History Essay: Debt repayment as test for the new government

Post in Week 2 Reading : what we'll be focusing on is a brief look at just how, in the wake of the formation of the new United States and the creation/ratification of the Constitution, just how fragile (but also flexible) this document could be. We'll also look at something we take for granted nowadays as part of modern (American) politics, but at the time was considered somewhat controversial.
In 1791, during the presidency of George Washington (the first president, as mentioned last week), the newly-formed federal government decided to make a risky move. While war between France and everyone else was a few years away, the desire to have the cash on-hand to pay for things like soldiers and ships to create an actual army and navy for the new nation meant that someone had to start paying taxes.
So, they taxed whiskey.
Technically it was a tax on "distilled spirits", which means any alcohol that is distilled (gin, whiskey, etc) as opposed to brewed (beer, cider). However, whiskey was the most common distilled spirit made in North America at the time. Whiskey (and other distilled alcohols) would be made by farmers from the leftover grains, grapes (for wine), corn, etc, that weren't used after harvests. This alcohol would be used like currency, traded for other goods, and had been since people started farming in America.
In short, it was not a popular idea.
People fought back with violence and intimidation against tax collection on the creation and distribution of whiskey. A lot of farmers were also veterans of the Revolutionary War (because back then almost all soldiers would have been volunteers from communities who formed militias that were lumped into one big "army"), and they did not like "taxation without (local) representation." After all, this is what they'd fought against! Politicians themselves were also squabbling about the tax, with some accusing others of deliberately creating a tax that people would riot against to give them an excuse to flex federal power.
There were several confrontations through the late 1700's regarding the "whiskey tax" throughout Pennsylvania regarding distillers who refused to pay taxes, including the serving of "writs" (warrants) to distilleries and distillers. Even though most thought (rightfully more or less) that there wouldn't be trials or convictions in any of these cases, the mere serving of them within communities triggered protests.
Things got worse when 500 men rallied and attacked the home of John Neville, the local tax inspector in in western PA. George Washington ended up sending both administrative envoys...and 1300 soldiers (which he personally led) against the militia. However, the men had left by the time the soldiers arrived, and the few that were arrested ended up being pardoned. In the end, this "whiskey tax" became almost impossible to enforce regularly, and was repealed during the tenure of President Jefferson in the 1800s. Still, it stands as a case for testing a new nation, mostly because it;
• Showcased the willingness of a federal government to enforce federal laws
• Demonstrated (at least on paper) that taxation not just locally, but federally, was here to stay
Public opinion of the government's dealing with the "Whiskey Rebellion" was actually favorable overall, making this first test of the American government, arguably, a successful one. It's a major turning point in early American history, also because it's considered one of the major triggers of the birth of American political parties.
Two of the largest named on either side of the Whiskey Rebellion were Thomas Jefferson (who opposed it and ultimately repealed it when he was president) and Alexander Hamilton (who supported it and was accused of using it as a ploy to create a situation that would boost the approval of a strong central government). Jefferson ended up forming the Democratic-Republican party, while Hamilton led and was a part of the Federalist party.
Since then, taxes in general have been a sort of lightning rod in American governance and social discussions around the rights, reach, and responsibilities of the government, even up to now in 2020 as larger discussions in the public sphere begin to really look at how larger corporations and brands, as well as mega-wealthy individuals in the US manage to not pay that much in taxes.
Modern politics with strong federal authority and multiple parties representing specific interests, elements of politics we now consider standard in the US, essentially came to be because of the Whiskey Rebellion. It's a little ironic that a nation founded on rebellion against absolute central authority would find itself legitimized by a show of force to defend central authority, hmm?
My Response to the reading (Please just read what my response to the reading was and don’t disagree): Based on the question in the subject portion of this response, you might be wondering where the comparison comes in. Let's delve into the politics of the United States first. The professor ended with "It's a little ironic that a nation founded on rebellion against absolute central authority would find itself legitimized by a show of force to defend central authority, hmm?". This is truly an ironic idea to the point of war and devastation. How? They just fought a war against the British Monarchy because they didn't like being told what to do and being taxed heavily to support the kingdom. However, all the colonists had asked for was representation. They only wanted to have diplomats standing on behalf of the colonists in the new land. It would be as if Vaughn made a lot of rules by listening to Aircraft Ops and the Engineering students but completely neglecting the ATI students and their building. ATI students understand that there is a structure to stand on but to not have a say in something that seems to offer them the short end of the stick is very disconcerting. So that is what really pissed off the colonists. That was the issue. We sit around now discussing these historic events and make the offenses greater than the cause. The major cause was taxation without representation. However the offenses include; soldier quartering, the Intolerable Acts, Boston Massacre and others. Once the war was over and our government was settled, we built a state under federal government where everybody was represented. That solved everything and made everybody happy. Everybody knew that rebellions were not tolerated and so the government rolling up their sleeves showed just how much they were willing to keep the peace and show that we weren't a nation of vagabonds and rabbles. How does this relate to women? As men, we focus too much on the offenses and try to solve the problem without considering the root cause of the problem. We overlook the little things, however we don't realize that the little things pile up and that is finally when we notice the offenses.
PAPER INSTRUCTIONS: After reading the post in Week 2 of the board with the lesson and doing the required discussion posts, answer the prompt below in essay form;
With the eyes of the world on them, the Whiskey Rebellion revealed itself to be a test for the brand-new US Government, one that it managed to "pass".
In a brief (1.5 to 2-page) essay, give us another example from your own experiences/observations of a situation from history that you think could have been seen as a "test" for that government. What was it a test of, do you think? Did that government/nation pass or fail? Why?
Don't limit yourself to the US.
THESE ARE THE INSTRUCTIONS BUT I WILL ALSO ATTACH A WORD DOC OF ALL OF THIS WHICH IS EASIER TO READ. IT IS THE SAME INFO!!