Going back to the principals of the Founding Fathers….ARE YOU KIDDING ME!!!

George Washington is often seen as the kind and sagely 1st ruler of our beloved American Republic but, how many of us remember what this kind and benevolent ruler did when some Pennsylvanians mounted a tax protest against a Federal tax on whiskey? Good ole’ Georgie went and raised an army of 15,000 soldiers and began to march this army across the Alleghenies, fully prepared to wage war on those tax protestors, some of whom may have fought right along Washington’s side during the Revolutionary War. That's right, Washington raised an army to wage war against a group of American citizens in order to make them pay their taxes. Great guy, huh?

This is a revisionist historical account of what actually happened. George Washington did not "wage war" on "tax protesters" but instead sent a military commission to confront what appeared to be an armed insurrection:

President Washington, confronted with what appeared to be an armed insurrection in western Pennsylvania, proceeded cautiously. Although determined to maintain government authority, he did not want to alienate public opinion. He asked his cabinet for written opinions about how to deal with the crisis. The cabinet recommended the use of force, except for Secretary of State Edmund Randolph, who urged reconciliation. Washington did both: he sent commissioners to meet with the rebels while raising a militia army. Washington privately doubted that the commissioners could accomplish anything, and that a military expedition would be needed to suppress further violence. For this reason, historians have sometimes charged that the peace commission was sent only for the sake of appearances, and that the use of force was never in doubt. Historians Stanley Elkins and Eric McKitrick argued that the military expedition was "itself a part of the reconciliation process", since a show of overwhelming force would make further violence less likely.

From the same source you provided.

And, how can we forget how his successor worked to uphold the principals of freedom ? President John Adams is notorious for his signing and use of the Alien and Sedition Acts which were a slap in the face of anyone who took the 1st Amendment right to free speech seriously.

While we should never forget this event, nor should we ever forget that Adams own Vice President vigorously denounced the Alien and Sedition Acts. It was not as it is today, where the vast majority of politicians lock arms and defend their tyranny, and only just a few people speak out. The Alien and Sedition Acts was roundly opposed, and indeed, this political stunt by Adams virtually ended the political power the Federalist Party had enjoyed, and ushered in Thomas Jefferson's new Democratic-Republican Party, and once elected President, Jefferson pardoned every person convicted of a crime under these acts.

Of course, Jefferson was known as a great equivocator, and the Embargo Act of 1807 is just one example of his wavering back and forth on Constitutional issues. However, these people were human, and when faced with the reality of federal governance it was only inevitable they would stumble and compromise their principles. While Jefferson was a great equivocator, he was also known for speaking some remarkable truths, among those truths were:

Whenever a man has cast a longing eye on offices, a rottenness begins in his conduct.

~Thomas Jefferson!~

Jefferson was not excluding himself from this equation, but simply acknowledging the reality of the nature of politics. It is inevitable that governments will seek expansion and more power. It is not up to a simple document to prevent this imprudent expansion and lust for power. It is hopelessly naive to believe that a piece of paper will prevent criminality and tyranny.

Sadly, it seems to be hopelessly naive to believe that we the people will jealously guard our rights and zealously protect them. Where Daniel Shay and others rose up and rebelled against a tax on whiskey, when in 1913 Congress imposed an income tax in perpetuity, the people barely noticed, buying into the tired propaganda that such a tax would only effect the rich.

A tax on whiskey can be defeated, and if fact, the Whiskey Tax was not a success and failed to bring in the revenue the government had hoped for. Income, on the other hand, is a necessity for living, and cannot be defeated by simply refusing to make an income. The people have sheepishly accepted this dubious form of taxation, and instead of resisting the steady expansion of government and the abuses that surely follow, they have opted for simply sticking their hands out and asking in all earnestness; "Please sir, I want some more."

“When the people find that they can vote themselves money, that will herald the end of the republic.”

~ Benjamin Franklin~

reply to post by Jean Paul Zodeaux

Sadly, it seems to be hopelessly naive to believe that we the people will jealously guard our rights and zealously protect them. Where Daniel Shay and others rose up and rebelled against a tax on whiskey, when in 1913 Congress imposed an income tax in perpetuity, the people barely noticed, buying into the tired propaganda that such a tax would only effect the rich.

