The Whiskey Rebellion often falls into the background of the Federalist Era, overshadowed by the rise of a divisive two-party political system. This armed uprising in 1794, over taxation by the fledgling new government, threatened to destroy the new union within six years of the Constitution’s ratification. Regardless of the outcome of the military confrontation, public support for the rebels’ cause or indignation over President George Washington’s response could have escalated into another revolution like the one that occurred in France. Yet this never materialized. Was the short life of this rebellion natural or artificial? Did public response to the excise differ by location or politics? How did the public react to Washington’s response and why did the public respond in the way it did? An examination of press records indicates change in the general level of interest in the rebellion, but not of opinion, with the South far less interested than New England and the Middle States. Furthermore, the violently divergent opinions expressed in the press prior to open rebellion morphed abruptly into full support of the federal government and praise for both Congress and Washington in their handling of the crisis. This change arose primarily from existing opinions of Washington and the nation, aided by a lack of argumentation reaching the public sphere from the rebels.
Secretary of the Treasury Alexander Hamilton’s initial imposition of a federal excise on whiskey in 1792 provoked predictable reactions across the United States divided roughly along partisan lines. Federalist newspapers reliably printed defenses of the excise as justified, with Philadelphia’s Gazette of the United States on June 2 rationalizing that “not one Member of the Senate or representative body thought fit to move for the repeal of the law when the subject was reconsidered by Congress . . . This is never the case with a bad or dangerous law.” The Federalist-leaning Columbian Centinel republished this article in Boston on June 13. One of the few contemporaneous views from the Pittsburgh Gazette, the nearest newspaper to the burgeoning rebellion’s locus to survive in a digitized archive, downplayed the opponents of the excise as an inconsequential, if vocal, minority. Other papers, such as Boston’s Argus and Baltimore’s Baltimore Evening Post, presented both arguments in successive issues: Argus printed both an article mocking “Sydney and the Whiskey Drinkers” and an article from “A REAL FEDERALIST” subtly inciting rebellion over the excise, while the Baltimore Evening Post balanced an assertion that “to resist the Excise law, under the pretense of liberty, is inconsistent and absurd” with calls to abolish the Senate as useless. Thus, the Federalist-aligned papers generally, but not exclusively, supported the excise.
On the other political extreme, Democratic-Republican biased newspapers, which comprised a significantly larger market share in the 1790s than during the controversy over the ratification of the Constitution only a few years earlier, overwhelmingly came out against the excise. Ranging from the direct critiques of the Independent Gazetteer on January 14, 1792, to the multi-part attack by “Sydney” of Alexander Hamilton’s policy published in Dunlop’s Daily Advertiser beginning April 24, 1792, Pennsylvania formed the nucleus of publicly printed resistance. Southern planters also resisted the excise: on March 10, 1792, Philadelphia’s Independent Gazetteer republished a letter from “An Independent Citizen” to the North Carolina State Gazette decrying the excise as only benefitting speculators. The Philadelphia rhetoric spread to Connecticut, Massachusetts, and New York through the American Mercury, the Boston Gazette, the Diary and the New-York Daily Gazette. The Philadelphia-based National Gazette published some lengthy articles by Hugh Henry Brackenridge (who would later become a vocal representative for the rebels and would write the only contemporaneous sympathetic historical account to survive), attacking the excise. In fact, Brackenridge’s August 18, 1792 article in the National Gazette, claiming the excise would reduce “the yeomanry of the United States . . . to the situation of slaves on the West-Indian estates,” spread across New England and the Middle States within three weeks. Despite the overwhelming bias in Democratic-Republican newspapers against the excise, the National Gazette still published a scathing response to “Sydney” which the Federalist Gazette of the United States republished on May 19, 1792. At least some papers on each side regularly published views opposing their general bent. Similarly, while regional alignment directly related to the amount of coverage given to the issue, with the heaviest coverage in Pennsylvania followed by New England, the Middle States, and finally the South, regional alignment did not dictate the general opinion of the excise on whiskey.
