|
Post by Travis Zuber on Dec 1, 2011 12:14:35 GMT -5
For my 3rd Period Class:
You need to post 2 answers to the following question. The first Answer should be in the Positive (Yes, Shay's showed a need because...) the second one should be in the Negative (No, Shay's did not show the need because...)
Did Shay's and the events of the rebellion show the need for a stronger central government?
Make sure you post by Friday at Midnight! You can also respond to other people's answers for extra points.
Get a GOOD dialogue going!
|
|
|
Post by Jake Smith on Dec 1, 2011 19:08:42 GMT -5
1. Yes, Shay's Rebellion showed a need for a stronger central government because it was the first domestic rebellion under the Articles of Confederation. The abusive nature of local government taxation and collection activities was a major crisis. The lack of standardized currency, unrestricted state laws, and the lack of a bill of rights for citizens all promoted the rebellious response to citizens being jailed for tax debts which were impossible to pay. Unable to raise an army to put down the internal rebellion, it was feared the United States would be unable to defend itself from a foreign power. Even George Washington realized a stronger central government was necessary which, from this, the road to the constitution was indefinitely strengthened.
2. No, Shay's Rebellion did not show the need for a stronger central government because all the rebellion consisted of were farmers who couldn't pay their debts and then after some "band-wagoners" joined them, they took advantage of the rebellion. Since the government was not able to conjure up an army, Shay's Rebellion went out of hand until the rich were able to get together and pay to make an army which worried them. If a strong central government that could keep a standing army were to be created, then more blood would have been spilled in the Massachusetts rebellion if Congress had meddled in it. Another reason why it did not show the need is because the whole reason for rebellion was because of how the farmers were extremely taxed and were in debt. With a strong central government, there would still be plenty of taxes and debts.
|
|
|
Post by michaelkochumuttom on Dec 1, 2011 19:52:49 GMT -5
Shay's Rebellion did show the need for a stronger central government on the lack of power for anything to get done. Since Britain had refused to trade with the United States, farmers of Massachusetts were hard hit by debts they could not pay, and ended up having their property taken and sold, and debtors would be put in debtors prison. States printed valueless paper money, causing inflation and further debt. The lack of power for the central government caused the central government unable to regulate taxes and currency, and call for creation of a national army to handle the rebellion.
Shay's Rebellion did not show the need for a stronger central government because the cause of the rebellion was heavy taxation by the states. A strong central government was exactly what the colonists had fought the revolution to gain independence from, establishing a strong central government would mean placing an anarchy with the power to install heavy taxes.
|
|
|
Post by hn368604 on Dec 1, 2011 21:01:02 GMT -5
1. Yes, Shay's rebellion did show a dire need for a stronger, more central government. The Congress under the Articles of Confederation was weak and very limited, for it could not impose taxes or allow commerce to flow through the states into the central government. Because of this flaw, Congress issued the only form of taxation( due to high debt from America's fight for independence) it could issue, the poll tax, which greatly affected debtors and farmers who used the barter system, a system of trading crops and livestock rather than currency. Farmers were outraged and thus they revolted, taking advantage of another flaw in the Articles of Confederation, the inability for Congress to hold a standing army. Despised by recreating the British image in the newly independent nation, Congress withheld the creation of a central militia. Also, Congress was broke and couldn't afford an army at the time, so the rebellion and chaos prolonged until a private militia of mercenaries took down the rebel Farmers. Due to the inability of Congress, under the Articles, to issue heavy taxes and hold a standing, central, army, chaos could occur longer than needed and the central government couldn't afford to make any legislation, allowing the states to govern themselves primarily, shattering the unity of a nation.
2. Shay's rebellion, monumental it may be to some, did not show any need for a stronger central government. People will revolt regardless, whether it be through jealousy, clashing ideas, poor economic life, etc. Other occurrences in history like the French Revolution or all the major world wars and yes, the American Revolution. Due to heavy taxation by the states( note that the central government couldn't impose heavy taxes, for it did not want to recreate a British like government in the newly independent nation), farmers revolted. Revolutions will always occur when things aren't working out and economic livelihood is taking a turn south, but Shay's rebellion was a mere dispute between poor farmers or debtors and the States, not the central government.
|
|
|
Post by Brian Welch on Dec 2, 2011 14:42:07 GMT -5
Yes, Shay's rebellion showed the need for a stronger central government because it showed how the Articles of Conferdation were causing the new nation to collapse in on itself. Farmers, like Shay, were backed into a corner with high taxes, forclosures on backcountry farms, and limited ways to deal with their mounting debt. Since the barter system was being used in the North at this time, many farmers had to sell their farms in order to pay their debt. A strong central government was not present to solve these crises, therefore allowing a small revolution to take place. If the Articles had made room for a strong central government, the revolution would have been crushed almost immediately.