In the beginning of the American republic, men rose up and were willing to fight against unjust taxation by the federal government. Each and every time this happened, the Federal government responded with overwhelming force (or the threat of overwhelming force) to put down those early rebellions. They set down the precedent early that opposition to unfair federal taxation would be met with the overwhelming force and might of the federal government.

By 1913, the people were well conditioned to not push back against the Feds too hard. Sure, some people would write angry letters and maybe try to vote the bums out of office but, knowing that any real resistance would be violently crushed, they quietly, although grudgingly, acquiesced for fear of the wrath of the federal government.

Washington and his successors set the precedent early so that the federal government could grow into the monstrosity we have today.

reply to post by FortAnthem


While corn farmers were adversely affected by the Whiskey Tax, I am not so sure calling that tax an "unjust" tax is correct. I am no fan of taxation, but I am not an anarchist either. If we are to have government, taxation is a necessary part of that, in order to keep the wheels of government moving.

The Whiskey Tax was a tax that people could, and ultimately did defeat, through peaceful means. As far as unjust taxes go, The Constitution for the United States of America has set forth regulations on how Congress can levy taxes, and they can either lay and collect a tax directly upon property, or as a head count, or they can levy a tax indirectly as in imposts, tariff's, and excise. When levied directly, Congress must apportion these taxes across the states, and when levied indirectly the taxes must be uniform across the states. The Whiskey Tax was an indirect tax that was uniform in its nature, and as such, well within the principles of Constitutional taxation. However, you tell me, is the so called "income tax" a direct tax, or an indirect tax? What is the subject of the "income tax", is it people, property, or activities?

Nobody can effectively show how the so called "Personal Income Tax" operates within the principles of Constitutional taxation, and yet the vast majority of people accept it as a legal and just form of taxation. I do not think they accept it as such because George Washington sent troops to meet an armed insurrection more than 200 years ago. I think people accept this form of taxation because they are convinced they can vote themselves money because of it.

reply to post by wutone


Actually, they are both about equal.

But,we'll leave it up to the resident ATS 'experts' to decide that.

Originally posted by Jean Paul Zodeaux
reply to post by FortAnthem

 

While corn farmers were adversely affected by the Whiskey Tax, I am not so sure calling that tax an "unjust" tax is correct.

Acceptance of the excise tax varied with the scale of the production; large producers, who produced alcohol as a business venture, were more willing to accept the new tax. They could make an annual tax payment of six cents per gallon. A smaller producer, who only made whiskey occasionally, had to make payments throughout the year at a rate of about nine cents per gallon. Large producers could reduce the cost of the excise tax if they produced even larger quantities. Thus, the new tax gave the large producers a competitive advantage over small producers.

The smaller producers, who were generally in the western counties, had a very different perspective of the tax. To them the tax was abhorrent. The frontier farmers detested the excise because it was only payable in cash, something rare on the western frontier. Due to the great effort required to transport any product over the mountains back to the markets of the East, farmers felt it made much more sense to transport the distilled spirits of their grain rather than the raw grain itself.

Source

The tax was unjust on a number of levels; it affected the small producers more than the large business ventures and, with cash being very scarce in the west, it made it even more difficult for them to pay the tax.

reply to post by FortAnthem


Based upon what you posted, it would seem that the tax was not within the principles of Constitutional taxation. I have just done a quick search to see if I could find any legal challenges to that tax, but have been unable to find any. I did, however, find this interesting article, with this tidbit:

Rather than the whiskey tax rebellion being localized and swiftly put down, the true story turns out to be very different. The entire American back-country was gripped by a non-violent, civil disobedient refusal to pay the hated tax on whiskey. No local juries could be found to convict tax delinquents. The Whiskey Rebellion was actually widespread and successful, for it eventually forced the federal government to repeal the excise tax.

www.lewrockwell.com...

Armed insurrections will most assuredly be met with force, but as the above paragraph suggests, it wasn't the armed rebellion that ultimately led to this tax being repealed, but it was the more effective and peaceful means of non-acquiescence. The author of this article, Murray Rothbard, does not agree that the Whiskey Tax was a victory for the federal government and suggest that the rebellion, in the form of peaceful resistance, was:

The Whiskey Rebellion, then, considered properly, was a victory for liberty and property rather than for federal taxation. Perhaps this lesson will inspire a later generation of American taxpayers who are so harried and downtrodden as to make the whiskey or stamp taxes of old seem like Paradise.

