The Whiskey Rebellion (Federal Edition) (With Active Table of Contents)

---

Excise taxes on whiskey or similar "luxury" taxes were not necessarily new; the British had tried the same thing in If charged, rural violators had to appear in federal court which was an added burden due to distance, time, and expense. The legislature did lower the tax and allow state courts to hear some cases, but this did not quell the discontent.

The whiskey tax created a flashpoint that highlighted deeper concerns with corruption in government and a lack of political representation very similar to earlier regulation movements. The Regulators from Pennsylvania had several grievances that hinged on protecting their homes and livelihoods rather than one sin tax. Several economic and political concerns troubled the Regulators such as the favoritism for land speculators over farmers and veterans, increasing debts, the lack of hard currency to pay taxes, and recent changes in the state constitution that influenced the local courts.

The farmers that settled western Pennsylvania often competed with land speculators who surveyed and purchased titles to the land on which the farmers where building. They asked for laws that would limit the amount of land that speculators could own and higher tax rates for unused land. But votes for reformist candidates failed to change policies as these politicians changed sides or ignored these concerns once in office.

The speculators instead received tax exemptions for their lands and the state Supreme Court struck down attempts to set up settlement requirements or purchase limits. And just like in Massachusetts, after the war many farmers, artisans, and veterans sold their certificates at a fraction of their worth to speculators in attempts to settle their mounting debts and obtain the hard currency required to pay state taxes.

But this was often not enough. Again, as seen in other regulator movements, the Whiskey Rebellion did not happen overnight but was the climatic event in a series of actions by western Pennsylvanian settlers. Early on, petitions voiced concerns and liberty poles were raised to express dissent.

Debtors were protected by community action. Additionally, farmers blocked and closed roads to prevent foreclosures on specific properties. If the sheriff and auctioneer could not reach the house with the wagon, they could not take anything away. Even if the militia did not take direct action they often aided popular protest by practicing "militia nullification" or refusing to muster and suppress crowd action. This became enough of a problem that Governor Thomas Mifflin had to enact fines and punishments for militiamen who failed to perform their duty.

Many that were drawn into the regulation movement, militia and otherwise, argued it was not only their right but their "political obligation" to take a stand against mounting injustice. That is impossible in the nature of the case; we are known to the government by representation only and not by force.

We must therefore either overthrow it or it must overthrow us. But we have sworn to support it. If we contemplate overthrowing it, where is our oath of allegiance? But can we overthrow it? We might as well think of tossing the Allegheny mountain from its base But cannot we cecede from the union?

Not, and remain part of the government at the same time. We must dissolve our connection with PA before we can cease to be under the government of the United States. But have we a right to dissolve our union with both? An individual may emigrate from society and a part of the society may emigrate from the whole, but an individual cannot leave a state in war because he owes service for the benefits he has enjoyed in peace.

He cannot leave it without discharging debts he owes to individuals or to the public. How then can a part of the community separate before it has discharged the obligations contracted by the whole? But the choice by Regulators to take up arms to effect political change were quickly associated with populist uprisings that threatened civil war and anarchy. This rhetoric of anarchy was further fueled by contemporary events. The French Revolution became the Reign of Terror in and the execution of the king and the aristocracy quickly turned to a hunt for any political enemies of the new republic.

This turn of events and the French encouragement of revolutions outside of France led many Federalists to publish scathing accounts of popular unrest. To achieve this goal they developed Democratic-Societies where members could gain more "perfect knowledge" of politics essential to a republic. But the Federalists criticized them for limiting membership to like-minded Democratic-Republicans and holding private meetings at night.

The Federalists considered Democratic-Society meetings subversive and accused them of encouraging minority insurgents and revolutionaries to follow the French "mob" example. Despite the strong rhetoric against the Regulators, there were still some sympathetic to their plight. Before the state militias were mustered by Washington several liberty poles were raised by militia companies in Virginia and Maryland.

Judge Alexander Addison agreed that the tax was unjust but denounced the use of arms by the Regulators. After the rebellion was over he blamed the rebellion on a few landless trouble makers and appealed for clemency for most of the farmers involved. But they kept their objections private and their letters also show their concern that armed protest like the Whiskey Rebellion would only strengthen the Federal government. The example of the first Pennsylvania Regulation or Whiskey Rebellion illustrates how public opinion was shifting from regulation movements.

