Whiskey Rebellion Debate
Whiskey back in 1974 was distilled money for the frontline farmers. These are farmers that had no money and whiskey was the easiest and most profitable good for them. Everything for this farmers depended on the whiskey and this included even paying the preachers, whiskey was exchanged for the basic needs of these farmers including food and other supplies (Chesney, 1528). Under the presidency of George Washington, Congressional Federalists passed a whiskey tax on the nation’s whiskey producers in 1791 which sparked the whiskey rebellion. The tax was meant to help deal with the financial burden that the state was going through at the time. The tax was a good idea by Hamilton to help raise money for the state, but it negatively impacted the small producers and this is what triggered the rebellion. The rebellion itself consisted of two stand points, there were those that supported the taxes commonly known as the federalists and they included the large producers and the federal government. And there were those that opposed the tax commonly known as the democrats and they mostly included skilled workers and the small farmers (Chesney, p 1529).
The Federalist position denounced the Democratic - Republican Party as an illegitimate faction who they viewed, with fear of subversion in mind that the opposition to the Federalist policy equated to be active disloyalty to the Government. The rebellion by the democrats was viewed by the federalist to be a move to try and dis-empower the federal government and it was not tolerated hence the show case of power through the use of force (Patrone, p. 247). However, at the other end of the spectrum or rather the Democratic-Republican Party, which included the people, in which the tax affected the most, being the farmers and consumers of whiskey themselves saw the taxation as a discriminative move by the government against them. The tax was viewed as unfair and unjust, so in accordance to these solemn beliefs of constitutional rights a rebellion was formed in which was essentially hopeless. It was quickly shut down via retaliation from the government, but this was the first example of political suppression in our nation's history. Though the rebellion from the democrats was shut down, this did not help implement the unfair taxation. The rebellion empowered the democrats to continue fighting for their rights and it paid off with the whiskey taxation getting repealed in the year 1802 by President Thomas Jefferson (Kotowiski, p 1).
Arguments for the tax by Federalists
Hamilton and Washington were the leaders and face of the federalists that supported the whiskey tax. The support for the tax amplified centralized power which planned to use the taxation exercise to help reduce the monetary problem. Hamilton believed that whiskey industries could bear the burden of paying tax with the average American family drinking six gallons of whisky every year. Hamilton argued that that intake could cost about $1.50 annually for every family and this would greatly help ease the financial burdens that the country was going through at the time (Kotowiski, p 1). The supporters of this tax argued that alcohol intake was a luxury and not a necessity and so the people that did not want to be taxed could stop taking the alcohol. The others argued that the farmers could just raise the price of their products to their consumers so that they could have enough to pay for the tax. They backed up their argument illustrating that the rich were already paying a tariff of 8% on imports and that cost them much more than the $6 tax every year (Patrone, p. 248). The two pro-activists led an army of about 13,000 men to search for whiskey criminals in Pittsburg and though they did not manage to arrest many whisky dealers, they managed to pass across the message to the society (Kotowiski, p 1). The federal government showed that it had the power to use force and also back up laws that supported their move. The ambitious big government programs that were created by Hamilton received a lot of opposition from the democrats like Jefferson that believed in individualism. Hamilton’s argument for the tax was functional for about two years after which violence broke out with the tax collectors getting attacked which later on led to the tax getting repealed.
Arguments against the tax by Democrats
The leader of the anti-federalists was Thomas Jefferson who argued that the increased tax on whiskey was wrong and unfair. This taxation exercise was viewed as just illustration of prejudicial policies that were frequently dictated by the eastern elite and they negatively affected the common American residents (‘Whiskey Rebellion’, p 1). Other critics of the tax included the small farmers and the skilled workers, the farmers sensed that the duty was a misuse of federal power that was erroneously aiming and confronting a population of farmers who relied more on harvests such as corn and grains to make whisky and make revenue (‘Whiskey Rebellion’, p 1). The shipping of the grains was dangerous mostly because of the poor storage which could lead these crops to go bad hence the decision to make liquor out of their crops which was easier to ship as well as preserve. Whisky was a form of currency for the farmers and a means of lively hood because they exchanged everything that they needed with the whisky. These farmers were not in a capacity to pay the required tax that was informed of money without falling into dreadful financial strains. The democrats were against the whiskey tax because they felt that the tax was just a plan for the federal government to have more power which would be wrongly be expended to benefit the wealthy while the poor like the small farmers continue to be negatively affected.
