Question of the Day: Taxes and Rebellion

Which side would you take?

Let’s say the U.S. Government, with a Secretary of the Treasurer which was known to liked a strong federal government, issued a tax to service the national debt, and as method to discipline society. Frankly, the tax was imposed to advance and secure the power of the new federal government. Those to whom these taxes were applied the most took to protesting. The President sent the National Guard to quash them.

What side would you take? Is this action constitutional? What should happen to that President?

You Might Also Like

27 Replies to “Question of the Day: Taxes and Rebellion”

  1. Alexander Hamilton was the poison that infected our nation, poisoning even Washington with his ambitions. Remember, he actually favored a monarchy. Read Hamilton’s Curse by DiLorenzo.

    1. I know… I actually had that in the original draft of the post, but took it out because I thought that it might give too much away.

      So, did Burr do a good thing?

  2. @Polycarp Heh…not exactly. Dueling was illegal after all (although it shouldn’t between two consenting adults), and besides, Hamilton had already done his damage.

    Now, if Burr had made his move before 1795 or so, I’d have a much harder time being scandalized by it. Just being honest.

    1. No, I agree with you.

      Of course, Jefferson didn’t exactly hold to his constitutional principles either, and he wasn’t so infected by Hamilton either.

  3. Is the issue the tax or the fact there exists a central government at all. Seems to me that framing it as a tax question obscures rather than clarifies the issue.

Leave a Reply, Please!

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.