During the Civil War, President Lincoln dealt with a massive challenge to federal constitutional authority, but even before then there were several occasions when groups of citizens questioned the legitimacy of the national government. Read the scenarios below, and then, working in groups of three, complete the accompanying activity.

The Whiskey Rebellion

When the new constitutional government was formed in 1789, control was primarily in the hands of the Federalists. One of those Federalists, Alexander Hamilton, as secretary of the treasury, was responsible for the financial policies of the new government. He proposed two methods for raising money to support the funding and debts of the national government: one was a tariff on imports, and the other was an excise tax on distilled liquor. At that time, the United States didn’t have many industries extensive enough to be worth taxing. Liquor was chosen along with snuff, loaf sugar, and what was then considered a real luxury, carriages. In 1794, farmers in western Pennsylvania challenged federal authority when they refused to a pay a whiskey excise tax and began terrorizing tax collectors. One man, John Lynn, who agreed simply to sublease a portion of his dwelling to the tax collector, John Neville, was dragged from his house in the middle of night. Taken to a remote section of the forest, his head was shaved; he was stripped naked, then tarred and feathered. After making him swear on pain of death not to reveal their names, the protesters lashed him to a tree and left him there for the remainder of the night.1 When word got back of these and similar acts, President George Washington knew he had to do something. He called out the militias of four states and raised an army of nearly 15,000. Furthermore, he personally accompanied the troops as far as Bedford, Pennsylvania, the first and the last time a president of the United States marched with an army. When the militiamen arrived in Pittsburgh - - -

The Hartford Convention

New England Federalists had been angry at the national government since Thomas Jefferson became president. For one, he purchased Louisiana, a region from which many western states could be carved and whose inhabitants would most likely become Republicans. Furthermore, Jefferson, in an effort to keep the young United States out of European wars, had imposed an embargo, forbidding American ships from leaving port with their lucrative cargoes. At that time some of the Federalists talked of seceding and forming the Northern Confederacy. Now, they opposed the War of 1812, especially since the United States had invaded Canada, a move, that, if successful, would bring even more "westernlike" Republican states. Furthermore, New England Federalists felt that once more commerce with Europe was being interrupted by war. In their view, the war aims of the Republican President James Madison were favorable to the development of the West and the South, but detrimental to New England. Finally, the idea that the war was being fought for "Freedom of the Seas" was bogus–or so they said. The more vocal members of the New England Federalists wanted to call a convention to draft a new federal constitution, with clauses to protect New England interests, and present it to only the original thirteen states. If these were accepted, good; if not, New England just might make a separate peace with Great Britain and go it alone. Delegates from Massachusetts, Rhode Island, Connecticut, with scattered representations from New Hampshire and Vermont, held the secret Hartford Convention from December 15, 1814 to January 5, 1815. Among other things, the convention did propose seven amendments to the Constitution (click here to read them) designed to protect their geographic region from the growing influence of the South and the West. Some attending actually suggested secession from the Union. Unfortunately for these Federalists, their timing could not have been worse! For just as they were bringing their report to Washington - - -

The Tariff Crisis

In 1828, Congress passed what southerners came to call the "Tariff of Abominations," a high protective tax levied on goods coming into the country from abroad. In the South, particularly South Carolina, the people protested. It was an important part of their economic life to sell their cash crops to England and use the profits to purchase items from Europe, especially Britain. A high tariff meant they had to pay more for these goods. Further, in retaliation, Britain might, in the future, decide to impose its own tariff. John C. Calhoun, vice president under John Quincy Adams, had thought through the constitutional means by which the "plantation" states could refuse to obey that law. Building on the nullification doctrine put forth in the Virginia and Kentucky Resolutions, Calhoun argued that individual states, acting together, had made the national government, limiting its scope through the framing of the Constitution. What happened, then, if the people believed the national government overstepped its bounds? According to Calhoun, the states had the power to decide. He argued that the Supreme Court couldn’t accurately judge, since that body was a part of the national government. Each state, then, acting through a constitutional convention, could decide if Congress had gone too far. If the state (meeting in convention) so voted, it could refuse to obey this law until three-fourths of all the states ratified an amendment making legal this "overstepping" of authority. If three-fourths of all the states allowed this overstepping by adding this amendment, then the state in question would have to obey the law, or exercise its right to secede from the Union. In 1828, South Carolina published Calhoun’s approach as The South Carolina Exposition and Protest.2

