2013:Revolution, Regulators, and Rebellion: Agrarian Revolt and the Rise of Ruling Class...

Arno NoackPioneer Valley HistoryProf. ClintonFall 2013

Revolution, Regulators, and Rebellion:

Agrarian Revolt and the Rise of Ruling Class Consciousness in America

Introduction

The history of the formation of the modern American state, like the history of the rise of

capitalism itself, is a history of class struggle. Hidden from our historical narrative by lofty

rhetoric of our “founding father's” writings and speeches is how large of a part this struggle

played in the social relations of the immediate pre and post revolutionary decades, and how

different class consciousnesses arose and were manifested. Often we are presented with an image

of a unified force fighting for a common goal, but we see in reality the revolution was an uneasy

alliance between two opposing class interests.

In the later years of colonial rule, with the domestic elite fat off the economic privilege

they had been granted by the crown began to recognize the evolution of this class struggle, which

was rooted in the rhetoric of the popular movement of the English civil war, many were afraid,

but among a select few new ideas were brewing about ways to turn the anger towards the British

to benefit themselves. Here I will analyze the contradictions that were built by this uneasy

alliance built in the revolution, as well as the problems that arose out of its contradictions for the

working class and how these issues were used to provoke fear in the elite to bring them together

as one to consolidate power and repress the interests of the popular class. Creating the

framework for the dictatorship of the bourgeois in the modern American state. Starting with an

analysis of class before the revolution, leading into the realities of the contradictions built up

during the revolution in the name of the nationalist cause, the problems that were caused by these

contradictions in the aftermath of the revolution when lofty rhetoric of the elite was heard as

language of equality for all, and how through common cause conflicting interests within the elite

were brought together to build a federal government that could manifest and defend their class

interest, finally setting an example to all of the populist masses of where the power in the new

nation was located and what class it would be mobilized to defend.

Class in the Colonies

Under British rule the American colonies were far from an egalitarian paradise. Large

tracts of land were stolen from indigenous nations and given to men of great power and wealth to

do with as they wish. Many of them filled their land with indentured servants and yeoman

farmers that made up the communities and created revenues in the ways of taxes and goods to

further increase the wealth of these men. In Hampshire county Massachusetts alone “six

interrelated families dominated” the economic and political landscape “from 1692 to 1760.”1

“Members of these families… held two-thirds of all county offices during 1730-1760,” and

“were active on county’s committee to organize new towns”2 which gave them a distinct

advantage for speculation and entrepreneurial opportunities. Land grants and speculation were

given away to friend’s family and sold to the highest bidder leaving little for the poor families

who worked the land. It is recorded that by 1774 all the land within colonial boundaries was

under private ownership3. Most of this by only an elite group of speculators looking to make

vast amounts of capital off of their holdings. By the late colonial period the majority of the

American population were indentured servants, property-less farmers who leased out their labor,

artisans and manufacturers in the big port cities related to export sector, women, or slaves all

with little to no property and limited representation.

Frustrations with inequality were manifested in rebellious outbursts among the working

people of the colonies. In the city of Boston, the passing of the stamp act which prayed on the

American poor to fund British military campaigns against France, resulted in a massive mob

action in 1765.4 This led to the destruction of the homes of two illustrious Boston merchants

linked to the trade with England and colonial rule.5 Some in the growing elite had wished to turn

this anger against England to liberate their accumulation from British taxation. But others feared

that this could open up a Pandora’s Box that would not close until all men were forced to the

same financial and property status. This was not an unjustified fear, there was lots of anger

among the poor laboring and enslaved Americans over the unequal status and opportunities

presented to people in the colonies based on faction(social class), and wealth.

This anger was apparent on the eve of revolution in North Carolina, where from 1766 to

1771 poor farmers organized to hold accountable their corrupt officials. “The regulators saw that

a combination of wealth and political power ruled North Carolina… They resented the tax

system” which laid an unequal burden on the poor, often contributing to a decline into debt

servitude6. The regulators organized to disrupt courts, inhibit tax collection, and prevent the

seizure of property. “At one point seven hundred armed farmers forced the release of two

regulator leaders.”7 In 1768 they petitioned the government for a public land bank for credit,

public scrutiny of tax lists, and most dramatically to the ruling class taxes proportional to

wealth.8 Their demands were not met9. After riots began to break out in the early 1770’s some

minor reformist legislation was passed by the governor that had minimal effect and did not

nearly meet the demands of the western population. According to William Hogeland “in Return,

he wanted the Regulators to agree to disband. [Henry] Husband [who would later inspire the

rebels of western Virginia and Pennsylvania] and others were sure they were getting these weak

concessions only by applying extreme and constant pressure. If anything now was the time to

escalate.”10 The government, in response passed a riot act making these displays illegal and

providing a framework to use force to put down rebellion. Seeing their demands were not being

taken seriously the rebellion continued but began to divide and until the government organized a

disciplined army and defeated the regulators using superior firepower and hung six of their

leaders11. Having already seen their place in the newly forming society the people of the

regulator communities chose to remain neutral for much of the war. The spirit of their fight

would later inspire other manifestations of the popular struggle during and after the revolution.

The North was more focused on the opposition to the British during this era, especially

along the coast. The majority of the farmers, artisans, and free laborers of Massachusetts and the

surrounding states would play a major role in the war. The people of the north were not blind to

the inequalities and it would take work to get them to side with their exploiters whom they

distrusted. Thanks to British protection, the growing ruling class of the colonies enjoyed a degree

of, “Institutional inequality [which] was the keynote of economic life… sixty percent of the

American people possessed no wealth at all. The top twenty percent had ninety five percent of

the wealth” and the next fifth only five percent.12 And many farmers were aware of this

favoritism of the elite.