While 1793 brought a relative lull in press on the subject of the excise on whiskey, May 1794 brought the issue back into the public consciousness. Many newspapers of both political convictions resumed voicing their concerns over the excise and adding calls to action and direct attacks from both city and countryside. While the Philadelphia Gazette fired the first proverbial shots on May 8, 1794, calling for “good citizens to resist, by every peaceable and constitutional method,” by May 26 even the staunchly Federalist Gazette of the United States noted concerns that the excise was repressive because it did not affect the ruling class. Both of these reached extensive audiences, particularly in Philadelphia and New York, with no rebuttals from supporters of the excise. Those Southern papers which reported on the subject noted concerns that those who failed to oppose the excise as federal overreach now might place themselves in a position to be unable to resist future governmental excesses. On August 2, 1794, the same day that the nascent rebel movement marched through Pittsburgh, Philadelphia’s General Advertiser published a call to all citizens asserting it was “impossible to preserve liberty in a country where the public revenue is derived from excise.” This sentiment particularly resonated in Maryland, which had its own unrest over the excise brewing, although the Washington Spy also published a reasoned argument for the excise as well as a brief description of an “outrage upon the Collectors of the Revenue” on August 6, 1794. Pennsylvania’s Philadelphia Gazette also mocked the whiskey distillers in an article widely republished north of Virginia. The rising rhetoric culminated, almost anticlimactically, with a simple extract of a letter from Pittsburgh published in Connecticut’s Litchfield Monitor on August 6, 1794 detailing the attacks on the Inspector of Revenue, Gen. John Neville.
The following day marked a significant shift both in federal policy and in the press debate: President Washington issued his proclamation ordering the rebels who had attacked Neville to “disperse and retire peaceably to their abodes.” This unified all divided rhetoric throughout the press to universal hostility towards the rebellious counties in Pennsylvania. The Philadelphia Gazette alleged that the rebels had intercepted supplies meant for Gen. Anthony Wayne’s army gathering for a campaign on the frontier. While casting the conflict as an East-West divide, the American Minerva claimed on August 20, 1794 that “the President may rely on the firm and unanimous support of the northern states,” a sentiment echoed from Boston through Charleston. Not to be outdone, the Federalist Gazette of the United States printed a letter from a supposed Massachusetts farmer claiming possible foreign influence in the uprising by laying the violence at the feet of “Jacobin Clubs.” The New-York Daily Gazette took this one step further, implying that the rebels aimed for complete independence from the new nation while Boston’s American Apollo and Newburyport’s Morning Star used a lack of dissenting voices around Pittsburgh as evidence of coercive influence by the rebels. The Salem Gazette substantiated these reports with a letter from Fort Pitt indicating a local belief that secession was the aim of the insurgency, with political conformity to the rebellion enforced by threat of violence. Stockbridge’s Western Star, expressing the opinions of farmers in the far west of Massachusetts, undercut the rebels’ motivations by pointing out that state excises had existed without complaint prior to the federal excise and asserting these complaints were a pretext, rather than reason, for action. Almost overnight the phrases “Whiskey Insurrection” and “Pittsburgh Insurrection” became the standard way for newspapers to refer to this conflict. The media in all quarters had rejected a group which many had previously favored, and even began to actively demonize the insurrectionists.
In the beginning of September 1794, during Washington’s efforts at peaceful mediation, a softened tone entered the press, especially in New England. Newbury’s Morning Star expressed concern on September 2 that whiskey being a potential staple food in western Pennsylvania explained the rebels’ actions despite staunchly opposing the rebellion itself. On the same day, New York’s Diary printed speeches from the “six united nations of white Indians,” republished a day later in Hagers-town’s Washington Spy, providing the sole instance of reporting during the rebellion which outlined rebel rhetoric positively. Yet even this was transient: the Diary published a far more widely distributed note from Trenton days later reestablishing the tone of scorn and enmity towards the insurrection while Connecticut’s Norwich Packet labeled the insurrectionists as malcontents. This tone turned even more to one of outrage, with the Massachusetts Mercury asserting the rebels had raised support through the Jacobin Clubs and accused them of attempting to dictate their will “to the GREAT MASS of the PEOPLE.” Newspapers publishing in Baltimore and South Carolina “for the benefit of country subscribers” characterized the rebellion as “the domestic tyranny of an ignorant banditti.” Within Pennsylvania itself, reactions to the new violence were mixed: the influence of the rebellion had spread east to Carlisle, where local officials permitted the raising of a whiskey-themed liberty pole, as reported by Elizabethtown’s New-Jersey Journal, while a letter from Pittsburgh published in the American Apollo noted that many who opposed the excise were startled by the violence and had no desire to actively support the insurrection. The Democratic Society of Washington published an address in the Virginia Chronicle agreeing with the perceived oppression but condemning the actions of the rebellion, and New York’s Greenleaf Journal concurred by emphasizing that only constitutional measures should have been taken. The rebels’ base of potential political support had evaporated. Even outlets which lamented war as terrible, such as Vermont’s Farmer’s Library, showed no sympathies to the rebels. Despite a brief period of greater neutrality in tone in the immediate aftermath of Washington’s attempt to negotiate, the press increased both in volume of reporting and in anti-rebel sentiment throughout the nation.
Washington’s proclamation summoning the militias of Pennsylvania, Maryland, New Jersey, and Virginia on September 25, 1794 heralded the next shift in the press towards war correspondence with the united front of coverage continuing, particularly in New England. Newburyport’s Impartial Herald noted on September 27 that troops were on the march to “quell the Insurrection at Pittsburg” and Harford’s American Mercury published hopes on October 13 that the volunteer militia “may soon return safely to their friends, with a good account of the Enemy. The Boston Mercury, and later New Bedford’s Medley, specifically labelled Washington’s army as an anti-insurgent army in October; despite New England contributing no troops to the effort, it remained fully supportive of Washington in his exertion of federal control. True to form, the Gazette of the United States confidently predicted the imminent demise of the rebellion. Even Bostonian stargazers took the chance to express their condemnation of the insurrection, with the Federal Orrery decrying it as a “flaming meteor . . . composed of the sulfur of ANARCHY . . . revolving in the eccentric path of JACOBINISM” in a October 23 article republished in New York’s Diary and echoed in the Columbian Centinel. As previously seen, the first signs of any public opinion favoring the rebels were observed in Carlisle, with an officer in the New Jersey cavalry noting the tension between pro- and anti-rebel factions in the town. Yet for all of this fury, the coverage of the conflict ended in much the same anticlimactic way as the rebellion itself: Charleston’s Columbian Herald published a mere four lines noting that four ringleaders had been extradited to Philadelphia and jailed, and the Brookfield’s Worcester Intelligencer published the December 30, 1794 proclamation of mass clemency by Henry Lee. The press remained universally supportive of federal forces and largely indifferent to the fate of the rebels through the end of the conflict.
But what of public opinion after Washington quelled the rebellion? In every corner, regardless of political opinions, the papers published support of the President’s actions and cast the rebels as part of an undesirable sect of foreign influence. After the departure of federal troops, “Rusticus” penned an ironic poem eulogizing the “Liberty Pole of Lewistown” while praising the virtues of “Law and Constitution” in the Kline’s Carlisle Weekly Gazette on December 17, 1794. Meanwhile, the Federalist Gazette of the United States returned to its party line, attempting to tie together the rebels with the Jacobins not only in politics but extremism, using the rebellion to increase support for Washington’s anti-Jacobin policies in an article reprinted in the Hartford Gazette. The Columbian Centinel and Worcester Intelligencer similarly listed the excise as one of “an infinity of Bones, which our first antifederalist, then jacobinial, and now anarchal Bone-Pickers have been mumbling about.” In response, the Democratic-Republicans continued to distance themselves ideologically from the insurrectionists, with the Democratic Society of the City of New York publishing a widely distributed statement in Greenleaf’s New York Journal in which they “condemned all unconstitutional opposition to the laws of our country.” Worcester’s Massachusetts Spy wrote a political epitaph of the Third Congress, reprinted from Maine to North Carolina, praising Congress for, among other things, having “quelled an insurrection . . . without bloodshed; and to have Restored the confidence of the people in the Government of their choice.” This in no way meant the political issue of the excise had passed into irrelevance: quite the contrary, by July 4, 1795 bitter opposition was again being printed, this time in New Jersey, but without any support for violence or condemnation of the federal government’s handling of the affair. No public voices which have survived indicate widespread contemporaneous resistance to the exertion of federal power.
