Friday, November 29, 2013

The Whiskey Rebellion & the Federal Government's First Tax






America’s first federal tax would lead to the Whiskey Rebellion. Americans fear that this tax would lead to an invasion of federal agents into their homes and property to collect the government’s money. When Western Pennsylvanians refused to pay this tax, the government raised an army, which marched into their lands to enforce their law. Many were arrested for treason. In 1794, the Federal government should there resolve to enforce their laws. A similar invasion would occur in 1861 when the South would refuse to pay unjust taxes.  

In order to protect our commerce and merchant sailors on the high seas, it was growing apparent in America that a new system was needed to generate the revenue necessary to build and maintain a national Navy.  It was also necessary to pay off war debts accumulated from the Revolutionary War throughout the States. In 1789, the States ratified and created the Federal government as an economic solution to this and other financial concerns. This new central government would also act as a liaison between the States and foreign governments. Taxes would be indispensable in realizing all these new federal goals.

Naturally, Americans were extremely leery about giving too much power to a central government and the military might that it would control. The inclusion of the Bill of Rights to the new Constitution and the slim majority by which it was ratified would be evidence that Americans had some trepidation with this new Federal government. They were right to be afraid, because Alexander Hamilton would champion a British-style economic system as a result of the Federal government’s new found power. “One cornerstone of that policy was an excise tax on alcoholic beverages.”1 This first federal tax would generate the revenues that the new Federal government would need to pay off war debts, build and maintain a navy, and fund all the new public offices.

The new government decided to tax alcoholic beverages. Excise taxes or what Americans would call “internal” taxes like this new federal tax were extremely unpopular. Many would accept duties on imported goods, but they would not tolerate taxation on domestic products. Long before American independence, the colonists opposed such duties levied on them by the British Parliament. The first excise tax on “beer, ale, cider, and perry” was imposed by the British government in 1643.2 Soon afterwards, violence erupted in the colonies and the riots would lead to partial repeals to the law. Americans particularly did not condone taxes on their alcoholic beverages. One tax collector said that “whenever any endeavor is made to gauge the drink brewed…riots are daily committed on the officers by the inhabitants.”3

The war with Great Britain would reduce the importation of rum into the colonies and many Americans would build their own stills to manufacture their own spirits. “Whiskey distilling became very profitable” in American at this time.4 The distilling of grain-based alcohol would become so extensive that it would lead to a shortage of bread.5 Western Pennsylvania would be one region among the thirteen states that relied on whiskey as their cash crop and a monetary means of bartering. The Federal government set their sights on these domestic distillers as a means to raise the money needed for their political machine. 


In order to build up the central powers of the Federal government, Hamilton wanted the new government to assume the debts of all the states. The southern states had paid off nearly all their war debts by this point, but Washington (a Virginian) and other Southerners were interested in having the new national capital moved to the South. A deal was made and the capital was moved to the Potomac and Hamilton would now have permission to tax all the states. “Hamilton proposed that about eight hundred thousand dollars should be raised by a duty upon imported liquors and upon those distilled within the country.”6
 

The bill to create an excise on liquor was introduced to the House of Representatives and many Americans were outraged by the new Federal government’s actions. Americans had just fought a war to free themselves “from an excise only to have one laid by the new government.”7 If excise laws were being passed, which were oppressive and against the will of the people, a law maker in the new capital was then no different than a law maker in London. Domestic alcohol was being made from private property. An excise law would not only violate the citizen’s right to private property, but it was sure to allow the tax collector permission to enter their private property. It was believed that this excise tax would open a Pandora’s box of taxes. House representative from Georgia, James Jackson, said that the excise was “odious, unequal, unpopular, and oppressive,” and “that the time will come when a shirt shall not be washed without an excise.”8

The seeds that would lead to a war between the states were beginning to sprout with the passing of this excise bill on January 27, 1791. The bill was passed by a vote of thirty-five to twenty-one, with the majority of the New England states for the bill and the majority of the deep South opposed to it.9 This new law supported by New England states would support the larger distillers and “it would act to put the smaller ones out of business.”10 This attack on the small business owners was seen as an infringement upon the rights of Americans, which were supposed to be protected by the Constitution. Many were beginning to fear that the new government was attempting to “reduce [the common man] to the economic, political, and legal status of a European peasant.”11 


Despite Southern opposition, it would be the farmers of western Pennsylvania that would rebel against the new federal tax in 1794. Opposition would lead to the destruction of property and physical attacks against the tax collectors. Rioting in the west would force the Federal government to take action to show their resolve and power to enforce their laws. An army of 13,000 men would be raised from militiamen. President George Washington would command a force greater “than he had ever at one time commanded during the Revolution”12 against these riotous farmers. Even Hamilton would join the army on their march against these tax evaders. 


