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
Washington County 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 Bedford County, 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 Ohio Valley 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 Washington County. 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 Fort Pitt and threatened to take control of the federal arsenal. You also threatened to
take over Fort Lafayette, which was a supply depot for the federal army. Why would you attack
the facilities that were being used for your protection?
David Bradford: Our goal was to intimidate the government. We made threats but did not act.
What protection? In our opinion, the government had failed to protect the western frontier from
Native Americans, as well as open up the territory for growth and expansion.
Prosecuting Attorney: Thank you Mr. Bradford.
Narrator: Mr. Bradford is cross-examined by the defense.
Defense Attorney: Mr. Bradford, you stated that the citizens had repeatedly petitioned the
government for the repeal of the excise. Do you have copies of those letters that we may show
the court?
Mr. Bradford: Yes.
Narrator: Mr. Bradford pulls out several written petitions for the government. They will be used
as evidence in Exhibit B.
Exhibit B (Documents to be shared with the jury orally or in written form to be used during
deliberation at the end of the trial.)
Opposition to an Excise Tax on Liquor (1790) By THE INHABITANTS OF
WESTMORELAND COUNTY
A Protest against the Passage of an Excise Tax (1791) by THE HOUSE OF
REPRESENTATIVES
By THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES Petition against the Excise Tax (1792) By
Inhabitants of Western Pennsylvania [Penned by Albert Gallatin], 1792.
The Democratic Society of Pennsylvania (Philadelphia) Principles, Articles, and
Regulations 30 May 1793
Condemnations, Defenses, and Society Attacks on the Excise “A Friend to Good
Government” New York Daily Gazette, February 21, 1794.
Narrator: The Defense Attorney calls Albert Gallatin to the witness stand. Albert Gallatin was an
anti-federalist. He was viewed as being courageous, industrious, and honest.
Defense Attorney: Mr. Gallatin, will you state to the jury your title and role in the Whiskey
Rebellion.
Albert Gallatin: I’m a state representative for Pennsylvania and an anti-federalist. I do not
support the national government; therefore, I did not support the excise tax. Although I opposed
the tax, I attempted to persuade the protestors to peacefully express their disapproval for the tax.
In fact, I was successful in convincing followers of David Bradford from continued violence.
Narrator: Albert Gallatin helped bring a peaceful end to the Whiskey Rebellion.
Scene 3:
Narrator: The Prosecution calls President George Washington back to the witness stand.
Prosecuting Attorney: What actions did you take against the citizens of western Pennsylvania?
President Washington: I drafted a proclamation that requested the states of Pennsylvania, New
Jersey, Maryland, and Virginia place a force of approximately 13,000 men into federal service. On
October 4, 1794 I joined my troops that the rebels called the “Watermelon Army”, and marched
them out to Bedford County. While I was there, the “Whiskey Boys” broke up and no battle took
place. I then put Governor Henry Lee of Virginia in charge of the troops.
Prosecuting Attorney: Did the government need to use the force of a military to control the
rebels?
President Washington: I addressed General Henry Lee about this issue in which I stated that
the essential principle of free government brings forth two objectives for our military. First, their
duty is to combat and subdue all who may use arms against the nation and its authority. Second,
they have the duty of bringing forth those who offend justice.
Prosecuting Attorney: Did the government arrest or punish any of the Whiskey “Rebels”?
President Washington: 150 rebels were arrested for their crimes and twenty stood trial in
Philadelphia, PA. Many of the rebels were found not guilty, but two were sentenced to death for
treason. I pardoned them from their sentence.
Narrator: Pennsylvania’s Whiskey Rebellion was the first large-scale resistance by American
citizens against the United States government under the new federal constitution. It also proved
that the powers of the federal government under the new Constitution were viable. In other words,
the government had the right to pass and enforce the laws.
Judge Higgins: It is up to you, the jury, to summarize and analyze the information presented by
both the witnesses of the prosecution and the defense to answer the following questions:




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….