William Hogeland

I learned quite a lot from this book about the Indians of the American frontier from the end of the French & Indian War through the Revolution and into the 1790s. The book was also very interesting regarding the rather mixed ideas of the early Republic regarding expansion into the old Northwest. No one on the American side, from Washington on down, comes off looking very saintly but I feel that the author did attempt to be fair in his assessments. Overall I found the book to be an excellent narrative history and quite fascinating.… (altro)

When I read a historical work I am looking for it to do two things: teach me something new about a period, and also get me to question some of the things I thought I already knew. Hogeland's book delivers on both counts. Within the first couple of chapters, I suspect that most readers will be astonished that they have never heard of the precipitating military disaster that led to the formation of the regular US army. As Hogeland points out near the end of the book, most US citizens (and even a substantial portion of people from overseas) have heard of Custer and the battle of Little Big Horn. In that battle about 300 US soldiers were killed and wounded. The defeat of an ill advised 1791 expedition into native American territory, by contrast, killed almost four times that number--men, women, and children--and wiped out virtually all the commissioned officers and almost the entirety of what was then the US army. . .and yet few today know about it. Yet Hogeland makes a compelling and carefully researched case that it was the response to this disaster that put the US inevitably on the track of becoming an Imperial power. There is a direct line from the successful campaign led by--the also now largely forgotten--General Anthony Wayne to the modern War on Terror.

There is one additional thing that I expect from a professional historian and that is the ability to tell a good story. Hogeland is a great story-teller, and this book was a page-turner. However, I suspect that that won't be to everyone's taste, and occasionally he can come across as a little glib. He has done the necessary research, but he is also operating in an environment where many of the primary accounts are missing or exist in multiple competing versions. Usually he is conscientious in flagging competing accounts. But this also means that he has, of necessity, to extrapolate, to offer his best guess or interpretation. This simply reminds us that the job of the professional historian is not simply to tell us a story, but to tell us a plausible story consistent with the known empirical evidence.

The obvious importance of these events to the formation of a modern America should also cause us to reflect yet again--as if more evidence were needed--on the lamentable state of history teaching in US schools. US educational curricula continue to deal in shoddy and manifestly inadequate ways with race in general, and with the history of Native American conquest in particular. In that light, what makes Hogeland's book especially useful is that it clearly points to this historical moment as arguably one of only two instances (the other being King Phillip's War) where Native Americans had a real shot at stopping the nascent US invasion in its tracks. And they came very close to doing so, which leads to some fascinating historical "what ifs."… (altro)

”The Whiskey Rebellion”, by William Hogeland, tells the story of an 18th century rebellion of settlers in western Pennsylvania and Virginia against an excise tax on “spirits” imposed by the newly created Federal Government. Tax Collectors sent to this region to collect taxes were tarred and feathered in open hostility to the imposition of this new tax.
The Federal Government, however, needed the ability to raise operating funds, and being only twenty years old, also needed to demonstrate its effectiveness and its authority. After several failed attempts to collect the revenues owed, Alexander Hamilton, as Treasury Secretary and acting Secretary of War, convinced President Washington that the rebellion needed to be stopped before it expanded to the detriment of the new Country.
In some ways, this rebellion makes me think of the 2014 defiance of Nevada rancher Clive Bundy, who fails to recognize the Federal Government’s right to collect fees for use of public lands. Bundy, with the backing of some 50 armed supporters, drove Bureau of Land Management rangers away after a failed attempt to confiscate cattle illegally grazing on public land. In a similar standoff in the late 18th Century, a few individuals roused the anti-tax spirit of the locals, and defied the Federal Government, at least temporarily. In the case of the Whiskey Rebellion, President Washington ultimately authorized raising a militia force of some 13,000 troops to travel to the region to put down the rebellion. Many of the rebel leaders then fled, and a handful were arrested, without the need for a bloody battle.
The Whiskey Rebellion is an incident from the early days of our Country which typically receives only a few sentences in the history books, and Hogeland goes into great depth (perhaps too much depth) describing the event, its causes, and results.
… (altro)

A history of two things: the tumultuous fight leading to the signing of the Declaration of Independence, and the rise of radical democrats who backed both independence and greater political and economic equality. Hogeland, I'm sure, would argue that this is a book about one thing: the essential role radical democrats played in the passage of the Declaration of Independence. But I'm not so sure he proved the connection.

To be sure, this lively and accessible history shows some connection between the two. The Continental Congress was meeting in Philadelphia, and active associations of lower-class men rowdily agitating for change surely had some role in pressuring "reconciliationists" to change their minds and get behind independence.

But the great triumph of the radicals was a constitutional convention that effectively overturned Pennsylvania's elected legislature — elected by wealthy men and largely opposed to outright independence (though in favor of resisting British tyranny) and replaced it with a new constitution with universal manhood suffrage, a unicameral legislature, and other reforms. This constitution was written and passed in June 1776, with the new government elected on July 8, 1776 — a week too late to change Pennsylvania's instructions to its delegation at the Continental Congress. Despite this incongruity, this convention is the climax of the book.

While popular pressure — expertly channelled and led by Sam Adams and a host of pro-independence allies including John Adams and Thomas Paine — certainly played a role, the actions of the British would seem to have been far more important. At every critical moment in the independence debate, it seemed, news reached Philadelphia of new British aggression, pushing colonial waverers toward a sterner response. (Much of Sam Adams' maneuvering in 1776 was also on the inside track, trying to persuade political leaders to change sides, rather than solely mobilizing pressure on the streets.)

None of this is to say that the rise of radical democrats in 1776 — not merely as a reaction to independence, but preceding it and intertwined with it — is unimportant! To the contrary, it's a fascinating story, and Hogeland sketches it out well here. I just don't feel like the connection between his two topics is as strong as he intended.

A good book, and a quick read, despite these qualms! Recommended if you like revolutionary history.… (altro)