Many agreed that the tax was unjust but denounced any action that involved armed protest or the use of the militia. The "body of the people" was still praised but events like this one were seen as too localized and regional. These rebels did not represent the national "body of the people. Even Democratic-Republicans were split as moderates favored measured debate, petition, and political action while radicals called for armed regulation movements that invoked the "body of the people" organized through the militias. At the end of the 18th century, the nascent United States tried to maintain neutrality with Britain and France but the Jay Treaty of was viewed by many to favor Britain.

This uncertain time justified the first peacetime standing army under the new constitution. Within this atmosphere tax protests and evasion were not uncommon. But a flashpoint was reached in March in the German-speaking counties north of Philadelphia. At the start of March, the Federal Marshal William Nichols began serving warrants and holding tax evaders at an inn in Bethlehem, Northampton County with plans to take them to Philadelphia for trial.

Online Library of Liberty

An angry crowd gathered and nearby local militias mustered. By March 7th the marshal faced a force of up to armed men led by the militia captain John Fries. Fries negotiated with Nichols for several hours. The community wanted to see the men tried locally and offered to pay their bail. At first Nichols refused but, aware that tensions were rising and the situation deteriorating, he eventually agreed.

They referenced their membership in Democratic-Societies and wearing of tri-colored badges which linked them with French revolutionaries. By the third and fourth articles of our treaty with France, and by the second and third articles of our treaty with Prussia, it is stipulated, that the subjects and citizens of the respective parties shall pay, in the ports, havens, and places of each other, no other or greater duties or imposts, of whatsoever nature they may be, than those which the nations most favored shall be obliged to pay; and, moreover, that they shall enjoy all the rights, liberties, privileges, and exemptions in trade, navigation, and commerce, which the said nations do or shall enjoy.

And by the second article of the former and the twenty-sixth article of the latter treaty, the parties agree mutually, not to grant any particular favor, in respect to navigation or commerce, which shall not immediately become common to the other party, who shall enjoy the same favor, if freely granted, or on allowing the same compensation, if the concession was conditional. The stipulations in the three treaties are, on these points, equivalent.

The second and third articles of our treaty with Holland, and the third and fourth of our treaty with Sweden, likewise contain mutual stipulations, that the subjects and citizens of the several parties shall pay in the ports, havens, and places of their respective countries, no other or higher duties or imposts than those which the nations most favored shall pay; and that they shall enjoy all the rights, liberties, privileges, and exemptions in trade and navigation which the said nations shall enjoy.

The articles before us, after stipulating that there shall be, between our territories and the British dominions in Europe, a reciprocal and perfect liberty of commerce, declare that the same shall be subject always to the laws of the respective countries.

The introductory articles of our treaties with France, Holland, and Sweden, after asserting the intentions of the parties to take equality and reciprocity as their basis, likewise leave each party at liberty to form such regulations respecting commerce and navigation as it shall find convenient to itself; and the second and third articles of our treaty with Prussia, after stipulating the rights of the parties, respecting the duties and imposts, and the freedom of their navigation and trade, likewise require their submission to the laws and usages established in the two countries.

The articles before us, in their provisions relative to navigation, stipulate, as has been already observed, in common with our other treaties, that the ships of the parties shall not be subject to higher or other duties than those paid by all other nations. Our treaty with France is the only one in which we discover a similar stipulation. France had a high alien tonnage duty on all foreign vessels transporting the merchandise of France from one port to another port in her dominions.

We had a less alien tonnage duty on foreign ships employed in a similar trade. Though not equally extensive, the case is parallel to that which exists between us and Great Britain.

We have a high alien tonnage duty on all foreign vessels entering our ports; Great Britain has a less alien tonnage duty on foreign vessels entering her ports. In our treaty with France we reserve a right to countervail the alien tonnage duty imposed by France; and in like manner, in our treaty with Great Britain, she reserves a right to countervail the alien tonnage duty imposed by us. The object, in both instances, has been to place the navigation of the parties on the footing of exact equality. The preceding exposition of these articles, illustrated by the comparison of their provisions with the analogous articles of our other treaties, would be sufficient to vindicate them against the objections to which they have been exposed.

It is, however, thought advisable to take notice of such of these objections as are likely to have any influence on the public opinion.