The inequality was not restricted to the cities. Between 1661 and 1681 and 1740 to 1760

the wealth of the top 30 percent of wealth-holders in Hampshire County, Massachusetts went

from controlling 30 to 41 percent of the wealth in their relatively rural county13, and “in the

Boston Gazette, someone had written that ‘a few persons in power’ were promoting political

projects ‘for keeping the people poor in order to make them humble.”14 It would take some real

rhetoric and action to get the people on the side of the domestic elite if they wanted to get the

British off their back, and it would be the backlash from this rhetoric that would force the

domestic ruling class together after the revolution to try and contain the contradictions they had

unleashed.

Revolutionary Dialectic

According to Howard Zinn, in the mid to late 18th century as wealth was concentrating in

the hands of a few wealthy elite factions began to see their interests as separate from the British,

these new elites had been hatching a plan. They believed that:

…by creating a nation, a symbol, a legal unity called the United States, they could take over land, profits, and political power from favorites of the British Empire. In the process, they could hold back a number of potential rebellions and create a consensus of popular support for the rule of a new, privileged leadership.”15

After the end of the French war the British were coming down hard on the colonies, especially

the poor which was building great anger in the northern workers. John Peterson clearly explains

that this was a godsend for the intentions of the domestic rich, who saw mobilization of this anti

British sentiment essential to their plan.: “While the rich at first wanted to cynically incite the

masses to use them as leverage against the Crown, the protests took on a life of their own, and

often turned violent.”16 This violence they feared could be turned against them. It was the anti-

British Boston elite who instigated the stamp act protests and crowd action, but it quickly was

taken out of their hands when the people began to act on their own ideas and interests. After

seeing such violent actions against the Tory Boston merchants the Domestic ruling class 'rebels'

“became frightened by the thought that [the rage of the masses] might be directed against their

wealth.”17 Zinn explains that “It took the Stamp Act crisis to make this leadership aware of its

dilemma.”18 This reality brought the elite together further to make sure their interests would be

defended in their experiment. What they would need was charismatic leadership and

mobilization of the middling class to help them legitimate their leadership within the popular

struggle.

An event in Boston occurred on March 5th, 1770 that would do more to increase anger

against the British and cloud the internal struggles in the city driven by English arrogance.

…grievances of ropemakers against British soldiers taking their jobs led to a fight. A crowd gathered in front of the customhouse and began provoking the soldiers, who fired and killed first Crispus Attucks, a mulatto worker, then others. This became known as the Boston Massacre.”19

The massacre and the British acquittal of the soldiers helped to drive the workers and elites

together against British tyranny. Within the next few years the elite would get their rhetoricians

and the emphasis they needed to spark the conflict.

According to Zinn the gentry in Virginia and Boston were working hard to turn the

opinion of the lower classes. A charismatic group of elite revolutionaries began to arise. Silver

tongued and with their fingers slightly more on the pulse of the middling communities and

farmers. These men were what the Rising American class needed to get the public on their side.

John Peterson states that: “The aspirations of the poor masses and of the “middling types”—as

the rising petty bourgeoisie was called—were expressed in the increasingly radical and

revolutionary ideas, words and deeds of people like British-born Thomas Paine; Virginia planter

Thomas Jefferson;”20 as well as the great orator Patrick Henry who as Zinn elegantly states,

…pointed a way to relieve class tension between upper and lower classes and form a bond against the British. This was to find language inspiring to all classes, specific enough in its listing of grievances to charge people with anger against the British, vague enough to avoid class conflict among the rebels, and stirring enough to build patriotic feeling for the resistance movement.21

Henry’s oratory was complimented by a pamphlet by Paine called Common Sense, which quickly

became some of the most popular literature in the colonies. Preaching the terrors of monarchy

and the supposed justice of the republic. Paine’s pamphlet, full of the popular rhetoric of the

English revolution, was not widely accepted by the elites, “…it caused some tremors in

aristocrats like John Adams, who were with the patriot cause hut wanted to make sure it didn't go

too far in the direction of democracy.22” Adams was already becoming conscious of the problems

too much democratic rhetoric would have on the ability for the elites to hold power post

revolution he believed that Paine’s plan was,

‘so democratical, without any restraint or even an attempt at any equilibrium or counter-poise, that it must produce confusion and every evil work.’ Popular assemblies needed to be checked, Adams thought, because they were ‘productive of hasty results and absurd judgments.23 24

Paine’s plan worked in gaining more support for the building charismatic elite leadership, though

Adams was right about the contradictions that were building. For now though, Paine’s pamphlet

had heavily increased turnout to sons of liberty meetings, as well as the revolutionary sentiment.