It is interesting to me that no legal challenges to the Whiskey Tax can be found. Perhaps this tax was to close to the Revolution of Independence and the profound hate the American people had for tax collectors to merit any effort to challenge the tax in court.

reply to post by Jean Paul Zodeaux


The reason they were able to win is because of the widespread nature of the rebellion. If it had been focused in one area, the Feds could have squashed it easily.

It is unfortunate that the people of this nation are so divided over every little thing that they cannot come together to protest unjust government policies en-masse like the western settlers did. If the size of the protests were great enough, even all of the might of the US armed forces couldn't stand against it. Its a shame the people in the US can't organize any nation-wide strikes like the people in Europe do. But then again, a lot of those European countries are only the size of some of the states over here.

reply to post by FortAnthem


Take heart my friend, obviously by the posts in this thread, you and I are not in total agreement on specifics in some issues, but divided? We are allies in the cause for freedom, and it has been my great pleasure and honor in this site, not only to forge alliances with the likes of people like you, but with progressives and people who do not even come close to sharing our political views, and yet, they are as equally passionate in the cause for freedom as you and I are.

Nothing brings people together like the distaste for a common enemy does. While our own government has desperately tried to create a common enemy in the form of terrorism, their mad rush to label American citizens as "enemies of the state" and "terrorists" is, I believe, uniting people from all walks of the political spectrum, and the common enemy is becoming our own government, who has willingly declared us, enemies of the state, when without us, there is no state.

reply to post by FortAnthem


It is unfortunate that the people of this nation are so divided over every little thing that they cannot come together to protest unjust government policies en-masse like the western settlers did. If the size of the protests were great enough, even all of the might of the US armed forces couldn't stand against it. Its a shame the people in the US can't organize any nation-wide strikes like the people in Europe do. But then again, a lot of those European countries are only the size of some of the states over here.

I think some of the people of this nation are afraid of seeing the guys in the helmets with UN stamped on 'em driving down our streets. It has to be fear of some kind that enables us to not protest, to go with what we're given. People are pretty quiet and scared.

Originally posted by FortAnthem
reply to post by neo96

 

The problem with returning to the Constitution is that the Constitution never had the power to enforce its rules upon the people in power in the government. The examples I pointed out prove that. The Constitution may have provided some sound principals for limited government but then, it left it up to the government to enforce those principals upon itself!!!

It is the foxes guarding the hen-house. It will never work, and after reviewing the actions of the early government, it becomes quite obvious that it never has, not even in the beginning.

This is incorrect. The Constitution appointed guardians to ensure that the government maintained its charter: The People.

It is The People who fell down on the job. We let the drunks guard the henhouse, not the foxes.

The 2nd Amendment was the "insurance policy". And the apathy of The People canceled it out.

reply to post by bigfatfurrytexan


exactly. It isn't 'the government', because that is only an external excuse. And a scary one, seeing as how we are actually blessed to have a system of government that can, in practice, be an extension of the will of the people. Blaming 'the government' seems to be how the ignorant externalize all blame, instead of taking personal responsibility.

The real problem is the people are mostly stupid and lazy. nd nothing will change that until our culture of comfort and consumer complacency collapses in on itself.

Originally posted by queenofsheba
reply to post by FortAnthem

 

It is unfortunate that the people of this nation are so divided over every little thing that they cannot come together to protest unjust government policies en-masse like the western settlers did. If the size of the protests were great enough, even all of the might of the US armed forces couldn't stand against it. Its a shame the people in the US can't organize any nation-wide strikes like the people in Europe do. But then again, a lot of those European countries are only the size of some of the states over here.

Exactly. The comparison is apples and oranges. Most european countries have an incredibly dense, urban population. The US population is spread out over 3.79 million sq. miles.France is a little over 200 thousand sq. mi.

The larger and more homogenus the country gets, the less of a chance for any cohesive movement to take hold. There are too many differing opinions, too many factions. In some ways this is good. In others, very bad.

reply to post by bigfatfurrytexan

This is incorrect. The Constitution appointed guardians to ensure that the government maintained its charter: The People.