When in 1832, Congress passed a tariff almost as high as the 1828 tariffs, South Carolinians called a state convention and promptly agreed to "nullify" both tariffs. That meant they would not allow the collection of the tariff in the port cities of their state. They were refusing to obey a federal law. President Andrew Jackson privately swore to "hang them all," but publicly he - - -

Activity:

After reading the three scenarios, choose two other classmates to work with you in a group. Each should select one of the scenarios for further research. Your first task is to find out more details about your chosen event, especially how the crisis ended. Go to the library, find at least one source that gives you more information than your textbook about the topic, and take notes. After you gather information, your goal is to give your classmates a better sense of this event through the presentation of three points of view, each described below:

1. The Voice of Balance

Your goal is to simply present the facts of this event. Most likely your classmates have already studied all three, but you want to reacquaint them with the basic information in as balanced a manner as possible. You might use sentences such as:

While the national government believed that the best way to resolve the issue of taxation was to levy an excise on a "luxury item," on the other hand, the whiskey producers felt they were being punished for producing the only thing portable enough to get to market over the terrible roads of the western states.

2. The Voice of the National Government

Your goal is to convincingly present the side of the national government. You are firm in your conviction that the law that has been passed is the most reasonable, the most justifiable means of handling this issue. Keep in mind that you believe that compliance with this law is non-negotiable. Here are some ideas for language:

You say you refuse to pay the whiskey tax, and furthermore, you intend to beat the tax collector to within an inch of his life? Do you know the implications of that for an orderly government? Do you think we can tolerate anarchy? You say you are not going to collect the tariff from ships bringing goods into Charleston harbor? Impossible!

3. The Voice of Protest

Your voice is the strongest of all because you believe you have been terribly wronged! The government has perpetrated such an injustice against you that you are willing to resort to unconventional means to get your point across. Remember, you are the voice of "righteous indignation," but you still want to back your arguments with logic and fact.

How can you make us pay this tax when you know we can barely survive as it is? Why are we being taxed when other people pay nothing? Whiskey is a luxury you say? Well, tell that to the sailors who spend a month at sea: it's a luxury, boys, so this trip we're leaving off your ration of rum!

After you choose your point of view, do some further research to shape your position. Then prepare a presentation. The Voice of Balance is the "fact-giver," so the student presenting this part may simply present a straightforward report or provide a printed set of facts that others can use as they listen to the more "biased" viewpoints. Those taking the National Government and Protest positions can use various methods, such as:

A Broadside

This is a sheet of paper for posting information on the "broadside" of a building. Think of old circus posters to get an idea of how one might look. Design a colorful, language-rich broadside, using "propaganda techniques" to get your point across. You could be inviting protesters to a meeting to plan strategies or to a "town meeting" to think of ways to legally counter certain government actions.

A Ballad

A ballad employs a simple tune to tell a story, sometimes a romantic one, but why not the "The Whiskey Boys of ’94" or "Jackson’s Answer"? If you are musically inclined and find that medium more comfortable than other kinds of presentations, try it. Be sure your ballad has enough verses so that other students get a clear understanding of the issues, and do provide paper copies of the words so your listeners can follow along.

Travel Talk

In the late 1700s and early 1800s, travel accommodations were often poor. People traveling the countryside hoped to find lodging at a wayside inn where they could get an evening meal and a relatively clean bed. Travelers of many walks of life might find themselves talking to each other at the common table where supper was served. Consider a setting where the Voice of National Government ends up at the same table with a Voice of Protest. To make it more interesting, have the "innkeeper" chime in from time to time as the Voice of Balance referee. In this way, all three points of view are heard.

Follow-Up

After each group presents, ask classmates to write down which side of the issue they most agreed with, then to write down one argument from each side that they found most convincing. Think about how these situations were resolved, and compare them to Lincoln’s actions. As a whole group activity, generate at least six compare-and-contrast statements and post them in the classroom. Display the statements with the broadsides and copies of the ballads.