Having established the wide disparity in opinion throughout the nation, could the homogeneity of thought during the crisis have come from pro-government propaganda? While theoretically possible, the geographically decentralized nature of the articles from both sides of the political spectrum would have made deliberate manipulation of information difficult for the federal government. Information operations to sway public opinion were decidedly outside Washington’s scope despite clear signs of meticulous planning in his campaign against the rebels. Varying lag times from events or publishing from Philadelphia (the central hub of opinion and information surrounding the controversy) naturally arose from the time required for post riders to deliver Philadelphia papers to other regions for republishing. Philadelphia papers also incorporated other regions’ perspectives in later editions of papers, albeit with a more significant lag, so the opinions from the seat of government did not inherently drive debate and opinion throughout the nation. Given the strong sentiment towards freedom of the press and resistance to any form of governmental control over printed materials, as well as the deep divides of partisan politics, any such attempts at control would more likely have ended in more bloodshed than did the excise on whiskey itself.
If the union of opinion was spontaneous, rather than planned, why did publications fall into such uniform opinion? This was doubtless due in part to the unifying effect of Washington: as historian Alan Taylor notes, while both parties fought viciously because they believed the fate of the republic at stake, Washington provided a unifying figure respected by most, if not all. Based on the number and location of articles published over those four years, as well as their content, national sentiment varied by region. Metropolitan areas generally published more reports and opinions on the rebellion while the southern states and rural areas printed far less about the issue until Washington’s proclamation on August 7, 1794. Only after this proclamation did national opinion coalesce around a single perspective: Washington’s opinion. The handling of information by the rebels themselves also contributed to this coalescence: during the rebellion little information and even less rhetoric emerged from rebel-held areas, as indicated by hand-bills which came through by post-rider. Evidently little news except for successful pacification came to the other states from the formerly rebellious counties, as the Charleston City Gazette noted. This precluded potentially winning support since Americans of all political persuasions were heavily invested in the preservation of their fledgling republic: once the rebels appeared willing to spark a civil war or even secede, they seemingly lost any base of public support. Given the lack of serious challenge to the President’s assessment, the country naturally rallied once again behind its figurehead, as even the Democratic-Republicans saw him as a beacon of hope.
Unsurprisingly, reactions to the excise fell largely along party, but not geographic, lines: Federalist papers generally favored the excise while Democratic-Republican papers generally railed against it despite some limited airing of contrary views. However, following Washington’s proclamation, papers from both sides aligned in lockstep: while papers occasionally sympathized with the insurrectionists’ concerns, all came out hotly against the rebellion, with its added implications of possible secession. Afterwards, there was similar universal praise for Washington and Congress for preserving the union, while Democratic-Republican societies and papers deliberately distanced themselves from the rebellion, decrying the influence of runaway Jacobinism. Importantly, rejection of the rebellion did not indicate that opposition to the excise had waned: such rhetoric returned with a vengeance in 1795. This unity likely occurred not due to any propaganda, but due to a confluence of Washington’s influence, limited opinion from the rebels, and popular fear of losing the new republic to civil war. Much as Stephen Boyd noted in 1985, the historical community still knows far too little about the opinions of small farmers and frontiersmen to the rebellion, and this information may have disappeared from the historical record. But what has remained in the form of newspaper articles paints a picture of remarkable unity in crisis despite stark political differences.
“An Act Concerning the Duties on Spirits Distilled within the United States,” May 8, 1792, Readex: Early American Imprints, Series I: Evans, 1639-1800, infoweb-newsbank-com.proxygw.wrlc.org/iw-search/we/Evans/?p_product=EAIX&p_theme=eai&p_nbid=B5EB47FCMTYxOTU1NDAyNi41NDg5NTU6MToxMToxOTguOTEuMzcuMg&p_action=doc&p_docnum=5&p_queryname=2&p_docref=v2:0F2B1FCB879B099B@EAIX-0F2F81C5A46DE5B0@46624-@1n.
