I was thinking there was a timeline where the Whiskey Rebellion succeeded, but not sure what or where it was. Anyway, I will ask that question. What if the Whiskey Rebellion succeeded?
What if the Whiskey Rebellion succeeded?
- Thread starter sampleswift
- Start date
The Whiskey Rebellion had a sort of "eat the rich" attitude . The rebellion was based from an excise tax that disportionately affected small scale distilleries where there was lesser tax for larger ones. Not too keen on the details myself, as it's kinda a bilp in American and only really talked about in the context of being constrated to Shays's Rebellion where The Articles of Confederation could barely handle the rebellion of Shays where the feds dispersed the whiskey rebellion.The Whiskey Rebellion had a munch of anger.
What would you define as a success for the rebels? Do the rebels defeat Washington's army? Do they burn some homes and get the tax reformed to be more egalitarian or repealed?
It's hard to define success for them would bring, because it wasn't exactly a widespread movement more of a public outcry of certain events. Perhaps, it could morph into one. Maybe you would see a more radicalized America, maybe a more democratic movement to get Universal male suffrage occurs a little earlier.
What would you define as a success for the rebels? Do the rebels defeat Washington's army? Do they burn some homes and get the tax reformed to be more egalitarian or repealed?
It's hard to define success for them would bring, because it wasn't exactly a widespread movement more of a public outcry of certain events. Perhaps, it could morph into one. Maybe you would see a more radicalized America, maybe a more democratic movement to get Universal male suffrage occurs a little earlier.
Hoo. So the Whiskey Rebellion was far smaller than Shay's Rebellion, and so the rebels had far less chance of success. I'd say a success meant the rebels accomplished most of the objectives they were trying to accomplish.
Skallagrim
Banned
Just to correct a major misapprehension: while Shays' Rebellion was perhaps a bit "Eat the rich" (although that's a simplification), the Whiskey Rebellion certainly wasn't. Unlike the Shays and their compatriots, the Whiskey Rebels didn't want any kind of wealth redistribution: they only wanted a tax they considered unfair to stop being forced on them. This was a tax revolt, plain and simple. The background was that Alexander Hamilton had come up with the "great" idea of consolidating all state debts into one single federal debt, and imposing new federal taxation as a way of paying it off. This, like all such centralist proposals throughout history, meant that those states and regions with the lowest debt (or who had already paid if off) would be paying for the states/regions with the highest debt. This injustice was compounded by the fact that Hamilton deliberately pushed for a "sin tax" on domestically produced distilled spirits. (Hamilton was not only a centralist, but also the sort of insufferable paternalist who thought taxes should be used to 'correct' public behaviour of which he didn't approve.)
Most importantly, however, was the fact that Hamilton had specifically chosen a type of tax that would hit the Western states (and rural areas in general) the hardest. Farmers of the Western frontier always distilled their surplus rye, barley, wheat, corn, or fermented grain mixtures to make whiskey. This was a way of keeping themselves financially solvable in the off-seasons. Hamilton, an NYC man, basically figured "let's squeeze the cash we need out of those hicks". A crucial detail is that it was states like New York that had the big debts! So in summation, Western/argrarian states and regions were already forced to take on shared responsibility for the debts (North-)Eastern/urban states and regions, but would also be forced to foot an exorbitant share of the bill, because the tax designed to raise the money was one that would target them disproportionally! (Hamilton purposely designed it that way, not least because the North-Eastern urbanites were more often Federalists, and the Westerners/rurals leaned more towards Anti-Federalism and proto-Jeffersonianism.)
