Latest news with #WhiskeyRebellion
Yahoo
13-05-2025
- Politics
- Yahoo
Pennsylvania lawmaker uses flamethrower on Shapiro's 'fantasy budget' after arson attack
(WHTM) — Pennsylvania State Senator Dawn Keefer (R-Cumberland/York) is drawing criticism after using a flamethrower to burn a sign with Governor Josh Shapiro's name on it, a month after an arsonist set fire to Shapiro's home. Keefer posted a one-minute video to social media on May 8 saying Shapiro's $51 billion 'fantasy budget' would lead to a 52% income tax increase. 'But just like the farmers in the Whiskey Rebellion,' Keefer wrote, 'we say ENOUGH.' The Whiskey Rebellion of 1794 was an 'uprising of farmers and distillers in western Pennsylvania in protest of a whiskey tax enacted by the federal government,' according to HISTORY. Protests led to violence on a government official who was tarred and feathered, the fatal attack on a tax collector's Allegheny County home known as the Attack on Bower Hill, and the eventual discharging of a militia by George Washington to restore order in the region. 'Over 230 years ago, Pennsylvanians held the line against taxation,' Keefer says in her video, before using a flamethrower to burn a sign that says 'Shapiro's $51.5B Fantasy Budget.' Commenters on Keefer's video noted her use of a flamethrower on a sign with Shapiro's name came less than a month after State Police say a man threw Molotov Cocktails inside the Governor's Residence, burning the dining room. 'Your theatrics, torching a budget, only weeks after someone tried to assassinate the Governor is despicable,' said a commenter under Keefer's video. 'You don't take a flamethrower to a Governor's budget when the Governor's home was just torched,' said State Senate Minority Leader Jay Costa (D-43). 'It was insensitive, uncalled for, and really has gotten to a point where disappointed this type of rhetoric continues to move forward. We have to tone this all down.' Keefer believes the bigger concern should be the state burning through taxpayer cash, saying last year there was 'out of control' spending in last year's budget. She declined to speak specifically to the flamethrower video. The Governor and Senate Republican leaders declined to comment on the video, best described as incendiary. The state budget is due in less than seven weeks on June 30. Copyright 2025 Nexstar Media, Inc. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.
Yahoo
02-04-2025
- Politics
- Yahoo
With its executive order targeting the Smithsonian, the Trump administration opens up a new front in the history wars
I teach history in Connecticut, but I grew up in Oklahoma and Kansas, where my interest in the subject was sparked by visits to local museums. I fondly remember trips to the Fellow-Reeves Museum in Wichita, Kansas, and the National Cowboy & Western Heritage Museum in Oklahoma City. A 1908 photograph of my great-grandparents picking cotton has been used as a poster by the Oklahoma Historical Society. This love of learning history continued into my years as a graduate student of history, when I would spend hours at the Smithsonian Institution's National Air and Space Museum learning about the history of human flight and ballooning. As a professor, I've integrated the institution's exhibits into my history courses. The Trump administration, however, is not happy with the way the Smithsonian Institution and other U.S. museums are portraying history. On March 27, 2025, the president issued an executive order, 'Restoring Truth and Sanity to American History,' which asserted, 'Over the past decade, Americans have witnessed a concerted and widespread effort to rewrite our Nation's history, replacing objective facts with a distorted narrative driven by ideology rather than truth. Under this historical revision, our Nation's unparalleled legacy of advancing liberty, individual rights, and human happiness is reconstructed as inherently racist, sexist, oppressive, or otherwise irredeemably flawed.' Trump singled out a few museums, including the Smithsonian, dedicating a whole section of the order on 'saving' the institution from 'divisive, race-centered ideology.' Of course, history is contested. There will always be a variety of views about what should be included and excluded from America's story. For example, in my own research, I found that Prohibition-era school boards in the 1920s argued over whether it was appropriate for history textbooks to include pictures of soldiers drinking to illustrate the 1791 Whiskey Rebellion. But most recent debates center on how much attention should be given to the history of the nation's accomplishments over its darker chapters. The Smithsonian, as a national institution that receives most of its funds from the federal government, has sometimes found itself in the