”Baltimore, May 29,” Gazette of the United States(Philadelphia), June 2, 1792. In all cases, italics and capitalization reflect the original text, not authorial emphasis. Further URLs of newspaper articles have been redacted for ease of reading but can be found through the Readex: America’s Historical Newspapers database at infoweb.newsbank.com/?db=EANX.
”Pittsburgh; Gazette; Saturday; Law; Excise; Western Counties; Committee; Counties,” Gazette of the United States (Philadelphia), September 8, 1792. While published—and thus possibly filtered—in the Gazette of the United Stateson September 8, 1792, it would appear that even papers local to the area were not unified in their opposition.
”Legislative Acts/Legal Proceedings,” Independent Gazetteer(Philadelphia), January 7, 1792. “Legislative Acts/Legal Proceedings,” Dunlap’s American Daily Advertiser (Philadelphia), March 19, 1792. “For the American Daily Advertiser. On the Secretary’s Report on the Excise,” Dunlap’s American Daily Advertiser (Philadelphia), April 27, 1792. “For the American Daily Advertiser. on the Secretary’s Report on the Excise,” Supplement to Dunlap’s American Daily Advertiser (Philadelphia), April 28, 1792. “Legislative Acts/Legal Proceedings,” Dunlap’s American Daily Advertiser (Philadelphia), May 1, 1792. “Legislative Acts/Legal Proceedings,” Dunlap’s American Daily Advertiser (Philadelphia), May 8, 1792.
”From the National Gazette. Excise Law,” American Mercury (Hartford, Connecticut), June 18, 1792.“From the National Gazette of May 7. Excise Law,” Boston Gazette, June 11, 1792. “From the National Gazette. Excise Law,” The Diary or Loudon’s Register (New York), May 11, 1792. “Legislative Acts/Legal Proceedings,” New-York Daily Gazette, May 4, 1792.
Steven R. Boyd, ed., “Hugh Henry Brackenridge, Incidents of the Insurrection,” The Whiskey Rebellion: Past and Present Perspectives, ed. Steven R. Boyd (Westport: Greenwood Press, 1985), 61-62. Hugh Henry Brackenridge, “For the National Gazette,” National Gazette (Philadelphia), February 9, 1792. Brackenridge, “For the National Gazette. Excise,” National Gazette (Philadelphia), August 18, 1792.
”From the National Gazette. Excise,” The Diary or Loudon’s Register (New York), August 23, 1792. “Excise,” Independent Gazetteer (Philadelphia), August 25, 1792. “From the National Gazette. Excise,” Connecticut Courant, August 27, 1792. “From the National Gazette. Excise,” Baltimore Evening Post, August 31, 1792. “Excise,” Argus (Boston), September 4, 1792.
”For the Gazette of the United States,” Gazette of the United States (Philadelphia), May 26, 1794. “For the Gazette of the United States. Excise,” Gazette of the United States (Philadelphia), June 2, 1794.
”Excise,” Dunlap and Claypoole’s American Daily Advertiser (Philadelphia), May 8, 1794. “Excise:-Citizens Attend,” General Advertiser (Philadelphia), May 8, 1794. “From the General Advertiser. Excise Citizens Attend,” American Minerva (New York), May 9, 1794. “Excise – Citizens Attend !,” New-York Daily Gazette, May 10, 1794. “Philadelphia, May 8,” The Diary or Loudon’s Register (New York), May 10, 1794. “Excise-Citizens Attend,” Columbian Gazetteer (New York), May 12, 1794. “From the Gazette of the United States. Consideration on Excise,” American Minerva (New York), May 30, 1794. “From the Gazette of the United States. Considerations on Excise,” New-York Daily Gazette, May 30, 1794. “From the Gazette of the United States,” Columbian Gazetteer (New York), June 2, 1794.
