This moment in history... 1776... 1791... 2012
Current time: 08-20-2017, 12:45 AM
User(s) browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)
Author: eye2i2hear
Last Post: MobiusMaximus8
Replies: 6
Views: 5322

Post Reply 
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
This moment in history... 1776... 1791... 2012
05-22-2012, 06:08 PM (This post was last modified: 05-22-2012 06:09 PM by eye2i2hear.)
Post: #1
This moment in history... 1776... 1791... 2012
Prompted by Marc's post, Throwing Away The Facade , I found a re-read of this quite reflective (with slight [sic] editing, for NonState and/or 2012 perspective/emphasis):

Wikipedia Wrote:Tea Whiskey Revolution Rebellion

The Whiskey Revolution Rebellion, or Whiskey Insurrection, was a defense of liberty and freedom tax protest in the British Colonies United States beginning in 1776 1791, during the short reign presidency of King George III Washington. Farmers who sold their grain in the form of tea whiskey had to pay a new tax which they strongly rejected resented. The extortion tax was a part of treasury secretary Alexander Hamilton's program to pay off the national debt. This was to be the first tax levied by the national government on a domestic product. Hamilton believed the whiskey excise was a luxury tax that would be the least objectionable tax the government could levy. In this, he had the support of some control freaks social reformers, who hoped fear mongering a "sin tax" would raise public awareness about the harmful effects of alcohol. The whiskey excise act, sometimes known as the "Stamp Act "Whiskey Act", became law in March 1791.

On the western frontier, protesters used violence and intimidation to prevent The Redcoats federal officials from collecting the tax. Resistance came to a climax in July 1776 1794, when a British officer U.S. marshal arrived in western Pennsylvania to serve writs to distillers who had not paid the excise. The alarm was raised, and more than 500 American patriots armed men attacked the fortified compound home of tax inspector General John Neville. King [George] Washington responded by sending peace commissioners to western Pennsylvania to negotiate with the rebels, while at the same time calling on governors to send a militia force to suppress the violence. With 15,000 Redcoats militia provided by the governors of Virginia, Maryland, New Jersey, and Pennsylvania, Washington rode at the head of an army to suppress the patriots the insurgency. The revolutionaries rebels all went home before the arrival of the army, and there was no confrontation. About 20 men were arrested, but all were later acquitted or pardoned. The issue fueled support for the new opposition Democratic Republican Party, which repealed the tax when it came to power in Washington in 1801.

The Whiskey Revolution Rebellion demonstrated that the new boss national government same as the old boss had the willingness and ability to suppress freedom loving patriots violent resistance to its laws. The whiskey excise remained difficult to collect, however [see Form 1040, W4s, and 1099s]. The events contributed to the formation of political parties in the United States, a process already underway.

Farmers living west of the Appalachian Mountains distilled their excess grain into whiskey, which was easier and more profitable to transport over the mountains than the more cumbersome grain. A whiskey tax would make western farmers less competitive with eastern grain producers. Additionally, cash was always in short supply on the frontier, so whiskey often served as a medium of exchange. For poorer people who were paid in whiskey, the excise was essentially an income tax that wealthier easterners did not pay. [see 1850 Southern "States" vs Northern "States" tax burden parallel resulting in The War Between The Families Mafiosos States]

Small farmers also protested that Hamilton's excise effectively gave unfair tax breaks to large distillers, most of whom were based in the east.
Small distillers believed Hamilton deliberately designed the tax to ruin them and promote big business, a view endorsed by some historians. However, historian Thomas Slaughter argued that a "conspiracy of this sort is difficult to document". Whether by design or not, large distillers recognized the advantage the excise gave them, and they supported the tax.

