|
Post by Michelle Kingston on Dec 2, 2011 18:13:01 GMT -5
1. Shays' Rebellion did show the need for a strong central government by "waking up" the upper-class and pointing out the flaws of its idea of a true confederacy under the Article of Confederation. The rebellion itself could be used as evidence to show this ineffective notion of sovereign states, as demonstrated in the inability of a militia to form and stop the rebellion itself. Because of this lack of an army and therefore, a lack of defense, the elite finally realized that a more centralized government was much needed, especially for cases similar to the rebellion.
2. Shays' Rebellion did not show the need for a strong central government as the Regulators were predominantly of low-class; their struggle was economically-based, though they felt it was their political rights being affected. What kindled the rebellion was the farmers' failure to pay taxes and nonchalance of the government's affairs until the foreclosures. This reveals a fault in their own actions. As for the Articles of Confederation, it did not need to be altered nor did the government need to be modified since many of those involved tended to join the mob as a means of merely protesting the government's new rulings; the catalysts behind the rebellion included economic hardships, causing people to attempt to rise to a higher political stance.
|
|
|
Post by cynthiabriceno on Dec 3, 2011 1:01:33 GMT -5
I agree the rebells were upset by the debt and the foreclosure on their propert not by the governments new ruling.
|
|