The Whiskey Rebellion – and Trump

Seldom does history, like some returning interstellar comet, come as close as the Whiskey Rebellion of 1794 to President Trump’s mobilization of National Guard units to suppress attacks on federal personnel and facilities. Ironically, the media’s ignorance is profound and showing.

Last week, leading  media outlets – trying to gin up some shock, outrage, maybe more violence – wrote (AP) that Trump’s “latest bid to deploy the military on US soil … is triggering a new conflict with blue state governors … armed soldiers patrolling US streets…  already pushed traditional boundaries… is envisioning a muscular role for the US military … targeting crime.” 

With no grasp of American history – embarrassing ignorance – the liberal media was silent on all 10 similar domestic deployments of National Guard by US Presidents, under Title 10 and the Insurrection Act, to quell or deter unrest. All were upheld by the courts, seven of ten Democrats.

FDR did it in 1943, JFK in 1962 and 1963, Johnson in 1965 and 1967, Nixon in 1970, GHW Bush in 1989, Clinton in 1994, and Obama in 2010. Look it up, similar interest in responding to or preventing civil unrest, enforcement of federal laws, protection of personnel and facilities, and stopping crime.

Never mind. The media have their own special narrative, their anti-democrat idea, their autocrat in power storyline, their next leftist fiction to undermine the president, the rule of law, traditional understandings of executive power, the role of the military – especially the National Guard – in society.

They write: “Law enforcement should remain in civilian hands,” implying it is not, despite the fact that the National Guard deploys under Title 10, Title 32 (by governors) and Insurrection Act, “ in support of” law enforcement, thus fully consistent with the Posse Comitatus Act.  

The media also attacks Trump for sending National Guard from one state to another, as if this is somehow new, which it is not – under Title 10, Title 32, and the Insurrection Act. 

Then they attack him for “bypassing formal Pentagon policy process … for troop deployments” by making the decision at “the highest levels.” This sideswipe is almost laughable, since all presidents unilaterally deploy National Guard units under Title 10 USC Section 12406, from the 1950s to now, under the so-called “plenary authority” of the president, provided in that act.

Finally, the liberal media try to gild the lily, covering their backsides while trying to insinuate lawlessness. They say, “while the dynamic is not unheard of … it is typically used in situations like natural disasters,” adding “the officials all spoke on condition of anonymity.”

All sounds very dark and terrible, doesn’t it?  But it neatly corroborates the Democrat storyline, that we should all hate Trump, because he is an unapologetic patriot, supports law enforcement, wants lawfulness, not lawlessness, is a traditionalist who recognizes radiating failed government, the proliferation of illegal immigration, drug trafficking, gang violence, and wants to stop it.

But here is where that intergenerational comet swoops by again, where the Trump actions so plainly mirror or parallel the understandings our Founding Fathers had about executive authority, plenary powers, and when to exercise them.

In 1794, President George Washington himself witnessed a number of local uprisings, sought to quell them with federal power to preserve the national peace, unity, and order. The one that most remember was the “Whiskey Rebellion,” local resistance to a federal tax on liquor, intended to pay down debt. The resistance got out of hand, threatened to spread in western Pennsylvania.

Washington did not hesitate. He saddled up and mobilized militia, what would today be the National Guard, from neighboring New Jersey, Maryland, and Virginia. Nor did Washington go in light, but presaging the philosophy of Ronald Reagan and Colin Powell, he used overwhelming presence, or 13,000 troops, to put down violence by 500 resistors or rebels.

Yes, those who favored stronger states’ rights – which Washington himself favored as a Virginian, and when he oversaw the adoption of the 10th  Amendment – were unhappy with this federal action, the mobilization of three states’ militias to bring order to a contiguous state, but that is history.

This is why the powers Washington – and Trump – are exercising appear in Article II of the Constitution, were later codified in the Insurrection Act and Title 10, and are entirely appropriate, when state and local authorities cannot or will not enforce federal laws, civil rights, to immigration.

Bottom line: Seldom does history, like some returning interstellar comet, come as close as the Whiskey Rebellion of 1794 to President Trump’s mobilization of National Guard units today. To take any other position is to indulge Democrat rewrites of history, the liberal media, and nonsense.

Robert Charles is a former Assistant Secretary of State under Colin Powell, former Reagan and Bush 41 White House staffer, Maine attorney, ten-year naval intelligence officer (USNR), and 25-year businessman. He wrote “Narcotics and Terrorism” (2003), “Eagles and Evergreens” (North Country Press, 2018), and “Cherish America: Stories of Courage, Character, and Kindness” (Tower Publishing, 2024). He is National Spokesman for AMAC. Today, he is running to be Maine’s next Governor. BobbyforMaine.com