30 votes



Trending on the Web

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.

Throwing off the yoke of the English Crown, we were outlaws.

We bragged about being free, alas.

We were a nation of outlaws. No tax to be paid to the English King nor Crown of London. We established ourselves as outside the reach of the law of England. The Continental Congress #1 law was enacted as the "Declaration of Independence." Other countries were interested to step in & help divide the spoils. We created the "Articles of Confederation" for our common defense. We got a bit organized. In 1789 we saw fit to draft a "Constitution." We spelled out 3 federal crimes & their respective. We spelled out 10 rights as amendments to affirm rightful limits of our republic. No punishment mentioned. Then we set about our business.

We did make some good whiskey. General George Washington's ride toward Philadelphia was regaled time & time again. Many knelt at the sight of General Washington. I was not there. My kin told me many a story. Some said General. Some President. We thought it hospitable to share. All spoke in respectful terms. Share we did.

I am generally in favor of Thomas Jefferson's response. It was a business matter. Military response was not necessary.

Here is a better organized report of the rebellion & response: http://www.history.com/this-day-in-history/george-washington...

Disclaimer: Mark Twain (1835-1910-To be continued) is unlicensed. His river pilot's license went delinquent in 1862. Caution advised. Daily Paul

Note it says GWashington issued proclamation

That's what they now call 'executive order'. So from the start we had presidents issuing executive orders granting themselves unConstitutional authority. The govt went to war against its people - albeit a skirmish and not full-fledged 'war'. It's the Hamiltonian interpretation of 'implied powers' that won the day and our govt now rules by and not the Jeffersonian fact of limited power.

If Tyranny and Oppression come to this land, it will be in the guise of fighting a foreign enemy.
James Madison

Pretty much. Jefferson counseled in the opposite direction.

Many wanted George Washington as king. Those said same were surprised when he did not assume the throne. Again, when he retired after two 4 year terms as President.

Kings of the day issued proclamations to express their orders & commands. Washington's actions were in keeping with affairs of the day.

The aforementioned many vicariously marched aside Washington en-route to quell the rebellion. Washington himself was bridled by Alexander Hamilton's dire warning that he must act forcefully to extract enacted taxes. Few men pay taxes on their own volition, Hamilton argued. Washington called to service 13 thousand troops. Put on his uniform & tethered his horse to his carriage. Rode solemnly out Philadelphia way with Hamilton prodding him on. Washington got down from his carriage by & by to ride his horse before gathering crowds. He could not bring himself all the way to Philadelphia to confront the rebels. He entrusted Hamilton to handle the unpleasant confrontation. By the time Hamilton arrived to confront the rebels, they had dispersed. 13 thousand troops faced a long walk back home.

Undoubtedly, many of the rebels Washington sought to quell, were the loyal subjects that wished him well aside his campaign route. Most greatly respected Washington. Taxes were not welcome; yet, none stood to fight him. Great for history books. Twaren't really a battle a'tall

Ever more, July 16 has been commemorated as Whiskey Day.
The Whiskey Rebellion, 1794

Disclaimer: Mark Twain (1835-1910-To be continued) is unlicensed. His river pilot's license went delinquent in 1862. Caution advised. Daily Paul

L. Neil Smith wrote an entertaining series of novels

about the "North American Confederacy" -- a very libertarian alternative future universe in which Washington was hanged as a traitor for his tyrannical role in the Whiskey Rebellion. The first book in the series was The Probability Broach. Fun stuff.

Recommended reading: The Most Dangerous Superstition by Larken Rose

yes...the more you read the

yes...the more you read the better anarchy looks...it a natural progression.

If my need to be RIGHT is greater than my desire for TRUTH, then I will not recognize it when it arrives ~ Libertybelle

The problem I see with that is,,,,

...the vast majority of people simply aren't ready for self-governance, and IMO, never will be. I say this because the herd mentality behavior so many here on the DP love pointing out at every opportunity is simply part of who we are as a species. Keep in mind that most humans we running around in hunting/gathering clans not even 15,000 years ago, and from an evolutionary standpoint 15,000 years is barely a blink of an eye. We've never been a species filled with highly individualistic people, rather we are the exception to the rule of "sheeple".

That, and the fact that just as people have the right to govern themselves, they also have the right to want to be governed(I don't understand it either, some people just need a security blanket I suppose)...and the cycle will just endlessly repeat because eventually, the opposing ideologies will clash yet again down the line.

Basically, I believe that the struggle of freedom versus tyranny will be never ending, because we're basically fighting two opposing sides of our very nature; the desire to be free and the urge to control.

....or maybe I'm just talking out of my ass here. Who knows?

A signature used to be here!

That is an interesting point.

That is an interesting point. I would counter only by saying that the herd mentality cuts both ways.

If enough of the general population lives by self-governance, others will come to see it as the "normal" and "proper" state of affairs, and the herd will learn and condition themselves to self-govern accordingly from then on.

