Wait a second!
More handpicked essays just for you.
More handpicked essays just for you.
Shays rebellion aftermath
Alexander Hamilton philosophies
Shays rebellion aftermath
Don’t take our word for it - see why 10 million students trust us with their essay needs.
Recommended: Shays rebellion aftermath
Shay’s rebellion was an armed uprising led by a veteran of the Revolutionary War named Daniel Shays. The goal of this rebellion was to to prevent the prosecution of debt-ridden citizens. Governor James Bowdoin of Massachusetts put down the revolution. While the rebellion failed to realize its goal, the underlying conditions that allowed the revolution to take place were present. The common people of the colony still remained resentful and discontented. As a result of the general discontentment of the people, “ popular resistance, and the election of pro-debtor governments in many states threatened the political notions of many political and social elites.” Shay’s followers were elected to legislature, went on to court houses and destroyed …show more content…
He looked at the common people in a very negative light. He thought they were easily led, irrational and prone to be fooled by demagoguery. In other words the people have to be restricted for their own good. They were incapable of governing themselves. Alexander Hamilton felt exactly the same way. He was cynical in the ability of the few educated man to “succumb to revolutionary excesses, he found it "almost impossible among the unthinking populace.” Leaving the affairs of government in the hands of the people would surely lead to mayhem . Throughout his life, Alexander Hamilton “exhibited the same mistrust in the abilities of ordinary persons to govern themselves without descending into anarchy.” Like many, He saw Shay’s rebellion as "the excess of democracy”;. In Hamilton 's eyes the issue of leaving all that power in the hands of the will cripple the entire nation. Hamilton became infuriated by Congress ' lack of authority under the Articles of Confederation and used Shays ' Rebellion to advocate for a stronger the national government. Notably absent from the Philadelphia Convention was Thomas Jefferson . Jefferson and Hamilton were archrival and had opposing views in most everything . Jefferson was always on the side of individual liberty, he thought that Shay’s rebellion was justified. He believed that in order to have a true democracy it is necessary for people to protest every now and then. Jefferson tells Madison “loftily from Paris”: “I hold it that a little rebellion now and then is a good thing, and as necessary in the political world as storms in the physical.” He was against a big and strong central
Slaughter I finally understand the meaning of the rebellion. Even though it was just briefly mention in our history book America, Past and Present Vol 1- by Divine, Robert A. in about half a page about the people from western Pennsylvanians protested the tax on Whiskey in in 1794 basically the end of the rebellion. (170) This revolution is way more than that, it created a precedent for future generations that when the people is not okay with laws created by government they can come together and protest against it. A few years later we see that this was the case on the civil war were the south was not happy with the government abolition of slavery and they came together an acted against the president and the federal government. In my case I am a true believer that we must learn from the past to be able to enjoy a better
The reason that Shays’ led Shays’ rebellion is because that poor farmers could not pay their debts and the government kept on raising taxes so more people were put into to debtors prison. That caused problems with the farmers causing Shays’ Rebellion. Those are also some reasons that Daniel Shays’ had his rebellion which had been caused to solve those problems but had also shown the weakness of the articles of confederation
Alexander Hamilton and James Madison did have faith in the ethics of the people to establish a republican government, for they could see that the old Federalist Government was no longer working for the people. The people had out-grown the Federalist government, and needed to become a Union. Alexander Hamilton asked the people to come join him in making a new Union. By uniting the thirteen colonies, the colonists could have more of a say in their government, and become united as a country. Alexander Hamilton told the colonists that they needed to meet and deliberate on a new Constitution for the United States of America. In the
These minor acts of rebellion turned violent in January 1787 when Daniel Shays, a farmer and Revolutionary War veteran, led 1200 people into Springfield to seize weapons from a national government arsenal. Massachusetts State military troops quickly put down the rebellion, but the event shocked the nation at the time. Shays' Rebellion hinted that law and order were seriously breaking down across the new United States to the extent that the national government, under the Articles of Confederation, could not even protect its own arsenal.
