01MAY2003 – GWB declares victory in the War on Terror (too soon Bush II, too soon as Kabul, Afghanistan experiences a Saigon, Vietnam moment here in 2021)
I know this is extremely OLD news, but remember when the US Deep State accused Bin Laden and his gang (of 50-200) in Afghanistan of orchestrating 9/11? Remember when GW Bush accused Saddam Hussein of possessing WMDs (WMDs that we gave Iraq during the Iraq-Iran War 1984-1988)?
The RESPONSE to these two lies was excessively over the top. The response COULD have been a strategic targeted CIA/SpecialForces mission that involved 50 men in both countries to CSI. But no, the US decides to sacrifice our troops (both physical and mental death/PTSD) in both of these countries over the next two decades, sacrifice the innocent people in these counties (their life, their livelihood making many refugees while eradicating Christianity) while spending trillions of US taxpayer’s money.
What do we have to show for all that sacrifice here in 2021? Nothing!
The greater good was never achieved. Bringing “democracy” to the Middle East only brought death, heartache, pain and poverty.
So the US elite says: “Let’s bring this to the homeland”
Now consider the War on Covid.
Headlines read: “15 Days to Flatten the Curve”, “Hospitals are Overwhelmed” and “Vaccines are Totally Safe”
The RESPONSE domestically has again been over the top. Beginning with masks which Tony Fauci rightfully said initially as being a “comfort” mechanism before he went political and suggested 2x, this crowd submission method was a placeholder until the mRNA vaccines could be delivered less than a year later (thanks “Father of the Vaccine” Trump SARCASM).
When we think of the phases toward mandating the “vaccine”, I can’t help but think of the pressure the US troops in Iraq and Afghanistan accomplished when freedom fighters in those countries were hard pressed, they became ever increasingly resistant and resilient. “Terror” groups morphed overnight sporting names like Al Qaeda, Taliban and more. Geographic boundaries meant nothing as ISIS spread from Iraq to Syria. The result was opposite the stated goals of the US Empire’s CIA/Pentagon/MIC complex.
But no one remembers years later.
So too with this latest war. Fighting an obscure enemy (COVID is ONLY a set of ever evolving symptoms that can come from SARS-CoV-1, SARS-CoV-2, and other respiratory viruses like the flu), allows the fighters to shift their efforts while propping up their narrative, the “noble lie” (think Plato) that validates their forced mandates.
Consider the 1984 statement in the DHHS Federal Register, Vol 49 No 107 from June 1, 1984 in reference to the final rules concerning polio vaccination campaigns in the U.S.:
…any possible doubts, whether or not well founded, about the safety of the vaccine cannot be allowed to exist in view of the need to assure the vaccine will continue to be used to the maximum extent consistent with the nation’s public health objectives.
This is why the following narrative (propaganda) is enforced on the public by government, media, big tech, big pharma and large US corporations:
Herd immunity is required to enable economic and social recovery
Vaccines are the only route to achieving herd immunity
COVID-19 vaccines are perfectly safe
COVID-19 vaccines provide protective, durable immunity
This excessive push of mandatory vaccines is counter-intuitive and has some scary long-term effects not even thinking about the vaccine’s adverse effects themselves.
As of the early days of the mass vaccination campaigns, at least a few experts have been warning against the catastrophic impact such a program could have on global and individual health. Mass vaccination in the middle of a pandemic is prone to promoting selection and adaptation of immune escape variants that are featured by increasing infectiousness and resistance to spike protein (S)-directed antibodies (Abs), thereby diminishing protection in vaccinees and threatening the unvaccinated
The “hard press” on the virus is fueling the variants.
The “hard press” on the ‘terrorists’ fueled the variants.
I guess when you have a hammer like government .. everything is a nail.
George Washington knew this first hand when he led 15,000 troops into Pennsylvania to put down the “Whiskey Rebellion” which he and Alexander Hamilton caused due to the heavy tax (8x higher than King George’s taxes on the American colonies) on whiskey that they themselves had authorized.
A reasonable approach to this “War on Covid” would be as mRNA inventor Robert W. Malone suggests:
Full and complete disclosure on the vaccines
Comprehension of risks that the vaccines bring
Full voluntary participation with no coercion and no enticement
A healthy approach would follow more like Sweden’s strategy that has resulted in ZERO deaths there from COVID in the past weeks. A balanced response that allows the virus to move through the healthy younger population while protecting the older more frail population.
