Whiskey Rebellion

@coutrygurl,

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Whiskey_Rebellion

@Region Philbis,

I think you can figure this out based upon what the Anti-Federalists felt about the Constitution and the taxation power of the central govt. The Federalists were for ratification of the Constitution and everything therein (except for the Bill of Rights).

The WHsikey Rebellion was a consequence of geography of Pennsylvania

0 Replies

Well, duh . . . it's a hell of alot easier to cart some jugs of whiskey over the mountains than it is several wagon loads of corn.

The Federalists could not have opposed or supported the Bill of Rights--it didn't yet exist. In fact, they promised that a bill of rights would be written if the constitution were ratified. The Bill of Rights was proposed by the First Congress after the ratification of the constitution. Twelve amendments were proposed, ten were ratified within two years. One more was ratified in 1992.

1 Reply

@Setanta,

Fact is that the Federalists were opposed to a Bill of Rights. I was attempting to be inclusive to what the Federalists were and were not opposed.

as far as geography it was more complex than mere elevation of the Front. Actually Lancaster and Berks Counties in the East were better corn growing lands than anything to the west. Nope, more investment in our thinking caps.

2 Replies

@farmerman,

The story that it was easier to haul whiskey than corn was a story to show how industrious the westerners were. Actually they moved to western pa because of one aspect of whiskey making, that being that the best whiskey comes from the highest alcohol mash. The german and quaker farmers of Eastern Pa and the Tidewater and Eastern Shore, could produce more and better grade corn than could the farmers in the glacial soils of western pa and New England. In fact, much of the corn from the Ohio was shipped back to wstern pa.
The fact that the hills and hollows were there in western Pa (all before coal mining began), the intermontaine spring waters were the clearest and coldest (usually from 48 to 52 degrees F all year). The whiskey makers understood that the coolest water makes the highest yield and best quality alcohol "must" from the corn and rye mashes they used . The difference between eastern mash and western , was the difference between 6% and 12% pre distilled "mash wine". It was difficult to make corn whiskey in the east because the spring waters and streams often went above 60 and 70 degrees F in the summer and fall (when the whiskey was made. In the west, they could make whiskey all year round and get the same return on theior mash . Then when they distilled their 12% must or wort, they got a high potent hooch that was "proof tested" by timing the disappearance of bubbles while stirring the double layered recieving tub,and then , it was watered down to levels of 80 to 100 proof (when they started the distillate wouldyield almost 190 proof alcohol from their stills, which was not a saleable product except for preserving and infusing medicines(which was why the early medicines were mostly "grain neutral spirits" and a little of the active ingredients.

Water was the main gift of geography of western pa (This was , basically a consequence of the steep hills and the sandstone rock of the Conemaugh ,Trimmer, Greenebrier, and LAurels)

0 Replies

@farmerman,

The Federalists were in favor of the ratification of the constitution. The major objection to that ratification was a lack of a bill of rights. Federalists secured ratification by the promise that a bill of rights would be the first order of business of the Congress at such time as the constitution were ratified.

There were no party affiliations in the First Congress, and as organized political parties, the Federalists and the Democratic-Republicans (formerly the anti-Federalists) did not exist until the Fourth Congress, which was seated in 1795. At that time, the Federalists controlled the Senate, while the Democratic-Republicans controlled the House. In 1789, the "pro-Administration" faction controlled both houses, which remained the same after Rhode Island and North Carolina ratified and joined the Congress. The Bill of Rights was embodied in twelve amendments proposed in late Septemeber, 1789. The first proposed amendment has never been ratified. The third through twelfth proposed amendments were ratified as the first ten amendments--the Bill of Rights--in December, 1791. The second proposed amendment was ratified as the XXVIIth amendment in May, 1992.

Those proposed amendments were sent to the states by a two thirds majority of the two houses. If any party affiliation could be notionally assigned to the make-up of the First Congress, it would have been majority Federalist. It is silly to claim that the Federalists opposed the Bill of Rights--you've stepped outside your bailiwick, and you ought to avoid making sweeping statements for which you are unable to provide any substantiation.

The Whiskey Act was one of the last (i think it may have been the last, but i'd have to check that out) acts of the First Congress, in 1791. Once again, given that the Federalists could notionally be described as the majority party in both houses, a reasonable case could be made that they supported the Whiskey Act.