Thomas P. Slaughter, The Whiskey Rebellion: Frontier Epilogue to the American Revolution (New York: Oxford University Press, 1986), 187. “Excise. to the Citizens of the United States,” General Advertiser (Philadelphia), August 2, 1794.
”From the (Philadelphia) General Advertiser. Excise,” Baltimore Daily Intelligencer, August 6, 1794. “From the Philadelphia, General Advertiser. Excise,” Washington Spy (Hagers-Town, Maryland), August 13, 1794. “To the Printer of the Washington Spy,” Washington Spy (Hagers-Town, Maryland), August 6, 1794.
”For the Philadelphia Gazette,” Philadelphia Gazette, August 13, 1794. “Eulogy on Whiskey,” Kline’s Carlisle Weekly Gazette (Carlisle, Pennsylvania), August 20, 1794. “Eulogy on Whiskey,” Impartial Herald (Newburyport, Massachusetts), August 23, 1794. “Eulogy on Whiskey. by Absolum Aimwell, Esq.,” Massachusetts Mercury (Boston), August 26, 1794. “Eulogy on Whiskey,” American Minerva (New York), August 27, 1794. “From the Philadelphia Gazette. Eulogy on Whiskey. by Absalom Aimwell, Esq.,” Virginia Chronicle, & General Advertiser (Norfolk), September 1, 1794. “From the Philadelphia Gazette. Eulogium on Whiskey,” Windham Herald (Windham, Connecticut), September 6, 1794. “Miscellany. an Eulogy on Whiskey,” Spooner’s Vermont Journal (Windsor, Vermont), September 8, 1794.
”Riot at Pittsburgh in Opposition to Excise, July 25. Extract of a Letter from Pittsburgh, Dated July 18, to a Mercantile House in This City,” Litchfield Monitor (Litchfield, Connecticut), August 6, 1794. “Riot at Pittsburgh, in Opposition to Excise, July 25,” Vermont Gazette (Bennington), August 15, 1794.
”Pittsburg; Major Kirkpatrick’s; Major Craig,” Philadelphia Gazette (Philadelphia), August 13, 1794. For General Wayne’s activities, see “American Intelligence. Pittsburg, July 2,” Vermont Gazette (Bennington), August 15, 1794.
”Remarks on Excise,” American Minerva (New York), August 20, 1794. “Remarks on Excise,” Herald (New York), August 21, 1794. “Remarks on Excise,” Columbian Centinel (Boston), August 30, 1794. “Remarks on Excise,” New-York Daily Gazette, September 12, 1794. “Remarks on Excise,” United States Chronicle (Providence), September 11, 1794. “New-York, September 12. Remarks an Excise,” The City Gazette & Daily Advertiser (Charleston, South Carolina), October 8, 1794.
”Philadelphia, August 12,” New-York Daily Gazette, August 26, 1794. “Pittsburg; Commander; Chief,” Columbian Centinel (Boston), August 20, 1794. “Philadelphia Aug. 9. Pittsburg Insurrection,” American Apollo (Boston), August 21, 1794. “Philadelphia August 6. Pittsburg Insurrection,” Morning Star (Newburyport, Massachusetts), August 26, 1794.
”United States of America. Pittsburg Insurrection. Baltimore, Aug. 16,” Salem Gazette (Salem, Massachusetts), August 26, 1794. “Pittsburg, Insurrection, Baltimore, Aug. 16,” New-Hampshire Gazette (Portsmouth), September 2, 1794.