crosshairs. The Smithsonian Institution was founded in 1846 thanks to its namesake, British chemist James Smithson. Smithson willed his estate to his nephew and stated that if his nephew died without an heir, the money – roughly US$15 million in today's dollars – would be donated to the U.S. to found 'an establishment for the increase and diffusion of knowledge.' The idea of a national institution dedicated to history, science and learning was contentious from the start. In her book 'The Stranger and the Statesman,' historian Nina Burleigh shows how Smithson's bequest was nearly lost due to battles between competing interests. Southern plantation owners and western frontiersmen, including President Andrew Jackson, saw the establishment of a national museum as an unnecessary assertion of federal power. They also challenged the very idea of accepting a gift from a non-American and thought that it was beneath the dignity of the government to confer immortality on someone simply because of a large donation. In the end, a group led by congressman and former president John Quincy Adams ensured Smithson's vision was realized. Adams felt that the country was failing to live up to its early promise. He thought a national museum was an important way to burnish the ideals of the young republic and educate the public. Today the Smithsonian runs 14 education and research centers, the National Zoo and 21 museums, including the National Portrait Gallery and the National Museum of African American History and Culture, which was created with bipartisan support during President George W. Bush's administration. In the introduction to his book 'Smithsonian's History of America in 101 Objects,' cultural anthropologist Richard Kurin talks about how the institution has also supported hundreds of small and large institutions outside of the nation's capital. In 2024, the Smithsonian sent over 2 million artifacts on loan to museums in 52 U.S. states and territories and 33 foreign countries. It also partners with over 200 affiliate museums. YouGov has periodically tracked Americans' approval of the Smithsonian, which has held steady at roughly 68% approval and 2% disapproval since 2020. Precursors to the Trump administration's efforts to reshape the Smithsonian took place in the 1990s. In 1991, the Smithsonian American Art Museum, which was then known as the National Museum of American Art, created an exhibition titled 'The West as America, Reinterpreting Images of the Frontier, 1820-1920.' Conservatives complained that the museum portrayed western expansion as a tale of conquest and destruction, rather than one of progress and nation-building. The Wall Street Journal editorialized that the exhibit represented 'an entirely hostile ideological assault on the nation's founding and history.' The exhibition proved popular: Attendance to the National Museum of American Art was 60% higher than it had been during the same period the year prior. But the debate raised questions about whether public museums were able to express ideas that are critical of the U.S. without risk of censorship. In 1994, controversy again erupted, this time at the National Air and Space Museum over a forthcoming exhibition centered on the Enola Gay, the plane that dropped the first atomic bomb on Hiroshima 50 years prior. Should the exhibition explore the loss of Japanese lives? Or emphasize the U.S. war victory? Veterans groups insisted that the atomic bomb ended the war and saved 1 million American lives, and demanded the removal of photographs of the destruction and a melted Japanese school lunch box from the exhibit. Meanwhile, other activists protested the exhibition by arguing that a symbol of human destruction shouldn't be commemorated at an institution that's supposed to celebrate human achievement. Republicans won the House in 1994 and threatened cuts to the Smithsonian's budget over the Enola Gay exhibition, compelling curators to walk a tightrope. In the end, the fuselage of the Enola Gay was displayed in the Smithsonian's National Air and Space Museum. But the exhibit would not tell the full story of the plane's role in the war from a myriad of perspectives. In 2019, The New York Times launched the 1619 project, which aimed to reframe the country's history by placing slavery and its consequences at its very center. The first Trump administration quickly responded by forming its 1776 commission. In January 2021, it produced a report critiquing the 1619 project, claiming that an emphasis on the country's history of racism and slavery was counterproductive to promoting 'patriotic education.' That same year, Trump pledged to build 'a vast outdoor park that will feature the statues of the greatest Americans to ever live,' with 250 statues to mark the 250th anniversary of the Declaration