Comment: That is almost hilarious Joe,

(See in situ)

In reply to comment: Quickly (see in situ)

Republicae's picture

That is almost hilarious Joe,

That is almost hilarious Joe, you accuse me of posting falsehoods and yet look at what you wrote. First, there was no “president” under The Articles of Confederation, there was therefore, no way to limit “the president” to what he could or could not do when there existed no “president”. That is a patently false Joe.

Shay's Rebellion was not much of a rebellion, those involved were mainly people who had served in the Revolutionary War, the veterans, overburdened with the State's taxation on them to pay for the debts of the war, began to form regiments, the talk of rebellion began to surface. The actual rebellion and the actions take to subdue it were so insubstantial that it is hardly worth mentioning. The rebels attempted to storm a federal arsenal and when the arsenal fired two volleys from their cannons the rebels scattered and the rebellion was over.

Again, you are incorrect, and make false statements yet once more. There is no doubt that the Whiskey Rebellion was more of an actual rebellion than Shay's, but it appears that you are simply distorting facts once again to promote your agenda, whatever that might be.

Alexander Hamilton, betrayer of the Revolution, used his slippery tongue to persuade Congress to pass an excise tax as a supplement to revenues. Hamilton called the whiskey tax a luxury tax, but no one, not even Hamilton thought that there would be an uproar about the tax since whiskey had been taxed prior to the War without any real discord. What sparked the unrest was that soon rumors spread that not only would whiskey be taxed, but the government would also tax food, clothing and other trade goods.

The reality of the tax was that it ended up being a tax on money, those in the western territories depended on rye whiskey, not only as commodity to sale, but also as a barter item, thus when a 25% excise tax on whiskey hit the entire region was in open revolt, the fact that the tax collector of those taxes received a great sum for his services didn't set too well with the farmers and inhabitants of the region either.

The tax had been implemented in 1792 and while there were some protest, it didn't amount to much. Yet, as anger grew so grew the degree of violence heaped against the tax collectors and those who decided to pay the taxes, they were subjected to being kidnapped, beaten, tarred and feathered and in one instance, the man was branded with a hot iron before being tarred and feathered.

By 1794, the rebellion caused a compete break-down in all civil order and it was at that time a judge declared that a state of insurrection existed in Western Pennsylvania. Congress, at the behest of Alexander Hamilton, gave President Washington the authorization to put down the insurrection as prescribed in Article I, Section VIII of the U.S. Constitution, the same Constitution that was Ratified by the State of Pennsylvania. Washington called out the militia from four of the surrounding States and entered Western Pennsylvania, but there was no military confrontation, the rebels surrendered and accepted a complete and full amnesty from the government, not a single rebel was punished or spent time in jail for his actions. Yet, you make it seem to be so much more than it actually was...why? Jefferson, when he entered office repealed the tax.

Keep SPINNING it Joe, you seem to be good at that!

http://militantjeffersonian.com

"We are not a nation, but a union, a confederacy of equal and sovereign States" John C. Calhoun