”New-York. Saturday Evening, September 6,” The Diary or Loudon’s Register (New York), September 6, 1794. “Jersey Blue’s Intended Answer to Captain Whiskey’s Intended Speech to the Commissioners at Pittsburgh,” Kline’s Carlisle Weekly Gazette (Carlisle, Pennsylvania), September 10, 1794. “Jerseyblue’s Intended Answer to Capt. Whiskey’s Intended Speech to the Commissioners at Pittsburgh, If Their Session,” Columbian Gazetteer (New York), September 11, 1794. “Jersey Blue, Intended Answer in Capt. Whiskey’s Intended Speech to the Commissioners at Pittsburgh, If Their Session Continues till Sept. 14, 1794,” Middlesex Gazette (Middletown, Connecticut), September 13, 1794. “Jersy Blue’s Intended Answer to Captain Whiskey’s Intended Speech to the Commissioners at Pittsburgh If Their Session,” American Apollo (Boston), September 18, 1794. “Captain Whiskey,” Oracle of the Day (Portsmouth, New Hampshire), September 30, 1794. “Secretary; Treasury; Malcontents; Pennsylvania; Southern; Excise,” Norwich Packet (Norwich, Connecticut), September 4, 1794.
”For the American Daily Advertiser. to the Public of the United States Letter IV,” Dunlap and Claypoole’s American Daily Advertiser (Philadelphia), September 2, 1794. “From the American Daily Advertiser. to the People of the United States. Letter IV,” Baltimore Daily Intelligencer, September 8, 1794. “Pittsburg Insurrection! from the Gazette of the United States,” American Apollo(Boston), September 11, 1794.
”Legislative Acts/Legal Proceedings,” Virginia Chronicle, & General Advertiser (Norfolk), September 22, 1794. “New-York, Sept. 13,” Greenleaf’s New York Journal and Patriotic Register (New York), September 13, 1794.
”Orrery-Observatory,” Federal Orrery(Boston), October 23, 1794. “Insurrection at Pittsburgh,” The Diary or Loudon’s Register (New York), October 30, 1794. “For the Centinel. Worthy Consideration,” Columbian Centinel (Boston), November 1, 1794.
”Whiskey; Philadelphia,” Columbian Herald (Charleston, South Carolina), November 12, 1794. “Legislative Acts/Legal Proceedings,” Worcester Intelligencer: Or, Brookfield Advertiser (Brookfield, Massachusetts), December 30, 1794.
”From the Columbian Centinel. of Political Bones,” Worcester Intelligencer: Or, Brookfield Advertiser (Brookfield, Massachusetts), January 20, 1795. “Jacobinial” is not capitalized in the original.
”Miscellany,” Greenleaf’s New York Journal and Patriotic Register, January 17, 1795. “Legislative Acts/Legal Proceedings,” Dunlap and Claypoole’s American Daily Advertiser (Philadelphia), January 20, 1795. “Legislative Acts/Legal Proceedings,” Independent Gazetteer (Philadelphia), January 21, 1795. “Legislative Acts/Legal Proceedings,” Aurora General Advertiser (Philadelphia), January 26, 1795. “From the New-York Journal, & C,” Federal Intelligencer (Baltimore), January 26, 1795. “From the New-York Journal,” Herald (New York), January 28, 1795.
”Massachusetts. Boston, March 18,” Thomas’s Massachusetts Spy: Or, The Worcester Gazette (Worcester), March 25, 1795. “Legislative Acts/Legal Proceedings,” United States Chronicle(Providence), March 26, 1795. “From the Columbian Centinel. Political Epitaph,” Gazette of the United States (Philadelphia), March 27, 1795. “Poetry,” Eastern Herald (Portland, Maine), March 30, 1795. “From the Columbian Centinel,” Andrews’s Western Star (Stockbridge, Massachusetts), March 31, 1795. “Massachusetts. Boston, March 25,” Worcester Intelligencer: Or, Brookfield Advertiser (Brookfield, Massachusetts), March 31, 1795. “Legislative Acts/Legal Proceedings,” Connecticut Gazette (New London), April 2, 1795. “Political Epitaph,” Impartial Herald (Newburyport, Massachusetts), April 3, 1795. “Legislative Acts/Legal Proceedings,” The Philadelphia Gazette & Universal Daily Advertiser (Philadelphia), April 4, 1795. “Poetry,” North-Carolina Journal (Halifax, North Carolina), April 13, 1795.
Indeed, when tried in the Alien and Sedition Acts, it helped to oust the Federalists from power. See Francis D. Cogliano, Revolutionary America 1763-1815: A Political History, 3rd ed. (New York: Routledge, 2017), 167-168.