what caused the whiskey rebellion?
93774
Below is a website dedicated to the Whiskey Rebellion and the debate which is still going on...
399659
The Peasants' Revolt. He stabbed the leader Wat Tyler to death. It's why London has a dagger on its coat of arms.
555088
The Civil War was caused by a myriad of conflicting pressures, principles, and prejudices, fueled by sectional differences and pride, and set into motion by a most unlikely set of political events.\n\nAt the root of all of the problems was the institution of slavery, which had been introduced into North America in early colonial times. The American Revolution had been fought to validate the idea that all men were created equal, yet slavery was legal in all of the thirteen colonies throughout the revolutionary period. Although it was largely gone from the northern states by 1787, it was still enshrined in the new Constitution of the United States, not only at the behest of the Southern ones, but also with the approval of many of the Northern delegates who saw that there was still much money to be made in the slave trade by the Yankee shipping industry. Eventually its existence came to color every aspect of American life.\n\nAt the Constitutional Convention there were arguments over slavery. Representatives of the Northern states claimed that if the Southern slaves were mere property, then they should not be counted toward voting representation in Congress. Southerners, placed in the difficult position of trying to argue, at least in this case, that the slaves were human beings, eventually came to accept the three-fifths compromise, by which five slaves counted as three free men toward that representation. By the end of the convention the institution of slavery itself, though never specifically mentioned, was well protected within the body of the Constitution.\n\nIt seemed to Thomas Jefferson and many others that slavery was on its way out, doomed to die a natural death. It was becoming increasingly expensive to keep slaves in the agrarian society of the south. Northern and Southern members of Congress voted together to abolish the importation of slaves from overseas in 1808, but the domestic slave trade continued to flourish. The invention of the cotton gin made the cultivation of cotton on large plantations using slave labor a profitable enterprise in the deep South. The slave became an ever more important element of the southern economy, and so the debate about slavery, for the southerner, gradually evolved into an economically based question of money and power, and ceased to be a theoretical or ideological issue at all. It became an institution that southerners felt bound to protect.\n\nBut even as the need to protect it grew, the ability, or at least the perceived ability of the South to do so was waning. Southern leaders grew progressively more sensitive to this condition. In 1800 half of the population of the United States had lived in the South. But by 1850 only a third lived there and the disparity continued to widen. While northern industrial opportunity attracted scores of immigrants from Europe in search of freedom the South's population stagnated. Even as slave states were added to the Union to balance the number of free ones, the South found that its representatives in the House had been overwhelmed by the North’s explosive growth. More and more emphasis was now placed on maintaining parity in the Senate. Failing this, the paranoid theory went, the South would find itself at the mercy of a government in which it no longer had an effective voice. Never mind that slavery was protected under the constitution, and that it would have been impossible to make amendments to abolish it. Jefferson Davis, at the time a Senator from Mississippi, summed up the sectionalist argument himself. Speaking, in effect, to the people of the North concerning slavery, “It is not humanity that influences you… it is that you may have a majority in the Congress of the United States and convert the Government into an engine of Northern aggrandizement… you want by an unjust system of legislation to promote the industry of the United States at the expense of the people of the South.” There, in plain English, is the shrill, accusat
56130
Ice was poisoned.  He drank his drink too fast for the ice to melt and release its poison.  Others drank slowly.  Ice melted and poisoned the tea.\n\n\n(37 seconds, drat it)\n\nIt's been asked time and time again.
708604
Earl decided to seek to annul his wedding to Charlotte.  He felt she had become blase to his ardor.  He also had come to deplore her frivolous ways.  In order to muster his courage, he drank heavily.  He got so drunk he began to feel like a nonentity.  He started to obsess over her ornate wedding ring that he had paid so much to buy.  Enough, he decided to oust her from the house that very day.\n\nThere, brief, used 'em all, used 'em in order.
954393
all settlers were british, britain claimed the new land, eventually taxes got to high, with inflammation and all, so they started rebeling, britain was not about to let its new colony go, so they sent ships (note britain was most powerful in world at the time ). and they tried to control it, but eventually, somebody shot a british soldier, and they got pissed, and started killing everybody.
1081488
John Brown's raid on Harper's Ferry, Bloody Kansas participant, pretty much violent and deranged. He hated slavery and wanted to get all the slaves to go against the whites (even though Brown was a white). Go Russia!
486806
I believe it was due to the strong iron production in the area...to produce weapons. But contact the Museum of the Confederacy in Richmond, VA to for your best answers.
363049
The reason was alcohol poisoning
78572
the bastard. \n\nbut yeah, alcohol dulls the reasoning/common sense sometimes. but its no excuse
168927
Causes of the French Revolution include the following:\n\nA bad economic situation as well as an unmanageable national debt, both caused by and exacerbating the burden of a grossly inequitable system of taxation and France's funding of the American Revolution. \nResentment of royal absolutism. \nAspiration for liberty and republicanism \nResentment of Manorialism (seigneurialism) by peasants, wage-earners, and, to a lesser extent, the bourgeoisie \nThe rise of enlightenment ideals. \nFood scarcity in the months immediately before the revolution. \nResentment at noble privilege and dominance in public life by the ambitious professional classes. \nResentment of religious intolerance. \nThe failure of Louis XVI to deal effectively with these phenomena.
753430
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mexican_revolution#Causes\nthis might help check it out
1027457
Domestic Tranquility\nOne of the concerns of the Framers was that the government prior to that under the Constitution was unable, by force or persuasion, to quell rebellion or quarrels amongst the states. The government watched in horror as Shay's Rebellion transpired just before the Convention, and some states had very nearly gone to war with each other over territory (such as between Pennsylvania and Connecticut over Wilkes-Barre). One of the main goals of the Convention, then, was to ensure the federal government had powers to squash rebellion and to smooth tensions between states.
196040
Since the government could not control alcohol manufacturing and distribution under FDR, and saw huge profits to be made, prohibition was repealed. First, beer was legalized, to rousing editions of Happy Days are Here Again" being heard across the land. Payoffs to local officials, including the police, were common. Gambling too follows suit though most of the public opposed it in  their districts. There is a huge amount of money to made, and the goverment policy seems to be "if you can't beat them , join hem."
586985
The Boston Tea Party was a protest by the American colonists against Great Britain in which they destroyed many crates of tea on ships in Boston Harbor. The incident, which took place on Thursday, December 16, 1773, has been seen as helping to spark the American Revolution.
168970
It is one of those questions where books could be written.  That said, a case could be made that the British started it by going against their (and America’s) Common Law, by not applying all of those rights to those living in the Americas.  It was only a matter of time before there would be a response to such a policy.  Since the British Crown reject peaceful petitions to redress grievances, violence would follow.
982243
I don't think this is the whole story. You lost me at the part when you had this huge fight. What triggered it? If you can't identify that, you are asking for trouble. Also the guy drinks, which brings up another problem you're better without. Sorry, but this whole thing sounds like a disaster waiting to happen. Good luck.