shays rebellion...?

Question

everywhere it says that the lack of stuff done by the govt at shays lead to the constituion, well my question is
why didnt the government do anything, like, were they restricted to do certain things in order to stop it?

Answer 1

You can read the complete story at Wikipedia. Here's the opening paragraph:

Shays' rebellion was an armed uprising in Western Massachusetts from 1786 to 1787. The rebels, led by Daniel Shays and known as Shaysites (or Regulators), were mostly small farmers angered by crushing debt and taxes. Failure to repay such debts often resulted in imprisonment in debtor's prisons or the claiming of property by the state. The rebellion started on August 29, 1786. A Massachusetts militia that had been raised as a private army defeated the main Shaysite force on February 3, 1787. There was a lack of an institutional response to the uprising, which energized calls to reevaluate the Articles of Confederation and gave strong impetus to the Constitutional Convention which began in May 1787.

The short answer to your question is that the federal government lacked the power to intervene under the Articles of Confederation. The solution was to form a more perfect government, to "restore domestic tranquility" under the Constitution.

If this or any other answer to your question helps you resolve this issue, please select a "best answer." This motivates people to help you and rewards their research in your behalf.

Cheers,
Bruce