to be a target. Farmers who were compelled to accept the prices
fixed by the impressment commissioners cried out that they were
being ruined. Men of the stamp of Toombs came to their assistance
with railing accusations such as this: "I have heard it said that
we should not sacrifice liberty to independence, but I tell you,
my countrymen, that the two are inseparable.... If we lose
our liberty we shall lose our independence.... I would rather
see the whole country the cemetery of freedom than the habitation
of slaves." Protests which poured in upon the Government insisted
that the power to impress supplies did not carry with it the
power to fix prices. Worthy men, ridden by the traditional ideas
of political science and unable to modify these in the light of
the present emergency, wailed out their despair over the
"usurpation" of Richmond.

The tax in kind was denounced in the same vein. The licensing
provisions of this law and its income tax did not satisfy the
popular imagination. These provisions concerned the classes that
could borrow. The classes that could not borrow, that had no
resources but their crops, felt that they were being driven to
the wall. The bitter saying went around that it was "a rich man's
war and a poor man's fight." As land and slaves were not directly
taxed, the popular discontent appeared to have ground for its
anger. Furthermore, it must never be forgotten that this was the
first general tax that the poor people of the South were ever
conscious of paying. To people who knew the tax-gatherer as
little more than a mythical being, he suddenly appeared like a
malevolent creature who swept off ruthlessly the tenth of their
produce. It is not strange that an intemperate reaction against
the planters and their leadership followed. The illusion spread