Soon after Paine’s pamphlet, Thomas Jefferson too began to exercise his influence with an even

more provocative document, the Declaration of Independence. Signed on July fourth, 1776 its

language was Poetic and full of democratic and egalitarian rhetoric. Through its language of

equality it was a perfect device to rally support for the elite’s rebellion through imagery vague

enough to rally the masses who saw in it their chance for equality in its lofty promises of a nation

of equality and mobility for all. Zinn says that:

The language of popular control over governments, the right of rebellion and revolution, indignation at political tyranny, economic burdens, and military attacks, was language well suited to unite large numbers of colonists, and persuade even those who had grievances against one another to turn against England 25

The stage was set for revolution, Zinn explains that: “town mechanics, laborers, and seamen, as

well as small farmers, were swept into ‘the people’ by the rhetoric… by the camaraderie of

military service, by the distribution of some land. Thus was created a substantial body of support,

a national consensus...”26 Peterson elaborates, saying that along with the rhetoric: “a growing

national identity, a common history, a diverging language, and eventually and inexorably, the

need for greater political and economic independence,” brought the divergent sectors of society

together, and “…once the material, objective conditions had ripened sufficiently, the subjective

factor—the revolutionary consciousness and radicalism of the nascent U.S. bourgeoisie, and

above all, the willingness of the laboring masses to fight to change society—accelerated

dramatically.”27 The people had been united temporarily by the rhetoric of Jefferson, Paine,

Henry, and the real need to defeat a common enemy in the British which who had become more

tyrannical and repressive at an alarming rate. The borderline leveling rhetoric that was building

among the lower classes, was dangerously close to that of the diggers and levelers of the English

revolution in the eyes of many of the forming American aristocracy, it was only a matter of time

before the masses got out of control.

Clashes (ideological and physical) between the classes became more frequent during, and

after the revolution. People like John Adams, Hamilton, Washington, and Madison, who were

keeping a close eye on these issues, would be essential in building the ruling class consciousness

and legal institutions to protect their forming class interests for centuries to come.

Class Under Confederation

The underclass knew where it stood after the revolution and caused major issues for the

continental congress both during and after the war. But “The Continental Congress, which

governed the colonies through the war, was dominated by rich men, linked together in factions

and compacts by business and family connections. These links connected North and South, East

and West.”28 This factor gave the ruling class a distinct advantage it was only they who had the

time to set aside to manage society as they had slaves, servants, and tenants to work for them

unlike the majority who were responsible for their own subsistence. According to the John

Peterson of ISR

The new oligarchy – including the bankers of the east coast and the plantation owners of the south – were divided as to how they should rule. Some wanted a Republic; others a favored a limited monarchy, with George Washington as the prime candidate. Some wanted to ally with the French, others with their old enemy the British. Some wanted tighter centralization, others a looser federation. But on one thing they were all united: all the revolutionary rhetoric about freedom and justice was to apply only to free men who owned significant amounts of property.29

Through this common ground they were able to sculpt avenues to buy their way out of

conscription, organized unfair methods of payment for soldiers and continued to stack the odds

in their favor for the control of the nation after the war. The masses were not blind to the fact that

the actions of the congress and the rhetoric that had pulled the people into the revolution were at

ideological odds with each other. The working veterans of the war, as some of the harshest

victims, wasted no time in making their demands herd. In one such victimization of the common

soldier, when one Robert Morris of Pennsylvania proposed:

to give more assurance to those who had loaned money to the Continental Congress, and gain the support of officers by voting half-pay for life for those who stuck to the end [, while ignoring] …the common soldier, who was not getting paid, who was suffering in the cold, dying of sickness, watching the civilian profiteers get rich.30

In response troops in Pennsylvania “dispersed their officers, killed one captain, wounded others,

and were marching, fully armed, with cannon, toward the Continental Congress at

Philadelphia.”31In the end forcing them out of the building and across the river into the adjacent

town.

The common officer and soldiers who received pay were paid in bonds which were

unable to be traded in for face value in the aftermath of the revolution due to a weak and

disorganized federal government and economy, and were forced to sell off their bonds to

speculators. Most were forced to sell their notes at an eighth or tenth of the value. Unlike the

more well off officers they did not have the money to sit on the bonds and wait for them to

appreciate to their full value. One particular officer made his case in the Hampshire Gazzette

saying that:

He, like most veterans, had received part of his army pay in notes. He had tried to pawn them off on merchants and his hired hands, but neither would accept them at par. Finally, the “necessities” of his family had obliged him ,“to alienate them at one quarter part of their original value.32

This kind of speculation became rampant, “[Massachusetts] had passed laws that were [highly]

favorable to public creditors. [To the point that no other state] had come close to passing such

laws.33” elite in eastern cities were making a killing off of the despair of the West all across the

country but especially in Massachusetts. On top of that property qualifications for voting and

office, unfair taxes a capital too distant for true representation led to unrest based on the desire of

the people for a true democratic republic were all clashing with the words that had rallied the

people together so few years before. The new republic was going in its own direction which was

quite different. According to Peterson’s research:

One of the fundamental contradictions in the newly independent United States was the conflict between the east coast and western interior… clearly conflicting class interests and worldviews were evident in this dichotomy. The commercial interests on the eastern seaboard, representing nascent capitalism, clashed with the interests of the inland small farmers… The interior of the country was in effect a colony of the coast, trading labor intensive agricultural goods for more expensive manufactured goods… The surplus agricultural produce was then sold on the world market for a profit. A chain of debt was established, wherby the country retailers owed coastal banks and importers of manufactured goods, and the small farmers owed the local retailers.3435

All throughout Worcester, Hampshire, and Berkshire counties in Massachusetts – as well as some

towns further east like Dedham, a state constitution heavily weighted to the elite merchants of

Boston had left the West with very little ability to subsist and voice its needs. They complained

about corruption among officials and speculators, lawyers and judges. They would make

statements declaring that “no one benefited from this bloodsucking legal system except the

lawyers, judges, and court officials who collected fees at every step of the way”36 many of the

disgruntled were revolutionary veterans with the rhetoric of the declaration of independence still

in their minds. They too were beginning to look at themselves as regulators. In the spirit of the

revolution they wanted to overturn the state constitution and take a stand against tyranny.

