SHAYS’S REBELLION AND THE U.S. CONSTITUTION
Introduction
Although not widely known, Shays’s Rebellion greatly impacted the debate on sovereignty and led many to conclude that the only possible solution was the centralization of power in a national authority. Historian John Garraty notes, “The lessons became plain: Liberty must not become an excuse for license; and therefore greater authority must be vested in the central government.”[1] While this effect was not the “rebels’” intended goal, Shays’s Rebellion helped shape the construction of the U.S. Constitution and the American political thought that has since followed. An analysis of both the causes and effects of Shays’s Rebellion highlights its contribution to the demise of the Articles of Confederation and the ratification of the Constitution.
What was Shays’s Rebellion?
In the winter of 1786-1787, many farmers protesting the foreclosure of their farms took up arms and stormed county courthouses across Massachusetts. All over New England, there existed a growing frustration with the American postwar situation under the Articles of Confederation. Massachusetts farmers’ disconnection from the Boston government rendered the situation more volatile than anywhere else. “Connecticut, New Hampshire, and Vermont instituted harsh laws to stem the growth of insurrection. But inland Massachusetts was so heavily agrarian that the rebellion gathered steam.”[2] Backcountry farmers banded together in mobs of up to one thousand men and marched to different cities, rioting in front of prominent shops and courthouses in order to make their frustrations heard.
The rebellion is named after Daniel Shays, a former officer in the Contine...
... middle of paper ...
...94
[15] Szatmary 103
[16] Kenney
[17] Marion L. Starkey, A Little Rebellion (New York: Alfred A. Knopf Inc., 1955), xiv.
[18] Richards 67
[19] Richard D. Brown, “Shays’s Rebellion and Its Aftermath: A View from Springfield,
Massachusetts, 1787,” The William and Mary Quarterly 40, no. 4 (1983), 598-615.
[20] Harper’s Monthly Magazine 660
[21] Harper’s Monthly Magazine 661
[22] Starkey 235
[23] Houston Chronicle, “Side by side memorials tell both sides of 1787 Shays
Rebellion,” 6 February, 1987, 8.
[24] Kenney
[25] Robert A. Feer, “Shays’s Rebellion and the Constitution: A Study in Causation,” The
New England Quarterly 42, no. 3 (1969), 388-410.
[26] Szatmary 123
[27] Houston Chronicle
[28] Starkey 242
[29] Jackson
[30] Jonathan Clark, “The tree of liberty refreshed,” The Times, 28 November 1996, 1.
Gary B. Nash argues that the American Revolution portrayed “radicalism” in the sense on how the American colonies and its protesters wanted to accommodate their own government. Generally what Gary B. Nash is trying to inform the reader is to discuss the different conditions made by the real people who were actually fighting for their freedom. In his argument he makes it clear that throughout the revolution people showed “radicalism” in the result of extreme riots against the Stamp Act merchants, but as well against the British policies that were implemented. He discusses the urgency of the Americans when it came to declaring their issues against the British on how many slaves became militants and went up against their masters in the fight for a proclamation to free themselves from slavery. But he slowly emerges into the argument on how colonists felt under the
In the Summer of 1787, fifty-five delegates representing 12 out of the 13 states in Philadelphia to fix the Articles of Confederation. They met in philadelphia because the Articles of Confederation was too weak. Shay’s rebellion was the end of the Articles of Confederation bringing down the whole network calling for a change of government. They did this to prevent a tyrant or tyranny. A tyrant/tyranny is when someone or a group abuses their power. The Constitution guarded against tyranny through Federalism, Separation of powers, Checks and Balances, and The Great Compromise.
At the time of the convention, farmers were the debtor class and were prone to revolt. Farmers, who lived all across the United States, sought debt relief and tax relief (Beard, 28). The weight of the debt at the time was crushing small American farmers who were being forced to pay their debts by selling their property for less than its value (Holton, 90). These debtors sought relief in many legal forms. For example, they asked for the “abolition of imprisonment, paper money, laws delaying the collection of debts, propositions requiring debtors to accept land in lieu of specie at a valuation fixed by a board of arbitration” (Beard, 28). However, they also sought relief through revolt (ex. Shays’ Rebellion) (Beard 28). Their desires contrast those of the creditors, stockholders, manufacturers, and shippers of their time (Beard, 29).
Although Henry refused to serve on the Constitutional Convention, Madison needed Henry's persuasive ways. Henry had a way to make people agree with his ideas. Even though Henry didn't serve on the Constitutional Convention, he was still present to put in his word. As soon as the meetings opened, Henry began to argue against the Constitution. This argument went on for three weeks. Henry was aware that the new government had to be strong, but felt that the Constitution made the central government too powerful. He thought that the power should lay in the hands of the states. "What right had they [the group that wrote the Constitution] to say 'We the people,' instead We, the States?" he demanded.
