It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Thank you.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
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?
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.