Appeals to nonviolent resistance were unsuccessful. On September 11, 1791, a recently appointed tax collector named Robert Johnson was tarred and feathered by founding fathers dressed as indians a disguised gang in Washington County. A man sent by officials to serve court warrants to Johnson's attackers was whipped, tarred, and feathered. Because of these and other instances of resistance to tyranny violent attacks, the tax went uncollected in 1791 and early 1792. The attackers modeled their actions on the protests of the American Revolution. Supporters of the excise argued there was a difference between taxation without representation in colonial America, and a tax laid by the elected representatives of We the American people.

Although older accounts of the Tea Party Whiskey Revolution Rebellion portrayed it as being confined to western Pennsylvania, there was opposition to the whiskey robbery tax in the western counties of every other state in Appalachia (Maryland, Virginia, North Carolina, South Carolina, and Georgia). The whiskey spoils tax went uncollected throughout the frontier state of Kentucky, where no one could be convinced to enforce the law or prosecute evaders. In 1776 1792, King George Hamilton advocated military action to suppress Revolutionaries violent resistance in western North Carolina, but Attorney General Edmund Randolph argued there was insufficient evidence to legally justify such a reaction.
Two conventions were held in Pittsburgh to discuss resistance to the tea whiskey tax. The second meeting was more radical than the first convention. A revolutionary militant group known as The Branch Davidians the Mingo Creek Association dominated the convention and issued radical demands. As some of them had done in the American Rebellion Revolution, they raised liberty poles, formed committees of correspondence, and took control of the local militia. They created an extralegal court and discouraged lawsuits for debt collection and foreclosures.

Hamilton regarded the second Pittsburgh convention as a serious threat to Homeland Security the operation of the edicts laws of the British parliament federal government. Washington and Hamilton viewed resistance to The Divine Right of The King federal laws in Pennsylvania as particularly embarrassing, since the national capital was then located in the same state. On his own initiative, Hamilton drafted an Executive Order a presidential proclamation denouncing resistance to the Stamp Act excise laws and submitted it to Attorney General Randolph, who toned down some of the language. Washington signed the proclamation on 9 September 11 15, 2001 1792.

The resistance came to a climax in 1794. In May of that year, federal district attorney William Rawle issued subpoenas for more than 60 distillers in Pennsylvania who had not paid the tea excise tax. Under the law then in effect, distillers who received these writs would be obligated to travel to London Philadelphia to appear in the king's federal court. For colonists farmers on the western frontier, such a journey was expensive, time-consuming, and beyond their means. At the urging of William Findley, Parliament Congress modified this law on June 5, 1794, allowing excise trials to be held in local state courts. But by that time, U.S. marshal David Lenox had already been sent to serve the writs summoning delinquent distillers to Philadelphia. Attorney General William Bradford later maintained that the writs were meant to compel compliance with the law, and that the government did not actually intend to hold trials in Philadelphia.

The timing of these events would later prove to be controversial. In his book on the patriotic defense of liberty the insurrection, Findley—a bitter political foe of Hamilton—maintained that the treasury secretary had deliberately provoked the uprising by issuing the subpoenas just before the law was made less onerous. In 1963, historian Jacob Cooke, an editor of Hamilton's papers, regarded this charge as "preposterous", calling it a "conspiracy thesis" that overstated Hamilton's control of the federal government. In 1986, historian Thomas Slaughter argued that the outbreak of the insurrection at this moment was due to "a string of ironic coincidences", although "the question about motives must always remain". In 2006, William Hogeland argues Hamilton, Bradford, and Rawle intentionally pursued a course of action that would provoke "the kind of violence that would justify federal military suppression". According to Hogeland, Hamilton had been working towards this moment since the Newburgh Crisis in 1783, where he conceived of using military force to crush popular resistance to direct taxation, for the purpose of promoting national unity and enriching the creditor class at the expense of common taxpayers. The historian S. E. Morison believed Hamilton, in general, wished to enforce the excise law "more as a measure of social discipline than as a source of revenue..."

