Those in power often exert their muscle to maintain control over the common man. An example of this took place during the 1780’s in Massachusetts when the wealthy from the Eastern part of the state used their outsized influence to control farmers to their west. The farmers rebelled peacefully against the wealthy state politicians but the farmers ultimately grew tired of their voices being ignored in the governmental processes and Shays’ Rebellion followed.
Despite some local successes, the farmers were no match for the power of state government and its ability to mobilize resources. Shays’ Rebellion identified weaknesses in federal laws leading to necessary changes in the constitution, further strengthening the central government. Despite the sacrifices made by the common man to effect change, they remained at the mercy of the rich and powerful.
The structure of Massachusetts’ government benefited those in the Eastern part of the state and the farmers felt a need to challenge the unjust relationship between them and the wealthy politicians. The wealthy politicians in Massachusetts used their power to write policy for their personal benefit at the cost of the poor farmers in order to stay in control.
127 our experts are availableright now
Predating any rebellion, governmental leaders in Massachusetts created a state constitution to benefit the wealthy and keep the lower class out of power through property qualifications and a self-serving tax system (Richards 72-74). Furthermore, when creating Massachusetts, the wealthy recognized the importance of keeping Boston as the state capital. By keeping the capital to the East, the representatives to the West could not easily participate in the writing and approving of the state constitution, or any other legislative decisions. The capital was far away and the time needed to travel prohibited the Western Massachusetts delegates from attending the writing of the state constitution, especially during harsh winter conditions (Richards 72).
When writing the state constitution in 1780, the wealthy, Eastern Massachusetts politicians used this opportunity to keep power away from the masses. In order to qualify as a candidate for state senator, one must own a “freehold within this commonwealth, of the value of three hundred pounds at least, or possessed of personal estate to the value of six hundred pounds at least” (“Constitution of Massachusetts”). In addition, to run for the house of representatives, a candidate must own a “freehold of the value of one hundred pounds, within the town he shall be chosen to represent, or any ratable estate to the value of two hundred pounds” (“Constitution of Massachusetts”).
To demonstrate the effect of this provision, a richer man in Western Massachusetts, John Nash, owned an estate valued at 172 pounds, and the assessment did not include land (Goldscheider 69). These economical qualifications effectively shifted strength to the wealthy politicians, owners of expensive estates with smaller parcels of land, to weaken the farmer’s voice in government relative to the Eastern merchants, always giving the wealthy more power in legislative decisions (Richards 72). The wealthy politicians knew using economic qualifications would further help them stay in control of the lower class.
The state collection system for taxes was another move by the wealthy politicians to stay in control. To pay off debt, the legislature decided to impose a property tax and a tax on all men above the age of 16 in 1785 (Richards 82). This biased way of paying taxes discriminated against the Western Massachusetts yeomen (Richards 83). Since farmers by nature owned more land than those in the more urbanized areas, such as Boston, the new tax system demanded an unfair amount of money from the lower-class farmers, already deeply in debt from the Revolutionary War (Dyer 463).
Actual money was hard to come by for many of these farmers, as the people of the Eastern cities obtained more riches following the war (Dyer 462). The wealthy politicians purposely created a tax based on land and property, as they knew the farmers would not be able to pay off their heavier taxes. Thus, the wealthy politicians stayed in power.
Some historians, such as William Pencak in the article “Samuel Adams and Shays’s”, claim the Western Massachusetts farmers brought the immense debt upon themselves by spending all their money on foreign goods (Pencak 70-71). As such, Eastern politicians like Samuel Adams showed no sympathy towards the difficulties put forth by any tax burden (Pencak 70-71). Although the Eastern seaboard politicians viewed salt and nails, to fix structures, as luxuries, the farmers saw them as a necessity to function in a daily routine (Richards 75). Since many of wealthy politicians in government did not own farms, the politicians were not aware of the difference in materials needed to survive.
The farmers began with peaceful methods to seek changes in government policy. The insurgents only turned to arms after the government ignored their peaceful requests and complaints. With a threat now forming, the Eastern leaders moved to strengthen their power against the farmers.
When anger towards the state’s officials started to grow throughout Western Massachusetts towns, many used lists of grievances to express their complaints and called for changes to the government and constitution (Dyer 463). As these complaints and grievances were continually ignored by the government, irritated citizens in Western Massachusetts towns began to assemble semi-armed forces (Dyer 464). Some towns, such as Pelham, Massachusetts, created lists to explain their reasoning of taking up arms.
In Pelham’s list a couple of the main causes for taking up arms were, “The present expensive mode of collecting debts… A suspension of the Writ of Habeas Corpus, by which those persons who have stepped forth to assert and maintain the rights of the people, are liable to be the taken” (“An Address To The People”). Many farmers believed they were defending their liberties which were being infringed upon by this inequality in Shays’ Rebellion, (Dyer 478-479).
Along with lists of grievances, many towns used county conventions to discuss their complaints against the government (Goldscheider 68). Although these meetings’ intent was not to harm anyone, prominent state politicians, such as Samuel Adams, felt threatened by these conventions and saw them as unnecessary; furthermore, Adams, along with the other wealthy politicians, felt these conventions would ruin the country (Pencak 66-67). Along with Adams, many of the wealthy politicians feared the ideas brought up in these conventions were spreading dangerously throughout the state.
After months of ignoring them, the wealthy, powerful politicians responded to the lower-class farmers, especially after the insurgents seized a Court of Common Pleas in Northampton, Massachusetts in August of 1786 (Warren 42). In response to the farmers, the governor of Massachusetts, James Bowdoin, on September 2, 1786, gave “all Judges, Justices, Sheriffs, Constables, and other officers, civil and military, within this Commonwealth, [the right] to prevent and suppress all such violent and riotous proceedings” (“Governor’s Proclamation”). After the farmers turned rebels made their first armed move against the government, instead of trying to work peacefully with the lower-class, Bowdoin took a drastic step by giving any public officials the right to stop the beginnings of Shays’ Rebellion. Bowdoin’s response came out of the fear, if the farmers took their rebellious acts any further, they would overthrow the government (Pencak 68).
As the uprising from the farmers grew, Massachusetts, with a payment of $20,000 from the upper class, raised an army to stop the rebellion (Warren 43). Politicians outside of Massachusetts began to fear the spread of rebellious ideas and felt a need to stop them. In a letter to James Bowdoin, Samuel Huntington, the governor of Connecticut, told “Genl Swift, to call forth sufficient military force…to quell the disturbers; & effectually prevent any persons in this State, from Joining, or any way aiding the Insurgents, in the Commonwealth of Massachusetts” (“Samuel Huntington”).
Although no uprisings happened in Connecticut, Huntington still felt it necessary to call for a military force to ensure the insurgents and ideas will “derive no aid or Support” (“Samuel Huntington”). The call for a military force against these thoughts and people is a direct move of Huntington’s to stay in control and power as he feared these rebellious ideologies spreading to his state.
Though historians such as Joseph Parker Warren in the article “The Confederation and the Shays’ Rebellion” claimed the state governments needed to suppress the rebellion because the federal government “had neither the power nor the capacity to deal” with the rebellion (Warren 65). The state governments only responded with such drastic measures because the people in charge of the government saw this as a threat to their reputation and the state’s security (Pencak 65-66). Even Henry Knox acknowledged the weaknesses of the central government, as he was forced to go to the wealthy merchants to raise money for the troops to stop Shays’ Rebellion (Dyer 472).
Shays’ Rebellion exposed weaknesses in the Articles of Confederation, which led to a stronger national government and Constitution. As the politicians recognized these weaknesses, they used lessons learned from the rebellion to create a new, stronger national government. Furthermore, these politicians combined their power and made ongoing efforts to keep it away from the lower class.
It is no secret the Articles of Confederation had many weaknesses. Especially prevalent after Shays’ Rebellion was the Articles’ inability to raise an army. The congress felt it necessary to take military action toward the rebellion as they feared all government in the new nation would be overthrown (Warren 44). While trying to raise troops to suppress the rebellion by falsely informing the public they were for Natives on the frontier, the Congress tried to hide from the people the troops were actually needed to suppress Shays’ Rebellion (Warren 43). This false claim to the public was an attempt to hide from the people the federal government possessed no ability to raise an army and suppress the rebellion.
Along with exposing militaristic weaknesses, Shays’ Rebellion exploited economic weaknesses of the Articles of Confederation. Most notably, was that the congress could not enforce tax collection. Many states, including Massachusetts, produced worthless paper money after the Revolutionary War (Smith 79). Although much of the hard currency was either sent away in trade or possessed by the upper-class (Dyer 462), the wealthy politicians still demanded the farmers pay off their debts with this real money (Smith 79). With no access to real money, those unable to pay off their debts wound up in debtors prison and the wealthy politicians made efforts to continue this pattern, further controlling the lower class.
Even while in France as a foreign diplomat, Thomas Jefferson voiced his opinion on Shays’ Rebellion. In a letter to James Madison, Thomas Jefferson felt Shays’ Rebellion “prevents the degeneracy of government… I hold it that a little rebellion now and then is a good thing” (“From Thomas Jefferson to James Madison”). A prominent figure in American politics, Thomas Jefferson, felt the outcome of Shays’ Rebellion would produce positive change for the nation. To Jefferson, it was up to politicians in America would restore the people’s confidence (Smith 94).
In 1787 when the Constitutional Convention convened in Philadelphia, Shays’ Rebellion was fresh in the delegates minds as they met to revise the Articles of Confederation. Eventually, the delegates crafted an entirely new, stronger central government with the Constitution. To promote the benefits of ratifying the Constitution, Alexander Hamilton, John Jay, and James Madison published The Federalist in 1787. Specifically in Paper No. 23, written by Hamilton, he believed “The result from all this is that the Union ought to be invested with full power to levy troops; to build and equip fleets; and to raise the revenues which will be required for the formation and support of an army and navy” (“The Federalist Papers”).
Hamilton’s call for the central government to have the power to create an army came only a few months after Daniel Shays, the leader of Shays’ Rebellion, and his men attempted to seize the Springfield Armory in January of 1787 in Western Massachusetts (Dyer 473-474). This armed uprising from Daniel Shays and his men sent a signal to wealthy politicians the new federal government must have the strength to suppress any future uprisings (Warren 43). More important to the wealthy politicians, however, was they must have the strength to quell any future threats to their position of power.
Conclusion
Before, during and after Shays’ Rebellion, the wealthy politicians did anything they could to stay in power. They believed the rebels were trying to overthrow the government, so the politicians took any necessary steps to stay in control. Although published articles looked into the true cause of the rebellion, many of the records documenting Shays’ Rebellion were heavily influenced by the suppressors of the rebellion, thus creating a false narrative of why the farmers rebelled. With this biased viewpoint, it is hard to truly understand who the rebels were and what they believed.
To help get a better understanding of Shays’ Rebellion, it would be beneficial to look deeper into the lives of the insurgents and why they participated in Shays’ Rebellion. Furthermore, as this project looked into how the elite took advantage of the farmers and their actions, it would be helpful to understand why the elite chose not work peacefully with the farmers, to avoid an armed uprising all together. These advancements will only lead us to more deeply understand the constant struggle for power between the upper and lower classes.