No, Shay's rebellion did not show the need for a stronger central government because Daniel Shay and his group of rebels were just a bunch of rebels who couldn't pay their debts. One of the main concerns Shays had was imprisonment for not paying debts, which had been around for centuries, so it wouldn't make much sense to rebel against something so commonplace. Obviously, the high taxes and foreclosures were a result of America's mounting war debt, not a weak central government.
|
|
|
Post by Autumn Brodie on Dec 2, 2011 18:52:58 GMT -5
Yes, Shays' Rebellion did call for a more central government. This was evident because it was the first major rebellion under the Articles of Confederation, which instilled fear into government officials and raised a sense of fear of a "mobocracy." In addition, Shays' Rebellion demonstrated the fact that the government could not enforce many of its laws, and that many things were, largely, out of the government's control.
No, Shay's Rebellion did not call for a more central government because the "Regulators" of the rebellion were only poor farmers that could not pay their debts. The economy was down because the nation had just finished a war that they could not pay for, leading to more taxes and foreclosures on farmer's land. Basically, the rebels were antsy because they had debt, which was not a reason to completely scrap the basis of a nation and start fresh.
|
|
|
Post by Jeryl Sajumon on Dec 2, 2011 19:45:02 GMT -5
1.) Yes, Shays Rebellion showed a need for a more stronger central government because the Articles of Confederation hurt the people even more. Inflation,government taxation, and debts were only the beginning to a falling nation.Without a strong central government the 13 colonies were slowly collapsing. Farmers and the colonists couldn't pay back anything owed which only added to the crisis.
2.) No, Shay's rebellion did not show the need for a stronger central government because Shay and the farmers who joined in with him were suffering and had been suffering even before the Articles of Confederation was put into act.Finding a reason to rebel and to clear his debts, Shay found a great opportunity to fight back against the courts and heads which were the reason farms were being foreclosed.This spread all over the colonies and was just a meaningless movement. The Articles of Confederation was a great document which gave control to the state and local control for more power to the people, thus giving strong local control instead of a higher central government system which would only hurt the colonists.
@jake Smith I would have to agree on the #2 answer, the government wouldn't act early against the rebellion due to the fact that, the possibility of deaths and unnecessary casualties was not something they wanted to gamble on.The army was already tied up with other complications.
|
|
|
Post by Cardell Armstrong on Dec 2, 2011 20:14:23 GMT -5
Shay's Rebellion showed a need for a stronger central government in America. It showed that the Articles of Confederation were not very suffient and there were too many inequalities within the nation that would need a strong centralized government to improve conditions. The government's tactic of taxing poor farmers who loss some of their products to the soldier's in the war and couldn't pay any way because they were poor, wasn't going to improve the economy. It motivated George Washington to find a way to get all the states to join save the nation from further economic down turn.
Shay's Rebellion did not show a need for a stronger central government because it was mostly started by default because poor farmers couldn't afford to pay taxes that were issued by the government, and as a result their property was taken away, which would not allow them to make a living. So in a bad economy where their really isn't any different jobs and they don't have a place to live, people are going to revolt and want redistrubution of the land, especially since the elites are the only ones really benefiting from the bad economy. The rebels just wanted their houses and land back, they could of cared less about how the government would devise a plan to make them more centralized and stronger they just wanted thier farms back and to cut out unfair taxes.
|
|
|
Post by Cardell Armstrong on Dec 2, 2011 20:28:07 GMT -5
1. Yes, Shay's Rebellion showed a need for a stronger central government because it was the first domestic rebellion under the Articles of Confederation. The abusive nature of local government taxation and collection activities was a major crisis. The lack of standardized currency, unrestricted state laws, and the lack of a bill of rights for citizens all promoted the rebellious response to citizens being jailed for tax debts which were impossible to pay. Unable to raise an army to put down the internal rebellion, it was feared the United States would be unable to defend itself from a foreign power. Even George Washington realized a stronger central government was necessary which, from this, the road to the constitution was indefinitely strengthened. 2. No, Shay's Rebellion did not show the need for a stronger central government because all the rebellion consisted of were farmers who couldn't pay their debts and then after some "band-wagoners" joined them, they took advantage of the rebellion. Since the government was not able to conjure up an army, Shay's Rebellion went out of hand until the rich were able to get together and pay to make an army which worried them. If a strong central government that could keep a standing army were to be created, then more blood would have been spilled in the Massachusetts rebellion if Congress had meddled in it. Another reason why it did not show the need is because the whole reason for rebellion was because of how the farmers were extremely taxed and were in debt. With a strong central government, there would still be plenty of taxes and debts. Cardell Armstrong I would have to agree with the second statement. The farmers couldn't pay off their debts but they needed a place to stay and a way to make a living so they saws the rebellion as an opportunity to get their farms back and put fear into the governmaent.
|
|
|
Post by Jerin Abraham on Dec 2, 2011 20:42:44 GMT -5
1. Yes, Shay's Rebellion showed the need of strong central government because of the weaknesses in the Articles of Confederation. The states got a lot of power from the Articles of Confederation which caused the farmers to be taxed heavily on their land. This was not fair for the farmers to be taxed especially when they did not have money and this caused the them to rebel. This shows that a stable central government is important, because that would allow the government to tax the people and everyone would actually pay it and it would be more fair among others citizens. A strong government would also be able to form an army so when revolts like these approach they will be able to stop them. The rebellion was caused by the lack of control the government had over the states.