“In the first years of peacetime, following the Revolutionary War, the future of both the agrarian and commercial society appeared threatened by a strangling chain of debt which aggravated the depressed economy of the postwar years”.1 This poor economy affected almost everyone in New England especially the farmers. For years these farmers, or yeomen as they were commonly called, had been used to growing just enough for what they needed and grew little in surplus. As one farmer explained “ My farm provides me and my family with a good living. Nothing we wear, eat, or drink was purchased, because my farm provides it all.”2 The only problem with this way of life is that with no surplus there was no way to make enough money to pay excessive debts. For example, since farmer possessed little money the merchants offered the articles they needed on short-term credit and accepted any surplus farm goods on a seasonal basis for payment. However if the farmer experienced a poor crop, shopkeepers usually extended credit and thereby tied the farmer to their businesses on a yearly basis.3 During a credit crisis, the gradual disintegration of the traditional culture became more apparent. During hard times, merchants in need of ready cash withdrew credit from their yeomen customers and called for the repayment of loans in hard cash. Such demands showed the growing power of the commercial elite.4 As one could imagine this brought much social and economic unrest to the farmers of New England. Many of the farmers in debt were dragged into court and in many cases they were put into debtors prison. Many decided to take action: The farmers waited for the legal due process as long as them could. The Legislature, also know as the General Court, took little action to address the farmers complaints. 5 “So without waiting for General Court to come back into session to work on grievances as requested, the People took matters into their own hands.”6 This is when the idea for the Rebellion is decided upon and the need for a leader was eminent.
In today's global economy, energy is one of the most crucial and sought after commodities. Who supplies it and how much they supply determines how much influence they have over other countries as well as the global economy. This is why hydraulic fracturing is currently such an important and controversial topic in the United States. Hydraulic fracturing, more commonly known as "fracking" or hydrofracturing, is the process of using pressurized liquids to fracture rocks and release hydrocarbons such as shale gas, which burns more efficiently than coal. This booming process of energy production provides a much needed economic boost, creating jobs and providing gas energy for Americans. The efficiently burning shale gas reduces carbon emission from electricity production plants, reducing carbon footprints on the environment. However, the process of hydraulic fracturing uses millions of gallons of pressurized liquid, which contains toxic chemicals, and some of this water is left over undealt with. The air near fracking sites is often also polluted and unsafe for nearby community residents. Injecting millions of gallons of water laced with toxic chemicals into the rock thousands of feet deep can cause earthquakes, causing a safety hazards for all nearby areas. Hydraulic Fracturing makes rare natural gases easily attainable, boosting the economy and reducing carbon emissions. However, the negative side effects such as contaminated water and air, make hydraulic fracturing a process that may not be worth the benefits.
For Mill, the freedom that enables each individual to explore his or her own particular way of life is essential for a generous and diverse development of humanity. The only source of potential within society to further continue human development is the spontaneity or creativity that lies within each individual. Mill has a utilitarian view on freedom. He was especially keen on individual liberty because it allowed the greatest measure of happiness. His concern is not to declare liberty as a natural right but to rather set out the appropriate constraints within ‘Civil or Social liberty’. Civil liberty is defined as the limit society can exert its legitimate power over each individual and social liberty has much to do with a political principle
During the construction of the new Constitution, many of the most prominent and experienced political members of America’s society provided a framework on the future of the new country; they had in mind, because of the failures of the Articles of Confederation, a new kind of government where the national or Federal government would be the sovereign power, not the states. Because of the increased power of the national government over the individual states, many Americans feared it would hinder their ability to exercise their individual freedoms. Assuring the people, both Alexander Hamilton and James Madison insisted the new government under the constitution was “an expression of freedom, not its enemy,” declaring “the Constitution made political tyranny almost impossible.” (Foner, pg. 227) The checks and balances introduced under the new and more powerful national government would not allow the tyranny caused by a king under the Parliament system in Britain. They insisted that in order achieve a greater amount of freedom, a national government was needed to avoid the civil unrest during the system under the Articles of Confederation. Claiming that the new national government would be a “perfect balance between liberty and power,” it would avoid the disruption that liberty [civil unrest] and power [king’s abuse of power in England] caused. The “lackluster leadership” of the critics of the new constitution claimed that a large land area such as America could not work for such a diverse nation.
...ave the freedm to make mistakes and have discussions and debates in a healthy setting where others can learn from each other, and be able to raise their voice without having to be worried by the idea of being bullied. He strongly believed in having the freedom to develop your own personality and having the strength to make choices. Mills is only able to see progress in society if we enter a world of culture, free conformity, and harm. We must be given the right to free expression, freedom and the right to liberty without the fear of threat or being silenced. It’s because of these justifications that mill believes that mankind would not be justified in silencing an individual just like that one inidivdual, if given the power to do so, would not be justified in silencing all of mankind. Through these actions, we as humans will create the ultimate gaood for mankind.