An extraordinary construction of the last clause of the fourteenth article has been assumed by the writer of Cato; his mistake in this instance has been the foundation of many of the errors with which that performance abounds. The article stipulates that there shall be a perfect and reciprocal liberty of navigation and commerce between our territories and those of Great Britain in Europe, subject always to the laws and statutes of the two countries, respectively.

This navigation and commerce, says Cato, must be subject to, and defined and regulated by, the laws and statutes of the two countries which existed at the time of making the treaty; all future laws, that either party might be disposed to make, relative to the same, being excluded. The reason assigned in support of this interpretation is, that the article would be nugatory, did not the laws and statutes alluded to mean only those in existence at the making of the treaty, since future laws might impair or destroy what the article confers.

The customary and established meaning of them in other treaties would lead to a rejection of it. The object of the clause is not the limitation of the legislative power of the parties, but the subjection of their mutual navigation and commerce to their respective laws. This end is most fully attained by understanding the parties to mean their future as well as their existing laws.

Besides, the interpretation Edition: If this construction is just, some of the most important stipulations of the fifteenth article would really become useless. For instance, if the laws, existing at the time of making the treaty are alone to prevail, the articles of commerce, admitted or excluded by those laws, must remain entitled to admission or liable to exclusion. The reason adduced by Cato to support his construction is equally defective with his interpretation itself. The fourteenth article is in general terms, and similar, as has been shown, to the introductory articles of other treaties; so far from the last clause thereof being capable of destroying the preceding stipulations, it is the peculiar province of the next article to ascertain the points which the parties mutually agree to except from their legislative power.

In all cases not thus excepted, the navigation and commerce of the parties is subject to their existing or future laws. It is not necessary to remark on the several objections which have proceeded from the opinion Edition: Another objection which has been stated by several writers, and much labored by Cato, is that, under the right reserved to the British Government to countervail an alien tonnage duty, by the imposition of an equivalent one on our vessels entering their ports, they would gain and we should lose.

Several methods are adopted to prove this opinion. The observation that we have a tonnage duty on our own vessels, and that Great Britain has none, is repeated by way of objection against this as well as against the proposed adjustment contained in the twelfth article. The same reply already given might be sufficient in this place. But [is it true] that British ships entering their own ports in Europe are wholly free from a tonnage duty? The contrary is the fact; since it is understood that they pay a tonnage duty for the support of light-houses, and some other institutions, connected with their navigation, which [in all their ports 1 ] exceeds the tonnage duty of six cents per ton, that we levy on the entry of our own vessels employed in foreign trade.

But Great Britain it is alleged will not only impose, in virtue of this reserved right, fifty cents per ton on our vessels entering her ports, but in every port except that of London she will furthermore exact one shilling and ninepence sterling, or thirty-nine cents per ton, for light-money and Trinity-dues, more than is paid by Edition: Our tonnage duty is a tax not divided and appropriated, like the light-money or Trinity-dues in Great Britain, to specific and particular objects, but when levied, goes into the treasury with the duty of impost, and stands appropriated to the various objects to which that duty is appropriated.

Among those objects is the support of light-houses. It is not the object to which the tax is applied that gives a denomination; whether it goes to support the civil list, or to pay annuities, or to maintain light-houses, or to support hospitals, it is equally a tonnage duty.

A tonnage duty, then, of a certain amount, is now paid by American vessels entering the ports of Great Britain. This duty is not uniform, being less in London than in the other ports, and, in some instances, less than the tonnage duty paid by British ships entering our ports. The object of this clause 8th of the 15th article is to equalize the alien tonnage duties of the parties. Hence the reservation of a right to the British Government to impose on our vessels entering their ports in Europe, a tonnage duty equal to that which shall be payable by British vessels in our ports.

It would be against the manifest views of the parties, as well as against the explicit terms of the articles, to impose a tonnage duty whether for light-money, Trinity-dues, or any other purpose which should exceed that which shall be payable by British vessels in our ports. The right reserved is expressly to impose on our Edition: This objection, therefore, must be abandoned.