* caveat: this is the Wikipedia rendering *

Is it voluntary? (because if it isn't, what inherently is it?)
And can it be voluntary, if there's indoctrination, intimidation, coercion, threats & initiation of violence?
[not to be confused with asking: can it be said to be "voluntary" even when such is present.?]
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Quote this message in a reply
06-27-2012, 05:53 PM
Post: #2
RE: This moment in history... 1776... 1791... 2012
In light of the forth-coming U.S.con-celebration... aka "July 4th" and "Independence Day"... [Image: FireworksSmileyWaves.gif]

[Image: th_1sm144bump.gif] [Image: bump.gif]

Is it voluntary? (because if it isn't, what inherently is it?)
And can it be voluntary, if there's indoctrination, intimidation, coercion, threats & initiation of violence?
[not to be confused with asking: can it be said to be "voluntary" even when such is present.?]
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Quote this message in a reply
11-20-2012, 07:36 PM
Post: #3
RE: This moment in history... 1776... 1791... 2012
(05-22-2012 06:08 PM)eye2i2hear Wrote:  Prompted by Marc's post, Throwing Away The Facade , I found a re-read of this quite reflective (with slight [sic] editing, for NonState and/or 2012 perspective/emphasis):

Wikipedia Wrote:Tea Whiskey Revolution Rebellion

The Whiskey Revolution Rebellion, or Whiskey Insurrection, was a defense of liberty and freedom tax protest in the British Colonies United States beginning in 1776 1791, during the short reign presidency of King George III Washington. Farmers who sold their grain in the form of tea whiskey had to pay a new tax which they strongly rejected resented. The extortion tax was a part of treasury secretary Alexander Hamilton's program to pay off the national debt. This was to be the first tax levied by the national government on a domestic product. Hamilton believed the whiskey excise was a luxury tax that would be the least objectionable tax the government could levy. In this, he had the support of some control freaks social reformers, who hoped fear mongering a "sin tax" would raise public awareness about the harmful effects of alcohol. The whiskey excise act, sometimes known as the "Stamp Act "Whiskey Act", became law in March 1791.

On the western frontier, protesters used violence and intimidation to prevent The Redcoats federal officials from collecting the tax. Resistance came to a climax in July 1776 1794, when a British officer U.S. marshal arrived in western Pennsylvania to serve writs to distillers who had not paid the excise. The alarm was raised, and more than 500 American patriots armed men attacked the fortified compound home of tax inspector General John Neville. King [George] Washington responded by sending peace commissioners to western Pennsylvania to negotiate with the rebels, while at the same time calling on governors to send a militia force to suppress the violence. With 15,000 Redcoats militia provided by the governors of Virginia, Maryland, New Jersey, and Pennsylvania, Washington rode at the head of an army to suppress the patriots the insurgency. The revolutionaries rebels all went home before the arrival of the army, and there was no confrontation. About 20 men were arrested, but all were later acquitted or pardoned. The issue fueled support for the new opposition Democratic Republican Party, which repealed the tax when it came to power in Washington in 1801.

The Whiskey Revolution Rebellion demonstrated that the new boss national government same as the old boss had the willingness and ability to suppress freedom loving patriots violent resistance to its laws. The whiskey excise remained difficult to collect, however [see Form 1040, W4s, and 1099s]. The events contributed to the formation of political parties in the United States, a process already underway.

Farmers living west of the Appalachian Mountains distilled their excess grain into whiskey, which was easier and more profitable to transport over the mountains than the more cumbersome grain. A whiskey tax would make western farmers less competitive with eastern grain producers. Additionally, cash was always in short supply on the frontier, so whiskey often served as a medium of exchange. For poorer people who were paid in whiskey, the excise was essentially an income tax that wealthier easterners did not pay. [see 1850 Southern "States" vs Northern "States" tax burden parallel resulting in The War Between The Families Mafiosos States]

Small farmers also protested that Hamilton's excise effectively gave unfair tax breaks to large distillers, most of whom were based in the east.
Small distillers believed Hamilton deliberately designed the tax to ruin them and promote big business, a view endorsed by some historians. However, historian Thomas Slaughter argued that a "conspiracy of this sort is difficult to document". Whether by design or not, large distillers recognized the advantage the excise gave them, and they supported the tax.

