It was 1874 that our beloved Pennsylvania farmers protested unfair taxation. They echoed the sentiment of the founders who rebelled against the British Empire over the question of unfair taxation.

In 1791, two years after the Constitution was ratified and the United States came into existence, Congress had approved a federal tax on spirits and stills. The farmers in Western Pennsylvania were the new frontier.

The distilling of whiskey was one method of converting grain into liquor which was then much easier to transport across the Appalachian Mountains in order to reach the Atlantic coast markets. Alexander Hamilton was concerned about the debt of the colonies, which became states in the new union. The debt load threatened to upset the delicate balance between the states and to undermine the federal government. Hamilton, who was sometimes referred to as the father of American Capitalism, thought that the national debt could be addressed by a tax on whiskey.

The sale of alcohol had an even larger consequence for the new nation than it has today. Not only was grain easily converted into alcohol for transportation and consumption, but the use of whiskey was part and parcel of the burgeoning American mentality. Whiskey led to any number of duels, was used for anesthesia in medical procedures, and was consumed by frontiersmen as well as by city folk. Whiskey was given to Native American and enslaved Africans to help keep them in line, and it was a commodity frequently used to bring out the electoral vote for one candidate or another.

March 1, 1791, is the date that the excise tax on whiskey passed Congress. The revenue was desperately needed. Hamilton appreciated that the nation could not survive as a debtor entity.

On September 7, 1791, the Pittsburgh Assembly met to discuss the violent outbreak against the tax collectors in the western part of the Commonwealth.

On July 16, 1794, almost 400 rioters began to harass tax collectors. One of them was John Neville, a regional tax supervisor. Neville was attacked and his property set on fire.

By August 1, 1794, the so-called rebels were beginning to organize. They met at Braddock’s Field. Washington, appreciating the urgency and the risk to the Republic, sent a peace commission to Pennsylvania. That attempt to ameliorate the problem did not work and a militia response followed. Washington was not about to let the colonial experiment break asunder as a result of a strong federal government, which had replaced the weak and feckless Articles of Confederation. The President wrote in his diary on September 30, 1794, that he left the city of Philadelphia accompanied by Colo. Hamilton and his private secretary. By October 16, 1794, Washington had gathered militia forces from Virginia, New Jersey, Pennsylvania, and Maryland in order to confront the riots in Western Pennsylvania. Washington, like General Colin Powell, appreciated that a massive show of force was necessary to win the day. President Washington appeared on his well-known white horse with a force of 12,950 men following him.

The showdown between Washington and the tax protestors occurred October 24, 1794. Arriving in Pittsburgh, Washington found that most of the rioters had dispersed and the sentiment for revolution was quieted.

On October 19, 1794, the Army apprehended nearly 150 men. They were arrested for treason. Most of the cases failed due to lack of evidence and reluctant or disappearing witnesses.

George Washington, never one to shrink from duty and being intimately familiar with the process which created the nation as well as the Constitution, issued pardons on July 10, 1795, pardoned John Mitchell and Philip Weigel, two men who had been found guilty of treason.

The insurrection was over, but the hatred of taxation has never departed from our national consciousness.

The power to pardon can be found in the United States Constitution, Article II, §2, cl.1. The clause in its entirety reads as follows:

The President shall be Commander in Chief of the Army and Navy of the United States, and of the Militia of the several states, when called into actual Service of the United States; he may require the Opinion, in writing, of the principal Officer of each of the executive Departments, upon any Subject relating to the Duties of their respective Offices, and he shall have Power to grant Reprieves and Pardons for Offences against the United States, except in Cases of Impeachment.

The power to pardon did not arise on a blank slate but rather can be traced to English law from an early period. The power to pardon is quite broad and has over the centuries represented a hot button issue. Although frequently used, it is dangerous territory for any president.

The pardon may be granted for “Offenses against the United States.” State criminal offenses and federal or state civil issues are not within the power of the pardon. The President’s authority, as specifically indicated, may not be utilized in cases of impeachment.

The total number of petitions for pardons granted by President Biden over 44.5 months are 25 people, and petitions for commutation granted, 132. In the case of Donald Trump, the number of petitions granted for pardons were 144 and commutation 94. As to President Obama, he granted 212 pardons and 1,715 petitions for commutation.

It is not easy to find the total number of presidential pardons granted in the history of the United States, but it has been quite extensive, including pardons of family members, friends, and even enemies. One of the most famous pardons in history was President Ford’s pardon of Richard Nixon for any offenses he may have committed while in office. Ford was no fan of the former president, but he was interested in tamping down the percolating anger of those who supported Nixon and correspondingly, those who hated Nixon.

The question for President Biden, and those who support the pardon that he granted for his son, will have nothing to do with the power to pardon or with a father’s empathy for his wayward son. Rather the issue is why he changed his mind between the period of time prior to the election as opposed to his conduct in pardoning his son thereafter.

The big story will be if President Biden determines to pardon or grant commutation for those who took part in the January 6, 2021, riot at the capital which allegedly was instigated by President Trump and his followers. For President Biden to pardon, at least those not convicted of criminal actions against peace officers, would be an incredibly healing conduct for this nation. While many may disagree with such a pardon, it would be in keeping with pardons issued over the centuries for those who represented political enemies of the president, the United States, or Congress. It would also remove any incentive for the incoming president to conduct a witch hunt against enemies who he believes falsely accused him and his allies. The nation would start off a new presidency and the new year with a more clean slate than would otherwise be the case.

These views in no way are intended to express any approval of what occurred on the infamous January 6th date, which any reasonable person would be abhorred by.

The history of the power to pardon from the Whiskey Rebellion onward has demonstrated the potential ameliorative and hearing effect of the pardon power. It can be abused, and indeed has been abused, but it can also be an instrument for permitting the nation and individuals at large to move forward in a productive manner.

Clifford A. Rieders is a board-certified trial advocate in Williamsport.