Brinkley p. 138-139/ Washington and Jefferson on Shays' Rebellion
In the late 1780s, a group of poor, New England famers rebelled against the new taxes states were issuing to pay the war debts. The uprising was led by a former captain of the Continental army, Daniel Shays. New England's farmers were already heavily burdened by debt and believed they were being unfairly taxed by the corrupt wealthy. Shays demanded that the government issue more paper currency to help them pay their debts. He wanted tax reliefs, postponement of the payment of debts, and for the government to stop imprisoning people on account of their debt. This became known as the Shays' Rebellion.
Just coming out of the American Revolution, the colonists were still holding on to their ideals of liberty, opportunity and freedom, but understood that they needed a new system of government to control the recently independent nation. The people, however, were used to getting their way, and revolting when they felt they were being treated unjustly. The farmers, like the radicals under British control, felt paranoid about the taxation, thinking the worst about the people enforcing the taxes. Their rebellion soon became violent as Shays' followers used force to prevent taxes from being collected and intended to seize weapons. Were the states’ taxes as unjust as the British taxes?
While the British taxes on the colonies helped the British pay their war debts, the state taxes were set in place to gain a better economical standing in the world as a new nation. The British only wanted the colonies as a source of revenue for the mother country, but the states were trying to get America out of debt for a future of prosperity. The farmers were still only thinking of themselves individually, not as a new nation– just as the states were still very separated. This was the idea of "independence" to the extreme, but it became clear that a national constitution was needed to unify the weak, disjointed America in order for it to become prosperous and hold true to its founding ideals.
The followers of Shays' Rebellion were first going to be put to death, but were spared, and some of their demands were met. Their overall goal was not achieved, but the revolt made the government rethink how it was currently structured. The mercy by which the rebellion was received coincides with Thomas Jefferson's belief about how an "unsuccessful rebellion" should be treated. He believed that a rebellion is "a medicine necessary for the sound health of government," meaning that societies need rebellions to question the existing government and affect change. He believed any rebellion justified. George Washington, on the other hand was appalled at the rebellion, and wrote, "They (Shays' Rebellion) exhibit a melancholy proof of what our trans-Atlantic foe has predicted; and of another thing perhaps, which is still more to be regretted…" meaning that Britain might have been justified in controlling the colonies to an extent close to injustice–for people cannot be relied on to control themselves– evident by the rebellion. He also wrote, "If they have real grievances, redress them if possible; or acknowledge the justice of them, and your inability to do it in the present moment. If they have not, employ the force of government against them at once," meaning if what they are fighting for is beyond a petty problem, fix them. But if not, the rebellion should not be tolerated. Which point of view is more realistic? Jefferson's or Washington's?
Although Shays' Rebellion was one of the factors leading to the national constitution, the people revolting were over independent, bordering selfish, and were not justified to become violent. Jefferson’s idea of rebellion seemed a reasonable way for people to voice their opinions, but Washington knew the real damage a rebellion could cause (even though he thoroughly supported the American ideals of liberty and equal opportunity), and understood that there had to be some control over the people. He wanted to listen to the people’s opinions, but could not tolerate the violent way they were being presented.
In response to your question about whether the states' taxes were as unfair as Parliament's taxes, it is necessary to look at how the populace was represented during the time when the legislation mandating the taxes was passed. When Britain passed their many failed acts, most famously disastrous of which was the Stamp Act, the Parliament did so without representing the American people. The British decided that they needed more money from the colonies and, as a result, taxed the people only for the sake of profit. However, when the state governments levied taxes on the American people, they did so while representing the people through an election process. Also, as you said above, the purpose of the taxes was not to burden the people or reap monetary benefits, rather it was an attempt to increase societal prosperity by first paying off war debts. In conclusion, in my opinion, it is most important to look at how the people were represented. If the colonists in Massachusetts were unhappy with the taxation, then they should have waited until the next election to elect people who would not have taxed them as heavily.
ReplyDeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteThis comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
DeleteI think that you make a fair point in saying that the Colonists should have presented their ideas in a peaceful way but at the same time did the colonists know how to do this? Based on the governmental system now there is a structure for how to present grievances and many opportunities to express discontent but this current system is only a product of events that transpired after the Shay's Rebellion. The colonists were living in a newly free country with a lack of organized government. They did not know who to talk to about their grievances so they did what they knew would get the attention of the right people. Granted violence is never the answer to express one's complaints but the colonists wanted their voices to be heard. Were the colonists just expressing complains in the only way that they knew how to or do you think that there was a clear and defined way for them to express their thoughts differently and peacefully that they ignored?
ReplyDeleteBut why is it more just to pay to put the new nation on a sound footing than it was to help put the British empire on a sound financial footing (by paying down debt). After all, when the Stamp Act was passed, and really up until early 1776 (and beyond that for Loyalist), the colonists felt British. So it's not clear that, on that basis, the British taxes were less just than the Massachusetts taxes.
ReplyDeleteOf course, there's still the issue of representation...but Michaela touches on that.
Dr. K
The colonists under the British control had tried many more peaceful ways of telling Parliament how they felt before resorting to violence. However, as a new nation under leaders like George Washington, there was no need for violence. George Washington was willing to listen to the people and try to solve their problems reasonably, but people, coming from the revolution, had become used to violence as a method of getting their way. However, it was necessary to reform the government to make it easier to voice opinions and make a change- and would probably would help avoid more violent rebellions.
ReplyDeleteNeither tax was more just than the other. It is only a matter of how the colonists perceive the taxes. The earlier taxes imposed by the British government were not put in place simply to make money. They were necessary to absolve Britain of the debt it acquired fighting the French and Indian War. Both taxes were imposed by governments who had just fought a war that benefited the colonists, and were deeply in debt. In fact, both governments were looking for compensation for the help they had given the colonists. Both taxes are justified and necessary, however, we see the followers of Shay's Rebellion revolting against their new government. This seems to be a result of what Emily mentioned above, "'independence' to the extreme".
ReplyDeleteUnlike Emma, I think the tax imposed by the British was less justifiable than the tax set by the states. Although the French and Indian War did benefit the colonies, the British took advantage of the colonies' prosperity, which they did not contribute to. The new taxes imposed by the states were meant to pay off the costs of the revolutionary War, which the states fought together through in order to arrive at a common goal: freedom. In order to set a strong foundation for the states, they needed to pay off their debts as soon as possible, and it was necessary for everyone to contribute because the states were independent and had no allies to lean on. Because of this new found freedom, I also think that Shay's Rebellion was taking "independence to the extreme", but also sympathize with it's cause. I believe that Shay and his followers were paranoid that the states would revert back to the way of British governing, therefore they used pure impulsive violence to beat down any possibility of their fears coming into fruition. Although, justifiable Shay's rebellion was selfish and took advantage of the new freedom bestowed upon them .
ReplyDeletei agree
ReplyDeleteso...was it justified or not
DeleteThe rebels had a point. They were not paid in good faith for their military svc. in the revolutionary war. The continental bonds were no good and they sold them to east coast speculators for pennies on the dollar but later the new government made them good for the speculators who bought them (and were well connected politically.)
ReplyDeleteAs a result they could not conduct their business and pay their debts. Originally they tried to stop the courts from convening to give judgment against their debts.
This provoked the east coast militia to keep the courts open and the next step for the rebels was the armory supporting the militia. From there it progressed to the rebels finally overpowered by the militia, The Constitution solved the root problem. But one wonders what might happen if the U.S. ever defaulted on their bonds because they could not pay them.
Was Shay's rebellion justified
ReplyDeletewas shays rebllio justified or not please answe and explain why!! :)
ReplyDelete