But again, it is urged that our navigation, should it weather Scylla, must perish on Charybdis; for we are gravely told by Cato that, under the right reserved to the British Government to impose such duty as may be sufficient to countervail, or, which is equivalent, to balance the difference of duty payable on the importation into our ports of Asiatic or European goods by American or by British vessels, our ships will be thrown out of the trade with the British European dominions; because, under this right, the British Government will impose a duty on our productions carried to their ports in our own ships equal to the whole duty payable on the goods and merchandises imported into our ports by British ships; and as the goods and merchandises which we receive from them exceed in value those that they receive from us by one third, and as the duty to be countervailed is at least ten per cent.

A more extravagant construction, 1 or an argument more inaccurately formed, can scarcely be imagined. The countervailing right is not applicable to the Edition: This difference is one tenth part of the duty upon all European goods—that is to say, these goods pay one tenth part more duty when imported in British vessels than is paid on the same when imported in an American vessel. In all cases, therefore, where our impost is ten per cent. Again, it is not an aggregate sum that is to be apportioned under this countervailing right, for this sum would be liable to constant variation, according to the quantity and species of goods imported into our ports from time to time by British vessels; and besides, the British Government possess no means whereby the amount thereof could be ascertained.

Cato feels and admits the force of these remarks as decisive against an average duty, without perceiving that they possess equal strength against his project of countervailing the whole duty paid on the importation of goods and merchandises into our ports by British vessels; for the same variation in the amount, and the same want of the means to ascertain it, will operate in both cases. The reasons which he himself employs to prove that an average duty cannot be ascertained, equally show the impracticability Edition: It has before been stated that the natural, as well as the equitable, mode of executing this power will be to impose a duty on the goods imported by us from their European ports exactly the same as makes the difference of duty on the importation thereof into our ports by American or by British vessels.

Admitting that the execution of the countervailing right reserved to Great Britain will do no more than place the navigation of the parties on an equal footing in their mutual intercourse, still we are told that for this, likewise, the treaty is blamable, because even equality will be such an advantage to our rival, that we shall be unable to maintain the competition.

This objection brings with it a quality rarely to be discovered in the opinions of the cavillers against the treaty. Their usual error is a false and magnified estimate of the comparative resources, strength, and importance of our country; in this instance, shifting their ground, they fall into the opposite extreme, and contend for our inferiority in a branch of business in the prosecution of which we are unquestionably able to meet a fair competition with any nation.

With what propriety could we have proposed or expected an adjustment of our intercourse by which our vessels should have been placed on a better footing than those of the other party? As the trade was mutually beneficial, why could we, more than Great Britain, ask for an arrangement that should subject Edition: Does any considerate man believe, that it would have been proper for us to ask, or that there is the least probability that Great Britain would have acceded to, an arrangement on the subject of our mutual navigation, that should have secured to us advantages denied to them?

To place the navigation of the parties on an equal footing, was all that could be rationally expected by either; and so far from such a settlement being injurious to us, the contrary has long been the opinion both here and in Great Britain. If it is true that we are unable to maintain a competition with the British navigation, how are we to account for the jealousy [that is understood] to have shown itself on their part on this subject. But the fact is otherwise—British ships cannot be built and equipped as cheap as American ships, nor are they victualled and manned 1 on as good terms.

Our country abounds with excellent materials for ship-building. Great Britain is in a great measure dependent upon other countries for a supply of them. The materials for the construction of ships are much cheaper in America than in Great Britain; and intelligent characters in Great Britain as well as in America have affirmed, that an American merchantship of any given burthen can be built and equipped for sea one third cheaper than a British, Dutch, or French ship of equal goodness.

Coxe informs us, that the cost of an American ship, built of our Edition: The capital employed on the American merchantmen is therefore one third less on any given amount of tonnage than that employed in the same amount of British tonnage; or the money requisite to build and equip for sea two British merchantships, will be sufficient to build and equip for sea three American merchant-ships of the same burthen and of equal goodness.

It is not only the difference in the first cost, but to this should be added the difference of interest and insurance, the annual amount whereof is ascertained by the value of the ships. If we add to this the comparative advantages that we possess in victualling and manning our vessels, independent of the acknowledged and distinguished skill and enterprise of our seamen, it may be safely affirmed, that no American who knows the character of his countrymen, and who is not ignorant of our peculiar resources for ship-building, will doubt our superiority in an equal and fair competition with any other nation.