Not all the participants were debted farmers, or even veterans. The other issues such as

property qualifications, unfair favoritism of speculators, and corruption in government were

enough to rally many around the Massachusetts regulators reasonable demands.

Shays Rebellion

After the Massachusetts Regulator petitions, like those in North Carolina before, went

ignored, the regulators radicalized shutting down courthouses and eventually trying to seize the

Springfield armory. Even the Democratic rhetorician of the revolution Samuel Adams was

beginning to come to Madison’s opinion on the dangers of the leveling impulse. Declaring that:

“In ‘Monarchies […] the crime of treason and rebellion may admit of being pardoned or lightly

punished, but the man who dares rebel against the laws of a republic ought [to] suffer death.”37

With the rise of a widespread rebellion threatening Massachusetts elites, and potentially setting a

precedent for other areas, it caught the attention of men of wealth like Adams, Alexander

Hamilton, George Washington, and his General Henry Knox. They corresponded with

Massachusetts Governor Baldwin to an extent but had no federal power to assist him in putting

down the force. A call went out for troops for to defend against Indians, but Baldwin could

muster little support from the state militia who suspected that the Indian story was an obvious

ruse. Knox sent Benjamin Lincoln, a revolutionary war officer of minimal success to lead an

army for Baldwin but he would have to pull together the initial funds.

Local militia veterans who remembered why they had fought in the revolution had little

desire to assist the out of control Boston government in their colonial endeavors in the western

counties, many who didn’t join the revolution seem to have remained neutral. With little ability

for more federal assistance than what had already been provided them Governor Baldwin and

152 0thers38, speculators interested in defending their financial gains, begrudgingly put up the

money themselves to put down the rebellion before it got too out of hand. Hiring a mercenary

force to be led by General Lincoln. Richards explains that: “…the legislature had not sanctioned

Lincoln’s army, much less put up money for it – the governor turned to Boston businessmen for

funds.”39 With the presence of a federal executive with the powers of conscription this could

have been bypassed and saved the ruling class their valuable capital. It is not difficult to imagine

that they would have preferred to crush the tax rebellion with tax revenues so they could devote

their capital to capital growth.

It took considerable time but Lincoln was able to hunt down the rebels after a boost in

funds, troops and the declaring of marital law by the state legislature when it returned to session.

Unlike other rebellions few people were punished drastically to make an example, most likely to

prevent backlash among sympathizers, and get the men back to work and thinking twice about

taking up arms again. Instead the key was to humiliate them with harsh restrictions and in the

press make them look like lazy debtors, british agents, or bandits, to reduce sympathy.

A major effect of the rebellion was great anxiety among the elites. This anxiety and their

coming together to fund the army and build their propaganda campaign brought many of the

Boston gentry and surrounding elite further together for their combined interests and exposed to

more of the previous doubters that a strong central government was needed to protect them. The

rebellion had even helped to repair the bonds between the elite patriots and Tories. Both of which

had a combined interest in establishing an oligarchy that would defend their wealth.40 They

passed some minor laws and acts to save face among some of the rebels but they had little impact

on representation or class power overall.

In New York Hamilton and Madison too had been very concerned. The rebellion caused

them to finally make arrangements with the green mountain rebels to forgive their debts and give

Vermont statehood in exchange for Ethan Allen’s public declaration against the Shaysites and a

promise not to harbor criminals (more importantly to not set a bad example for more rebellions

or provide a place for fugitives to escape and raise hell across the border or rebuild their

forces.)41 This concession was a short term loss in the eyes of some of the elite of New York who

would lose a claim to large portions of landed capital, but it was a long term gain if it meant they

could slow or stop the leveling impulses they feared had taken over sectors of the populace. This

foresight showed the growing evolution of the ability for the US elite to recognize their interests

and act on them.

Robert Morris, Hamilton, and their allies , the voices of the new nationalist sector of the

ruling class, would take on the role to act as a vanguard for the elite. To help them recognize

their interests in a centralized state with the mechanisms necessary to protect the propertied

faction from those who have not. Their goal was to take care of the contradictions of Jefferson

and Paine’s rhetoric of equality from the revolution, and to take steps to solve the issues they had

struggled with while trying to limit the power of the populist movements. To them, “[the] Shays

rebellion and other violent protests pointed to something second only in embarrassment to the

lack of a national power to defend against foreign attack: lack of power to suppress insurrection.”

These issue above all else would have to be taken care of. The atmosphere of fear and dread

among the elites from the realities of the Massachusetts uprising and the existence of further

resistance pockets building across the western portion of the confederation, paved the way for

Hamilton and his nationalist federalist party to mold the wealthy classes to their ambitions and

plans for the development of the new nation.

Class and Constitution

Following the new england events the nationalists urged the propertied classes to began a

stronger push for more rigid and effective federal power over the states. In a series of rhetorical

propaganda papers written by Madison, and Hamilton known as the federalist papers which were

circulated heavily to build support for restructuring of the federal government Madison states

that,

“The most common and durable source of faction [class] has been the various and unequal distribution of property… those who hold and those who are without property have ever formed distinct interests in society… the first objective of government [is] protection of different and unequal faculties of acquiring property”42

They explained in these documents why the states lacked the power to protect their property, and

used concessions from the rebellions that states had made and the havoc they caused for

investors and speculation. These statements struck a chord with the majority of propertied men

whom Parenti says, “’The specter of Shays’ Rebellion’ [had] struck fear into... They were

determined that persons of birth and fortune should control the affairs of the nation and check the

‘leveling impulses’ of the propertyless multitude who composed ‘the majority faction.’”43

Richards elaborates on the intense effect of shays rebellion on the formation of bourgeois

nationalist consciousness when he states that “Shays’ Rebellion gave the nationalists the edge

they needed. It provided the spark on which to advance the nationalist cause and play on the fear

of others.”44 This fear was egged on by many of the founders of our modern state, including

Washington himself who stated that the, “constitution was much needed ‘to contain the threat of

the people rather than to embrace their participation and their competence’,” further declaring

that, “the anarchy of the propertyless would give way to despotism.”45 Here one can see the

forming class consciousness building around a common interest in which the liberty and equality

of which they would write of in the preamble would only be the liberty and equality of the

wealthy.