Although Henry refused to serve on the Constitutional Convention, Madison needed Henry's persuasive ways. Henry had a way to make people agree with his ideas. Even though Henry didn't serve on the Constitutional Convention, he was still present to put in his word. As soon as the meetings opened, Henry began to argue against the Constitution. This argument went on for three weeks. Henry was aware that the new government had to be strong, but felt that the Constitution made the central government too powerful. He thought that the power should lay in the hands of the states. "What right had they [the group that wrote the Constitution] to say 'We the people,' instead We, the States?" he demanded.
“In the first years of peacetime, following the Revolutionary War, the future of both the agrarian and commercial society appeared threatened by a strangling chain of debt which aggravated the depressed economy of the postwar years”.1 This poor economy affected almost everyone in New England especially the farmers. For years these farmers, or yeomen as they were commonly called, had been used to growing just enough for what they needed and grew little in surplus. As one farmer explained “ My farm provides me and my family with a good living. Nothing we wear, eat, or drink was purchased, because my farm provides it all.”2 The only problem with this way of life is that with no surplus there was no way to make enough money to pay excessive debts. For example, since farmer possessed little money the merchants offered the articles they needed on short-term credit and accepted any surplus farm goods on a seasonal basis for payment. However if the farmer experienced a poor crop, shopkeepers usually extended credit and thereby tied the farmer to their businesses on a yearly basis.3 During a credit crisis, the gradual disintegration of the traditional culture became more apparent. During hard times, merchants in need of ready cash withdrew credit from their yeomen customers and called for the repayment of loans in hard cash. Such demands showed the growing power of the commercial elite.4 As one could imagine this brought much social and economic unrest to the farmers of New England. Many of the farmers in debt were dragged into court and in many cases they were put into debtors prison. Many decided to take action: The farmers waited for the legal due process as long as them could. The Legislature, also know as the General Court, took little action to address the farmers complaints. 5 “So without waiting for General Court to come back into session to work on grievances as requested, the People took matters into their own hands.”6 This is when the idea for the Rebellion is decided upon and the need for a leader was eminent.
He was bold and persuasive and his philosophies quite extraordinary for his time. Jefferson’s agricultural viewpoint was vastly different from Hamilton’s manufacturing perspective. Though they both envisioned a great and prosperous nation, they had contrasting opinions on how this should occur. Hamilton, a Federalist, believed the rich and powerful should be the central government for all people, as they knew better how to foster and protect the em... ...
Pennsylvania went through an insurrection period after the American Revolution. Several battles kept reoccurring within the west dealing with the government, such as the Shays Rebellion, which in the end the government brushed it off as mere small violence. Hamilton and his fellow associates believed “the monies raised would facilitate a properly managed national debt and ‘render a national blessing,’” (Krom 95). Cynthia Krom is a major contributor to The Whiskey Tax of 1791 and The Consequent Insurrection: A Wicked and Happy Tumult, in which she evaluates the funding of early government debt, operations, and also the procedures of finance and social aspects of the Whiskey Tax. Through her research, the operations of the government evolved
James Madison carried to the Convention a plan that was the exact opposite of Hamilton's. In fact, the theory he advocated at Philadelphia and in his Federalist essays was developed as a republican substitute for the New Yorker's "high toned" scheme of state. Madison was convinced that the class struggle would be ameliorated in America by establishing a limited federal government that would make functional use of the vast size of the country and the existence of the sates as active political organisms. He argued in his "Notes on Confederacy," in his Convention speeches, and again in Federalist 10 that if an extended republic was set up including a multiplicity of economic, geographic, social, religious, and sectional interests, these interests, by checking each other, would prevent American society from being divided into the clashing armies of the rich and the poor. Thus, if no interstate proletariat could become organized on purely economic
Thomas Jefferson and Alexander Hamilton entertained many differing ideas of how the United States (US) should be run, especially in relation of philosophical ideas, domestic policy, and foreign policy. Firstly, looking at the philosophical differences, each man seemed to be consistently on the two opposite side of the other. Thomas Jefferson believed there needed to be maximum public control, and the government needed to be decentralized. Therefore, there needed to be ways for everyone to get an education, so that they could have information and power. Jefferson also wanted to increase the percentage of family farms, and believed that having farms were the way to success. He was for the power of the common people, and abundantly suspicious of the upper class. Alexander Hamilton fancied centralizing the government, and have only few wealthy educated citizens able to lead. Hamilton was suspicious of the common people, and looked at rebellions as back-ups to those ideas. A strong national government was key, he said. To do this, the US needed to have an economy centered on commerce and industry. Secondly, the two had great differing opinions on domestic policy. Thomas Jefferson wanted to pay off all debts as soon as possible, but not assume the state’s debts. Leaving the states the responsibility of eliminating the debt he thought was best. On the issue of the existing revolutionary war bonds, Jefferson believed in paying back the original owners, the people who funded winning the war (mostly the common people). A protective tariff, Jefferson thought, helped the South more than the North, and thought it was not just. The Secretary of the Treasury did not fancy a levy dubbed The Whiskey Tax. This tithe would have greatly affected the...