2. No, Shay's Rebellion did not show the need of central government because this mostly affected the low income farmers who were in a lot of debt. All these tax were put on by the states and not the government and just because a few farmers were suffering with the mass amount of taxes didn't mean that the whole government needs to be redefined. In fact the Articles of Confederation was a good government because it gave more rights to the people and the government could not force any kind laws on the citizens.
|
|
|
Post by Trang Pham on Dec 2, 2011 21:23:26 GMT -5
1. The Shay's Rebellion did indeed show the need for the revision of the Articles of Confederation and a new Constitution. During the time of the Articles of Confederation, states were making and printing their own currencies therefore no defined finance system were established. Due to the undefined finance system, farmers and debtors had hard times paying taxes and repaying their debt, not mentioning the fact that local government might not be taxing them for the right and proper purposes.
2. The calling for revisions for the Articles of Confederation of the government as a reaction to the Shay's rebellion was unnecessary. As debtors and poor farmers, these individuals would obviously have a very tough time paying taxes and their debt to the government, therefore resulting in the need to rebel. It is logical to assume that farmers and debtors would have a very tough time paying taxes and debt being passed by the new Constitution and would eventually rebel anyway. Saying revisions to the current government to deal with poor farmers' and debtors' uprisings is not necessary an accurate statement.
|
|
|
Post by Khalil Howard on Dec 2, 2011 21:25:00 GMT -5
Yes, this showed a need for a stronger central government because the taxes imposed on land during a time when people were living on the barter system caused this revolt.
No, this did not show a need for a stronger central government because a rebellion like this should have been handled by state police forces.
|
|
|
Post by jakechamblee on Dec 2, 2011 21:49:47 GMT -5
1. Yes, Shay's Rebellion showed the need for a stronger central government. The rebellion itself was caused by factors which can be attributed to the weaknesses of the Articles of Confederation. The failure of state governments to consider existing economical dichotomies (west vs east) when raising property taxes and implementing poll taxes highlighted the incompetence of the state governments. After state caused inflation developed from printing too much money, farmers often switched to a barter system. The barter system was incompatible with the state tax system and when their property was foreclosed as a result of inability to pay, rebellion erupted. Congress, under the articles, was not allowed to send an army to stop the rebellion. The Massachusetts government was unable to raise a militia either, due to sympathy with the rebels and a lack of dollars. Both the national and state governments were completely incapable of enforcing their own laws. Only as a result of the aid of private citizens (bankers) was a mercenary army finally raised, months after the rebellion had developed. The lack of efficiency and ability of the governments under the articles in dealing with the rebellion is obvious, and a stronger central government and the taxes and order that said government could impose were clearly necessary to prevent further rebellion and mob rule.
2. No, Shay's Rebellion did not show the need for a stronger central government. The primary causes behind Shay's Rebellion were economical and could be attributed not to the failure of the Articles of Confederation but rather to the post-war effects of the Revolution. The government itself was also suffering from poor revenue to due these post-war effects and was unable to raise an army to stop the rebellion for that reason. A strong central government that was also completely broke would be equally unable to raise an effective army.
|
|
|
Post by joshclark on Dec 2, 2011 23:42:55 GMT -5
Yes, Shay's rebellion showed a need for a stronger central government because it showed just how weak the Articles of Confederation were. This rebellion would have been easily stopped if the government were able to raise an army in its defense. This along with the ever increasing inflation as well as heavy taxes, as shown throughout the rebellion, showed an immediate need for a stronger central government.
No, Shay's rebellion did not show a need for a stronger central government because the farmers were rebelling over the loss of their land due to high taxes. Whether the government was state or central, they would still be taxed and still have the same problems.
|
|
|
Post by Ashley Cha on Dec 2, 2011 23:45:21 GMT -5
1. I agree with Autumn; Shay's rebellion did demonstrate the need for a stronger central government, because the government had little control over the rebellion. Because of a large debt due to America's War of Independence, the court did not approve of raising a militia in order to combat the rebellious forces. In order to actually quell the rebellion, the Massachusetts' state governor and other wealthy people had to donate their own money to hire mercenaries to fight for them. This reveals the government's inability to truly protect its people from threats that are inner and outer.
2. Shay's rebellion did not show a need for a stronger central government. It was solely a reaction against the rising debt from the War of Independence rather than a reaction against the Articles of Confederation. Poor farmers and landowners were simply unable to pay their taxes and debt. When the economic crisis became better, the revolts were quickly mitigated, and the problem was solved.
|
|