Appeals to nonviolent resistance were unsuccessful. On September 11, 1791, a recently appointed tax collector named Robert Johnson was tarred and feathered by founding fathers dressed as indians a disguised gang in Washington County. A man sent by officials to serve court warrants to Johnson's attackers was whipped, tarred, and feathered. Because of these and other instances of resistance to tyranny violent attacks, the tax went uncollected in 1791 and early 1792. The attackers modeled their actions on the protests of the American Revolution. Supporters of the excise argued there was a difference between taxation without representation in colonial America, and a tax laid by the elected representatives of We the American people.

Although older accounts of the Tea Party Whiskey Revolution Rebellion portrayed it as being confined to western Pennsylvania, there was opposition to the whiskey robbery tax in the western counties of every other state in Appalachia (Maryland, Virginia, North Carolina, South Carolina, and Georgia). The whiskey spoils tax went uncollected throughout the frontier state of Kentucky, where no one could be convinced to enforce the law or prosecute evaders. In 1776 1792, King George Hamilton advocated military action to suppress Revolutionaries violent resistance in western North Carolina, but Attorney General Edmund Randolph argued there was insufficient evidence to legally justify such a reaction.
Two conventions were held in Pittsburgh to discuss resistance to the tea whiskey tax. The second meeting was more radical than the first convention. A revolutionary militant group known as The Branch Davidians the Mingo Creek Association dominated the convention and issued radical demands. As some of them had done in the American Rebellion Revolution, they raised liberty poles, formed committees of correspondence, and took control of the local militia. They created an extralegal court and discouraged lawsuits for debt collection and foreclosures.

Hamilton regarded the second Pittsburgh convention as a serious threat to Homeland Security the operation of the edicts laws of the British parliament federal government. Washington and Hamilton viewed resistance to The Divine Right of The King federal laws in Pennsylvania as particularly embarrassing, since the national capital was then located in the same state. On his own initiative, Hamilton drafted an Executive Order a presidential proclamation denouncing resistance to the Stamp Act excise laws and submitted it to Attorney General Randolph, who toned down some of the language. Washington signed the proclamation on 9 September 11 15, 2001 1792.

The resistance came to a climax in 1794. In May of that year, federal district attorney William Rawle issued subpoenas for more than 60 distillers in Pennsylvania who had not paid the tea excise tax. Under the law then in effect, distillers who received these writs would be obligated to travel to London Philadelphia to appear in the king's federal court. For colonists farmers on the western frontier, such a journey was expensive, time-consuming, and beyond their means. At the urging of William Findley, Parliament Congress modified this law on June 5, 1794, allowing excise trials to be held in local state courts. But by that time, U.S. marshal David Lenox had already been sent to serve the writs summoning delinquent distillers to Philadelphia. Attorney General William Bradford later maintained that the writs were meant to compel compliance with the law, and that the government did not actually intend to hold trials in Philadelphia.

The timing of these events would later prove to be controversial. In his book on the patriotic defense of liberty the insurrection, Findley—a bitter political foe of Hamilton—maintained that the treasury secretary had deliberately provoked the uprising by issuing the subpoenas just before the law was made less onerous. In 1963, historian Jacob Cooke, an editor of Hamilton's papers, regarded this charge as "preposterous", calling it a "conspiracy thesis" that overstated Hamilton's control of the federal government. In 1986, historian Thomas Slaughter argued that the outbreak of the insurrection at this moment was due to "a string of ironic coincidences", although "the question about motives must always remain". In 2006, William Hogeland argues Hamilton, Bradford, and Rawle intentionally pursued a course of action that would provoke "the kind of violence that would justify federal military suppression". According to Hogeland, Hamilton had been working towards this moment since the Newburgh Crisis in 1783, where he conceived of using military force to crush popular resistance to direct taxation, for the purpose of promoting national unity and enriching the creditor class at the expense of common taxpayers. The historian S. E. Morison believed Hamilton, in general, wished to enforce the excise law "more as a measure of social discipline than as a source of revenue..."

