Archive

Posts Tagged ‘Whiskey Rebellion’

George Washington/The Whiskey Rebellion… “… On September 19, 1794, George Washington became the only sitting U.S. President to personally lead troops in the field when he led the militia on a nearly month-long march west over the Allegheny Mountains to the town of…”

July 5, 2014 1 comment

 

1795 - 1823

1795 – 1823 (Photo credit: Wikipedia)

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

***

EXCERPT!!!!!!!

……In the mean time, almost 13,000 militiamen had gathered at Carlisle, Penn-sylvania, and prepared to march west to end the rebellion.

On September 19, 1794, George Washington became the only sitting U.S. President to personally lead troops in the field when he led the militia on a nearly month-long march west over the Allegheny Mountains to the town of Bedford.

 

Read more…

Libertarians, Socialists, and the Whiskey Rebellion… “In the summer and fall of 1794, President George Washington, Secretary of the Treasury Alexander Hamilton, and General Henry Lee began making mass arrests of American citizens. Authorized neither by warrants nor by any resolution of Congress, federal troops rousted from beds, rounded up, and detained on no charge hundreds of people against whom the executive branch knew it had no evidence….” – LewRockwell.com

July 5, 2014 2 comments

In the summer and fall of 1794, President George Washington, Secretary of the Treasury Alexander Hamilton, and General Henry Lee began making mass arrests of American citizens. Authorized neither by warrants nor by any resolution of Congress, federal troops rousted from beds, rounded up, and detained on no charge hundreds of people against whom the executive branch knew it had no evidence.

Officers administered warrantless searches and seizures of property and subjected detainees to harsh conditions and terrorizing interrogation. Some victims were told they’d be hanged unless they gave false testimony against the elected officials who had vainly opposed this and other executive-branch policies and operations.

obama-destruction1

obama-destruction1 (Photo credit: GunnyG1345)

 

 

Read more…

Stemming the Tide: How the Experts Approach Crowd Control in America

May 19, 2014 3 comments

 

big

big (Photo credit: GunnyG1345)

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Stemming the Tide: How the Experts Approach Crowd Control in America

inShare113

crowd control

Share this infographic on your site!

 

Read more…

Center for a Stateless Society » Should We Celebrate the American Revolution?… ““Why should I trade one tyrant 3000 miles away for 3000 tyrants one mile away?”

July 11, 2013 1 comment

There’s a great line in The Patriot: “Why should I trade one tyrant 3000 miles away for 3000 tyrants one mile away? An elected legislature can trample a man’s rights as easily as a king can.” Mel Gibson’s character ultimately signs on to the war effort, but the soundness of his point only becomes clearer looking at early U.S. history. Even the pre-Constitution state governments were tyrannical.

 

ourAmerica

ourAmerica (Photo credit: GunnyG1345)

 

 

 

 

 

Shays’ Rebellion is cited as a failure of the Articles of Confederation to deal with unrest, but we should remember that two of the rebels were executed by the Massachusetts state effectively enough.

 

In the first five U.S. presidencies, we see the American empire, albeit in embryonic form, begin its centuries-long crusade of aggressive expansion and centralization of power in the capital.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

George Washington cracked down on the libertarian Whiskey Rebellion, created a national bank, and put Alexander Hamilton, a centralizing statist, in charge of the Treasury.

 

John Adams blatantly violated the First Amendment as much as any president since with his notorious Alien and Sedition Acts. Thomas Jefferson deployed the Marines on an ultimately failed mission in the Barbary war, attempted to suspend habeas corpus and create a department of education, imposed a brutal embargo on English goods that decimated the economy and destroyed privacy rights, and conducted the Louisiana Purchase in bold defiance of the Constitution.

 

 

 

Read more…

MY OPINION: WHY WE CANNOT “RESTORE” OUR “REPUBLIC”! — Dick.Gaines.American! ~ Gunny G’s…Since 1997

July 4, 2013 267 comments

WHY WE CANNOT “RESTORE” OUR REPUBLIC!

4 July 2013

“COME OUT FROM AMONG THEM (THE HERD) AND BE SEPARATE”!

-Dick G

*****

ourAmerica

ourAmerica (Photo credit: GunnyG1345)

Most people, I think, have little, if any, understanding of what has happened to our country in recent years because they simply do not know our history, our true history that is. Those who call themselves “patriots” and “conservatives,” for instance, lament the state of our “Republic” and the hue and cry goes out to “Restore” the Republic, etc.

The long and the short of that one is, for me, that you cannot restore what has never been. Liberty and Freedom are simply myths and illusions.

