They assembled after the proclamation, and after the militia were ordered to march. They avowed an intention to resist. They compelled the Government to negotiate. The leaders, Bradford and Marshal, fled on the approach of the army, and the insurgents generally accepted the terms of amnesty, as in a case of treason. The army was, however, maintained for some time in the country.
In the last, the people were illiterate, ignorant of the laws and language. They did not conspire to act themselves, but to prevent particular inferior officers from acting, by making the assessments in particular townships.
They acted like a mob, in obstructing the progress of the officers by threats, hooting, &c., and once they took an officer’s tax list or papers, but immediately returned them.
They assembled expressly to release or rescue a particular set of prisoners whom they called their neighbors.
They rescued the prisoners, and withdrew without injuring or attempting to injure the marshal, or the tax officers who were at Bethlehem.
They never suggested the idea of resisting the army. They dispersed as soon as the proclamation was issued, and they never met afterwards.
The distinctions are striking and obvious.
In the insurrection of 1794, the object was general; in the riot of 1799, it was particular.
In 1794, the insurgents acted as assailants; the rioters of 1799 stood on the defensive, and only obstructed the officers in attempting to act.
In 1794, the design of attacking a fort and resisting the army was deliberately formed, and overt acts committed to carry it into effect; in 1799, the idea of attacking or resisting the military power of the Government never was suggested.