Those Westerners got screwed, is what I'm saying. What would it take for them to win? Probably... make the Rebellion non-violent (as Gallatin, who wasn't unsympathetic, urged the Rebels strongly). As such, there will be no ruling that the situation is beyond local authorities. Washington doesn't take a federal army to crush the rebels. They keep gaining traction as a non-violent movement. Ideally, they organise a sort of peaceful march, and -- fed up with federal inaction -- Alexander Hamilton raises an army of his own to confront the rebels. It turns into a slaughter, and Hamilton is seen as the villain, who butchered citizens without need. Washington disavows Hamilton, Jefferson wins '76 in a landslide, Hamilton is executed for high treason, the Federalist Party implodes, and radical Jeffersonianism becomes so popular that not only does the whiskey tax get repealed, but the Consitution is amended to forever ban any form of federal taxation other than the tariff. (Possibly, even the outstanding state debts get devolved back to the states, and a Constitutional Amendment is added that blocks the federal government from assuming state debts ever again.)
That basically means that, although a lot of the Rebels get butchered (in order to get the movement wide-spread public sympathy), the goals of the Rebellion are ultimately achieved beyond their wildest dreams. Not only is the tax repealed, any future taxes of the same sort are explicitly made impossible. And no matter how the existing debt issue gets resolved, there will be a big political taboo against making one state pay for the costs incurred by another state.
So all in all, the success of the Whiskey Rebellion (defined here as the achievements of its goals and a solution to the grievances of the rebels) would mean: an ultra-Jeffersonian, much less centralist USA, presumably of a far more explicitly confederal nature, with a much smaller and minimally funded federal government, in which "Federal Party" and "Alexander Hamilton" are curse words (and expressing sympathy for them is political suicide).
Most importantly, however, was the fact that Hamilton had specifically chosen a type of tax that would hit the Western states (and rural areas in general) the hardest. Farmers of the Western frontier always distilled their surplus rye, barley, wheat, corn, or fermented grain mixtures to make whiskey. This was a way of keeping themselves financially solvable in the off-seasons. Hamilton, an NYC man, basically figured "let's squeeze the cash we need out of those hicks". A crucial detail is that it was states like New York that had the big debts! So in summation, Western/argrarian states and regions were already forced to take on shared responsibility for the debts (North-)Eastern/urban states and regions, but would also be forced to foot an exorbitant share of the bill, because the tax designed to raise the money was one that would target them disproportionally! (Hamilton purposely designed it that way, not least because the North-Eastern urbanites were more often Federalists, and the Westerners/rurals leaned more towards Anti-Federalism and proto-Jeffersonianism.)
Those Westerners got screwed, is what I'm saying. What would it take for them to win? Probably... make the Rebellion non-violent (as Gallatin, who wasn't unsympathetic, urged the Rebels strongly). As such, there will be no ruling that the situation is beyond local authorities. Washington doesn't take a federal army to crush the rebels. They keep gaining traction as a non-violent movement. Ideally, they organise a sort of peaceful march, and -- fed up with federal inaction -- Alexander Hamilton raises an army of his own to confront the rebels. It turns into a slaughter, and Hamilton is seen as the villain, who butchered citizens without need. Washington disavows Hamilton, Jefferson wins '76 in a landslide, Hamilton is executed for high treason, the Federalist Party implodes, and radical Jeffersonianism becomes so popular that not only does the whiskey tax get repealed, but the Consitution is amended to forever ban any form of federal taxation other than the tariff. (Possibly, even the outstanding state debts get devolved back to the states, and a Constitutional Amendment is added that blocks the federal government from assuming state debts ever again.)
That basically means that, although a lot of the Rebels get butchered (in order to get the movement wide-spread public sympathy), the goals of the Rebellion are ultimately achieved beyond their wildest dreams. Not only is the tax repealed, any future taxes of the same sort are explicitly made impossible. And no matter how the existing debt issue gets resolved, there will be a big political taboo against making one state pay for the costs incurred by another state.
So all in all, the success of the Whiskey Rebellion (defined here as the achievements of its goals and a solution to the grievances of the rebels) would mean: an ultra-Jeffersonian, much less centralist USA, presumably of a far more explicitly confederal nature, with a much smaller and minimally funded federal government, in which "Federal Party" and "Alexander Hamilton" are curse words (and expressing sympathy for them is political suicide).
Last edited: