English Deutsch Français Italiano Español Português 繁體中文 Bahasa Indonesia Tiếng Việt ภาษาไทย
All categories

3 answers

There is actually a lot of misinformation about the Shays "Rebellion". For one thing, the state of Massachusetts WAS able to handle it (some would say much to heavy-handedly), so it did NOT demonstrate the weakness

But the whole thing WAS useful at the least as a propaganda tool by those who wanted a stronger central government and FEARED rural uprisings like the one in Massachusetts. It was their reports of what was happening that started to gain wider support for drafting a new more centralized Constitution.

At the same time, the more SUCCESSFUL actions of the related "Country Party", in taking over that state's government in 1786 (which explains why Rhode Island did NOT send anyone to the Constitutional Convention.. and was so late and hesitant in ratifying the document). This solidified the concerns, especially of large landholders and creditors that 'radical democrats' would sweep into power and turn everything upside down.

The following link contains several short articles on the Shays Rebellion which explain BOTH how it was reported and (mis)perceived nationally, and how it fit in with a more widespread rural (debtors) movement the states were struggling to handle.
http://www.answers.com/topic/shays-rebellion?cat=biz-fin

Reading up on how things played out in Rhode Island (bashed by pro-federalists in the press as "Rogues Island") might also help you understand this struggle:
http://adena.com/adena/usa/rv/rv014.htm
http://www.rilin.state.ri.us/RhodeIslandHistory/chapt3.html

Also, check out the "States" section of point II "Evaluation of the Confederation" on this page:
http://revolution.h-net.msu.edu/essays/bernstein.confederation.html

2007-11-06 03:49:55 · answer #1 · answered by bruhaha 7 · 0 0

The Articles of Confederation created a weak central government. The biggest problem with the Articles of Confederation was it couldn't raise and support an army or navy. Instead states would have to volunteer their militias to fight foreign or domestic enemies. In the case of Shay's Rebellion it was found to be very difficult coordinating and asking states for their militias.

2007-11-04 10:43:33 · answer #2 · answered by Anonymous · 0 0

It couldn't even be put down by a national Army. It was basically subdued by an Army of paid mercenaries. There were a lot of weaknesses in the Articles of Confederation. But this fact brought it all to a head.

2007-11-04 08:41:12 · answer #3 · answered by Anonymous · 0 1

fedest.com, questions and answers