The ruling class were concerned that the states didn’t have the power to deny concessions

to the rebels and the rising amount of state paper, land banks, property qualification reform, and

other concessions which often arose due to the limited power of the federal government under

confederation. A government which lacked the ability to effectively tax and enforce taxes across

state lines and practice a financial hegemony over the states. A concentration of federal power

and a legal framework to prevent such arrangements of land banks, paper money, and other

concessions would solidify the power of the propertied class and help quell the specter of

rebellion. In this spirit,

“After Shays’ Rebellion… [wealthy investors] feared the worst. They imagine the state debt being scaled down and paid off in paper money. Their only hope, so many argued, was the federal government. But the present federal government, under the Articles of Confederation, lacked the power to tax and the means to pay off noteholders”46

The states concessions were heavily undermining the Federalist plan for a stronger and more

centralized federal government, as well as providing major obstacles to their speculation

schemes. The difficulty for the collection of debts over state lines compounded these issues. On

top of this they feared that in the face of a large enough rebellion their property was in serious

threat. We can see all of these concerns in the fact that in the constitution,

The states were prohibited from issuing paper money or imposing duties on exports or interfering with the payment of debts by passing any ‘law impairing the Obligation of Contracts.’ The constitution guaranteed ‘Full Faith and Credit’ in each state ‘to the Acts, Records, and judicial proceedings’ of other states, thus allowing creditors to pursue their debtors across state lines [With full cooperation of the federal and state governments]. 47

This would provide a federal framework for debt collection, and financial policy and would

eliminate the ability for the states to meddle with the larger scale tax and speculation schemes

regardless of pressures from within.

To increase the ability for this federal enforcement the militias were also removed from

state control because, “The framers believed that the states were not sufficiently forceful in

suppressing popular uprisings… so the federal government was empowered to protect the

states… and Congress was Given the task of organizing the militia and calling it forth to

‘suppress insurrections.”48 This policy was further strengthened by the militia act of 1792 which

allowed the president to call forth and organize a force of his discretion against uprising in times

when congress is out of session. This act would be put into action to display the new federal

power against rebels at the forks of the Ohio in Western Virginia, and Pennsylvania in the years

following ratification. When it came to seditious rebellions,

The Constitution gave the federal government the power to ‘suppress Insurrections,’ protect the states from ‘domestic violence,’ and suspend the right of habeas corpus in ‘cases of Rebellion or Invasion.’ It also provided for a national army under the command of the president and gave Congress the authority to nationalize the state militias. 49

In addition to the new military powers the federal government was given checks to prevent

popular infiltration and allow quicker legitimized response to agrarian revolt of the majority

faction though limited representation in federal government decision making.

“…the founders inserted what Madison called ‘auxiliary precautions’ designed to fragment power without democratizing it. They separated the executive, legislative, and judicial functions and then provided a system of checks and balances between the three

branches… They contrived an elaborate and difficult process for amending The Constitution” 50

These precautions for amendments required two thirds of the votes in the house and senate, and

ratification by three quarters of all state legislatures. This meant essentially that “To the extent

that it existed at all, the majoritarian principle was tightly locked into a system of minority

vetoes, making swift and sweeping popular action less likely.”51 The federal government, and

thus the large property holders, now had even more of an upper hand in forming legal precedent

and taking broad action legitimately (through legal doctrine) to take down rebellion against the

USA. We can see in the constitution all of the concerns of the wealthy being met, and none that

were brought up by the Popular Movement’s political wing. Hogeland states that, “What

virtually everybody who pushed for ratification believed… was that the Constitution would

disable rural populism’s political wing in the state assemblies while subjecting its violent wing in

the countryside to strong policing”52 It is not difficult when faced with the facts to see the

constitution as what it was, a manifestation of class power.

With the specter of rebellion much more susceptible to federal repression, the federalists

could push the farmers and rebels to the edge, and finally wipe them out as a force of political

power in the states and nation. To provoke the populists as well as to fill the pockets of close

associates Hamilton and Morris expanded the speculation scams that had helped to fuel the shays

rebellion. In stark contrast to the demands of the western farmers, the bonds bought by wealthy

speculators from them at a pittance were rewarded in an extreme institutional scam where,

“under Article VI, all debts incurred by the confederation were valid against the new

government, a provision that allowed speculators to reap enormous profits by cashing in their

inflated scrip at cash value.”53 To compound the tension these bonds, according to Hamilton

would be paid for by the collection of new excise’s on domestic products and commerce. The

mass of debt would also be used as a pressure to make congress act in favor of the excises and

new monetary policies being pushed by nationalists like Hamilton and Morris, which would be

used to elevate the crisis in the west against the popular movement and bring it to a final conflict.