College athletes should be paid! College athletes are often considered to be some of the luckiest students in the world. Most of them receiving all inclusive scholarships that cover all the costs of their education. They are also in a position to make a reputation for themselves in the sporting world preparing them for the next step. The ongoing debate whether student athletes should be paid has been going on for years. These athletes bring in millions of dollars for their respective schools and receive zero in return. Many will argue that they do receive payment, but in reality it is just not true. Costs associated with getting a college education will be discussed, information pertaining to the National Collegiate Athletic Association (NCAA), and benefits student athletes receive. First, I’ll start with costs associated with college and most of all why student athletes should be paid!
According to Webster’s online dictionary, it is believed that the phrase “sexual harassment” was coined at Cornell University in 1974 ("Sexual harassment," 2011). The phrase wasn’t, however, really used in common language until the testimony of Anita Hill against Clarence Thomas in 1991. Sexual harassment can take many different shapes and forms. According to a Fox News article, the sexual harassment claims made by men have increased twofold in the last twenty years ("Sexual harassment claims," 2010). Because sexual harassment is illegal both on a federal and state level in many states, there are steps that an individual and employer should take to prevent sexual harassment.
Millions of devoted fans eagerly watch their favorite sports players and teams year round. Some people watch professional sports, while others prefer college. College basketball and football are passionately described topics on television and radio. College and professional sports are analogous in every way; the only difference between them is the lack of payment to student athletes. The National Collegiate Athletics Association (NCAA) receives millions of dollars in revenue from college men's basketball and football, and college coaches of top schools are paid the same amount as professional coaches. Fans of both college and professional athletes can proudly show their commitment by purchasing jerseys or other merchandise. Student athletes should be paid because, even though they are considered amateurs, they need money for their social life, and their own institutions already exploit them, making enough money to pay athletes fairly.
The interpretation of Lolita still consisted on the ideas of sex and the book as well as the character became a scandal. Nabokov has rebuffed sex themes since the beginning of the book’s publishing. In his famous interview with Playboy, Nabokov rejects the interviewer bringing up America’s sexual mores with “Sex as an institution, sex as a general notion, sex as a problem, sex as a platitude—all this is something I find too tedious for words. Let us skip sex.” (Toffler). His refusal to even talk sex proved how little his tolerance was when it came to humoring the audience about sex themes and sex related questions. In an interview with CBC during the early 1960s, Nabokov is quoted agreeing with an interviewer that believes “sex has become such a cliche, so that people can’t recognize anything else.” (...) which further shows how 1960’s mentalities could see nothing else outside of the realm of sex. In the same CBC interview, Nabokov disputes sex themes more openly and admits that his writing of the book has more to do with Humbert’s artistic nature and how that alienates him and creates unattainable love (...). While Nabokov wrongly uses a young girl’s abuse as a tool of illustrating a man’s “misfortunes” of being an artist, the novel is more than what the 1960’s audience perceived it to be. Nabokov did not intend to write a book about a fetish, nor did he, according to Playboy, wish to satirize American culture. The text included more substinance than what people perceived it to be and as did the character Lolita herself, who was more than a teen temptress. His writing of the book has nothing to do about sex, although his initial theme is flawed and an important example of men’s inability to write books featuring authentic female characters, unless they are being used as tools or over sexualized. And much like Humbert Humbert, no matter how hard Nabokov tried to manipulate the text, feelings of empathy still is evoked
In his essay, "On a Novel Entitled Lolita," Vladimir Nabokov tries to answer the age-old question, "What is the objective of the novel?" He quickly replies, "...I happen to be the kind of author who in starting to work on a book has no other purpose than to get rid of that book..." (311). There is more to his response than this, however. He goes on to say that his book was not written to celebrate pornography or pedophilia, nor was it written to promote Anti-Americanism (313 - 315). What's the purpose of his novel then? Well, Nabokov writes, "For me a work of fiction exists only insofar as it affords me what I shall bluntly call aesthetic bliss, that is a sense of being somehow, somewhere, connected with other states of being where art (curiosity, tenderness, kindness, ecstasy) is the norm" (314 - 315). He sees his novel in simple terms: art. Whether it be the novel Lolita or the name Lolita, a sexual meaning has been given to the word Lolita, and this is largely due to the strong sexual overtones used by the novel's main character Humbert to describe his character of obsession Lolita; thus resulting in different and confusing interpretations of the novel and the author's intentions.
Signs of harassment can range from comments on a woman’s breasts or hips to unwanted "accidental" fondling or offensive pictures being brought to their attention. Harassment can also tak...