After three weeks, the Whiskey Rebellion was over. The Federal tax army would arrest a few men for treason, who all later would be set free. The tax evaders would win this contest in the end, when the excise law was repelled in 1802 by the Jeffersonian government. However, the Federal government had shown that they would use military might to enforce their laws. This would not be the last time that they would raise and army to invade a citizen’s private property to impose their will upon the American people. Sixty-seven years later, they also invade the Southern States when they opposed their oppressive and unconstitutional taxes.


Notes:
1.       Burner, David. "Firsthand America: A History of the United States, Volume I, 4th ed." 197. St. James: Brandywine Press, 1996.
2.       Slaughter, Thomas P. "The Whiskey Rebellion: Frontier Epilogue to the American Revolution." 12. New York: Oxford University Press, Inc., 1986.
3.       Ibid.
4.       Baldwin, Leland D. "Whiskey Rebels: The Story of a Frontier Uprising." 57. Pittsburgh: University of Pittsburgh Press, 1967.
5.       Ibid.
6.       Ibid, pg. 61-62.
7.       Ibid.
8.       Ibid, pg. 64-65.
9.       Ibid, p. 66.
10.    Ibid, p. 71.
11.    Ibid.
12.    Burner, Firsthand America: A History of the United States, p. 197.


Betrayal at Little Bighorn




Custer’s Last Stand on Little Bighorn could have been adverted if his subordinates had followed their orders. On June 25, 1876, Major Marcus Reno failed in his duty as a soldier and allowed Custer and his men to be massacred by Lakota and Cheyanne warriors. 


Lieutenant Colonel George Armstrong Custer received some intelligence that a Lakota/Cheyanne village was nearby. It was also made clear by Custer’s scouts that their army had been detected by the Indians. With the element of surprise lost, Custer decided to divide his army into four segments: “the pack train with ammunition and supplies, a three company force (123) commanded by Captain Frederick Benteen, a three company force (140) command by Major Marcus Reno, and a five company force (210) commanded by Custer.”1 The pack train would stay back while the three other segments would advance on the enemy.

It was intended that all three waves would converge on the Indian village. Reno would meet with strong resistance after crossing the Ash Creek. Reno attempted to hold the line by dismounting his troops and setting up a skirmish line. As the Lakota and Cheyenne pressed the attack, Reno would be forced to retreat with his men. Many of the U.S. troops would be shot and pulled off their horses by the Indian warriors. 


Reno would regroup on top of steep bluffs to the east of Custer’s engagement with the warriors. Benteen would encounter no Indians to the south and would join Reno’s men. These officers would receive word from Custer, “Come on. Big Village. Be Quick. Brings Packs. P.S. Bring Packs.”2 By this point, it was clear to Reno and his men that Custer had engaged the enemy. “Firing was heard far away to the north-ward. It was heavy and continuous. There could be but one explanation of it. Custer’s detachment had at last met the Indians and was engaged.”3 Reno would order no charge or give any support to Custer.


The four hundred men under the command of Major Reno “felt…that Custer was in grave jeopardy”4 and understood that they needed to support their commander immediately. Captain Weir, who led D Troop, attempted to support Custer without asking permission. Weir would advance his men to the point where they could see Custer waving his hat encouraging them to bring reinforcements.5 Custer must have expected then that his message was received and expected that his men would soon reinforce his attack upon the Indians.

After the fact, Major Reno would be criticized for his actions on that day. During a court of inquiry, Custer’s demise would be blamed on Reno’s “indecision and tardiness.”6 Evidence proved that Reno gave no attempt to support Custer’s attack. Reno failed to hold his position and attack on the Indians in the timber (where he failed to hold or advance his line) and was implied as a “coward.”7 The court also expressed that Reno was “lying when he testified that he had not heard Custer’s gunfire downriver.”8

Private Peter Thompson, a private at the battle, would say of Reno: “As I stood looking at him I could not help wondering if he knew what his duty was...he kept himself in a hole where there was no danger of being struck and no doubt would have pulled the hole in after him if he could and if he even dreamed that by so doing he could have increased his security.”9

Custer may have been arrogant and one of the most photographed men in the nineteenth century, but he was not an idiot. He went into the battle against the Lakota and Cheyenne with a plan. It is unclear however, if Reno had followed orders and had not been a coward if that would have prevented Custer and his men from the same fate. It is possible that all of Custer’s men might have perished that day if Reno had reinforced his command officer. But one thing is clear; Custer was indeed betrayed by his Major, Marcus Reno.

