Shay's Rebellion

[Christine Ernst]

Yes, Shay's Rebellion shows the need for a stronger central government because, under the Articles of Confederation, the central government had little power to even draw a militia to stop an uprising among the people. They had little powers, and since the people had the most power, rebellions could not be put down. Shay's Rebellion frighened many officials in the central government because they had no power to call and army and stop their own citizens, the "mobocracy," from fighting. If the central government cannot control their own people, how could it control the fighting from foreign countries? Shay's Rebellion made founding fathers realize the necessity to fix the Articles of Confederation, since civic virtue had failed.

No, Shay's Rebellion does not show the need for a stronger central government because Shay's Rebellion was only about the poor farmers rising up against the government, who had little control over Shays and his "Regulators." Shay's Rebellion does not show the need for a two-house legislature, a president, or funding from government imports or exports. Although Shay's Rebellion did worry the men in charge of the government enough to call for a change in the Articles of Confederation, it did not spell out all the needs that a union of states requires for a stronger central government to control and govern its people.

[Michelle Kingston]

I agree that though this rebellion did alarm and bring the upper class to the realization that a stronger national government was needed; however, when you said that it did not "spell out all the needs" for this government, I find that the rebellion itself was a good enough demonstration that revealed its weaknesses, such as how a militia failed to form and stop this uprising:)