Provide personal risk assessment tools/apps
Provide clear and complete data on vaccine trials
Offer vaccination to high risk individuals
Understand that COVID is complex with different stages which means that allowing physicians to practice evidence-based medicine guided by laboratory testing
Use sequence-independent stage-appropriate medicines like Ivermectin, Famotidine/Celecoxib, Fluvoxamine, Apixaban, Vitamin D, etc.
Emphasize treating patients as soon as they develop disease in outpatient stage
Stop censoring and blocking repurposed drug development
Only when a healthier medical-industrial complex emerges will public confidence in healthcare rebound:
Public campaigns should be positive, ethical, truthful and empathic
People should feel empowered when making health choices
In both actions and words it is important to steer clear of fear, coercion and questionable ethics
Obey the law and be transparent about risks while not circumventing time tested processes and ethics
Trust, educate and respect citizens right to choose
Avoid authoritarian demands, information censorship and psychological manipulation via big media and big tech
I am not holding my breath. It took 20 years to unravel the “War on Terror”, so how long will it be for the truth to emerge around the “War on Covid”?
I am not sure I am the only one thinking this, but why does it seem that NO ONE is really about assisting the PEOPLE here in July 2020? It is almost as if there is this standoff that prevents common sense from prevailing. I guess that is the definition of politics, the absence of common sense and logic.
In an effort to mask the underlying financial hole that consumes a large part of the world, Covid-19 followed by accusations of racism and white supremacy have been followed by … Covid-19 again. Take 3.
Yes, it should be very obvious by now that in spite of declining Covid-19 deaths, the emphasis has changed to “cases” (more accurately called ‘positive tests’ that mean one may have had Covid-19 or another corona-virus, including one that can cause the common cold).
The psychological effect of this is the ability to easily make face coverings the norm even though the science clearly states that these masks are not effective with this 120nm virus. The social impact of everyone in public being masked up like the OK Corral in the Wild West is to clearly accelerate the distrust factor in this country towards continued division. Governments are great at distracting the masses, so this election year there is plenty of “stuff” to cover up their own critical failures, especially with the US economy and the US debt.
But I digress.
My purpose here is to give a bit of insight into the bind we (USA) find ourselves in. It is rather obvious from the accusation of systematic racism to the cancel culture that everything can be a potential target for those that have no use for other’s property (their bodies and their legal possessions). We have unveiled the great cultural divide in the USA that has been here for decades.
Thomas Jefferson faced a similar issue during and after his presidency, but his approach is never considered.
In a 1803 letter to John C. Breckinridge of Kentucky:
if there is to be a separation .. then God bless them both and keep them in the union if it be for their good, but separate them if it be better
In 1804 Jefferson wrote:
Those of the Western Confederacy will be as much our children and defendants as those of the Eastern, and I feel myself as much identified with that country, in future time, as with this, and did I now foresee a separation at some future day ..
I can understand why the GOP can’t say this, but why can’t the Democrats? (Hint – Marxism requires the WHOLE country to feed on)
SECESSION is the only path forward .. but the US is stuck!
Sometimes, in any relationship, parting can actually be therapeutic for both parties. We can see this with divorce as well as with business partnerships. None of these are really “perpetual” relationships UNLESS both parties work on making it all work without abusing each other.
The GOP is stuck because the DNA in their party rests with Abraham Lincoln and his reaction to having seven states PEACEFULLY secede from the united States of America (written as it was inked in the 1783 Paris Peace treaty with the British Empire). As a result, Trump’s options are like this:
Lincoln forever made the barrier to peaceful secession almost impossible when 80 years after the 13 colonies seceded from the British Empire he decided that “union” was to be achieved at all costs, even that of 750,000 American lives.
It seems that American Exceptionalism is a myth. How come, could Maine seceded from Massachusetts in 1820, Hungary secede from Austria in 1867, Norway secede from Sweden in 1905, Singapore from Malaysia in 1965, the Czech Republic from Slovakia in 1993 and especially the 15 republics that seceded from the USSR? Instead, a four year war is waged on Americans to make permanent something that never was, by invading his OWN nation.
