The Economist.

Like so many fights, this one involved whiskey.

The federal government was deeply in debt from the costs of the Revolutionary War.

So Congress passed a tax upon spirits distilled within the United States.

The tax was to be paid in cash, something hard to come by in the outer reaches of the new country.

It was 1791. Word took time to travel, and when farmers in Western Pennsylvania did find out,

they protested. The Whiskey Rebellion grew violent. Rebels burnt to the ground the home of the local tax collector.

It lasted until 1794, when President George Washington raised a militia of some 12,000 men

to put it down.

The threat was enough to end the uprising.

By the time the forces arrived, the rebellion was all but over.

It was the first time a president would raise a militia to put down a civil disturbance.

And it's one in a long history of presidents using federalized forces in the states, whether the governor

welcomes the help or not.

I'm John Priddo, and this is Checks and Balance from The Economist.

Each week, we take one big theme shaping American politics and explore it in depth.

This week, the protests in LA, the heavy federal response,

and what immigration means to the Trump administration.

The president has sent in the National Guard, something the governor doesn't want, and he's activated nearby Marines.

Was the escalation necessary?

And is the real fight about immigration or is it about politics? With me this week to talk about what's happened in L, Donald Trump's deployment of troops to America's second biggest city by population, the response of democratic politicians, and to look forward to more protests that are expected this weekend in other cities are Charlotte Howard, who's in New York, and Idris Kalun, who's in Washington, D.C.

Charlotte, how are you doing? What's going on in New York? I am fine. We had the news late last night

...