of Independence. President Joe Biden rescinded the order in 2021. Trump reissued it after retaking the White House, and pointed to figures he'd like to see included, such as Christopher Columbus, George Washington, Betsy Ross, Sitting Bull, Bob Hope, Thurgood Marshall and Whitney Houston. I don't think there is anything wrong with honoring Americans, though I think a focus on celebrities and major figures clouds the fascinating histories of ordinary Americans. I also find it troubling that there seems to be such a concerted effort to so forcefully shape the teaching and understanding of history via threats and bullying. Yale historian Jason Stanley has written about how aspiring authoritarian governments seek to control historical narratives and discourage an exploration of the complexities of the past. Historical scholarship requires an openness to debate and a willingness to embrace new findings and perspectives. It also involves the humility to accept that no one – least of all the government – has a monopoly on the truth. In his executive order, Trump noted that 'Museums in our Nation's capital should be places where individuals go to learn.' I share that view. Doing so, however, means not dismantling history, but instead complicating the story – in all its messy glory. The Conversation U.S. receives funding from the Smithsonian Institution. This article is republished from The Conversation, a nonprofit, independent news organization bringing you facts and trustworthy analysis to help you make sense of our complex world. It was written by: Jennifer Tucker, Wesleyan University Read more: From Greenland to Fort Bragg, America is caught in a name game where place names become political tools Trump has purged the Kennedy Center's board, which in turn made him its chair – why does that matter? Inside the collapse of Disney's America, the US history-themed park that almost was Jennifer Tucker does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organization that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.
Yahoo
01-04-2025
- Politics
- Yahoo
Why Withholding Your Taxes in Protest Could Actually Help Trump and Musk
Sign up for the Slatest to get the most insightful analysis, criticism, and advice out there, delivered to your inbox daily. It's tax season, and if you're upset about how things are going in government right now, you might be tempted to protest by withholding your taxes. After all, conservatives had their Tea Party moment. Why shouldn't those opposed to the efforts of President Donald Trump and Elon Musk to dismantle the government, alienate our allies, and degrade America's standing in the world have their own? But there are a few reasons why this would be a bad idea. As a preliminary matter, the tea party reference just doesn't work. True, the taxes the original tea partiers protested were tariffs, and tariffs are one of the many things people are protesting today. However, the original tea partiers dumped the imported tea into the harbor rather than purchase the goods and pay the tariffs. No one seems to be suggesting that we dump imports into the harbor. If nothing else, the environmentalists would have a fit! While not filing or paying taxes is a more environmentally friendly form of protest, it would have its own issues. For one thing, the tax revenues at issue in 1775 were to be sent to England. Any forgone tax revenues now would affect our own government, which builds our roads and pays for our defense, education, etc. If your complaint is that you want more government, not less, reducing government revenues by refusing to pay your taxes is an odd way to go about it. Any tax protest now would hurt us, not some foreign power. But if you're still considering it, here are a few more things to consider. The first is philosophical. Tax protests have a long history in the U.S., ranging from the Whiskey Rebellion to a variety of anti-war protests. The former was a protest against a tax, while the latter were aimed at U.S. foreign policy. Folks today are contemplating the second kind of protest, though they are angered by a wide array of government actions, ranging from tariffs and foreign policy to the decisions to fire government workers and dismantle agencies, and efforts to cut research funding and dictate to colleges and universities what can and cannot be taught. (The full list of things one might protest is too long to get into fully here.) The question is: When are protests warranted? We have a democratic government, where the majority gets to set policy and decide what to spend money on and how much. When does disagreement with government policy rise to the level that it justifies a refusal to pay taxes? We could all identify something that might inspire us to protest, whether from the left or