, 2017
I'm sure that most people don't even know about the Whiskey Rebellion and some probably still believe that George Washington apologized for chopping down some cherry tree, well this will open their eyes. I don't mean that in a bad way though, just being realistic. Western Pennsylvania was not the only area in rebellion but President Washington thought it could be used to demonstrate to the other parts of the country, an example. He also owned land there that he could look in on. People at the time had a different idea of government, the root reason for the Revolution actually, and Washington had to take hard action. Slaughter describes all this very well without getting boring and produced a work that all Americans should read.
Displaying 1 - 21 of 21 reviews