You see, by Lincoln’s logic, the southern states NEVER left the union and its citizens were still American citizens when he direct his armies into the 11 states that eventually voted to secede. This legal gymnastic was needed to allow Lincoln to utilize George Washington’s actions during the Whiskey Rebellion that was described as an “insurrection” so he could unilaterally, WITHOUT Congress, move forward with violence and a plan of war. Legally, secession was not forbidden by the US Constitution and three states, New York, New Jersey and Virginia all had clauses in their ratification document to voluntary join the union.
Another S-word was also not forbidden by the US Constitution, slavery. While most lazy historians accept that slavery caused the southern states to secede, what they don’t know is that the US Constitution would have PROTECTED the slave owners and that Lincoln offered to protect them as well .. FOREVER! There was zero to be gained by any southern state to secede regarding slavery as the Fugitive Slave Act mandated run-away slaves had to be returned to their owners, something Lincoln was also 100% in favor of.
I have seen so many posts that claim the Democrats are the party of slavery and the KKK, however, one only has to look at Lincolns words and actions to know that the birth of the GOP centered on a platform that kept slavery intact!
Here is part of the 1860 Republican Platform:
Resolved: That the maintenance inviolate of the rights of the States, and especially the right of each State to order and control its own domestic institutions (chattel slavery) according to its own judgement exclusively, is essential to that balance of power on which the perfection and endurance of our political fabric depend ..”
Lincoln himself quoted the above statement word for word during his 1st inaugural address on 04MAR1861. He also reiterated his support of the Fugitive Slave Act.
Earlier in his address he said:
I have no purpose, directly or indirectly, to interfere with the institution of slavery in the States where it exists. I believe I have no lawful right to do so, and I have no inclination to do so.
Interestingly, near the end of his address, he says:
I understand a proposed amendment to the Constitution–which amendment, however, I have not seen–has passed Congress, to the effect that the Federal Government shall never interfere with the domestic institutions of the States, including that of persons held to service. To avoid misconstruction of what I have said, I depart from my purpose not to speak of particular amendments so far as to say that, holding such a provision to now be implied constitutional law, I have no objection to its being made express and irrevocable.
Total support of an amendment he has not seen? Come on Honest Abe!
Seriously, this is the 1st 13th Amendment (it was never fully ratified so it never because part of the law of the land) called the Corwin Amendment and it is a very interesting part of our history, as well as that of the GOP which were the primary sponsors since seven southern states has already left by FEB1861 when this was first put on the floor of Congress.
The hope was that this amendment would entice the seceded seven southern states to return to the union.
No amendment shall be made to the Constitution which will authorize or give to Congress the power to abolish or interfere, within any State, with the domestic institutions thereof, including that of persons held to labor or service by the laws of said State.
This passed the US House of Representatives 133 to 63 on 28FEB1861 and passed the US Senate 24 to 12 on 02MAR1861. Lincoln proceeded to send a letter to each governor explaining this amendment.
With Lincoln’s encouragement, the following states ratified:
Kentucky 04APR1861
Ohio 03MAY1861
Rhode Island 31MAY1861
Maryland 10JAN1862
Illinois 02JUN1863
Pretty amazing that the “Land of Lincoln” voted for cementing slavery into the US Constitution as late as 1863. What is this all about?
It is pretty apparent that one more piece of the puzzle needs to be looked at here. Why invade the south if slavery was not the issue? Why ramp up the war machine and NOT call Congress into session until 04JUL1861? The War Aims Resolution that Congress passed on 25JUL1861 has a clue.
this war is not waged upon our part in any spirit of oppression, nor for any purpose of conquest or subjugation, nor purpose of overthrowing or interfering with the rights or established institutions of those States, but to defend and maintain the supremacy of the Constitution and to preserve the Union ..
‘Save the Union‘ was Lincoln’s motto until that inspiration to the masses lost steam in 1863, and then he shrewdly wove in to end slavery as something to keep the masses engaged. (this is not unlike the Covid-19 –> Racism –> Face Coverings –> ??? we are seeing today)
So in summary, in 2020, the Trump administration would never concede to have GOP majority states secede from the US and allow the Democrats to have the empire. The GOP’s DNA is war and empire.