the right: war, abortion, guns, the death penalty, NPR. The list goes on. The problem is: We are either committed to our democratic process or we are not. It would be ironic for those outraged about the attack on the rule of law to protest by … ignoring the law. The second consideration is strategic. In many ways, it is like the conundrum the Senate Democrats just faced regarding the government shutdown. Trump and Musk are determined to shrink the government workforce and slash government spending. I'm not saying the Dems were right to support the continuing resolution, but a government shutdown could well have strengthened Trump's hand. The government needs more money, not less. Folks are already predicting the loss of $500 billion based on what DOGE is doing to the IRS. A refusal to pay taxes would only exacerbate these losses and could make it easier for Republicans to argue for deeper cuts. Finally, there are the financial and legal consequences. Civil protest can be a powerful tool, bringing attention to injustice and bad government policy. But no matter how just the cause, it does not permit folks to break the law with impunity. Failure to file and pay taxes can lead to two different penalties and interest charges that can outstrip the amount owed if enough time passes. It can even lead to criminal charges and prison. Just ask Hunter Biden. And don't think that you might get away with it because the IRS will be seriously understaffed. If you're a working stiff with a W-2 and some 1099s, the government already has most of your tax information, and the collection process associated with that information is largely automated. The sad fact is that reducing the IRS's auditing capacity will primarily degrade its ability to go after the wealthy, leaving the rest of us holding the bag. No one enjoys paying taxes under the best of circumstances. And refusing to pay to advance one's cause can make it all seem noble. But it is not that simple. Nothing ever is. So, feel free to fantasize about standing up to the man and refusing to pay your taxes. You can even imagine yourself wearing a tricorne hat. However, to paraphrase Michelle Obama, if you're worried or upset about what's going on today, do something … else.
CBS News
21-02-2025
- General
- CBS News
Historians at 250-year-old Woodville work to ensure enslaved people's contributions aren't lost
This year, the Woodville plantation turns 250 years old. It's one of the local locations that held slaves in the Pittsburgh area. The Neville House was built on slavery more than 200 years ago. There's now an effort to elevate the enslaved people's importance. "So all these members of this enslaved community are very highly skilled, and they produced all these different products that makes this community very self-sufficient," said historian Rob Windhorst, the vice president of Neville House Associates. In 1775, General John Neville planted his roots in Pittsburgh from Virginia and brought his slaves with him. However, he and his son Presley spent nearly a decade away, at one point serving in the American Revolution and then John joined political life in Philadelphia. "They do return after the Revolution, both the Woodville house and the Bower Hill house along with all the dependencies and outbuildings and support building, they're all completed," Windhorst said. The Bower Hill house was replaced by a historic marker. It was burned to the ground during the Whiskey Rebellion of 1794, but not without a fight. Enslaved men defended Bower Hill. "We know that the Neville slaves felt strongly enough to defend their homes up on Bower Hill with guns and that Neville trusted them to have guns," Windhorst said. Historians believe that the family, including their son-in-law, were the largest slaveholders in western Pennsylvania. The property at one point was about 1,200 acres. "Roughly from Mt. Lebanon, Carnegie, to out to Collier and down to Bridgeville, so everything within the confines of that large boundary is part of the original Neville property," Windhorst said. Now it's down to two and a half acres of history in Collier Township. The national historic landmark is a tourist attraction. "We think it's extremely important to continue to tell the stories of the past and this house has a lot of stories to tell, and this property does as well," said Susan Smith, the Woodville site director. With the Woodville plantation turning 250 years old, historians are working to putting a face to the people who made it what it is. "We've probably identified with names probably about half of those people that have lived and worked here. That's very exciting for us, to be able to put an identity, to give these people their due history," Windhorst said. It makes sure their contributions aren't lost to history.
