The Whiskey Rebellion Trial November 21, 2019

Copyright © 2019                               John F. Oyler 

November 21, 2019

The Whiskey Rebellion Trial

Thanks to an old friend, Gary Davis, I recently had the opportunity to participate in a workshop dedicated to the federal trials at the end of the Whiskey Rebellion. One of the younger members of our “Elderly Gentlemen’s Book Review Club”, Gary is an attorney obligated to earning Continuing Education Credits in jurisprudence each year in order to maintain his license to practice law.

Last week the Historical Committee of the Western District of Pennsylvania, of the Women’s Bar Association of Western Pennsylvania put on an event entitled “Spirits of High Treason: Legal Consequences of the Whiskey Rebellion”. Attendance at the event earned each attorney two Continuing Education Credits. Apparently these affairs are usually highly technical and inherently boring.

This time the sponsors decided to re-enact part of the series of trials in Philadelphia in 1795 that concluded the Whiskey Rebellion and to then follow the depiction with a panel discussion of the legal implications of treason. Knowing of my interest in local history, Gary invited me to accompany him to the event, which was held in courtroom 8A, in the U. S. Courthouse, Western District of Pittsburgh.

My first surprise once we were seated in the courtroom was recognizing three familiar Colonial-era re-enactors. Dan Ragaller portrayed a very distinguished President George Washington admirably. Dan is a stalwart supporter of the Woodville Plantation, serving on its Board of Directors, in addition to being a loyal member of Wayne’s Legion, well-known military re-enactors of the late eighteenth century. He also was the prime mover behind last summer’s marvelous “Market Faire” at the Plantation.

Clay Kilgore is Executive Director of the Washington County Historical Society and another credible re-enactor. Most recently I saw him at Woodville as John Holcroft (Tom the Tinker?) leading the charge against Wayne’s Legion. This time he was David Bradford, the most radical of the Whiskey Rebels.

Pete Ferbaugh was at Market Faire last summer, portraying Alexander Hamilton, a role he replicated in this event. He is a remarkably credible Hamilton; I wish his part in the trial had been expanded.

The script for the drama was written by Blaire Patrick, Esq.; she also served as one of its narrators. Judge Joy Flowers Conti was its director.

Senior U. S District Judge Maurice Cohill played the part of Judge William Paterson, complete with a beautiful wig with flowing curls. Paterson was a significant member of the Constitutional Convention, proponent of the New Jersey Plan which would have given each state equal representation in Congress; a U. S Senator; Governor of New Jersey; and U. S Supreme Court Justice at the time of the trial. His charge to the jury, as presented by Judge Cohill, was particularly impressive.

Brief appearances by Washington and Hamilton helped the narrator explain the events of the four years that culminated in the Whiskey Rebellion. Playwright’s license was employed to give Bradford (by then safely escaped to Louisiana) to make an effective cameo appearance presenting the Rebels’ side of the story.

Once the Court had been called to order and the jury charged, the trial of Philip Vigol (sometimes spelled Wigle) began. Prosecutor and U. S District Attorney William Rawle, played by Professor Mark Yochum, relentlessly insisted that “combining to defeat or resist a federal law was equivalent to levying war against the United States” and therefore an act of treason. 

Rawle called General John Neville as a witness against Vigol. Portrayed by Dan Booker, Esq., Neville focused on reporting on all of the indignities he and his family had experienced, with some embellishment.

Vigol was defended by Attorney William Tilghman, portrayed by Martin Dietz, Esq. (who actually is a criminal defense attorney in real life). Tilghman called Vigol to the witness stand, apparently in an effort to demonstrate that he was merely part of a mob following orders. In cross-examination Rawle got him to admit he had been present at several of the incidents that were clearly illegal. Tilghman’s defense for Vigol (and Mitchell as well) was that he would be putting himself in danger if he didn’t go along with Bradford and his cohorts, i.e, that he felt coerced to participate. The jury had no difficulty finding him guilty of treason.

John Mitchell’s trial followed much of the same route. Rawle put General Daniel Morgan on the stand to testify that his militiamen had arrested Mitchell and that he had admitted being at the burning of Neville’s mansion and that he had indeed robbed the U. S. Mail, on instructions from Bradford. At this point Tilghman produced a letter from Morgan to President Washington dated January 19, 1795, in which Morgan requested clemency on the grounds that Mitchell was merely a minor agent of Bradford. Nonetheless the jury also found him guilty of treason.

The peak of the Whiskey Rebellion was the gathering at Braddock’s Field on August 1, 1794, when nearly five thousand men gathered and threatened a march on Pittsburgh. By the time General Henry Lee’s thirteen thousand militiamen arrived, the opposition had disappeared. On “the Dreadful Night”, November 13, 1794, the militia rounded up about one hundred and fifty suspects and arrested them. 

Eventually twenty-four rebels were indicted; ten were apprehended and marched to Philadelphia. Of those ten tried for treason, eight were acquitted. Vigol and Mitchell were sentenced to death by hanging. Public sentiment and common sense made it easy for President Washington to pardon both of them.

Following the trials, a panel composed of three men from the U. S. Attorney’s Office, Western District of Pennsylvania – Michael Ivory, Esq., Robert Cessar, Esq., and Khasha Attaran, Esq. – discussed the current interpretation of treason and the precedent for pardon in such cases. I felt I was able to follow the discussion, but I would feel guilty accepting two continuing education credits based on my comprehension of it.

For a history buff like me, the mock trial was a wonderful experience. I was quite impressed with everyone involved in it and with the way they brought this obscure bit of history to life. It certainly has raised a number of questions about other legal issues related to the Whiskey Rebellion. 

What was the legal justification for the sixty writs Marshal Lenox served requiring local farmers to appear in court in Philadelphia?  Why were they required to appear in the federal court rather than the state court? What was the President’s justification for calling up the militia? Was there a legal basis for “the Dreadful Night”?

One must also wonder about the trials for the eight men who were acquitted. I presume Rawle prosecuted them as well. Was Tilghman their defense attorney? What was unique about the cases against Vigol and Mitchell?

I forgot to mention the appearance of Albert Gallatin, portrayed by Federal Judge William Stickman IV, in the prelude to the trial. Gallatin came to Pennsylvania in the late 1780s from Switzerland. He was elected as a U. S. Senator in 1793, then removed from office because he lacked the necessary nine years of citizenship. During the Whiskey Rebellion, he served as a rational voice attempting to head off violence.

Similarly, Hugh Henry Brackenridge, one of the few practicing attorneys in western Pennsylvania in the 1790s, was a major voice of reason who helped defuse the uprising. He is a personal hero of mine; I wish he had been included in the re-enactment.

I am grateful to Gary Davis for making it possible for me to participate in this event and to its sponsors and especially to all the fine re-enactors.