Personal Position
Whiskey tax was something that brought out the issue of inequality in the American society in the sense that the wealthy are advantaged by laws created while these laws negatively impact the poor. Whiskey in the American society during that period was something that was very valued in regard to its economic impacts especially among the small farmers. This was common tool of trade that had come to be accepted as form of currency and many people especially the small farmers used it to purchase other commodities that they required. Whisky was the only cash producing product for these small farmers because it could readily be utilized instead of cash. Farmers remunerated for their dry imports with the whiskey, the traders exchanged it for next year’s supply and the priests and ministers salaries were in most cases paid through this liquor (Kotowiski, p 1). This is an illustration of the simple lie that the small farmers lived relying on the whisky for everything in their lives. The whiskey tax was required to be paid in cash, something that most of these farmers did not have the luxury of acquiring unlike the wealthy large scale farmers. The unfairness of the tax on the farmers is illustrated with the fact that the small farmers and producers were expected to pay a tax of 9 cents per gallon rate of whisky while the large producers were expected to pay an annual rate of 6 cents per gallon and the more they produced the further the tax would break for them (‘Whiskey Rebellion’, p 1). The small farmers that sold the least whiskey are the ones that were expected to pay the highest tax which was very unfair.
Taxation is not something that a federal government should impose without analyzing the effects that it will have on every member of the society. In this case, the whisky tax was something that could have worked if the federal government took time to listen to the arguments of the small farmers instead of using force to instill the tax laws. The failure of the law was mainly based on the need of the federal government to show its power to the society which instigated rebellion. I believe that if the arguments of the small producers were listened to, the policy makers would have come up with a good plan which would have ensure that the implemented whiskey tax was fair and benefitted every member of the society.
Historical Significance
In 1794 the Whiskey Rebellion was put to a stop by George Washington in his annual address to congress where he denounced the societies as inherently illegitimate. This single act was seen as the first time under the new constitution that political suppression was observed. This was just a small step in the direction that the government took just four years later in the sedition act and the beginning of a campaign to silence the Republican press in which true government suppression was shown. The significance of whiskey rebellion is that it was the first test of the power that the federal government has within the United State constitution (Kotowiski, p 1).
The western farmers threatened the taxation law on whiskey because they were angered by the attempt to enforce the tax that they felt was unfair to them. In this case they threated the power of the federal government by trying to disregard its authority which was responded to by the government sending in troops to protect the law which helped end the rebellion (Kotowiski, p 1). The response saw army troops sent to the streets to deal with the rebellion where a couple of the rebellion members were arrested. Through this rebellion response, the federal government showed its power in the society something that has impacted the modern society (Kotowiski, p 1). This is the same power that the government today has to enforce various taxation laws that are seen fit for the society as long as they are fair and do not favor certain members of the community against others like the whiskey tax did. The rebellion is an illustration of the legitimacy of the federal government power and also its limits; though the federal government was able to counter the whiskey rebellion a lesson on the importance of equality was also impacted.
Works cited
Chesney, Robert M. (2004). “Democratic-Republican Societies, Subversion, and the Limits of
Legitimate Political Dissent in the Early Republic.” https://scholarship.law.unc.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?referer=https://www.google.com/&httpsredir=1&article=4104&context=nclr (2 November 2018).
Kotowiski, P. (2010). Whiskey Rebellion. Retrieved from
https://www.mountvernon.org/library/digitalhistory/digital-encyclopedia/article/whiskey-rebellion/
Patrone, Phil. (2 November 2018) Chapter Seven B, “Whiskey Rebellion.” ACC Blackboard
Learn Reading Assignment. https://acconline.austincc.edu/.
Whiskey Rebellion’. (2018). Retrieved from https://www.history.com/topics/early-us/whiskey-
rebellion