However, could the Trump administration stray from their DNA (I mean with politicians, “principles” are easily discarded)? Could the GOP part with large sections of California, New York and New England? Could the city-states of Chicago, Detroit, Cleveland and Cincinnati (along with other Democratic majority cities in various states) be allowed to go on their own and pay their own way?
Somehow I doubt that. The Marxism agenda is really about taking the whole enchilada and to redistribute whatever survives this process. This is why Marx himself was so encouraged by Lincoln that the two exchanged letters!
Isn’t it a bit ironic that the GOP figurehead and the Democratic party’s role model are one in the same? Totalitarianism of the right boot or the left boot feels the same to “we the people”. The US is crippled in being able to address this rift in culture and society. Splitting up is hard to do!
Something to think about when you might be looking forward to a Republican (stupid party) or Democratic (evil party) win in NOV2020.
Without a doubt, the current overarching panic has been framed to be that of COVID-19. From all angles, those opportunists are hoping that this crisis can assist them in burying some past or paving the way to some glorious future. Whether it is the unsustainable debt, the banking sector, the pharma sector or even those that deal in welfare (to both corporations (GOP) or individuals (Dems)), everyone it seems are bent on not wasting this crisis.
The very last thing on these people’s mind is that of personal liberties or the free market. To them it is the desire of command and control that consume their soul. Real men (when I use this word I use it the same way our Creator would, meaning men and women), men of character, principled humans who are both compassionate for others and yet principled in not attempting to fix other’s lives or circumstances. Help is afforded when both the opportunity presents itself and the help aligns with what is on the giver’s heart, because surely, Jesus did not heal everyone in the crowds, only those that were on His Father’s heart.
So here we are again where a divided nation is fighting both the effects of a virus as well as the proper method to achieve that. Authoritarians (even the ones that were libertarian just weeks ago) want the government to mandate nothing less than house arrest and martial law all across this land. Libertarian leaning people think the people themselves can figure this out on their own, since only they know their specific and unique circumstance. They might be a city dweller with a network of like minded people that CAN achieve social distancing while also bartering for what may be needed in the weeks to come, OR they might live on a farm or ranch that is miles from their neighbor who can also be in their network for critical supplies.
Montana “social distancing”
What comes to mind then, out of an article penned as Brexit was achieved, is that this is not too different than what face the American people in 1860. Yes there were those who felt righteous enough to demand that others free their slaves immediately, and yet if anyone knew how prepared these slaves were for freedom, it was probably their owners and others on the plantation or farm. While slavery was in fact winding down, there were people willing to demand their agenda no matter the cost, even if it was 700,000 dead soldiers and economically ruined regions of the country that would not recover for a century.
The American leader that most people black and white still rally around today as a man of principled freedom and equality for all is Abraham Lincoln. At times, if you read his very words you have to wonder when in fact he had his heart on the fate of the black slaves and IF his version of “the union” which he was so fond of keeping intact was the best for the marriage that existed between the north and south.
John Marquardt from the Abbeville Institute only a week ago penned an article that is rich in unpacking what really happened 150 years ago as well as the economic factor that was at the root of almost all the BAD decisions by politicians along the way. Lets work our way through some critical quotes and see where this leads:
1775:
… thirteen of its major colonies, with a cry of “no taxation without representation,” declared their independence, seceded from the British Empire and joined together to form the United States of America. Faced with the loss of a vast source of the revenue needed to fill coffers drained by its seemingly endless wars with France, Great Britain opted to wage war on its own colonies.
1860:
… seven of the States in the new American nation felt that the weight of long economic oppression by the Federal government was more than they should be forced to bear and opted to secede from the Unites States to form their own more perfect union . . . and once again the action brought forth a war in which the central government attacked its own citizens to prevent their departure.
At this point I think it is helpful to see Lincoln’s own thought processes and see how they changed through the years (an inevitable characteristic of being a politician as there is nothing off the table morally when a crisis is at hand):
1848:
.. when Lincoln was a U. S. congressman from Illinois, he gave a speech in the House of Representatives in which he stated “any people, anywhere, being inclined and having the power, have the right to rise up and shake off the existing government, and form a new one that suits them better. This is a most valuable, a most sacred right, a right which we hope and believe is to liberate the world.”
1858:
“neither the General Government, nor any other power outside of the slave States, can constitutionally or rightfully interfere with slaves or slavery where it already exists.”
