▲ 14 points
back
15 comments
I'm not a fan of this piece. It boils the grievances down to "they echoed the cries of the independence movement" and then dismisses their problems by saying they had representation.
It completely ignored that people were upset at the regressive nature of the tax, which targeted the poor in a variety of ways. Then, having Washington, one of the richest men in America, show up with an army to stop a protest by the poor is not a great look, even if he did express some reluctance to use force.
This article further praises Washington for making more money producing whiskey. Imagine any recent president starting a business in a field they heavily regulated, including calling the army in against civilians. Why is it fine when Washington did it?
Just a pointer for people to read up on Federalist and Democratic-Republican ideological differences at the time, even though they are often downplayed, and we also live in an age of thrashing on Jefferson being de rigeur. The US history plays out in constant schizophrenia between belief in sovereignty of the people (including the right to disobey, which actually has some European feudal roots) and belief in republic as a convenient framework for the people being ruled by enlightened gentry. The general outline of this was formed already during the debate on the proposed Constitution.
Its collective amnesia. The "republic" is always around when people get queasy about the revolutionary spirit. The form of representative democracy of the US has always been used as a blunt force weapon against the powerless masses to prevent progress.
In particular, these days small farmers (if there are any left) can hedge harvest market risks via futures trading. These wouldn't be invented until the mid-XIX, however, so in those days the farmer's best option for time-shifting crop sales was pretty much conversion from difficult-to-store-or-transport grain to easy-to-store-or-transport alcohol.
> Why is it fine when Washington did it?
People generally lack critical thinking, show me public school where this is properly taught (maybe France along with mandatory philosophy?). Thats where proper education for most stops.
Tons of folks want simple reality, black and white, and obviously to be on the good moral side. Any mental gymnastics or complexity is frowned upon.
You can see it in politics everywhere, politicians ie blaming immigrants for many if not all bad stuff happening. In US Trump winning almost twice. In Russia people being spoonfed outright lies but they feel good because they make russians look better and evidently thats all that counts. I can keep naming countries with sinilar issues, the number would be very close to number of existing countries, and probably equal.
> folks want simple reality, black and white ...
> In Russia people being spoonfed outright lies but they feel good because they make russians look better and evidently thats all that counts.
You seem to prove your own point. Is Russia really the only source of lies and propaganda in the world?
It doesn't matter that he was rich and the rebels were poor, they were a threat to the elected government and violating the law.
None of this rich vs. poor communist shit is relevant
>were a threat to the elected government
They really weren't. At the most they had around 500 rebels.
>violating the law.
Yep, they failed to pay a regressive tax the rich passed, and then failed to abandon their farms for weeks to travel to Philadelphia and stand trial.
If this shit isn't relevant, the entire rebellion isn't relevant.
good to question this out loud -- two things though.. As new territory, large new territory, the authority of a "Federal" government was not at all clear to everyone.. lots of pirates and French and slavers and others had their own agendas at that time, right? 2) taxation itself was central to the emergence of an independence movement. Taxation is certainly not popular.. so a popular figure in a new government, is shown enforcing the rights to declare taxation.. it is a problematic situation .. even the "right" moves may be publicized in a bad light.. rumor played an important role in distant times.
lastly, some people were not in favor of legal liquor at all.. the ruin of lives by liquor was well-known. It is difficult to think of all these things, and the plurality of the actors at the time.
Could not get to see the article, but checked wikipedia. It could be argued Shay's Renellion caused a change in direction of the early US (1786).
I think it’s pretty clear that Shay’s Rebellion lead to the rejection of the articles of confederation as a viable federal structuring document.
The Whiskey Rebellion answered a different question, which is “do people think the federal government is sufficiently real that they will form a well regulated militia against other citizens of their own state — or agree to be part of a militia to go across a state border to enforce federal law in a different state —, or are states more important than the country?”.
The answer was “the country is more important”, but i’ve always been pretty sure that the rest of the answer was “… because Washington asked, personally, and if it had been anyone else maybe the answer wouldn’t be the same”
> Veterans had received little pay during the war and faced added difficulty collecting payments owed to them from the State or the Congress of the Confederation.[14] Some soldiers began to organize protests against these oppressive economic conditions. In 1780, Daniel Shays resigned from the army unpaid and went home to find himself in court for non-payment of debts. He soon realized that he was not alone in his inability to pay his debts and began organizing for debt relief.
Man, veterans got a bad deal from the start. Well, I guess at least US Armed Forces payroll - and any other creditor - gets paid these days.
The only time a sitting president has led an army in the field.
Not disputing that, but Lincoln led reconnaissance before a battle or two in the Civil War.
https://hamptonroadsnavalmuseum.blogspot.com/2018/05/admiral...