Most schools and universities do not provide an honest review of American history, and it has only been since the blessing of the Internet the last few years that more and more actual information has found its way into the hands of those who actually seek the truth.

gophum

gophum (Photo credit: GunnyG1345)

But how can I say such a thing? Certainly the old timers among us are fond of telling us all about the good old days when patriotism, freedom and liberty flourished. And I can certainly can see why we have all believed this to one degree or another over time. But I now call this sort of thing the old “the older I get, the better I was syndrome.”

To be sure, a steadily decreasing degree of relatively seeming freedom prevailed back in pre–WW II days, and the ’50s; but generally most seem to agree that something occurred back sometime in the ’60s when things began their turn for the worse.

Read more…

(EXCERPT) ~ The origin of the current IRS scandal can be traced back to George Washington’s fundamental transformation of the United States of America from a confederacy of sovereign, free and independent republics into what has become today’s Obama democracy ruled by the secret presidential dictatorship…… – EDRIVERA.COM : EDRIVERA.COM

July 3, 2013 68 comments

The origin of the current IRS scandal can be traced back to George Washington’s fundamental transformation of the United States of America from a confederacy of sovereign, free and independent republics into what has become today’s Obama democracy ruled by the secret presidential dictatorship

Filed Under Article II Section 1 Clause 5, Article II Section 1 Clause 8, CONSTITUTION, Martial Law, Oath of Office

big

big (Photo credit: GunnyG1345)

Washington was elected President of the United States of America on April 6, 1789, became President of the United States on April 30, 1789, thereby, joining the head of State with the head of the government and the Commander in Chief of the military. Practically, single handed, George Washington had taken control of the federal government by forming the first democratic dictatorship.

Read more…

“A Sampling of Coup D’états and Black-Flag Operations In US History “Propaganda is to a democracy what violence is to a dictatorship.” – William Blum” ~ The Daily Bell – Axiom 3: Back to the Articles of Confederation as America’s Central Government

March 3, 2013 4 comments

EXCERPT!!!!!

…..A Sampling of Coup D’états and Black-Flag Operations In US History

“Propaganda is to a democracy what violence is to a dictatorship.” – William Blum

RPREVOLU

RPREVOLU (Photo credit: GunnyG1345)

Of course, the truth of many such actions was effectively covered up until historical accuracy was revealed through the Internet Reformation. This is why the history books and public school texts teach only the authorized propaganda version.

The first was the Whiskey Rebellion in 1791 in which armed resistance by citizens against a new whiskey tax took place in opposition to Treasury secretary Alexander Hamilton’s federalist program to increase central government power and revenue. George Washington and an army were used to successfully quell the rebellion.

Read more…

The Daily Bell – Axiom 3: Back to the Articles of Confederation as America’s Central Government

January 31, 2013 186 comments

Americans demanding a return to limited government, a balanced budget and an end to spiraling sovereign debt have been voting for the GOP for decades and the result has been total failure on all counts. To accomplish these goals we really must turn the government structure back to our first government model, the Articles of Confederation, so the centers of real power are at the state rather than the federal level. Since 1913, i

 

obampoint

obampoint (Photo credit: GunnyG1345)

 

 

 

t has been very easy, between maintaining the two-party monopoly and buying off Congress, for the power elite to control leviathan from the top down. This would be far more difficult if power, authority and programs were decentralized and returned to control of the individual states.

 

Changing the government does not mean voting in another president or changing whether the Democrats or GOP control the House or Senate. Both parties are equally guilty and responsible for the downfall of America. Yes, I would certainly prefer Rand Paul to another Democrat president following the second term of Barak Obama. And of course more liberty-oriented state house representatives as well as senators and congress members at the federal level would help to get the liberty message out.

 

Read more…

The Constitution: The God That Failed (To Liberate Us From Big Government) by William Buppert « CITIZEN.BLOGGER.1984+ THE.GUNNY.G BLOG.EMAIL

November 14, 2012 2 comments

The Constitution: The God That Failed (To Liberate Us From Big Government) by William Buppert:

“It appears even the much admired Washington was having none of the talk of independence and wanted a firm hand on the yoke of the states to make them obey their masters on high.

Washington’s behavior in the Whiskey Rebellion cast away any doubts of the imperious behavior of the central government a mere four year after the adoption of the Constitution.

Read more…

What’s Old Is New Again by Chris Sullivan ~ “Will US Soldiers Turn On US Citizens?”

January 4, 2012 Leave a comment

“My Lord, I can touch a bell on my right hand and order the arrest of a citizen of Ohio; I can touch a bell again, and order the imprisonment of a citizen of New York; and no power on earth, except that of the President, can release them. Can the Queen of England do so much”?