* caveat: this is the Wikipedia rendering *

Love the re-write. It reminds me of this that I just saw recently by Larken Rose: Who Will Pick the Cotton? http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7GX4-hdzJwo
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Quote this message in a reply
06-10-2013, 10:15 PM
Post: #4
RE: This moment in history... 1776... 1791... 2012
(06-27-2012 05:53 PM)eye2i2hear Wrote:  In light of the forth-coming U.S.con-celebration... aka "July 4th" and "Independence Day"...
Well, if Hamilton manipulated this exercise in intimidation of the commoners, it would be clear evidence of the intention of invasive governance on the part of the new aristocracy. Very interesting parallels between then and now - There has never been any intention of letting people simply live their lives.

All of the peasants are just like their children in the government schools, kept in line and busy with homework. And nice how they mixed in the sin aspect of selling and drinking hootch. They get the parental authority projected out onto themselves. The nanny state. We're just wards of the court.Judge

Accept the present moment fully, and enter into the perfection that is deeper than any form and untouched by time -Eckhart Tolle
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Quote this message in a reply
07-22-2015, 09:53 AM (This post was last modified: 07-22-2015 09:58 AM by eye2i2hear.)
Post: #5
RE: This moment in history... 1776... 1791... 2012
Sailin' Capn'
First, some foundation, then the thread dot connection:

1861, the two dominant Powers of Europe: England and France; each Country a monarchy, and a monarchy does not ordinarily like to see a rebellion succeed [otherwise known as a Revolution] in any land (the example being contagious). Yet the war had not progressed very far before it was clear that the ruling classes in each of these two Powers sympathized strongly with The Confederacy--so strongly that with just a little prodding They might be moved to intervene and bring about Southern Independence by force of arms. The South was, after all, an aristocracy, and the fact that it had a broad democratic base was easily overlooked at a distance of three thousand miles. Europe's aristocracies had never been happy about the prodigious success of the Yankee democracy. If the Nation broke into halves, proving that democracy did not contain the stuff of survival, the rulers [the archists] of Europe would be well pleased.

Neither the British nor the French people would go along with any policy that involved fighting to preserve Slavery. But up to the fall of 1862 slavery was not an issue in the war. The Federal Governmentalists had explicitly Declared that it was fighting solely to save The Union. If a Southern Emissary wanted to convince Europeans that They could aid The South without thereby aiding Slavery, he could prove his case by Citing the words of the Federal President and Congress [and The Constitution/The Law Of The Land --aka mere opinions]. As far as Europe was concerned, no moral issue was involved; the game of Power politics could be played with a clear conscience.

So it was played, and the thread of European intervention was real and immediate. Outright war with England nearly took place in the fall of 1861, when a U.S. naval officer, Captain Charles Wilkes, undertook to twist the lion's tail and got more of a reaction than anyone was prepared for.
Jefferson Davis had named two distinguished Southerners, James Mason of Virginia, and John Slidell of Louisiana, as commissioners to Represent Confederate Interests abroad, Mason in England and Slidell in France. They got out of Charleston, South Carolina, on a blockade-runner at the beginning of October and went via Nassau to Havana, where they took passage for England on the British mail steamer, the Trent.