It is further alleged, that the treaty wants reciprocity, inasmuch as the whole territory of the United States is laid open to the British navigation and commerce, while in return, the British territories, in Europe only, are open to us. The short answer to this allegation is, that it is not true.

All the British territories in Europe are laid open to us; Edition: The article relative to this branch of trade, as has already been observed, is excepted from the ratification of the treaty, and made the subject of future negotiation. The intercourse is confined on both sides to the interior communications, the inhabitants of those colonies being equally destitute of a right to resort, by sea, with their ships to our ports and harbors, as we are of the right to resort, by sea, with our ships to their ports and harbors.

The settlement in the Bay of Honduras is on Spanish lands, and the right of precedence is conceded for specified objects, beyond which the Spanish Government are vigilant to restrain the settlers. Spain may possibly be induced to allow us a right in common with Great Britain to cut mahogany and dye-woods in this region; but Great Britain cannot, consistently with her convention with Spain, share with us the privilege that she enjoys. Newfoundland is a mere establishment for the British fisheries. The African trade has been, and might hereafter be, pursued, if our humanity and the force of public opinion did not impede it, without Edition: It is finally alleged that the treaty will bind up and restrain our Government from making more specific and beneficial treaties of commerce with other nations.

Those who urge this objection have generally placed great reliance on another objection, which asserts that the treaty with Great Britain violates the Constitution, because it amounts to a regulation of commerce, the power to regulate which is vested in Congress and not in the Executive. Yet these very characters, in the next breath, maintain that the treaty is bad, because it precludes our Executive government for no other power can make treaties from making more minute and beneficial commercial treaties with other nations.

If these observations can be reconciled, it must be thus: That we may have characters among us sufficiently intemperate to wish that such was the Constitution, I am not prepared to deny; but that such a construction can be made out, yet remains to be proved. The objection, as usual, is made in a loose and inaccurate manner; literally interpreted, we should infer that the treaty contained an article, whereby we had agreed with Great Britain that we would not form any future treaties of commerce with any nation; but no such stipulation exists.

Is it meant by the objection to be alleged that we can form no commercial treaty, whereby, for an advantage yielded on our part, we may acquire a privilege in return, unless we yield the same advantage to Great Britain gratuitously and without receiving from her the equivalent? Admitting the truth of this objection, it might be replied: So, on the other hand, Great Britain can form no commercial treaty, whereby, for an advantage yielded on her part, she may acquire some privilege in return, unless she yields the same advantage to us gratuitously and without receiving from us the equivalent; and as Great Britain, whose commercial relations are equally extensive with ours, and whose capital far exceeds ours, is equally restrained on this point, our chance of gain would be fully equal to our chance of loss.

But the allegation is not generally true, and the objection, when examined, will be found to be of little weight, even with those who may imagine that Edition: The case that has been chosen to enforce the objection, shall be employed to invalidate it. Admit that the treaty with Great Britain is in operation; that the oil and provision merchants of the United States, and the wine and brandy merchants of France are desirous of a treaty between the two countries, whereby those commodities shall be received from each other on low duties or freely; admit further, that the governments of the two nations are disposed to make such a treaty this is the case again put by the opposers of the treaty as impracticable , what will restrain the conclusion of this treaty?

The disadvantage that will arise from our treaty with Great Britain? No; for Britain produces neither wines, nor brandy made from wines, with which she could supply us; she therefore could gain nothing, nor should we lose any thing, by the conclusion of such a treaty. All that will be requisite, therefore, in the formation of such treaties, will be to choose for the purpose such articles of the growth, manufacture, or produce of any country with whom we desire to treat, as are not common to it and the British dominions, and any skilful merchant will quickly make the selection.

Hence it appears that the objection is not well founded in point of fact. But though it may be practicable, will it be politic in us to conclude no commercial treaties of this character with any nation? If we resort to precedents Edition: Indeed, they are a description of conventions not often formed between nations. They are of difficult adjustment, and necessarily increase the provisions of the commercial code, sufficiently intricate, when only one rule prevails in respect to all nations. Besides, however perfect may be the right of nations in this respect, yet, when the productions of one nation are received at lower duties than the like productions of another, the discrimination will scarcely fail to awaken desires and to produce dissatisfaction from their disappointment.