Lincoln said that he did not understand the Declaration of Independence “to mean that all men were created equal in all respects,” and added that he was not in favor of “making voters or jurors of Negros nor of qualifying them to hold office nor to intermarry with white people.” He then went on to say that “there is a physical difference between the white and black races, which I believe will forever forbid the two races living together on terms of social and political equality.”
Lincoln was not a huge fan of the blacks it is very apparent, but his core philosophy that he never gave up was that the blacks were never to be allowed to migrate north and take away jobs from whites, which would cause economic upheaval. One has to come to terms that back in 1860, it was conceivable that the northern regions were more racist than southern regions who interacted with blacks on a daily basis:
The North feared that slave labor would compete unfairly with its own low-wage, largely immigrant labor force which, unlike slaves, could be willfully hired and fired as needed and did not require food, housing, clothing or even rudimentary medical attention.
It is at this point that John paints the real economic condition of the United States in 1860. Have you ever been taught this in schools as part of a CSI to understand what businessmen around the country thought about seven states leaving the Union? I doubt it, so here it goes, consider it COVID-19 home schooling:
In regard to the true economic cause behind the War, just as it was with Great Britain’s case in 1776, the gaping hole that would be formed in the Federal revenue served as the actual rationale for the Union to wage war on the departed Southern States. In 1860, there were more than thirty-one million people in the thirty-three States and ten Territories, with only a third of these, including almost four million slaves, living in the South. According to the U. S. Federal Abstract for 1860, the total Federal expenditures for that year amounted to some sixty-three million dollars, with over eighteen million of this being used mainly to finance railways, canals and other civil projects in the North. On the other hand, Federal revenues at that time amounted to a little over fifty-six million dollars. As there was then no corporate or personal income tax and revenue from domestic sources, such as the sale of public land, amounted to less than three million dollars, the remaining fifty-three million dollars were provided by what was termed “ad valorem taxes,” in other words, the tariff on foreign goods imported by the United States. The basic problem with this, however, was that as much as three-quarters of that revenue was collected in Southern ports, which meant that there would be a loss of up to forty million dollars in Federal revenue if the Southern States left the Union. Added to this was the fact that well over half of America’s four hundred million dollars in exports in 1860 were agricultural products from the South, mainly cotton, rice and tobacco.
You can see the predicament that Lincoln had when he was inaugurated in early March 1861. You can also see what the British view was back in 1775 and why they did what they did.
Now project yourself forward in time and try to understand what the so-called united States of America faces in 2020.
Will the economic crisis cause everyone to stick together and pay the $25T in debts over the next hundred years OR will regions of the US be allowed to go their separate ways?
Would anyone in the federal government be willing to let ANY state go in peace?
These are the questions one must answer themselves, along with, what is the moral path forward? Personally I think that bankruptcy is the only moral path forward, but as I was told in the US Navy, ‘opinions are like *ssholes, everyone has one’.
Ok then, let us look to see how Lincoln (Trump-like?) evolved as President:
04MAR1861:
Lincoln stated that he would “hold, occupy, and possess the property, and places belonging to the (Federal) government, and collect the duties and imposts . . . but beyond what may be necessary for these objects, there will be no invasion, no using force against, or among the people anywhere.”
.. [then] stating he had “no purpose, directly or indirectly, to interfere with the institution of slavery in the States where it exists. I believe I have no lawful right to do so, and I have no inclination to do so.”
Pretty clear that economics forced his hand to propose the absurd notion that tariffs would still be collected in the seven states that LEFT the union while he had no real heart change on the fate of the black slaves.
Early April 1861 before Ft. Sumter:
Virginia, which still remained in the Union, commissioned a three-man delegation headed by John Baldwin, a pro-Unionist and former judge of the State Supreme Court of Appeals, to meet with Lincoln at the White House in an effort to negotiate a peaceful settlement. During their meeting, the president was reported as saying privately to Baldwin “but what am I to do in the meantime with those men at Montgomery (i.e., the Confederates)? Am I to let them go on and open Charleston, etc., as ports of entry with their ten-percent tariff? What, then, would become of my tariff if I do that, what would become of my revenue? I might as well shut up housekeeping at once.”
