George Washington the aristocratic slaveholder who crushed the Whiskey Rebellion
You have to be joking.
President Washington, confronted with what appeared to be an armed insurrection in western Pennsylvania, proceeded cautiously. Although determined to maintain government authority, he did not want to alienate public opinion. He asked his cabinet for written opinions about how to deal with the crisis. The cabinet recommended the use of force, except for Secretary of State Edmund Randolph, who urged reconciliation. Washington did both: he sent commissioners to meet with the rebels while raising a militia army.
Yeah, sounds pretty tyrannical to me.
Before troops could be raised, the Militia Act of 1792 required a justice of the United States Supreme Court to certify that law enforcement was beyond the control of local authorities. On 4 August 1794, Justice James Wilson delivered his opinion that western Pennsylvania was in a state of rebellion. On 7 August, Washington issued a presidential proclamation announcing, with "the deepest regret", that the militia would be called out to suppress the rebellion. He commanded insurgents in western Pennsylvania to disperse by September 1.
Look at all that tyranny, what with the due process and everything.
In early August 1794, Washington dispatched three commissioners, all of them Pennsylvanians, to the west: Attorney General William Bradford, Justice Jasper Yeates of the Pennsylvania Supreme Court, and Senator James Ross. Beginning on 21 August, the commissioners met with a committee of westerners that included Brackenridge and Gallatin. The government commissioners told the committee that it must unanimously agree to renounce violence and submit to U.S. laws, and that a popular referendum must be held to determine if the local people supported the decision. Those who agreed to these terms would be given amnesty from further prosecution.
Because nothing says "tyranny" like "popular referendum".
The total human cost of the "crushing" of the Whiskey Rebellion? 3 or 4 deaths (literally), which occurred in the years prior to Washington getting involved, along with 2 civilians who were killed when the militia was being raised. What did the tyrant Washington do about the civilian deaths? He probably held them up as examples of why you shouldn't resist, or maybe had them quartered and the body parts sent to the revolting counties, right?
Two civilians were killed in these operations. On 29 September, an unarmed boy was shot by an officer whose pistol accidentally fired. Two days later, a man was stabbed to death by a soldier while resisting arrest. President Washington ordered the arrest of the two soldiers and had them turned over to civilian authorities. A state judge determined the deaths had been accidental, and the soldiers were released.
Yeah, some fucking tyrant.
The Washington administration's suppression of the Whiskey Rebellion met with widespread popular approval. The episode demonstrated the new national government had the willingness and ability to suppress violent resistance to its laws. It was therefore viewed by the Washington administration as a success, a view that has generally been endorsed by historians.
Historians not including noted 18th century constitutional scholar Mr. Slippery.
The Rebellion raised the question of what kinds of protests were permissible under the new Constitution. Legal historian Christian G. Fritz argued, even after ratification of the Constitution, there was not yet a consensus about sovereignty in the United States. Federalists believed the government was sovereign because it had been established by the people, so radical protest actions, which were permissible during the American Revolution, were no longer legitimate. But the Whiskey Rebels and their defenders believed the Revolution had established the people as a "collective sovereign", and the people had the collective right to change or challenge the government through extraconstitutional means.
"Extraconstitutional means" are traditionally frowned upon in this country. The Whiskey Rebellion is one of the reasons why.
Yeah, he really "crushed" those rebels, all right. So much so that by the time he led the militia into Western Pennsylvania all of the rebels had dispersed and there was no actual confrontation.
screwing over farmers (including many Revolutionary War vets) to pay off bondholders
Don't worry, they didn't pay the taxes anyway. The government couldn't collect them. The law was repealed a few years later.
Incidentally, what do you think the government should have done in the face of debts incurred from the Revolutionary War? Apparently taxes aren't the solution, so what would you have done, oh wise and benevolent ruler?
Washington was the only major slave holder among the seven Founding Fathers to emancipate his slaves. His will provided for freeing his slaves upon the death of his widow Martha Washington, but she emancipated them about 12 months after his death. At various times in his life, Washington privately expressed strong support for the gradual abolition of slavery.
He privately opposed slavery as an institution which he viewed as economically unsound and morally indefensible. He also regarded the divisiveness of his countrymen's feelings about slavery as a potentially mortal threat to the unity of the nation. Yet, as general of the army, president of the Constitutional Convention, and the first president of the United States, he never publicly challenged the institution of slavery, possibly because he wanted to avoid provoking a split in the new republic over so inflammatory an issue.
Washington was really a dick, wasn't he?