Construction and ratification of the constitution was a long and arduous debate, but the

arguments were far from concerns for the needs of the suffering masses, and were centered

around the divergence of the interests in their own intra-class relations. Parenti explains that,

“The delegates spent many weeks debating and defending their interests, but these the interests

of the merchants, slaveholders, and manufacturers, a debate of haves versus haves in which each

group sought safeguards in the new Constitution for its particular concerns.”54 But there was one

area being stressed by the federalists that was bringing all the diverging interests of the ruling

class together. According to Peterson

“After the events of [the shays rebellion], a majority of the decision makers in the loosely confederated states were won over to the Federalists’ arguments in favor of a stronger central government. They had seen in practice the need to pool their resources in order to, among other things, provide for a standing army to put down civil unrest.”55

Due to this overarching demand to quell populist power the compromises needed between the

haves were agreed to, begrudgingly. The political expertise organization and wealth of the

federalists helped the process along in no small way. Parenti describes the procedures saying that

Bribes, intimidation, fraud, but most effectively “superiority of wealth, organization, and control

of political office and ownership of the press… allowed the rich to monopolize the Philadelphia

convention,[and]... enabled them to orchestrate a successful ratification campaign.”56. To see who

benefited from the success of ratification is not difficult when we look at the context. Property

qualifications for voting for ratification delegates showed the real anti-democratic nature of the

process. According to Michael Parenti, in the end, “probably not more than 20 percent of the

adult white male population voted for delegates for the ratifying conventions.” After this

ratification, “…the U.S. Constitution created unlimited freedom within the states for precisely

the wrong people, making the creditor class solvent and giving it the private use of a whole

nation’s strength.”57 According to Peterson it was, “… the supreme guarantor of private property

rights,” and a manifestation of a democracy for the wealthy, which was “…cleverly balanced and

designed to give the impression of genuine democracy, without ever letting the rabble have a real

say in anything.”58 This struggle had brought together all the varied interests of the propertied

class even when they were conflicted. The number one priority for them all now, and for the

future, was to make sure to keep the majority of propertyless masses in check to protect the

wealth, comfort, and privilege of the forming bourgeois. They all agreed that the popular struggle

coming out of the revolution was an extreme threat to their combined class interests and must be

made an example of and extinguished once and for all. All that was left to carry this out was to

display the new federal mechanisms to the discontents and show them that the game had indeed

changed.

‘Whiskey’ Rebellion

For settlers, farmers and veterans in the Forks of the Ohio like Henry Husband a former

leader of North Carolina regulation, and a major voice I the popular movement the realities of

what the constitution meant to them were obvious. In these western territories the constitution

invoked rage, especially western Pennsylvania where their own radical state constitution had

been assaulted and dismantled under the supervision of Aristocrats like Alexander Hamilton, and

Robert Morris.

At the time of ratification, dissent in the west was growing to a peak. William Hogeland

describes the situation explaining that the hope for reform was diminishing, he states that,

“The various western new-state movements, spurned by congress, were becoming a single western defiance movement. The state of Franklin which had formed itself out of three [former regulator] counties of North Carolina, agreed to swear fealty to the king of Spain… if that would open the Mississippi up to western products.”59

Export was essential for the western territories who were still locked into economic dependence

to the east coast merchants and speculators who dominated the Philadelphia government.

Hogeland goes on explaining that the fear of these concentrating movements by the rich, which

helped to hurry ratification in the shadow of the shays rebellion drove Pennsylvania legislature to

discourage, by state law any discussion of independence60. Still, this was not preventing

organization in Kentucky, North Carolina, and all the way up to Western Pennsylvania. Public

debt drove people into private debt and limited capital available to pay those debts was still

ravaging the communities of the west. With the new federal and state constitutions in place there

was little that they could do through legal channels as they saw what little power and

representation they had falling away.

The dissent in the west did not go unnoticed. Hamilton and the speculator and merchant

class, still embarrassed from the events of shays rebellion and the tendencies of the states to

concede to their dissenters. The Federalists would use The Forks Region as an experiment

ground to display to the west the new federal powers to quell rebellion and enforce their tax

policy at the barrel of the gun. No longer would investor’s coffers be emptied to suit the demands

of mobs. Hamilton was planning on using this situation to impose his new hidden income tax on

the poor of the west, disguised as an excise on whiskey, and use the already building defiance

and tax resistance in the area to create a catastrophe that would display the need to bring in the

military, and through force, show the reality of the new federal powers. This, Hamilton believed

would set an example once and for all that the nationalists had won, and the federal government

was all powerful, there to stay, and would from that point on be under control of those propertied

few.

The early proposed Imposts by introduced by Robert Morris “taxed merchant importers,

the... people who held bonds”61 Hamilton on the other hand saw bond speculation and the

building of a national debt as a tool which could be used to levy taxes on the masses and build a

concentration of wealth for the few. Hamilton believed that

“Funding the debt would spring-feed a pool of capital, from which, if managed carefully –with each creation of debt accompanied by a fund dedicated to retiring it after decades… Wealth would be in the hands of moneyed investors. Their ambitions would fund the nation’s ambitions.”62

In order for Hamilton’s plan to succeed, “revenues for paying interest on [the bonds] would have

to be raised from the mass of ordinary citizens who didn’t hold them. That called for a tax not on

imports but on a domestic product.”63 A tax on a domestic product, though within the power of

the federal government, was a new precedent, and would take debate to impose.