I won't argue with you about the motivation for the opposition to the Whiskey Act, because you set yourself up to be an oracle about all things to do with Pennsylvania--and it's not important to the question asked in this thread. But you're way out of your depth in the question of the Federalist attitude toward the Bill of Rights. There would not necessarily have been one without them, and they secured ratification of the constitution by promising to produce one.

1 Reply

I suspect you're claiming that the Federalists opposed a bill of rights because of the argument advanced by Alexander Hamilton in one of the Federalist papers. When it came time for the constitution to be ratified, the Federalists had realized that Hamilton's position was a mistake. While publicly campaigning for the ratification of the constitution, Federalists promised that a bill of rights would be forthcoming. His (Hamiliton's) argument was that listing the rights of the people would inferentially deny them any rights not explicitly granted. This was dealt with (or thought to have been dealt with) by the last two proposed amendments which were ratified as the ninth and tenth amendments.

Once again, although there were no stated party affiliations in the First Congress, based on their subsequent allegiances, the majority of both housese in the First Congress were Federalists. They sent the Bill of Rights to the states.

0 Replies

@Setanta,

Quote:

I won't argue with you about the motivation for the opposition to the Whiskey Act, because you set yourself up to be an oracle about all things to do with Pennsylvania--and it's not important to the question asked in this thread. But you're way out of your depth in the question of the Federalist attitude toward the Bill of Rights.

Now theres the typical snotty , self congratulatory but often incorrect stuff I expect from you. I was wondering why you were being so nice to people lately. Good to have the bear back from his hibernation.

Its rather obvious that the Federalists, in favor of the Constitution as developed, with the exception of the Bill of Rights (even though the Bill of Rights was yet to be drawn up). The Federalist papers were Hamilton Madison and Jays well argued case FOR the Constitution (and within, the very basis for the collection of taxes). That which the ANti-Federalists did NOT support.
The Federalists were originally NOT supportive of a Bill of Rights because Madison verbalized that "if it wasnt in the Bill of Rights, the people wouldnt have such rights reserved for them (Basically, his argument was that, if it didnt say so, the rights didnt exist)

0 Replies

So saith the oracle.

The argument against a bill of right was originally articulated by Hamilton. It was the insistent objection to the constitution having no bill of rights which lead the Federalists to promise one in order to get the constitution ratified.

1 Reply

@Setanta,

Quote:

The argument against a bill of right was originally articulated by Hamilton.

Lets see, Hamilton, Madison, Jay. What was their "manifesto" called?

Quote:

Alexander Hamilton, author of Federalist No. 84.Federalist No. 84 (Federalist Number 84), an essay entitled "Certain General and Miscellaneous Objections to the Constitution Considered and Answered," is one of the Federalist Papers by Alexander Hamilton, published under the pseudonym Publius on May 28, 1788.

Federalist No. 84 is notable for presenting the idea that a Bill of Rights was not a necessary component of the proposed United States Constitution. The Constitution, as originally written, did not specifically enumerate or protect the rights of the people. It is alleged that many Americans at the time opposed the inclusion of a bill of rights: if such a bill were created, they feared, this might later be interpreted as a list of the only rights that people had. Hamilton wrote:

It has been several times truly remarked, that bills of rights are in their origin, stipulations between kings and their subjects, abridgments of prerogative in favor of privilege, reservations of rights not surrendered to the prince. Such was Magna Carta, obtained by the Barons, sword in hand, from king John...It is evident, therefore, that according to their primitive signification, they have no application to constitutions professedly founded upon the power of the people, and executed by their immediate representatives and servants. Here, in strictness, the people surrender nothing, and as they retain every thing, they have no need of particular reservations. "We the people of the United States, to secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity, do ordain and establish this constitution for the United States of America." Here is a better recognition of popular rights than volumes of those aphorisms which make the principal figure in several of our state bills of rights, and which would sound much better in a treatise of ethics than in a constitution of government....
I go further, and affirm that bills of rights, in the sense and in the extent in which they are contended for, are not only unnecessary in the proposed constitution, but would even be dangerous. They would contain various exceptions to powers which are not granted; and on this very account, would afford a colorable pretext to claim more than were granted. For why declare that things shall not be done which there is no power to do? Why for instance, should it be said, that the liberty of the press shall not be restrained, when no power is given by which restrictions may be imposed? I will not contend that such a provision would confer a regulating power; but it is evident that it would furnish, to men disposed to usurp, a plausible pretense for claiming that power.

0 Replies

Whiskey Rebellion

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know