A " WHISKY WAR ” IN AMERICA

Lyttelton Times, Volume LXXXI, Issue 10314, 5 April 1894, Page 4

A " WHISKY WAR ” IN AMERICA

By the insurrection SOW going on in the State of South Carolina, because of the attempt to enforce a reform in the licensing laws.

recollections will be awakened in the minds of students of United States history of former evidences of the excesses into which the passion for freedom may lead a people emancipated from old forms of restraint. Without going back to the “ tea riots ” which led to the war between the American colonies and Great Britain, and the ultimate declaration of independence, we may refer to the famous “ whisky insurrection ” that took place in 1991, and of which the South Carolina outbreak seems the centennial celebration. Congreec had, in 1791, enacted laws imposing excise duties upon spirits distilled in the United States. Thief law was vehemently resisted by the residents of Pennsylvania, many of whom derived their livelihood from graingrowing and whisky distilling. It wae resolved to treat the Federal excise officers as enemies of the State, and, with the motto of “(Liberty and No Excise/* bauds of people committed outrages and prevented the carrying out of the law. People who paid excise duty, or otherwiso submitted to the law, had their propprtie burned down, and they themselves were assaulted. The agitation continued till 1791, by which time armed bands were terrorising a large portion of the State, and attacking the officers charged with the collection of excise duties. In July of that year a body of about five hundred insurgents attacked and burned down the office of tin excise inspector, after a brisk exchange of hostilities with a defending force of a The whisky ymmga

ta.kiMg'fiottraga from this success, called a tnustar o£ their supporters in the State, when seven thousand responded under arms. The leaders of the insurrection had formed a wild project, which included marching upon Pittsburg, seizing the United States areenal there, and forming an independent State, based upon free whisky* In August the march to Pittsburg commenced, and on the way build-/ jnge were burned and wholesale robberies committed quite in the style of a conquering army. At Parkinson’s Perry, the insurgent forces, sixteen thousand strong, swore * to follow their leader, David Bradford, in overturning the Government of the United States.

COLLAPSE OP THB movement.

President Washington, seeing that three years 8 efforts at conciliation had only made the opposition

more resolute, determined to take strong measures to repress the lawlessness of the whisky men and decide “the contest whether a small proportion of the United States shall dictate to the whole Union." A final appeal was made to the rebels to lay down their arms and submit to the excise laws—a general amnesty being promised for all past offences. Simultaneously a call for troops to quell the revolt was made. Many of the whisky enthusiasts would have submitted, but Bradford’s influence was strong, and hia advice was still for resistance. A Federal army of some 15,000 men, under General Henry Lee, was at once raised and marched against the insurgents—Washington himself, as Commander -in - Chief, visiting and inspecting the forces. The result was a complete collapse of Bradford and his followers before such a display of force. The leader fled lo ■ Spanish territory, and though some of the chief malcontents were arrested and tried, pardon was ultimately extended to all and the whisky duty was collected without further opposition. It is, perhaps, unfortunate that in South Carolina no question of Federal authority is involved, since the members of the State Militia largely sympathise with the agitators, and there can be no overwhelming display of force that would awe the rioters into submission.

The question of Federal supremacy over the will of individual States has been frequently raised since

ANOTHER HISTORIC PARALLEL.

Washington’s day. One of the most notable conflicts was in 1832, over the right of Congress to impose protective tariffs, and the arena of battle was, curiously enough, the same State of South Carolina in which the modern “ whisky war ” is now in progress. A powerful party in South Carolina, holding that Congress had infringed a State right in imposing tariffs for the pzoteotion of American industries, resolved to ignore tho tariff laws of 1833. The result was that South Carolina defied the Union, and passed an Ordinance of Nullification, forbidding enforcement of the tariff laws and disallowing any appeal on the subject to the Federal Courts. John C. Calhoun, a prominent American politician, was the leader of the Nnllifiers, but he had more than his match in Andrew Jackson, who was then President of the United States. Before the South Carolinians could organise armed resistance, Jackson had them terrorised by the guns of an army, and, under threat of a prosecution for high treason, with the gallows at tho end of it, Calhoun publicly gave in hia submission, by recording his vote in the Senate for a compromise Tariff Bill at tho very moment that, under hia authority, troops ■were being raised in South Carolina to resist such a measure. The movement was at one time on the point of developing serious proportions, as several other States had promised to join South Carolina in her disruptive tactics. A deputation of Union men from Charleston waited on President Jackson with a complaint thkfc their lives were in danger, whereupon the old general sprang to hia feet and energetically said, “Go back to Charleston and tell the Nullifiers that if a hair on the head of a Union man is harmed, that moment I order General Coffee to march on Carolina with fifty thousand Tennessee volunteers 5 and if that docs nob settle the business, tell them— by the Eternal! that I will take the field myself, with fifty thousand more!” Before tho President’s determination to uphold the Union at all hazards, the movement subsided, and the Ordinance of Nullification was formally repealed. Over and over again, as history shows, the free spirit of tho people of the United States has led them into licentious abuse j but a firm assertion of authority has never failed to restore order, and to convince the disaffected ones that the limitation of individual liberty, so far from being incompatible with true freedom, is the only guarantee of peaceful and united progress in all liberalising laws and institutions. So will it be with the present disturbers of the peace in South Carolina. ( '