This was essentially Jefferson's dream. Was it a reality in the first 75 years of the Old Republic? Did most Americans self-govern in the US? I don't know for certain - but I would tend to think that any part of the US where homesteading was prominent and populations generally sparse, yes. Maybe its even the same now under those conditions. I don't know.

I hear you...

I hear you...you're not talking our your a**! Freedom, and the responsibility it entails, is not for everybody. There have always been those who want to be slaves, want the security of being herded and probably always will. I just do not happen to be one of them and you're at a web site that attracts the likes of us! My comment was for that growing number of us who, by reading and studing history, have come to realize the inevitable progression of government and that the smallest governments always metastize into the largest. Roman Republic...American Republic...every civilization eventually collapses as it outgrows it foundation. It is this realization that makes those thinkers, like me, go rogue and eschew any form of government.

If my need to be RIGHT is greater than my desire for TRUTH, then I will not recognize it when it arrives ~ Libertybelle

Empries don't fall into a vacuum. Promptly there is change...

of management. Occasionally, the new management is a pleasant surprise.

Disclaimer: Mark Twain (1835-1910-To be continued) is unlicensed. His river pilot's license went delinquent in 1862. Caution advised. Daily Paul

well said!

I ponder the same thoughts... freedom movement... exercise in futility???

I think you are on to something

Individualism is a more recent occurrence brought about by civilization, because it required individuals with specialized skills. You are right about people needing a security blanket. I see it everyday in my non-libertarian friends. They seem to want a wise father figure to reassure them that everything is going well, even though it is painfully obvious that it's not. The last paragraph maybe true also, although it saddens me because I hate tyranny with every ounce of my being. There will always be people willing to accept it as long as there is order and they are not inconvenienced too much.

Yes I have thought the same

yes I have thought the same thing. I think it is impossible to be totally free too, because there is always someone who is corrupt, wants to take control, or like you said dependant. I guess we just have to keep fighting to keep society free, because the alternative would be much worse.



Once you start discovering

Once you start discovering the hows and whys of history, rather than just the whos, whats, wheres and whens, the illusions about America's "benevolent" government are quickly dispelled, and replaced with visions of a repugnant machine, which its operators employ for one simple purpose, legal plunder.

The Whiskey Rebellion

was the result of Washington, at Hamiltons urging, sending a message that the central state was supreme. Lincolns war of Northern aggression cemented the deal. No more voluntary union, hello conquered country.

Yeah, but

those kind of contradictions and infractions happened once or twice in an administration back then. Now they happen once or twice a week.

The rot set in when we

The rot set in when we allowed those coup plotters in Philadelphia to overthrow our excellent first constitution: The Articles of Confederation.

Yeah if you read the origins

Yeah if you read the origins of the Constitution, the more Nationalist founders saw the Articles of Confederation as not centralized enough. One reason for a standing army, a central head of government(President) who had to be born in the U.S., among other things that were not in the Articles of Confederation. I wish Ron Paul would say he was more for the Articles of Confederation, and not the Constitution.

Hi didn't because if we can't the people to at least

grasp the Constitution, they will not be ready for the AoC.

Ron's strategy is to wean the people. Rand is doing it too, just breaking it down like as if adults are teenagers and not covering as much territory as Ron.

He is entirely wrong in

He is entirely wrong in claiming the Constitution. Without the Anti-Federalists, we would have never had the Bill of Rights. It is their legacy.







Under the AoC, unanimous decision is asking way too much. No wonder solutions to problems were not getting solved. The fix would have been an adjustment to the consensus process.

The roots of most of these folks came from England. And that influence, tweaked, won out in the end.

No consensus was required

No consensus was required under the document. The Articles of Confederation only required unanimous consent for amendments. It did NOT require it for such decisions as declaring war, issuing letters of Marque and Reprisal and even declaring war.

Compared to other revolutionary governments, the Articles was remarkably successful in its "solutions." Among its accomplishments were the defeat of the leading superpower, a favorable peace treaty, the Northwest Ordinance (banning slavery in the northern territories), and provisions for creating new states out the territories.

Thank you for some help.

What were some of the roadblocks to solving issues that were used to state why the Constitution was needed? I would probably have to pull out the Fedarlist / Anti-Federalist Papers to get some info.

This has not been an area I have studied in depth and it has been a while in trying to remember...

Enough of the History Lesson

People might start to wake up...

Alien and Sedition Acts...

What about government using military for corporations?

How about the gold rush in N Dakota. Custards last stand came into existence because of a gold rush that the government needed to clear Indians away to exploit.

What about using military to open ground and protect railways heading west?

I can go on and on. The reality is our country hasn't changed much since its founding.

Yep, even the Constitution

Yep, even the Constitution itself was orginally written for fat, bald, rich, white men. It didn't apply if you were black or an indian, or even a poor white.

Not to mention women.

Nor renters.