Charles C. Krulak.

Image via Wikipedia

So saith William Seward to Lord Lyons, but it could have just as easily been Hillary Clinton or Eric Holder to some foreign official.

The corps of sappers in the legislative branch have been busy undermining the Constitution while the populace has been focused on important things like Kim Kardashian’s divorce or Donald Trump‘s hair. Two retired Marine Generals, Charles C. Krulak and Joseph P. Hoar wrote an Op-Ed in the December 12, 2011, NY Times opposing the provisions in the National Defense Authorization Act, saying:

“One provision would authorize the military to indefinitely detain without charge people suspected of involvement with terrorism, including United States citizens apprehended on American soil. Due process would be a thing of the past….A second provision would mandate military custody for most terrorism suspects. It would force on the military responsibilities it hasn’t sought. This would violate not only the spirit of the post-Reconstruction act limiting the use of the armed forces for domestic law enforcement but also our trust with service members, who enlist believing that they will never be asked to turn their weapons on fellow Americans.”

As retired military men, they know that “service members” aren’t going to be asked to do anything; they are going to be ordered upon pain of incarceration or death to do as they’re told. Many people express the opinion that Americans would never fire on their countrymen. Where this idea comes from is a mystery. George Washington led any army of about 15,000 men to suppress the Whiskey Rebellion. This is the only time that a sitting American president led troops in battle, even though only two or three people were killed.

Read more…

Libertarians, Socialists, and the Whiskey Rebellion by William Hogeland (“POTUS George Washington, Alexander Hamilton, and General Henry Lee began making mass arrests of American citizens”)

December 26, 2011 2 comments

In the summer and fall of 1794, President George Washington, Secretary of the Treasury Alexander Hamilton, and General Henry Lee began making mass arrests of American citizens.

April 30: George Washington becomes the first ...

Image via Wikipedia

neither by warrants nor by any resolution of Congress, federal troops rousted from beds, rounded up, and detained on no charge hundreds of people against whom the executive branch knew it had no evidence.

Officers administered warrantless searches and seizures of property and subjected detainees to harsh conditions and terrorizing interrogation. Some victims were told they’d be hanged unless they gave false testimony against the elected officials who had vainly opposed this and other executive-branch policies and operations.

After spending various lengths of time in privation and fear, most of the detainees were released. Detachments of troops meanwhile arrived at every home, in a region defined solely for the purposes of this operation, and required every male over the age of eighteen to sign an oath of loyalty to the government. Not surprisingly, most people complied.

Read more…

EDRIVERA.COM ~ George Washington…

December 17, 2011 7 comments

George Washington placed America under martial law, when as President of the United States of America since April 6, 1789, he took the oral oath of Office of President of the United States, thereby, combining the office of head of state with the head of the government. Washington had made himself king in America for a term of years and no one noticed until he taxed American whiskey.

April 30: George Washington becomes the first ...

Image via Wikipedia

Importers paid the first federal taxes in the form of imposts and duties on goods imported into the United States. The excise tax on the distillation of alcohol didn’t mention the United States as the situs of the distillation requiring licensure. Then as now no one distills alcohol on federal territory.

The Whiskey Rebellion provided Washington and Alexander Hamilton an opportunity to make the military occupation and administration of America complete……

Read more…

General George S. Patton and Martial Law, etc. « ~ BLOGGER.GUNNY.G.1984+ ~ (BLOG & EMAIL)

October 14, 2011 1 comment

November 1932

When I was a cadet, all plebes were required to memorize the definition of leather, which, if time has not dulled my memory, ran thus, “If the fresh skin of an animal be divested of hair and other extraneous matter and be immersed in a saturated solution of tannic acid, chemical combinations occur which transform the hide into a fibrous tissue insoluble in and impervious to water; this is leather.”

Similarly, when the subject of this conference is immersed in the cerebral fluid of Regular Soldiers, it emerges not theory, but tactics.

The chemistry of legal phraseology and erudite philosophy which produce these tactics are in fact as little germane to our work as are the metamorphoses of the tanning vat.

Since, however, no picture is wholly satisfactory without a background, we shall make a brief examination of the historical and legal aspect of the subject before entering upon it’s tactics.

HISTORICALLY:

Scarcely was Washington inaugurated than the need for federal intervention in domestic disturbances became emphasized by the so called “Whiskey Rebellion.” From that episode…..

EXCERPT

via General George S. Patton and Martial Law, etc. « ~ BLOGGER.GUNNY.G.1984+ ~ (BLOG & EMAIL).