To sell his impost to the rest of the political class Hamilton created a plan based on the

ideas of his mentor Morris but with his own unique spin to build toward their scheme of a

centralized financial system. This plan focused on 3 key points, the payment on interest as

opposed to the paying off of the federal debt, the absorption of state debts into the federal debt,

and “raising revenues for interest payments on the expanded debt by adding to the customs laws

new duties on imported wine and spirits, and imposing an excise on domestic wines and

spirits.”64 When Hamilton suggested this idea he knew exactly what its effect would be on the

west, he understood the economics of whiskey in Pennsylvania, and his tax fit in perfectly to

“[redistribute] wealth by working itself deeply into rural people’s particular economic

relationship with whiskey.” Whiskey, played a role in many rural western areas that a land bank

or paper money would play as well,

“With a value nearing the absolute –it might vary by region but given countrywide appetites couldn’t depreciate –whiskey became currency in places where coin wasn’t seen. Barter paralyzed local economies, but whiskey was a true medium, always exchangeable for cash somewhere down the line, thus maintaining value against metal.”65

Whiskey brewing was frontier alchemy for the rural farmers distilling grain into gold to help

them pay their debts and give them some form of economic autonomy and stability. These were

the very types of economic independence and fiat Hamilton was trying to attack to build his

national finance scheme. While playing on the coastal populous ignorance of those economic

intricacies, so that they easily buy into his later propaganda dismissing the demands of the rebels

as irresponsible drunkards and branding the uprising the whiskey rebellion, he was able to play

the tax off as a sales tax for irresponsible luxuries rather than what it was, the nation’s first

income tax, aimed at the poorest of the poor. This was similar to the earlier strategy used in

Massachusetts to make the shays regulators look like ungrateful debtors to the masses of the

confederation and hide their legitimate demands behind talking points.

The whiskey tax became law in March 1791, and as Hamilton expected resistance began

with the first tax collector sent in to enforce it. Now all he had to do was continue to use standard

procedure from the constitution to deal with the rebels and work to provoke them enough to

build support for military action. Hamilton gathered the support of large distillers who benefited

from the unfair loopholes in the tax who could help him enforce his tax collecting. One of these

distillers, General Neville, a powerful yet unpopular man in the area, was recruited to be in

charge of the tax collecting.

The resistance to collection in the area was intense, and the militia issues seen in

Massachusetts were only compounded here, where veterans and farmers in the militias had

usurped power and actually used the militias as a vehicle for dissenting organization and tax

resistance as well as inter community communication, the leaders of the resisters were men of

great importance in the area, from the Hamilton brothers (no relation to the Secretary of treasury

of the same name who was destroying their community), to the martyr James Mcfarlane, who’s

death at the Neville plantation would spark the massive outcry of the entire Forks Region. Even

former rebels of regulation and the shays rebellion would be involved spreading the

revolutionary spirit. Famed regulator Henry Husband who had relocated to the forks before the

revolution to escape North Carolina forces would be an intellectual figurehead for the movement,

with his preaching of “good government”, and from shays rebellion, “the veteran resister John

Holcroft” was believed by many to be Tom the Tinker66, a mysterious man who left threatening

notes on the doors of collaborators and kept the moderates and federal allies in the communities

on their toes.

Alexander Hamilton’s plan was to continue to send collectors to attempt to enforce the

taxes, and collect paperwork showing the Illegal resistance. He knew that under the constitution

they already had what they needed to wipe out the movement but at this point it was about

turning public opinion and showing that the “states hadn’t been lazy [in tax enforcement]… or

weak; they’d been scared.”67 To satisfy the state’s rights sector of the ruling class he had to show

that Pennsylvania had indeed shown itself incapable of dealing with its rebels.68 This was not too

difficult of a task as the rebels at this point had usurped most of the western courts and before

long had even taken Pittsburgh and absorbed their militia.

After the repeated tar and feathering of tax collectors, a massive rise in property crimes,

the burning of the Neville plantation, the extralegal exile of the Nevilles from Pittsburgh, the

secession of the western militias from federal control, and two independent Pittsburgh congresses

levying demands at the Philadelphia national capital, Hamilton had all he needed to carry out the

final conformation. In his arguments,

“He placed rebel violence in a military, not criminal light, focusing on the area’s populace as a whole, not on individual attackers. He reminded Washington that [his agents] had discovered at the Forks something far worse than mere opposition to excise: hatred of the United States had long been brewing there. He cited the two Pittsburgh conventions, where complaints had gone far beyond excise.”69

Hamilton was right, he and the nationalists had effectively pushed the western settlers too far

they had been exploited for too long and saw no hope of salvation from the federal government.

Hogeland Explains that,

“Nobody would have agreed more heartily than the rebels themselves that they were engaged not in committing crimes, nor in opposing mere excise, but in a regionwide mobilization against the government by people loyal first and foremost to local leaders, disciplined by passion for their cause, or, where passion was lacking, by coercion. The people’s movement described itself just as Hamilton did: a collective and univocal entity.”70

Hamilton slandered the rebels further in the eyes of the national masses far from the realities of

the west stating that, “the legal means for repealing a law is to vote for new legislators.

Noncompliance is bad enough, but obstruction of the federal laws is by every definition

destructive of the republic.”71 Of course Hamilton knew that these people had little power to

change things through legislation with the way the constitution had been written, which as with

shays rebellions complaints with the state constitution of Massachusetts, was one of the main

complaints from the west, that the government was much more in the hands of the wealthy

eastern investors, speculators, and merchants who had the time and resources to be involved.

Hamilton’s plan has succeeded he had pushed the people into a no win situation, His narrative

was correct, and what they were doing was against the federal government’s proposed and

ratified ideals of greater nationhood.

Under The Articles of Confederation this movement may have had some real power and

legitimacy to gain a foothold and change things at a state and potentially even federal level.

