the author was writing from the "state of Franklin". (Any guesses as to where the State of Franklin was located? At least on member of this forum should know.)
Yes, I know... but I won't tell
And don't forget another one, Westsylvania. In addition to all you've pointed out, there was another important factor in making the Whiskey Rebellion more of an issue in the Westmoreland/Allegheny/Washington/Fayette counties of Pennsylvania. The element being attacked by Washington's troops were not just dumb tax-dodging scofflaws, they included powerful political leaders who were establishing an independent nation (tentatively called Westsylvania) whose anti-American Federalist citizens were on the brink (or maybe even over... depending on whose accounts you read) of secession. The events in western PA were really America's FIRST civil war, albeit on a far smaller scale. Washington (who actually owned a large part of that area and who certainly did not oppose distilling) wasn't keen on ordering Americans to attack Americans, which is evident in the way those who were captured were dealt with. But had he not acted with overwhelming force, the fragile, brand-new nation would likely have collapsed completely as other states followed suit. On top of that, the Spanish across the Mississippi had a strong interest in allying with the new Westsylvania and had that happened I'm not sure France would ever have aquired Louisiana. With Spain and allies on both sides of the river there's some reason to doubt a loose association of English-speaking states without a strong central government would have lasted more than a few years.
Interestingly, I think Franklin might have outlasted many of the others. Other than at the Alamo, they didn't do too badly against another Spanish-speaking army a few decades later.