Again, unless we are prepared, at the expense of the whole, to procure advantages or privileges for a part of the community, we shall doubt the policy of such stipulations. Between two manufacturing nations, in each of which the manufactures have attained to great perfection, a tariff of duties may be established by treaties, in the payment of which the manufactures of the two countries might be freely exchanged and mutually confirmed; such was the commercial treaty between France and Great Britain in the year But the subject was so intricate and involved such a variety of apparently independent circumstances, such as the price of provisions, the amount and the manner of levying of the taxes, and the price of the raw materials employed in their respective manufactures, that neither party felt entire confidence in the equity and reciprocity of the treaty; and with all the skill in negotiation, that France in a superior degree has been supposed to have possessed, the opinion of that nation has finally Edition: We have another specimen of this species of treaty in a short convention between England and Portugal, concluded in The object was to procure a favorable market for dissimilar commodities, and such as were not the common production of the two countries.

But this treaty, which has been so much applauded, is essentially defective in point of reciprocity. England agrees to admit the wine of Portugal on payment of two thirds of the duty that shall be payable on French wines; and in return, Portugal agrees not to prohibit the English woollens. She does not agree to receive them exclusively of the woollens of other countries, nor to admit them on payment of lower duties. The advantage, therefore, is manifestly on the side of Portugal.

By the treaty of commerce between France and Great Britain, concluded in , it was agreed, that the wines of France imported into Great Britain should pay no higher duties than those which the wines of Portugal then paid. The consequence must have been a reduction, without compensation or equivalent from Portugal, of the existing duties on the wines of that country brought into Great Britain, equal to one third of the amount of such duties.

This is an instance of inconvenience and loss, resulting from the species of treaties, which it is alleged as an objection to the treaty concluded between us and Great Britain, that we are prevented by it from making with other nations. A small compact nation, likewise, who excel in Edition: But in a nation like ours, composed of different States, varying in climate, productions, manufactures, and commercial pursuits, it will be more difficult to enter into treaties of this kind.

Should Great Britain, for example, be inclined to admit our fish-oils freely, or on payment of low duties, on condition that we would receive their woollens or hardware freely, or on payment of low duties, would the Middle and Southern States be satisfied with such a treaty?

Would it not be said that such a tax was a bounty out of the common treasury, on a particular branch of business pursued alone by a portion of the citizens of a single State in the Union? Instances might be multiplied in the illustration of this subject; but they will readily occur to every man who will pursue a little detail in his reflections. We have once made an experiment of this kind; its fate should serve as a caution to us in future. By the eleventh and twelfth articles of our treaty with France, it was agreed that France should never impose any duty on the molasses that we should import from the French West Indies; and in compensation of this exemption, Edition: These articles produced much dissatisfaction in Congress: Those arguments which will show themselves in future, should similar conventions be formed, were displayed on this occasion.

The treaty was ratified; Congress applied to the king of France to consent to annul these articles; this request was granted; and the articles were, by the several acts of the parties, annulled. Not only the few instances of the existence of these treaties among the nations, added to the peculiar difficulties which we must meet in their formation, should lead us to doubt their utility, but also the opinion of our own country, which, if explicit on any point, has been repeatedly so in the condemnation of this species of national compact.

The same language is employed in our subsequent Edition: On the whole, the more closely this question is examined the more doubtful will the policy appear of our entering into treaties of this description. We shall have to encounter not only the intrinsic difficulties that always attend a fair and precise adjustment of the equivalents, together with the national discontents that proceed from errors on this point; but, moreover, a still greater embarrassment from the circumstance that our great staple exports are not the common productions of the whole Union, but different articles are peculiar to different parts thereof.

If, notwithstanding, our Government shall discover an instance in which, consistent with the common interest and sound policy, such a treaty might be desirable, we have scope sufficient to form it without incurring loss or disadvantage by the operation of our treaty with Great Britain.

The sixteenth article is entirely conformable to the usage and custom of nations. The exchange of consuls had already taken place between us and Great Britain; and their functions and privileges being left to the definition of the law of nations, we shall be exempt from those unpleasant controversies that too often arise from special conventions, which enlarge the consular privileges, power, and jurisdiction.

The agreement that either party may punish, dismiss, Edition: I have not observed that this article has been disapproved of from any quarter. The law of nature as heretofore observed , applicable to individuals in their independent or unsocial state, is what, when applied to collections of individuals in society, constitutes the natural or necessary law of nations. An individual in a state of nature, for reparation of injuries, or in defence of his person and property, has a right to seize the property of his enemy, and to destroy his person.