The Whiskey Rebellion by Murray N. Rothbard

October 11, 2011 4 comments

…..The Official View of the Whiskey Rebellion is that four counties of western Pennsylvania refused to pay an excise tax on whiskey that had been levied by proposal of the Secretary of Treasury Alexander Hamilton in the Spring of 1791, as part of his excise tax proposal for federal assumption of the public debts of the several states.

Western Pennsylvanians failed to pay the tax, this view says, until protests, demonstrations, and some roughing up of tax collectors in western Pennsylvania caused President Washington to call up a 13,000-man army in the summer and fall of 1794 to suppress the insurrection. A localized but dramatic challenge to federal tax-levying authority had been met and defeated. The forces of federal law and order were safe.

This Official View turns out to be dead wrong. In the first place, we must realize the depth of hatred of Americans for what was called “internal taxation” (in contrast to an “external tax” such as a tariff). Internal taxes meant that the hated tax man would be in your face and on your property, searching, examining your records and your life, and looting and destroying.

The most hated tax imposed by the British had been the Stamp Tax of 1765, on all internal documents and transactions; if the British had kept this detested tax, the American Revolution would have occurred a decade earlier, and enjoyed far greater support than it eventually received.

Americans, furthermore, had…..

EXCERPT ~ MORE…..

via The Whiskey Rebellion by Murray N. Rothbard.

Obama’s Terrorist Dilemma

October 5, 2011 Leave a comment

I agree with the Obama administration‘s decision to kill the American-born al-Qaeda recruiter Anwar al-Awlaki. What I can’t fathom is why the administration agrees with me.

Here’s Secretary of Defense Leon Panetta responding to complaints from the ACLU over the “assassination” of an American citizen without due process: “This individual was clearly a terrorist. And yes, he was a citizen, but if you’re a terrorist, you’re a terrorist. And that means that we have the ability to go after those who would threaten to attack the United States and kill Americans.”

I agree with that. The Constitution empowers the president to put down insurrection, and what was Awlaki if not an insurrectionist? From the Whiskey Rebellion to the Civil War to World War II, there have been times when presidents legally and constitutionally treated American citizens as enemy combatants. Awlaki hardly seems deserving of special treatment.

Moreover, the authorization for the use of force passed on Sept. 18, 2001, says the president “is authorized to use all necessary and appropriate force against those nations, organizations or persons he determines planned, authorized, committed or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001, or harbored such organizations or persons, in order to prevent any future acts of international terrorism against the United States by such nations, organizations or persons.”

It doesn’t say anything about exempting Americans. If news reports, statements from U.S. officials and Awlaki himself are to be believed, Awlaki was a member of al-Qaeda. Moreover, he helped orchestrate and incite violence aimed at the U.S. He never denied the charges against him but hid outside of U.S. jurisdiction fomenting violence against America.

Case closed.

And yet, I sympathize with critics on the far left and libertarian right who find the whole thing unseemly. Surely when an American is in the crosshairs, there’s a higher political bar, even if there isn’t a higher legal or constitutional one.

ABC’s Jake Tapper asked White House spokesman Jay Carney, “Does the administration not see at all how a president asserting that he has the right to kill an American citizen without due process, and that he’s not going to even explain why he thinks he has that right, is troublesome to some people?”

Carney’s response: “I’m not going to … discuss the circumstances of his death.”

The mind reels to think how people would have responded if President Bush‘s spokesman, Ari Fleischer, had said that.

But here’s where I am confused. According to Attorney General Eric Holder, the administration is committed to treating captured terrorists as criminals, entitled to all of the rights and privileges of a civilian criminal trial.

It seems the Defense Department disagrees, given that some lesser-known prisoners are allegedly kept on ships — call them floating Gitmos — without trials.

Meanwhile, President Obama keeps ordering that the more famous terrorists be killed on sight. That’s fine with me. But as far as I can tell, he’s never disagreed with Holder’s view about the need for civilian trials for terrorists we don’t kill, like Khalid Sheikh Mohammed.

Hence my confusion. If you believe that even non-American terrorists should be treated like American criminals, with all of the Fifth Amendment rights we grant to our own accused, how can you sanction killing an American without so much as a hearing?

The Fifth Amendment says that no person shall be “deprived of life, liberty or property without due process of law.” A Predator drone strike seems to deprive all three………….

MORE…..

via Obama’s Terrorist Dilemma.

