I have already established that the Founding Fathers understood the danger that private armies pose to liberty; that discussions of the militia at the Constitutional Convention were addressed to which level of government would regulate it, and that discussions of armed rebellion were on how to suppress it; that the Federalist Papers repeatedly condemn armed rebellion; that they believed it was possible to check the danger of a standing army without resorting to violence; that when they did affirm the right of revolution, it was by the organized militia, commanded by the states; and that Anti-Federalists were unimpressed, preferring to avoid armed confrontation, rather than to win it. But in the end, actions speak louder than words. We should look, not only at what the Founding Fathers said about armed resistance to the government they were founding, but what they actually did when such resistance occurred.*
The Whiskey Rebellion. This took place 1791-1794, which means that the Second Amendment was actually ratified while it was underway. The Whiskey Rebellion was a rebellion in western Pennsylvania, and some other parts of Appalachia, against a whiskey tax. There is no need to go into all the grievances here, or how they were met. The rebellion began with petitions, conventions, and scattered attacks on revenue officers. These attacks escalated, culminating (in 1794) with the local militia besieging the house of a federal marshal and the militia leader, a Revolutionary War veteran, being killed. The rebels threatened to secede, and to march on Philadelphia. It was at this point that George Washington summoned the militia of New Jersey, Pennsylvania, Maryland and Virginia to suppress the rebellion. (It being a rebellion against federal authority, he did not need the authorization of the state authorities). The rebellion collapsed in the face of the militia, but sporadic resistance to the tax continued. Ten Whiskey Rebels were tried for treason, with two convicted, sentenced to death, but pardoned by Washington. (Others were tried and convicted for various violent acts under state law). Wikipedia quotes a legal historian as arguing that the Whiskey Rebellion established the precedent that the federal government was a government of the people, and that violent rebellion against it was therefore unlawful. But no one, including the Whiskey Rebels themselves, argued that it was authorized by the Second Amendment.
Fries Rebellion. This incident is less known than Shays Rebellion or the Whiskey Rebellion. This was a revolt in German-speaking parts of eastern Pennsylvania against a house tax levied to support a military buildup for confrontation with France. The local militia appears to have fought on both sides, arresting (and later releasing) tax assessors on one occasion, but holding back a crowd seeking to free people arrested for tax resistance on another. Three men (including John Fries, the ringleader) were sentenced to death for treason. John Adams pardoned them, not on the grounds that the Second Amendment authorized such rebellions, but that it was not a true rebellion at all, but simply anti-tax riots. The transcript of the Fries trial is here.
The Alien and Sedition Acts. It might seem odd to list these under the rubric of armed rebellion, since no armed rebellion took place. They nonetheless indirectly touch on the subject. Obviously, these Acts, inf flagrant violation of the First and Tenth Amendments, criminalized any "false, scandalous and malicious writing" against the government. These were (correctly) perceived by Jeffersonian Republicans, not only as outrages against freedom of the press, but as attempts to suppress the opposition. Jefferson was sufficiently alarmed by these Acts that he wrote and persuaded the Kentucky legislature to pass the Kentucky Resolution, which appropriately denounced them as an outrage, but went altogether too far, declaring that states could find federal statutes unconstitutional and block their enforcement within the state, and threatening "rebellion and blood" if the Acts were enforced.** Clearly, then, Jefferson believed that the Alien and Sedition Acts were dangerous enough to possibly justify armed revolution. But although he cited the First Amendment guarantees of freedom of the press and Fifth Amendment guarantees of due process of law (to protest a section permitting the President to deport any foreigner at will), and quoted extensively from Article I, Section 8 to show that the Acts were not constitutionally authorized, nowhere did he suggest that the Constitution itself authorized armed rebellion.
The Embargo Act. Thomas Jefferson was obviously the leading proponent of the insurrectionist theory of opposition to government in his day. Things became different when he was President. In response to British and French infringements on the neutrality of American ships in the Napoleonic Wars, Jefferson placed an embargo on trade with Britain and France. The embargo soon proved even less popular in New England than depredations against American ships, and soon smuggling across the Canadian border was rampant. The militia was notably ineffective in suppressing smuggling, and often sympathetic to the smugglers. Jefferson dispatched gunboats to stop the smuggling, and exchanges of gunfire between smugglers and revenue cutters became common. So, did Jefferson respond as he had to Shays Rebellion? Did he express satisfaction that the people still kept up the spirit of resistance? Did he say that, although the people of New England were wrong in seeing the embargo as oppressive, it would be "lethargy" and the fore runner of death to liberty if they had nonetheless submitted? When there were, in fact, a few killings, was he pleased to hear that the tree of liberty was being appropriately fed? Quite the contrary, he declared an insurrection and called on the militia to suppress it. He also sent in the regular army and navy to support enforcement. Ultimately, however, he did relent and agree to a repeal of the embargo. Ultimately, however, Jefferson's general principle of condoning armed resistance to government did not extend to his own government.
I intend to continue further with this topic, but after a break to discuss other, more recent, events.
*Incidentally, here I should address an apparent contradiction in the Constitution. Article IV, Section 4 authorizes the federal government to protect each state, "on Application of the Legislature, or of the Executive (when the Legislature cannot be convened) against domestic Violence." By contrast, Article I, Section 8, Clause 15 authorizes Congress, "To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions." It would appear then, that Article IV, Section 4 requires a state to request federal action to suppress a rebellion, while Article I, Section 8, Clause 15 does not. The difference appears to be that the state must request intervention in case of a rebellion against state authority, but no such request is needed if the rebellion is against federal authority.
**Madison authored the more moderate Virginia Resolution, which limited itself to protesting the Acts as unconstitutional and made the sort of avowals of loyalty that are only necessary when one's loyalty is in doubt.
No comments:
Post a Comment