Nations always succeed to the rights that the individuals who composed them enjoy in a state of Edition: This right must be so used as not to injure the rights of others; subject to this limitation, it is perfect, and an interruption of it by another is an injury. As in a contest between two individuals in a state of nature, no third has a right, without becoming a party in the controversy, to protect the property or defend the person of either of the parties; so in a war between two nations, no third nation can act out of its own jurisdiction, consistent with the duties of neutrality; or, without becoming a party in the war, protect the property of, or defend, either of the parties.

Though nations are, in respect to each other, like individuals in a state of nature, the resemblance is not in every particular perfect. Individuals in a state of nature have not only the inferior dominion or private ownership of property, but the entire and perfect dominion over it. In society the latter right belongs exclusively to the nation, while the former belongs to the several members that compose it.

Immovable things, such as lands, which are denominated the territory of a nation, are the immediate and special objects of this perfect dominion or paramount property.

The Whiskey Rebellion

Movable things are the proper objects of inferior dominion or private ownership, and are not otherwise the objects of the national or paramount property than as they happen to be within its territorial limits. The perfect dominion or jurisdiction of a nation, in respect to property, Edition: As soon, therefore, as movable things pass out of these limits, they cease to be under the dominion or jurisdiction of the nation, the private property of whose members they may be.

This private property, in movable things, may be enjoyed within the territory of a nation, by those who are not members thereof. Hence in a war between two nations, a member of one of which owns movables within the territory of a third or neutral nation, such movables or property are not liable to seizure by reason of the war; because, being within and under the exclusive jurisdiction of a third nation, it would be an injury to the right of such nation to go there and seize the same.

So long as such movables remain within a foreign territory, they are objects of its dominion and protection; but as soon as they are carried out of the same, they cease to be any longer under its jurisdiction or protection. In a war between two nations, all the members of each are enemies to the other, and all the property of the several members, as well as the strictly national property, is liable to seizure. Hence the property of an enemy is liable to capture only within Edition: The series' correct title is The Federalist; the title The Federalist Papers did not emerge until the twentieth century.

By reading their words you will have a clear understanding how this debate influenced our present and created the American democracy: Need for Stronger Union Federalist Papers: Brutus I Extended Republics Federalist: Brutus X The Judiciary Federalist: Cato V Regulating Elections Federalist: First appearing in as a series of letters to New York newspapers, this collective body of work is widely considered to be among the most important historical collections of all time.

Although the authors of The Federalist Papers foremost intended to influence the vote in favor of ratifying the Constitution, in Federalist No. This is generally regarded as the most important of the eighty-five essays from a philosophical perspective, and it is complemented by Federalist No. Though centuries old, these timeless essays remain the benchmark of American political philosophy.

As eloquently stated by famed historian Richard B. Morris, The Federalist Papers serve as an "incomparable exposition of the Constitution, a classic in political science unsurpassed in both breadth and depth by the product of any later American writer. The essays were written and published anonymously in New York newspapers during the years and by three of the Constitution's framers and ratifiers: Thomas Jefferson hailed The Federalist Papers as the best commentary ever written about the principles of government. Milestones in political science and enduring classics of political philosophy, these articles are essential reading for students, lawyers, politicians, and those with an interest in the foundation of U.

Today The Federalist Papers are as important and vital a rallying cry for freedom as ever. The Works of Alexander Hamilton: But Hamilton became one of the most instrumental Founding Fathers of the United States in that time, not only in helping draft and gain support for the U.

See a Problem?

They also help demonstrate how men of vastly different political ideologies came to accept the same Constitution. Once the Constitution was ratified and President Washington took office, one of the biggest battles was over the chartering of a national bank, a topic that seems trivial today given the size and scope of the federal government. Eventually Hamilton won out, but the First U. Bank, located in Philadelphia, was nonetheless run by a private company, ensuring limits on government control.

His works were compiled into a giant 12 volume series by Henry Cabot, which included everything from his speeches to his private correspondence. This edition of The Works of Alexander Hamilton: It is specially formatted with a Table of Contents and is illustrated with over a dozen pictures of Washington and other important individuals during the founding of America.