Los Angeles Times
27-01-2025
- Politics
- Los Angeles Times
Trump and Biden add to long, strange history of presidential pardons
All it took was a few strokes of the pen for Donald Trump and Joe Biden to add to a long, strange American tradition. The presidential pardon dates back to George Washington more than two centuries ago. Bestowed upon thousands and thousands of Americans since then, it remains a power both unique and highly subjective. 'Generally, presidents may pardon any federal crime,' says Jeffrey Crouch, an assistant law professor at American University in Washington, D.C. 'Moreover, they may use clemency as often as they would like.' This authority has led to controversial decisions, including reprieves for the likes of President Richard Nixon, officials implicated in the Iran-Contra affair and disgraced commodities trader Marc Rich. The list grew a little longer in recent weeks when Trump pardoned 1,500 or so Jan. 6 rioters and Biden did likewise for some of his closest family members. The history of executive clemency is also marked by examples that have slipped from memory despite being just as debatable or, in some cases, quirky. Here is a sampling: In the early 1790s, Pennsylvania farmers tarred and feathered several government officials sent to collect a new tax on whiskey production. As violence spread, Washington — in his second term as president — personally led a militia force to quell what became known as the Whiskey Rebellion. Washington decided to issue the first executive clemency in 1795, exonerating 'all persons guilty of the said treasons.' Though insistent on the rule of law, he spoke of a need to 'mingle in the operations of government every degree of moderation and tenderness.' During the War of 1812, British forces approached the notorious Gulf of Mexico smuggler for help in attacking the U.S. coastline. Lafitte not only warned American authorities; he and his crew proved crucial in defending New Orleans. As a reward, President James Madison pardoned them for any 'clandestine and lawless' acts they might previously have committed. This case showed that not all pardons are created equal. President Andrew Jackson issued an executive clemency that spared Wilson from being hanged for robbing the mail, but did not preclude a lengthy prison term. Wilson turned it down. Startled authorities looked to the Supreme Court, which ruled Wilson had a right to refuse. Historical accounts regarding what happened next are murky — some say he was hanged; others suggest he accepted a subsequent pardon from President Martin Van Buren. The Utah War of 1857-58 began when U.S. Army soldiers marched west to install a new governor for the territory occupied by the Latter-day Saints and their leader Young. Though the yearlong standoff was uneventful, tensions led to Mormons attacking and killing more than 100 innocent people in a wagon train bound for California. The war finally ended when President James Buchanan — facing criticism for what was known as 'Buchanan's Blunder' — pardoned Young and his followers for resisting the government. In return, they submitted to U.S. rule. President Andrew Johnson waited until three years after the Civil War to issue an Independence Day amnesty to anyone who participated in what he called 'the rebellion.' Johnson justified the action as a means to 'promote and procure complete fraternal reconciliation among the whole people.' The infamous labor leader went to federal prison in 1967 for jury tampering, fraud and conspiracy. Nixon tempered the commutation of his sentence by demanding that he refrain from union activities. But declassified documents show the president's aides sought to use Hoffa to gain labor support for Nixon's 1972 reelection campaign. Several years later, Hoffa disappeared under mysterious circumstances and was never seen again. On his first full day in office, President Jimmy Carter issued a blanket pardon to anyone who had evaded the draft, allowing thousands of young men to return from Canada and other countries. It was part of his campaign vow to address the unfinished business of the Vietnam War. It was 1941 when Iva Ikuko Toguri — born in Los Angeles, educated at UCLA — moved to Japan. After the end of World War II, U.S. authorities charged the so-called Tokyo Rose — a radio handle she never used — with being one of several women who broadcast English-language radio shows meant to demoralize American troops. She was convicted of treason and sentenced to 10 years in prison. Nearly three decades later, after two prosecution witnesses said they testified under duress, President Gerald Ford granted her an unconditional pardon. The bombastic owner of the New York Yankees was convicted and fined, but not imprisoned, for making illegal contributions to Nixon's 1972 campaign. Years later, President Ronald Reagan issued a pardon that did not cleanse Steinbrenner's record but did restore his full citizenship rights. The newspaper heiress, who was kidnapped by the Symbionese Liberation Army and later joined them as 'Tania,' was the recipient of two presidential actions. Carter commuted her prison sentence for bank robbery in 1979, then President Bill Clinton issued a full pardon on his final day in office.
