Page 15 - 2021-bfw-henretta-10e

CHAPTER 7 Hammering Out a Federal Republic, 1787–1820 217

VISUAL ACTIVITY

The Whiskey Rebellion, 1794 This painting shows George Washington reviewing the militia forces raised by New
Jersey, Pennsylvania, Maryland, and Virginia to march against the Whiskey Rebels in western Pennsylvania. Washington,
astride a white horse, dominates the scene; subordinate army officers, including Daniel Morgan and “Light-Horse” Harry
Lee, accompany him as he greets an officer of one of the militia units. It expresses a Federalist vision of hierarchy (in the
form of officers on horseback) and order (represented by the ranks of troops). The reality was messier: militias were called
up from four states, but when volunteers were too few the states resorted to a draft, which prompted protests and riots.
In the end, the militia force of more than 12,000 men was larger than the Continental army itself had been through much
of the Revolution. Upon its approach, the rebellion evaporated. Twenty-four men were indicted for treason; two were
sentenced to hang, but Washington pardoned them to encourage peaceful reconciliation. The Granger Collection, New York.
READING THE IMAGE: This painting, attributed to James Peale, shows both the strength and the diversity of America’s militia
forces, but it masks the difficulties involved in raising men to march against their fellow American citizens. What conclusion
can be drawn on the point of view of the artist? What was the artist’s purpose in portraying Washington and the militia in this
way? How might this image have been influenced by other developments in Washington’s administration?
MAKING CONNECTIONS: At the same time that Washington was raising a militia force to suppress the rebels in western
Pennsylvania, U.S. Army troops under the command of General Anthony Wayne were marching against the Western
Confederacy of Indians in the Ohio country (see “Sham Treaties and Indian Lands”). Why would the Washington admin-
istration use federal troops to displace Native Americans from their Ohio lands, but rely on state militias to suppress the
rebellion in western Pennsylvania?

Jay’s Treaty Britain’s maritime strategy intensified political divisions in America. Begin-
ning in late 1793, the British navy seized 250 American ships carrying French sugar and
other goods. Hoping to protect merchant property through diplomacy, Washington dis-
patched John Jay to Britain. But Jay returned with a controversial treaty that ignored the
American claim that “free ships make free goods” and accepted Britain’s right to stop Jay’s Treaty
A 1795 treaty between the United States
neutral ships. The treaty also required the U.S. government to make “full and complete and Britain, negotiated by John Jay. The
compensation” to British merchants for pre–Revolutionary War debts owed by American treaty accepted Britain’s right to stop neutral
citizens. In return, the agreement allowed Americans to submit claims for illegal seizures ships and required the U.S. government to
provide restitution for the pre–Revolutionary
and required the British to remove their troops and Indian agents from the Northwest War debts of British merchants. In return,
Territory. Despite Republican charges that Jay’s Treaty was too conciliatory, the Senate rat- it allowed Americans to submit claims for
ified it in 1795, but only by the two-thirds majority required by the Constitution. As long illegal seizures and required the British to
remove their troops and Indian agents from
as the Federalists were in power, the United States would have a pro-British foreign policy. the Northwest Territory.
Copyright © Bedford, Freeman & Worth Publishers. Distributed by Bedford, Freeman & Worth Publishers.
Strictly for use with its products. Not for redistribution.

08_edwardsAPHS10e_28115_ch07_210_243_3pp.indd 217 15/09/20 8:55 PM