The migration or importation of such persons as any of the states now existing shall think proper to admit, shall not be prohibited by the Congress prior to the year one thousand eight hundred and eight [see also, Article V.], but a tax or duty may be imposed on such importation, not exceeding ten dollars for each person. ...The Constitution earlier noted that Congress has the power to lay and collect "duties, imposts and excises," but that these must be "uniform" throughout the U.S. This does not mean that each state had to have the same amount of taxes in some sort of similar per capita basis, even though certain taxes might fall on certain areas differently, such as a tax on shipbuilding. The so-called Whiskey Rebellion underlined the point, an excise tax on whiskey particularly hard on those in which the substance served in effect as a sort of liquid capital.
No capitation, or other direct, tax shall be laid, unless in proportion to the census or enumeration herein before directed to be taken.
A special security was provided in respect to "direct taxes," which the justices in the 1790s ruling Hylton v. U.S. thought of as a tax directly on persons and land. "Persons" here included slaves ("such persons") and the disproportionate amount of both in certain areas led to the felt importance of these provisions, including an additional one stopping an amendment to override them before 1808. It is noted that some gave more creative readings to the term (income taxes, the PPACA affair, which might have led to this "bleg" given the sentiments of the author), but the more limited understanding (if always a bit vague) is more sensible.
Direct taxes were never a major source of federal taxation, even if we take the logic of the majority in the late 19th Century income tax cases as correct (the 16A made the matter rather moot, but the dissent probably had the better case of it) since even there only certain types of income taxes were deemed problematic. A recent book on Civil War legal matters was cited; a direct tax was raised then, leading to some difficulties, but not much came from it in way of revenue. The fear that direct taxes would be a means to target slavery never really came to pass.
The request for information ("bleg") addressed another war-related direct tax, this time during the so-called Quasi-War with France in the late 1790s. This too led to certain difficulties, including the Fries' Rebellion, itself a bit of a misnomer. A comment cites Fries's Rebellion: The Enduring Struggle for the American Revolution (cited as "the standard scholarly study") and I also read an article by that author that summarizes the affair. It is an interesting little footnote, involving a sort of mini-Shay's Rebellion, another veteran led affair in which public protest and a bit of "Second Amendment remedies" (a people's militia formed to address assumed tyranny) that caused some powers that be a lot of stress, but didn't really amount to much at the end. The President, to the chagrin of some more "high" Federalists even pardoned the leader of the whole thing.*
The backers of the tax (on land, houses and slaves), according to the article, actually thought it was rather benign -- it was less regressive than the excise that led to the Whiskey Rebellion and did not similarly hit to the core of local economies. But, the problem was a bit different for the Pennsylvania communities that struck back here -- in effect, the tax was seen as an overly intrusive invasion of their privacy. The "house tax" required assessments by government bureaucrats, involving such petty things like counting the windows on homes. The home was then as now a representative of the family and brought back bad memories:
The House Tax was a reincarnation of the hated "Hearth Tax" in Germany. The hearth tax, was a tax levied on each fireplace and its size. All cooking and heating were done by means of a fireplace. The idea of being taxed on the size of a house, the size and number of the windows in that house and the amount of land owned, was similar to the Hearth Tax. Most of all, it was disliked because it was for the purpose of paying for a non-existent war. The German settlers could not accept nor believe that the President would sign this tax into law. When the bill was signed, they refused to pay the tax.Thus, the collection and purpose was a problem. Some also argued that when apportioned, home owners would feel the brunt of the tax more than those with a lot of (often undeveloped) land. And, I think even to the degree direct taxes were used, such a tax on homes (as compared to real property in land or persons, including what was deemed at the time as "chattels," a type of personal property of a special type) was disfavored. So, even if the tax was proportioned, certain people had an unconstitutional burden. The author of the standard account didn't find the constitutional argument convincing, deeming the true concern a broader belief that it was an infringement on liberty. The use of a technical constitutional argument to cover up what amounted to larger game pops up these days as well.
I'd need to know more to weigh how convincing the house v. land tax argument is, but it is likely the author is correct that the case was not really convincing or the ultimate point. The Constitution itself favored certain types of "property" and communities by treating direct taxes this way and it would not be surprising if the net result was not really overly fair, the average homeowner being burdened more than a large landowner. After all, things are not totally balanced even today with the 16A etc. Protestors that don't pay taxes are known today as are those who used guns to protest, but things are a bit more formal these days, things not lasting that long even then.
The details are interesting, down to a sort of "stamp tax" involved. But, the government was ours, so things held.
---
* Two people did die in prison. To add to the obscure constitutional provision discussion, one link noted some protestors were charged with "high misdemeanors," a word that pops up in the impeachment section. The term in effect means crimes against the state that are not felonies, that is, those not traditionally capital in nature. It also arose in the area of illegal slave trading, some offenses labeled "high misdemeanors."