By early April, Lincoln and his cabinet, the majority of the New Englanders as well as the farmers in the West (now called the Midwest) all saw clearly the economic ramifications of having just 7 states leave the union. Like today, the panic and gross exaggeration seemed to consume people and they were all looking to the US government to do something, ANYTHING!
Lincoln’s Cabinet
It is well documented that Lincoln’s plan to send troop transports to Charleston harbor where his Union garrison had broke a gentleman’s agreement on Christmas 1860 and moved from Ft. Moultrie to Ft. Sumter was to have the South Carolina cannon to fire the first shot (not unlike FDR’s efforts to have Japan do the same at Pearl Harbor, or Bush II’s efforts to have 9/11 be allowed) so he could be “justified” in his next action:
Lincoln’s call to the Union for seventy-five thousand volunteers to suppress what he termed the “rebellion” of the Southern States. Lincoln’s call not only led to the secession of Virginia, but Arkansas, North Carolina and Tennessee as well, and brought about a war that made casualties of five percent of America’s population, devastated a third of the nation’s States and left deep wounds in the American psyche that to this day have not yet completely healed.
Lincoln, a lawyer, never addresses the seceded states from this point forward, but relied on George Washington’s legislation created during the Whiskey Rebellion to “legally” put down the southern “insurrection” as if it was an unorganized scene of violence that had to be safely extinguished for the safety of the masses.
Keep this in mind for 2020, just sayin’.
By 1862, it was obvious what had happened:
A comparison between the conflicts of 1776 and 1861 was also made in a “London Times” article of November 7, 1861, in which it was said of the War Between the States that the “contest is really for empire on the side of the North, and for independence on that of the South, and in this respect we recognize an exact analogy between the North and the Government of George III, and the South and the Thirteen Revolted Provinces.”
In a letter written in March of 1862, Dickens stated “I take the facts of the American quarrel to stand thus; slavery has in reality nothing on earth to do with it . . . but the North having gradually got to itself the making of the laws and the settlement of the tariffs, and having taxed the South most abominably for its own advantage, began to see, as the country grew, that unless it advocated the laying down of a geographical line beyond which slavery should not extend, the South would necessarily recover it’s old political power, and be able to help itself a little in the adjustment of the commercial affairs.”
So whatever became of Lincoln’s transition toward loving the black slave? Well, we do know that Lincoln was surrounded by a culture that he was totally in alignment up to the so-called Civil War:
… pertaining to racial discrimination, Dickens said “Every reasonable creature may know, if willing, that the North hates the Negro, and until it was convenient to make a pretense that sympathy with him was the cause of the War, it hated the Abolitionists and derided them up hill and down dale.”
When the war went poorly and Lincoln was doubtful to his re-election and the possibility of an externally arranged peace conference, he issued the Emancipation Proclamation which sounded good but did not actually free one slave (and later admitted that this was a “war measure”). One can see that even this act was not from his heart as can be revealed by the following quotes:
“Send them to Liberia, to their own native land.” ~ Lincoln, speaking in favor of ethnic cleansing all blacks from the United States.
“I cannot make it better known than it already is, that I favor colonization.” ~ Lincoln, in a message to Congress, December 1, 1862, supporting deportation of all blacks from America.
“They had better be set to digging their subsistence out of the ground.” ~ Lincoln in a War Department memo, April 16, 1863
After securing a 2nd term as president he continued to meet with northern Black leaders about his plan to export blacks to the Caribbean or back to Africa after the war. For those black slaves that remained:
“Root, hog, or die” ~ Lincoln’s suggestion to illiterate and propertyless ex-slaves unprepared for freedom, Feb. 3, 1865.
So here you see that war and economics changes everything and allows politicians to make decisions that in peacetime or prosperity would have been prevented, one way or another.
It seems that today, most Americans have given in to their lot as tax slaves happy for just enough freedom for them to claim they live in the land of the free and are able to worship the flag and eat the occasional apple pie. To a majority of Americans, they know little of their history that would help them to see the red flags all around them as freedom and liberty evaporate in this once free land (mainly in 1783-1878).
May a new generation and a new remnant of Americans see though the infectious nature of government and decide for the future that they will take responsibility for themselves, their livelihood and the education of the next generation and never trust any government again.