The Constitution: The God That Failed (To Liberate Us From Big Government) by William Buppert

June 5, 2011 4 comments

The Constitution: The God That Failed (To Liberate Us From Big Government) by William Buppert

The Constitution: The God That Failed (To Liberate Us From Big Government) by William Buppert:

gophum

gophum (Photo credit: GunnyG1345)

“It appears even the much admired Washington was having none of the talk of independence and wanted a firm hand on the yoke of the states to make them obey their masters on high.

Washington’s behavior in the Whiskey Rebellion cast away any doubts of the imperious behavior of the central governmenta mere four year after the adoption of the Constitution.

Read more…

Doug Casey on Presidents: The Good, the Bad, and the Ugly

October 22, 2010 Leave a comment

Doug Casey on Presidents: The Good, the Bad, and the Ugly

Interviewed by Louis James, Editor, International Speculator

Recently: No Way Out

EXCERPT ONLY…

L: I also have to give credit to George Washington, in spite of the major turn down the wrong road he took for the whole country when he suppressed the Whiskey Rebellion by force, because he could have set himself up as king after the first American Revolution – and he didn’t.

Doug: He had the army, was very popular, and he could have done it – I agree, he could have made himself king, or been reelected until his death. But I can’t forgive him for crushing the Whiskey Rebellion; that set the precedent for federal taxation and power that eventually led to the Civil War and the bloated monster in Washington that has now burst almost all of its chains.

L: So, who was the worst president?

Doug: That’s a really tough question to answer, because there are so many deserving candidates for that title. A short list would have to include McKinley, Teddy Roosevelt, Wilson, Hoover, FDR, Truman, Johnson, Baby Bush, and Obama. But I’d have to say Lincoln was by far the worst. He plunged the country into a totally unnecessary and immensely devastating war, and violated every important part of the Constitution. But he was such a great rhetorician that he made Americans feel good about all the horrors he brought about, setting a doubly bad precedent.

L: I think I know what you’ll say, but for our readers who are used to hearing Lincoln described as some sort of saint, and probably America’s greatest president, can you expand on that? He preserved the union and freed the slaves…

Doug: The union was not preserved. A union of free and sovereign states was cemented into a single super-state, in which each individual state became nothing more than an administrative region. Who’s to say that a bigger U.S. was a better one anyway? This Civil War was really the Second American Revolution. Anyway, it wasn’t a civil war, which is technically a contest for the control of a single government; it was a war of secession, like that of 1776. I’m no fan of the Confederacy, but the wrong side won, overthrowing the federal organization that restrained national power, maximizing political and economic freedom.

L: Not for the slaves.

Read more…

The Whiskey Rebellion by Murray N. Rothbard

October 16, 2010 1 comment

Washington, Hamilton, and the Cabinet covered up the extent of the revolution because they didn’t want to advertise the extent of their failure. They knew very well that if they tried to enforce, or send an army into, the rest of the back-country, they would have failed.

Kentucky and perhaps the other areas would have seceded from the Union then and there. Both contemporary sides were happy to cover up the truth, and historians fell for the deception.The Whiskey Rebellion, then, considered properly, was a victory for liberty and property rather than for federal taxation.

Perhaps this lesson will inspire a later generation of American taxpayers who are so harried and downtrodden as to make the whiskey or stamp taxes of old seem like Paradise.

Read more…

General George S. Patton and Martial Law, etc.

April 10, 2010 3 comments

FEDERAL TROOPS IN DOMESTIC DISTURBANCES By Major George S. Patton, Jr., Cavalry

Rate This

Quantcast

//

Click to visit the original post


November 1932
When I was a cadet, all plebes were required to memorize the definition of leather, which, if time has not dulled my memory, ran thus, “If the fresh skin of an animal be divested of hair and other extraneous matter and be immersed in a saturated solution of tannic acid, chemical combinations occur which transform the hide into a fibrous tissue insoluble in and impervious to water; this is leather.”

Similarly, when the subject of this conference is immersed in the cerebral fluid of Regular Soldiers, it emerges not theory, but tactics.

The chemistry of legal phraseology and erudite philosophy which produce these tactics are in fact as little germane to our work as are the metamorphoses of the tanning vat.

Since, however, no picture is wholly satisfactory without a background, we shall make a brief examination of the historical and legal aspect of the subject before entering upon it’s tactics.


HISTORICALLY:

Scarcely was Washington inaugurated than the need for federal intervention in domestic disturbances became emphasized by the so called “Whiskey Rebellion.” From that episode until the present time, federal troops have been called out more than a hundred times to participate in these most distasteful forms of service. While the majority of these incidents were insignificant, some dozen of them reached major proportions. Of these we may mention the following;

Read more…

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 1,196 other followers