|
Post by Daniel Lee on Dec 3, 2011 0:09:13 GMT -5
1. Shay's Rebellion did show for a stronger central government because with the insufficiency of power, the Articles of Confederation could not handle the immense problems the nation had. This was the first rebellion under the Articles of Confederation and showed how much the Articles of Confederation lacked. Because the states had so much power, farmers got taxed heavily which caused a rebellion to occur for the low class farmers. The Articles of Confederation could not do anything because they couldn't even gain taxes from the states and Shay's Rebellion resembles that how the Articles of Confederation barely had enough money to obtain mercenaries instead of their own militia. This showed a weak in power of the Articles of Confederation which showed a stronger central government. 2. Shay's Rebellion did not show that there is a need for a stronger central government because the farmers were already having a hard time. It would have been sooner or later when the small, poor farmers would revolt against the government. They were already in a debt and a rebellion would have happened either way just as Britain was imposing taxes to the colonies before they gained Independence. jakechamblee: I must agree with you on (#2) that Shay's Rebellion did NOT need a stronger central government. The states were already in a economic difficulties and regardless if they had a stronger government or not, it would not have made a difference. They were already in a huge debt and whether they had a stronger government of not, they still needed a way to pay back the debt and a rebellion would have been inevitable.
|
|
|
Post by Reanna Bell on Dec 3, 2011 0:36:46 GMT -5
1) Yes, it showed the problems in the Articles of Confederation, which was partly to blame for the rebellion due to the extremely decentralized government. Shay's Rebellion was enough to make people rethink the idea of trying to hold the states together under a confederacy. When Shay came to protest the lack of money that most farmers had,a realization came that there had to be a central government to tax everyone at the same rate and put in a central banking system that actually worked.
2) No, The rebellion of the poor farmers would have happened under any government. They were angry about debts and property taxes, not the Articles of confederation. This does not show a need for a stronger central government. In fact, states could be better equipped to deal with individual complaints. Under every type of government there will always be people who think they are getting an unfair amount of money and seek ways to change that.
|
|
|
Post by cynthiabriceno on Dec 3, 2011 0:55:20 GMT -5
Yes, Shay's rebellion showed a need for a strong central government because it caused the congress to realize that the Articles Of Confederation were not working since they had barely any power. The "states" were sovereign to themselves which prevented the nation from uniting and they tried to pass taxes and regulated commerce so it benifited only them. The central government needed more power in order to be able to act during a crisis and to prevent the nation from dividing.
No, Shay's Rebellion did not show the need for a stronger central government because the rebells were poor small farm owners who were upset by their land getting foreclosed becaused they couldn't pay off their debts. The reason the tax was high in the first place was because of the debt that resulted from the revolution. They weren't upset because of the government they just didn't want their land taken away.
|
|
|
Post by Katlyn Riggins on Dec 3, 2011 1:02:22 GMT -5
Yes, Shay's Rebellion did call for a stronger central government. This rebellion revealed the lack of power the Articles of Confederation had over the states. Hence, the National government did not have the right to create an army or even impose taxes on the people to pay for the creation of an army. This lead to a minor rebellion evolving into a disorganized, but, serious political uprising from a couple of rural farmers. The National government needed more power in order to prevent similar events like Shay's Rebellion from occurring again. Therefore, this rebellion was a perfect "eye opener" on why the U.S. Constitution needed to be established.
Shay's Rebellion did not reveal the need for a stronger central government for many reasons. One, this event was just a minor stumble from a little bit of political disorganization, but it was eventually put to rest with minimal causalities. Another reason is this rebellion was not even really a "rebellion" it was just a disarray of poor farmers complaining about their dept. Lastly every nation needs a little rebellion once in a while, it's healthy, it prevents them from occurring again over the same issues. It also lets the federal government learn and make corrections, but there is no need for a National government to get involved. Thomas Jefferson is in support of this idea and he explains this in his letter to the Senator of New York, William Smith, " ...must be refreshed from time to time, with the blood of patriots and tyrants. It is its natural manure."
|
|
|
Post by timara rodgers on Dec 3, 2011 1:39:43 GMT -5
i think that shay's rebellion did show the Americans that they did needed a stronger central government because of how there was nobody to speak up for the farmers that were losing all of their property because of the fact that they couldn't pay for the property tax's that the government put on them.
shays rebellion didn't show us that America didn't need a stronger government because of the fact that it was just a couple of poor farmers who where going in debt because of taxes, and also got extra help from others who thought they might get some benefit's from the rebellion.
Posted by Khalil Howard on Yesterday at 9:25pm 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.
@ Khalil Howard i have to disagree with your second statement because of the fact that the Americans didn't have enough money to have a police force to keep things like shay's rebellion in order all they could to was asked for peoples help and see what they said.
|
|
|
Post by Ananya Das on Dec 3, 2011 1:46:32 GMT -5
Yes, Shay’s rebellion showed a need for a stronger central government because of the growing threat of the “mobocracy”. This also results from the weakness of the Articles of Confederation. Because of the nation’s augmenting debt, property taxes were raised and as a result forced small farmers to foreclose their lands. These farmers were angered by the crushing burden of the nation’s debt and therefore instigated an uprising. There was a lack of institutional response to the uprising because of the poor standing army and the government’s inability to intervene with affairs of individual states. This apparent weakness forced the wealthy to hire mercenaries from a private pool of money. This and the assertion that a government closely controlled by people lacking civic virtue is ineffective, clearly demonstrated that the central government needed more power.
No, Shay’s rebellion did not show a need for a stronger central government. It was largely the small farmer’s reaction to the nation’s debt from the previous war. In addition, the economic dichotomy between the east and west further instigated farmers who felt that the property taxes were affecting themselves the most. A rebellion every so often is beneficial and sometimes ephemeral. Shay’s rebellion was a mere outburst of economic distress.
|
|
|
Post by Ananya Das on Dec 3, 2011 2:10:18 GMT -5
@katlyn Riggins
I agree with your reasoning on why Shay's rebellion did not show the need for a stronger central government. It was only a reaction to economic tensions of that time and did not last for a long period of time. In fact, as soon as the economy improved the rebellion was quickly quelled.
|
|
Austin Wolfenberger
Guest
|
Post by Austin Wolfenberger on Dec 3, 2011 2:16:35 GMT -5
Yes, Shay's rebellion did show a need for a stronger central government. The rebellion showed that the federal government needed to have more power than the states. The federal government needed to be able to collect taxes not only the state. This was necessary because the federal government needs to be able to call an army to defend the country and tax money would be used to pay these soldiers.
No, Shay's rebellion did not show the need for a stronger central government. This is because revolutions always occur in all societies in some form. Also this was more of a rebellion against the states who were imposing taxes and foreclosing on property.
|
|
|
Post by Merin Mathew on Dec 4, 2011 14:59:52 GMT -5
1. Yes, Shay's Rebellion showed the need for a stronger central government because it was the first rebellion that occurred under the Articles of Confederation. There was really no system in which the economy, laws, and other areas of government were handled. The citizens rebelled because of a lack of laws and rights. Citizens were unable to pay their debts and were forced into prisons. Because of the restrictions the federal government had, an army was unable to form to stop this rebellion. A stronger central government was needed in order to grow as a country and get out of debt.
2. No, Shay's rebellion did not show the need for a stronger central government because the people who rebelled were farmers who just couldn't pay their debts back. The other people were fine. Because of the lack of an army the rebellion lasted a bit longer than it probably should have. A stronger central government could even possibly cause more rebellions to occur throughout the country.
|
|