I can dream can’t I? One day at a time everyone, one day at a time, however, it is good and well to dream and hope for a better tomorrow where the lessons of this crisis are well learned!
If one follows “History.com” (not recommended), one finds the following:
On August 26, 1794, President George Washington writes to Henry “Light Horse Harry” Lee, Virginia’s governor and a former general, regarding the Whiskey Rebellion, an insurrection that was the first great test of Washington’s authority as president of the United States. In the letter, Washington declared that he had no choice but to act to subdue the “insurgents,” fearing they would otherwise “shake the government to its foundation.”
If one prefers their history to match what you heard all your life, with George Washington chopping down a cherry tree, then the above clip probably sounds good to your ears.
If you prefer the truth, then “Mises.com”, “LewRockwell.com” and Murray Rothbard are better educators, but hang on.
If you are curious about the Whiskey Rebellion, you can start here:
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.
Pretty sure this is what you may have been taught, but you were lied to. Murray, who wrote this in the periodical ‘Free Market’ in September 1994:
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.
Why was THIS type of tax hated? (a type we are faced with all the time these days in “the land of the free”) Hang on for some history to help understand the mindset of the American people in the 1790s:
Americans .. had inherited hatred of the excise tax from the British opposition; for two centuries, excise taxes in Britain, in particular the hated tax on cider, had provoked riots and demonstrations upholding the slogan, “liberty, property, and no excise!”
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.
In summary, “.. To the average American, the federal government’s assumption of the power to impose excise taxes did not look very different from the levies of the British crown…” just 15 years prior!
It seems that this rebellion (as well as the appearance of an “insurrection” from this new president’s view, with borrowed glasses from his associate Alexander Hamilton) was much more wide spread than just some counties in Pennsylvania:
The main distortion of the Official View of the Whiskey Rebellion was its alleged confinement to four counties of western Pennsylvania. From recent research, we now know that no one paid the tax on whiskey throughout the American “back-country”: that is, the frontier areas of Maryland, Virginia, North and South Carolina, Georgia, and the entire state of Kentucky.
Why Western PA then? Turns out that this was the ONLY region where wealthy officials willingly tried to collect these taxes. Other more southern areas consisted of a more principled and honorable type that refused to enforce an immoral law.
There were two attributes of this tax that really p*ssed the common folk off, and one had to do with the whiskey itself and the other had to do with who really benefited from Alexander Hamilton’s tax:
The whiskey tax was particularly hated in the back-country because whiskey production and distilling were widespread; whiskey was not only a home product for most farmers, it was often used as a money, as a medium of exchange for transactions.
… in keeping with Hamilton’s program, the tax bore more heavily on the smaller distilleries. As a result, many large distilleries supported the tax as a means of crippling their smaller and more numerous competitors.
The truth is, in 99% of the area where this tax was ignored, it was non-violent. Only the 13,000 troops (more troops that were ever assembled in one place in the American Revolution) under George Washington (traveling in his carriage), but actually led by Alexander Hamilton, might start something:
Rather than the whiskey tax rebellion being localized and swiftly put down, the true story turns out to be very different. The entire American back-country was gripped by a non-violent, civil disobedient refusal to pay the hated tax on whiskey. No local juries could be found to convict tax delinquents. The Whiskey Rebellion was actually widespread and successful, for it eventually forced the federal government to repeal the excise tax.
Since the tax rate was $0.06 – 0.18 per gallon or $5 per year from the “producer”:
the retail price of whisky in the West was about half what it was in the East, the effective tax rate in the West was twice as high, computed as a percentage of the price.
Since the “producer” in the West were farmers who bartered with whiskey as a currency, there was no one to pass these costs on to as the large distilleries could.
The blow-back from this internal tax (verses the external tariff type) would sweep Thomas Jefferson into office who would then repeal this tax.
Not until the War of 1812 would Americans tolerate this tax once more. It was all downhill from there:
Except during the War of 1812, the federal government never again dared to impose an internal excise tax, until the North transformed the American Constitution by centralizing the nation during the War Between the States. One of the evil fruits of this war was the permanent federal “sin” tax on liquor and tobacco, to say nothing of the federal income tax, an abomination and a tyranny even more oppressive than an excise.
One only has to look at the actions of those awesome early Americans to know how far the citizens have come in this country, and yet they call it “progress”.
