table way to voice your opinion and your desires in a government that didn’t necessarily have direct representation. So for me, there actions make sense in a very European kind of way.
Sarah: The government’s actions or the actions…
Marissa: No, the actions of the Western Pennsylvanians. And then George Washington’s reaction is then sort of a new way of thinking about the federal government. I think. That’s how I think of it, coming from my British background.
Sarah: I think this is also, this is not my time period- I study later in the 19th century, but later it’s- it becomes, I don’t want to say common, but the United States used the Army against it’s own people multiple times, usually during labor disputes or during riots. Even during the Civil War, the New York City draft riots, the military comes in to quell that. The Homestead Strike, the military is sent in by the president to put down that strike. Um, so to me looking maybe backwards it seems like in-line.
Marissa: I agree, it seems like it set a precedent for what was an acceptable way for the American military to interact with civilians who were protesting.
Sarah: And I also see this, I don’t know as much about George Washington as I do about Alexander Hamilton, it doesn’t surprise me at all about Hamilton. As much as we’d like to think of Hamilton as a populist, he wasn’t right, he was an elitist. And the founding fathers hated the idea of mob rule and the people being able to choose what laws they were going to follow, so to me it makes sense. Although I do think it sets a troubling precedent.
Marissa: Perhaps, but compared to the French Revolution which is gearing up right when the American Revolution is ending- the French made a lot of mistakes because they didn’t understand how dangerous mob rule could be. And they didn’t understand delegating sovereignty to your representatives, and things like that. They tried to apply democratic principles to society in a very literal way that did not work and devolved into chaos. So really, I tend to think that-
Sarah: Which was terrifying to the Americans.
Marissa: Terrifying. So I think that, I mean, it seems like the right decision at the time. It seems like the effective way to lead the fledgling Republic. But you’re right, it’s a problematic precedent.
Cody: Yeah, I mean obviously- typically we don’t want the government to be acting up in this way. Sarah as you mentioned Hamilton really did want this to be the response. He kind of set the precedent for the way that we handle domestic issues within our country. I just think it’s interesting- Hamilton’s gotten a lot of love recently, I don’t know if Jefferson or any of these guys would necessarily get the same amount of love and respect from Broadway.
Sarah: Although I do think it’s interesting that there’s no Whiskey Rebellion portion of Hamilton the musical. They leave that out.
Marissa: It’s not sexy.
Cody: Oh, have you seen it?
Sarah: I haven’t seen it but I’ve listened to it many many many times.
Marissa: I’ve listened to it.
Cody: Got cha.
Marissa: Well, it’s not a very sexy topic. But it kind of is though, because it has to do with Whiskey.
Sarah: You know, to me it’s a very very American story. Not only does it include all of our favorite characters but it’s also a conflict that goes to the very heart of America. Agriculture vs business, rural vs urban, what kind of country are we going to be? All these big debates that were happening during this time are sort of encapsulated in this one flashpoint.
Marissa: And most of them are happening today.
Sarah: Sure. Yeah. Conversations between rural and urban.
Marissa: Right, look at Red vs Blue on this map. It’s still…
Cody: Yeah, yeah, it’s um…it’s interesting that it’s something that just has not gone away. It’s something that we’re facing today.
Marissa: Yeah, this was a fun episode. Thank you so much for contacting us and doing this with us.
Cody: I want to say thank you guys and we’ll talk soon. Cheers!