Notes:
1.       National Park Service. The Battle of the Little Bighorn. November 18, 2013. http://www.nps.gov/libi/historyculture/index.htm (accessed November 28, 2013).
2.       Ibid.
3.       Ibid.
4.       Brady, Cyrus Townsend. "War With the Sioux." Pearson's Magazine, July 1904: 280.
5.       Ibid, p. 281.        
6.       Donovan, James. "A Terrible Glory: Custer and the Little Bighorn, the Last Great Battle of the American West." 377. New York: Back Bay Book/Little, Brown and Company, 2008.
7.       Ibid.
8.       Ibid.
9.       Thompson, Peter. "Thompson's Narrative of the Little Big Horn." By Walt Cross, 79. Stillwater: Cross Publications, 2007.

Saturday, November 23, 2013

Reconstruction - Terror Begets Terror



When discussing the Reconstruction period, most will paint the South as ignorant racists and nothing else. There is always a cause and effect to all things. What would lead the people of the South to such racial hostilities?

Terror begets terror. Opposition and violent hostility grew out of chaos. With the emancipation of the slaves set in motion, life in the South was changing; however, other aspects of Southern life did not return to any sort of normalcy after Lee’s surrender. 


As Confederate soldiers were returning home from the war, they were finding more than emancipated slaves; they were coming home to tremendous confusion and disorder. Governmental order was nonexistent outside of some larger cities and near Federal troops. “The people were forbidden to take steps toward setting up any kind of government.”1

The South became a lawless land were “Federal and Confederate deserters, and bushwhackers and outlaws of every description”2 were free to roam and terrorize. Hard and despite times create environments where horrible crimes occur. Murders and “outrages upon women were frequent.”3 Thieves would prey upon the defenseless.

Want for food was great. What the war had not already consumed or what the Federal army had not confiscated, the thieves would steal from the Southern farmers. Southern mothers began to trade sex with Federal troops, so that their poor children would not starve to death.4

The Freedmen’s Bureau would only intensify the resentful feelings between the white Southerners and the ex-slaves. Northerners would teach the ex-slaves that the Southerner “was naturally unfriendly to him.”5

Logically, the poorest whites without land of their own welcomed the emancipation of the slaves in hopes that they could become wage workers on the labor less farms; however, the competition for employment would create some friction between the two groups.    

Rumors would circulate that the Union League would confiscate the property of the white land owners and redistribute them among the ex-slaves.6 The cotton fraud of 1865—where private cotton was confiscated as “Confederate government cotton” and the proceeds of the sales divided up by Federal agents—took advantage of Southerners after the war.7 The cotton tax of 1865-1868 would take “$70,000,000 from the cotton farmers [both white and black] of the South.”8 Refusal of congressional representation of the Southern states and the Reconstruction Acts would generate a belief among Southerners that they were being “persecuted by the Washington government.”9
 

Many Confederate soldiers, who received a pardon at Appomattox, felt that their treatment in the years following the war was in violation of the terms of their surrender.  Even Robert E. Lee admitted that he would not have surrendered to Grant had he known how the South would be treated in the post war years.  Lee expressed his feelings to Texas Governor Fletcher Stockdale on the matter: “Governor, if I had foreseen the use those people designed to make of their victory, there would have been nor surrender at Appomattox Courthouse; no sir, not by me. Had I foreseen these results of subjugation, I would have preferred to die at Appomattox with my brave men, my sword in my right hand.”10


In light of the circumstances after the war, it is easy to see how desperation could have forced Southerners into continuing their war against the North through a campaign of terror. The North had backed a wounded animal into a corner and it lashed out against them. 


Notes:
1.       Fleming, Walter Lynwood. "Civil War and Reconstruction in Alabama." 654. New York: The Columbia University Press, 1905.
2.       Ibid.
3.       Ibid.
4.       DiLorenzo, Thomas J. "The Real Lincoln." 205. New York: Three Rivers Press, 2002.
5.       Fleming, Civil War and Reconstruction in Alabma, p. 654.
6.       Ibid, p. 655.
7.       Woodman, Harold D. "King Cotton and his Retainers: Financing and Marketing the Cotton Crop of the South, 1800-1925." 238. Columbia: University of South Carolina Press, 1990.
8.       Woodman, Harold D. " Documentary History of Reconstruction: Political, Miltary, Social, Religious, Educational & Industrial - 1865 to the Present Time, Volume I." 5. Cleveland: The Arthur H. Clark Company, 1906.
9.       Fleming, Civil War and Reconstruction in Alabma, p. 655.
10.    DiLorenzo, The Real Lincoln, p. 201.