Including all 85 original articles arguing on behalf of the United States Constitution, The Federalist Papers is a "must read" for any history buff, anyone interested in political science, and for those interested in issues relating to individual vs. Though first published in the 's, the timeless Federalist Papers remain a true philosophical gem even today. Including famous Anti-Federalist authors such as Patrick Henry, "Cato", and "Brutus", the political forum herein presented captures not only the ambiance of the 's, but these classic debates concerning individual rights and freedom are relevant to us still today.

It was written in the late 18th century following the Declaration of Independence of America from England. This work has long since been regarded as a landmark in political science literature as it establishes the basis for the constitutional form of government, which has ruled the United States of America since its inception. While revolutionary at the time "The Federalist Papers" expresses the fundamental rights of man to self-government and the complexities that go with it.

The Federalist Papers serve as a primary source for interpretation of the Constitution, as they outline the philosophy and motivation of the proposed system of government. The authors of the Federalist Papers wanted to both influence the vote in favor of ratification and shape future interpretations of the Constitution. According to historian Richard B. Morris, they are an "incomparable exposition of the Constitution, a classic in political science unsurpassed in both breadth and depth by the product of any later American writer. This collection contains the crucial decisions and arguments of the Founding Fathers which shaped the America we know today.

Along with the Constitution, Bill of Rights and the various Amendments this book is sure to help you understand the basic tenets of the American democracy: Need for Stronger Union Federalist: Constitution Bill of Rights Amendments The stakes were high almost immediately. With George Washington being the first President and creating a cabinet including Jefferson and Hamilton, the two parties and their different political philosophies vied for power and influence in the federal government right away.

The parties led by Jefferson and Hamilton sparred over everything from monetary policy to foreign policy. The Federalists had the upper hand until Thomas Jefferson was elected President in This collection of Primary Accounts: Federalist and Republican Debates of includes the writings and words of George Washington, Thomas Jefferson, and Alexander Hamilton on topics like foreign policy, setting precedents, the constitutionality of the First Bank of the United States. Federalist and Republican Debates of is specially formatted with a Table of Contents and illustrations of the authors.

They were widely read and respected for their masterly analysis and interpretation of the Constitution and constitutional principles upon which the government of the United States was established. This influential collection of 85 articles and essays written by Alexander Hamilton, James Madison, and John Jay remains to this day a treasured historical document for anyone who wants to understand the U. A lifelong statesman, Madison was the youngest delegate at the Continental Congress from , and at 36 he was one of the youngest men who headed to Philadelphia for the Constitutional Convention in Along with Alexander Hamilton and John Jay, Madison was one of the most persuasive advocates for ratifying the Constitution, authoring some of the most famous Federalist Papers, and he drafted the Bill of Rights that was later added to the Constitution.

But his work was far from done; along with Thomas Jefferson, Madison was one of the founders and ideological cornerstones of the Democratic-Republican Party that guided the young nation in the first 30 years of the 19th century. That included his own presidency, in which he oversaw the War of Like the other Founding Fathers, Madison is better known in word and deed than as an actual person.

This collection also includes pictures and a Table of Contents. This new digital edition of The Federalist Papers includes a table of contents and an image gallery. In this they were supremely successful, but their influence also transcended contemporary debate to win them a lasting place in discussions of American political theory. Acclaimed by Thomas Jefferson as 'the best commentary on the principles of government which ever was written', The Federalist Papers make a powerful case for power-sharing between State and Federal authorities and for a Constitution that has endured largely unchanged for two hundred years.

That summer, the representatives ironed out a document that had pluses and minuses for all involved, a point noted by Ben Franklin in explaining why he assented to it at the end of the process. Even after the final document was ready, it still had to be ratified by the colonies, which required the delegates to attempt to argue for or against it. This edition of The Federalist Papers is specially formatted with over a dozen pictures of the Founding Fathers, as well as a Table of Contents.

• Beowolff Science Fiction Collection (Beowolff Science Fiction the Collection)
• No Place Like Home
• Trend Watch List Extended - Greener Pastures - Converging Trends Driving Globalization
• Love Me Forever (Sherring Cross Book 2)
• Der Königsweg zu Gesundheit und hohem Alter: Plädoyer für ein besseres Leben (German Edition)