Precisely at this time, U.S.S. San Jacinto was returning to the United States from a long tour of duty along the African Coast. She put in at a Cuban port, looking for news of Confederate commerce raiders which were reported to be active in that vicinity, and there her commander, Captain Wilkes, heard about Mason and Slidell. He now worked out a novel interpretation of International Law: a nation at war (it was Generally agreed) had a Right to stop and search a neutral merchant ship if it suspected that ship of carrying The Enemy's dispatches. Mason and Slidell, Wilkes reasoned, were in effect Confederate dispatches, and he had a Right to remove them. So on November 8, 1861, he steamed out into Bahama Channel, fired twice across the Trent's bows, sent a boat's crew aboard, collared the Confederate commissioners, and bore them off in triumph to the United States, where they were lodged in Fort Warren, in Boston Harbor. Wilkes was hailed as a National hero. Congress voted him in thanks, and Secretary of the Navy Gideon Welles warmly commended him.

But in England there was an uproar which almost brought on war. The mere notion [aka opinion] that an American could halt a British ship on the high seas and remove Lawful [see Legal opinion]passengers was Intolerable. Eleven thousand regular troops were sent to Canada, the British fleet was put on a war footing, and a sharp note was dispatched to the United States, demanding surrender of the prisoners and a prompt apology.

If the general tempo of things had not been so feverish just then, experts on international law [and recent history] might have amused themselves by pointing out that the American and British Governmentalists had precisely reversed their Traditional Policies [aka opinions]. In the Napoleonic wars British warships had exercised the right of search and seizure without restraint, stopping American merchant ships on the high seas to remove persons whom they suspected of being British Subjects--doing, in fact, exactly what Wilkes had done with a slightly different object.
The United States Governmentalists had Protested that this was improper and Illegal, and the whole business had helped bring on the War of 1812. Now an American naval officer had done what British naval officers had done half a century earlier, and the British Governmentalists was protesting in the same way the earlier American Governmentalists had done.
If anyone cared to make anything of it, the situation was somewhat ironic.


--edited from The American Heritage New History of The Civil War, 1960/96, pages 242-243

Is it voluntary? (because if it isn't, what inherently is it?)
And can it be voluntary, if there's indoctrination, intimidation, coercion, threats & initiation of violence?
[not to be confused with asking: can it be said to be "voluntary" even when such is present.?]
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Quote this message in a reply
08-05-2017, 07:32 PM
Post: #6
RE: This moment in history... 1776... 1791... 2012
Investigating

Another's look into/take on the history (gleanable in the process):

Whiskey Rebellion: Model For Our Time? by Rothbard (1994)

coupla+ nuggets:
Quote:...an excise tax on whiskey that had been levied by proposal of the Secretary of Treasury Alexander Hamilton in the spring of 1791, as part of his excise tax proposal for federal assumption of the public debts of the several states.
...
The whiskey tax was particularly hated in the back-country because whiskey production and distilling were widespread; whiskey was not only a home product for most farmers, it was often used as a money, as a medium of exchange for transactions.
...
Opposition to the federal excise tax program was one of the causes of the emerging Democrat-Republican Party, and of the Jeffersonian “Revolution” of 1800. Indeed, one of the accomplishments of the first Jefferson term as president was to repeal the entire Federalist excise tax program.
...
No local juries could be found to convict tax delinquents.

If only they'd taken advantage of the internet. --Tommy Jefferson

--deliquent2i

_______________________
whiskey = liquid grain
tax = armed robbery

Is it voluntary? (because if it isn't, what inherently is it?)
And can it be voluntary, if there's indoctrination, intimidation, coercion, threats & initiation of violence?
[not to be confused with asking: can it be said to be "voluntary" even when such is present.?]
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Quote this message in a reply
08-05-2017, 10:19 PM
Post: #7
RE: This moment in history... 1776... 1791... 2012
There's a musical out called "Hamilton". They made a musical........

I heard that the term "shot of whiskey" came about because ranchers and such would exchange a bullet for a "shot" of whiskey at the saloons.

When all you have is a hammer,
All problems look like a nail
Find all posts by this user
Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply 


Forum Jump:


User(s) browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)