He considered the 'common man' to be ignorant and incapable of self-governing. He believed that the elite should rule, those who own the country, and the qualifications for voting should be high, unlike the Jeffersonians. Hamilton and the Federalists stressed trade in their views of the economy. They wanted tariffs and business protections. The Federalists favored a strong central government with the power to control trade, tax, declare war, and write treaties. Again differing from the Jeffersonians, the Federalists were supporters of the Alien and Sedition Act. The Federalists saw the support of the Alien and Sedition Acts as necessary to stunt the growth of the Jeffersonians and limit the criticism of the Federalist officials from the public. Hamilton’s economic plans, which consisted of the proposal to establish the national bank, became the point of greatest contention between Jefferson and Hamilton, a plan that Jefferson strongly opposed, believing it would weaken the states and not help the north finish paying their debts. One of Alexander Hamilton’s main goals was to raise to a higher position in society. He was not an advocator for Slavery or mistreatment of slaves or natives, but followed his own ambitions if the issues ever crossed paths with his ambitions. All of Hamilton’s views strengthened the federal
As simply stated, a rebellion is an effort by many people to change a government or leader of a country by the use of protest or violence. In 1786, one man had returned home from serving his country in the American Revolutionary War to find that the same government he was fighting for had turned against him. With heavy taxes, loss of livestock, and possibly his social status at risk he sold his most prized possessions in hopes of one day regaining control of his livelihood. This man was Daniel Shays; in the late summer of 1786 he banned together a group of likeminded farmers who were about to lose everything they had worked so hard to achieve to an unruly elite. Shays’ Rebellion was an armed uprising that was triggered by financial difficulties brought out of post war economic depression, a credit crunch caused by a lack of hard currency, and financially harsh government policies.
The elite opted to prevent rebellions which voiced the opinions of disregarded members of society such as women, slaves, indentured servants, and men who didn't own land, by intervening and taking them into their own hands because they wanted to preserve their power. In 1780, Shay's rebellion, led by Daniel Shay, a veteran of the Battle of Bunker Hill, allowed farmers who were unable to pay their mortgage, to speak out. Creating chaos amongst the peaceful streets of Springfield, armed farmers were stopped by state militia. Shay's rebellion led way to the Philadelphia Convention in which fifty-five men representing twelve states congregated on 1787, in proposal of drafting a new constitution. Through the occurrence of the American Revolution, they were aware of the power that their people were able to execute and wanted to stabilize the government by creating a new Constitution....
Shay’s rebellion was another example of these movements. This rebellion was also lead mainly by farmers. These farmers protested the state and local enforcements of tax collections and judgement for debt from 1786-1787. The heart of this rebellion was found in Massachusetts. Daniel Shay led this rebellion, but it never resulted in any stability changes in the United States. However, the rebellion did greatly alarm politicians throughout the
The words whiskey and rebellion both have the ability to entice a gambit of emotions, and in 1794 they did. Like most great uprisings the Whiskey Rebellion was preceded by the rich exploiting or taxing those who were already taxed out. Our country is infamous for its rebellion against taxes; one could argue that rebelling against a ruling class is the core foundation of our great country’s history and make-up. My goal is to explore why this rebellion deserves the place in history that it hold, whether it was successful or not, but most importantly what did our nation’s leaders learn from this event?