Sadly, due to the specter of the shays rebellion the ruling class had already come together

preemptively and prepared. The constitution had been written to put down and publicly question

legitimacy of the demands this kind of uprising. The events had matched perfectly the

hypothetical situations James Madison had described in that hot building in the summer of the

convention. At this point “both the rebels and the federalists believed that the people of western

Pennsylvania, could be committed and resubjected to the United States only en masse and by

armed force.”72 The force brought down on the whiskey rebellion was one like no other ever seen

in the history of the United States up to that day.

In 1794, with the legitimacy of constitutional provisions and the new militia act passed

by the federal government legislature in 1792, Washington and Hamilton used the powers and

authority given to them to nationalize the state militias. “To suppress the Whiskey Rebellion in

western Pennsylvania, [by mobilizing] thirteen thousand men.”73 This army, under the personal

leadership of Washington to display its importance, marched through the forks crushing the

rebellion and bringing back captives to humiliate back in the national capital., and set an

example to all about what would be done to those who resisted the will of the national

government and the class it represented.

Conclusion

The specter of the shays rebellion and the popular movement brought together divergent

interests of the rich –from former loyalist Tories, to slaveholders, to eastern merchants and land

speculators, to eliminate the problem of lower class resistance which had been compounded by

the revolution. In a struggle that lasted two decades the divergent interests of the western regions

and the eastern ruling class came to a head across the frontier from Massachusetts to Kentucky.

But after the rise in bourgeois consciousness we see in the shadow of the events of

Massachusetts we see the ruling class consciousness building and their mass of resources pooled

together to fight a common enemy.

With the ratification of the constitution, the passage of the militia acts, and the crushing

of the Forks rebels, it seems the last breath of the popular movement had left its lungs. The hopes

of the people were soon buried further with the passing of the sedition act of 1798, which made it

illegal to gather anywhere and discuss, “combine, or conspire together to oppose any measure of

the government of the United States.”(Sedition act) 74This act was targeted at writings, speeches,

and public organizing, and was in blatant disregard of the first amendment. Due to the expanding

ruling class consciousness, and the concentration of power in the federal government in the

hands of the rich there was no problem passing the act further solidifying the hegemony of the

ruling class. Now they had not only criminalized rebellion, but dissent itself. This would put

them in a position of extreme advantage when the popular struggle would reemerge as the labor

struggle later in the century.

1Meyer Weinberg (2002). “A Short History of American Capitalism: Chapter Three Colonial Economy” newhistory.org (On-Line).. Retrieved on 12/05/2013 from http://www.newhistory.org/ch03.htm. pp1

2 Meyer Weinberg (2002). “A Short History of American Capitalism: Chapter Three Colonial Economy” newhistory.org (On-Line).. Retrieved on 12/05/2013 from http://www.newhistory.org/ch03.htm. pp2


4Howard Zinn “A Peoples History of the American Revolution” pp.3



7 Ibid.

8 Hogeland 82


10 Hogeland 83

11 Ibid.



14 Ibid.

15 Howard Zinn “A Peoples History of the American Revolution” pp1

16John Peterson “Class Power in the American Revolution." In Defense of Marxism: 2011. pp6

17Howard Zinn “A Peoples History of the American Revolution” pp6

18 Ibid.


20John Peterson “Class Power in the American Revolution." In Defense of Marxism: 2011. pp1



23Ibid.

24Zinn on page 9 of his pamphlet A Peoples History of the American Revolution states that: “Once the Revolution was under way, Paine more and more made it clear that he was not for the crowd action of lower-class people… Paine became an associate of one of the wealthiest men in Pennsylvania, Robert Morris, and a supporter of Morris's creation, the Bank of North America.”



27John Peterson “Class Power in the American Revolution." In Defense of Marxism: 2011. pp 3

28Howard Zinn. “A Peoples History of the American Revolution”

29John Peterson. “Shay’s Rebellion and the American Revolution” In Defense of Marxism:2010 pp1

30Howard Zinn “A Peoples History of the American Revolution

31Ibid.

32Leonard L. Richards “Shays’s Rebellion…” University of Pennsylvania Press: 2002. pp79










42(Democracy of the few pp 7)

43 Ibid.

44Leonard L. Richards “Shays’s Rebellion…” University of Pennsylvania Press: 2002. pp127)

45(democracy for the few pp6)

46 Leonard L. Richards “Shays’s Rebellion…” University of Pennsylvania Press: 2002. pp124)

47 (democracy of the few pp10)

48 Ibid.


50(Democracy of the few pp 10)

51 Ibid.

52 (hogeland pp58)

53 (democracy for the few, pp9)

54 (Democracy for the few pp 8)

55 John Peterson. “Shay’s Rebellion and the American Revolution” In Defense of Marxism:2010

56 (DFF pp14)

57(hogeland pp93)

58 John Peterson “Class Power in the American Revolution." In Defense of Marxism: 2011. pp 3

59 (hogeland, 57)

60 Ibid.

61 (hogeland 58)

62 (hogeland, 59)

63 (hogeland, 60)

64 Ibid.

65 (hogeland, 67)

66 (hogeland, 131)

67 (hogeland,63)

68 (hogeland, 185-189)

69 (hogeland, 187)

70(hogeland, 188)

71 Ibid.

72 Ibid.


74 Sedition act

2013:Revolution, Regulators, and Rebellion: Agrarian Revolt and the Rise of Ruling Class...

Documents

Transcript of 2013:Revolution, Regulators, and Rebellion: Agrarian Revolt and the Rise of Ruling Class...