what did the whiskey rebellion show about the constitution
Whiskey Rebellion The Rebellion raised the question of what kinds of protests were permissible under the new Constitution. Legal historian Christian G. Fritz argued that there was not yet a consensus about sovereignty in the United States, even after ratification of the Constitution. Federalists believed that the government was sovereign because it had been established by the people; radical protest actions were permissible during the American Revolution but were no longer legitimate, in their thinking. But the Whiskey Rebels and their defenders believed that the Revolution had established the people as a "collective sovereign", and the people had the collective right to change or challenge the government through extra-constitutional means.[118]
Upper Canada Rebellion The Canadian Alliance Society was reborn as the Constitutional Reform Society in 1836, when it was led by the more moderate reformer, Dr William W. Baldwin. The Reformers experienced a disaster at the 1836 elections for the 13th Parliament of Upper Canada, and the Society took its final form as the Toronto Political Union in 1837. It was this group of the disenfranchised that began organizing local "Vigilance Committees" to elect delegates to a so-called Constitutional Convention in July 1837. This became the organizational structure for the Rebellion; most of the rebel organizers were elected Constitutional Convention delegates.[7]