It is The People who fell down on the job. We let the drunks guard the henhouse, not the foxes.

The 2nd Amendment was the "insurance policy". And the apathy of The People canceled it out.

The people of the early American republic were ready and willing to use their 2nd Amendment rights to fight against government tyranny. Unfortunately, the presidents of that time realised this and were quick to take action to crush the early uprisings.

Every time the people took to curbing the power of the federal government, the movement was labeled an "Insurrection" and federal forces were dispatched to end it quickly and decisively in the government's favor. They made a point of showing that any time the people used their 2nd Amendment rights to oppose government oppression, they would be branded as outlaws and destroyed by overwhelming force from the government.

In the days of the founders, those who chose to exercise their 2nd amendment rights were labeled "insurrectionist and traitors" some were even tried for the crime of treason. Today, anyone who even thinks about opposing the government with any force is instantly labeled a "terrorist" subjecting themselves to indefinite imprisonment by the federal government of even summary assassination by order of the President.

Is it any wonder that the American public has lost its appetite for standing up to the government? The US government has been crushing dissent since its very inception and now, 200 years later, it has mastered the art.

Originally posted by FortAnthem

The people of the early American republic were ready and willing to use their 2nd Amendment rights to fight against government tyranny. Unfortunately, the presidents of that time realised this and were quick to take action to crush the early uprisings.

Every time the people took to curbing the power of the federal government, the movement was labeled an "Insurrection" and federal forces were dispatched to end it quickly and decisively in the government's favor. They made a point of showing that any time the people used their 2nd Amendment rights to oppose government oppression, they would be branded as outlaws and destroyed by overwhelming force from the government.

In the days of the founders, those who chose to exercise their 2nd amendment rights were labeled "insurrectionist and traitors" some were even tried for the crime of treason. Today, anyone who even thinks about opposing the government with any force is instantly labeled a "terrorist" subjecting themselves to indefinite imprisonment by the federal government of even summary assassination by order of the President.

Is it any wonder that the American public has lost its appetite for standing up to the government? The US government has been crushing dissent since its very inception and now, 200 years later, it has mastered the art.

And that would likely be a good reason why you should first try peaceful means. In the process, gain support for your viewpoint. If it becomes apparent that your viewpoint is valid in the eyes of your brothers and sisters, then it likely would become politically expedient to address it on the part of our leaders.

And this is why we have such vehement opposition to the notion that the US should be allowed to assassinate people, especially our own citizens. Well, that and several other things.

Change CAN happen. But it is going to require that people become disgruntled enough that they are willing to see change as better than the status quo. Humans are funny about that kind of stuff.

Regardless, an armed insurrection without lots of diplomatic diligence SHOULD be crushed. That is a coup, and definitely will not allow liberty to endure.

reply to post by FortAnthem


Remember that a government cannot pull militia/military out of their collective rectum. People have to be willing to march to defend that system of government. They can't just poof up little robots of kill. There have to be people willing to be the soldiers, people willing to fund the soldiers, feed the soldiers, etc. It's not a one-sided ordeal of the government versus the people. It was one group of people versus another - legitimately upset or not, you can't expect a large 'revolt' that appears to threaten the sanctity of the union to go unchallenged. Why did they go through all the trouble of making the Constitution if no one is going to defend the system it established?

On one hand, you can't have a "do whatever you want" system of government... that's not a system, that's Potluck government, and it doesn't work too well outside of small communities. Part of the price of mutual protection, standard currency, etc that come along with citizenship and member-state status is taxation. That stuff doesn't come for free.

It is inevitable that some policies made by the federal government will fail to account for differences in culture, environment, etc. This is why power is supposed to be centralized in the States. In any case - you must also realize that the times were different, then. People were still in the "What!? Taxes!? Down with the Ki... er... President!" mode. People were trigger-happy, and understandably so, and it was -feared- by supporters of the union that people would resort to violence before peaceful means.

Look at it this way - if every group that disagreed on a single tax issue was allowed to mob-up and start a little coupe without meeting a state/federal response... what would happen? The government would be useless. There is a legal process for addressing concerns with legislation and presidential acts for times when issues such as the whiskey tax are imposed. Only after the system has completely failed should an actual rebellion be considered. Otherwise you may as well just go back to "whoever can win at attrition warfare calls the shots."