This particular tax affected farmers more than other groups. Farmers profited from the sale of whiskey and were very hostile to the idea. Hamilton understood that extinguishing the rebellion was critical and the country needed to demonstrate control without toleration. Hamilton advocated for military force. At first Washington sent negotiators, but soon realized his words would not be efficient enough to dissolve the conflict.
After the rebellion was squashed, many americans were alarmed that a mob of farmers were able to take over the Massachusetts government - even for a short time. The “commotions sufficiently shocked (George) Washington to set him on the road to Philadelphia” (Larson, 236 ) to rewrite the Articles of confederation and to make a new constitution. During the constitutional convention, the authors of the document gave lots of power to the central government to prevent another mob from taking over a government again. Because of the constitution, the federal government also received the power to tax all the states and pass laws that could hurt farmers (“Article I:”). This shows that Daniel Shays rebellion was unsuccessful because it went against the goals of the rebellion of getting taxed less and having having pro debtor laws.
Shay’s Rebellion Many farmers in the newly settled areas of central and eastern Massachusetts suffered from high debt as they tried to establish new farms. Unlike some of the other state legislatures, Massachusetts did not pass pro-debtor laws such as forgiving debt or printing more paper money. Instead, they had local sheriffs seize property and farms and place those farmers that could not afford to pay their debts into prison. This led to the first armed rebellion in the post-Revolutionary United States. The protestors believed that they were protecting the “good of the commonwealth” and opposing the “tyrannical government in the Massachusetts state” (Keene 2013).
Many Americans who were not wealthy supported the Constitution was because they believed that the United States needed a new and stronger national government. They believed that this government could provide the stability and security against violent outrages. The foil of these people were the Antifederalist. The Antifederalists offered three objections: that the Congress had conspired under a “veil of mystery” to create a new form of government, that a strong national government would destroy states’ rights, and that the new system of government resembled and monarchy and that violated the principle of liberty that guided the American Revolution. They also pointed that the voters will not directly
In spite of this, not everyone was happy about the new Constitution. This broke people up into two groups: Anti-Federalists and Federalists. The Anti-Federalists were those in favor of strong states’ rights. They disliked the Constitution because they believed that there was a chance that Constitution would destroy the freedoms the colonies fought for. They were scared of tyranny, especially pertaining to the fact that under the new Constitution, the national government, or Congress, would be able to make decisions without even asking for the states’ permission.
They felt that they shouldn't be restricted to expansion when they were just victorious in a recent war. The colonists viewed this new policy as an infringement on their basic rights and many ignored it and moved into the prohibited area. Other colonists figured that the proclamation was only a temporary solution. These events along with many other future restrictive measures by the government would start the American Revolution, which would forever change and shape our country by giving the colonies their independence from Great
Liberty Or Death It can be hard wanting to make a change within a whole country, and to lead a revolution can be a difficult task. During the revolutionary times Americans wanted their freedom from Great Britain, but most people of those days were uneducated and possibly full of fear for change, but all they needed somebody to influence them and show a little emotion towards them it would be more relatable to them. I used Patrick Henry’s “Speech to the Virginia Convention” the persuasive technique used is pathos, many people were angry when Henry told them the truth of what will happen if they trust the British, and readied them for a war they will have to fight. In Henry’s speech he holds back none of his feelings towards the change, he
Instead, this events are treated as if they were happening elsewhere and this bodies are the bodies of the “them” not “us.” So if “they” become excluded form full humanity, according to the moral intuition of conservatives, it is acceptable because the out-group didn’t try hard enough to become outstanding citizens and embrace extremist views of bringing back a “great country,” which was founded in slavery and segregation. Considering, what defines a great country to conservatives; it is no surprise that during the event, members carried confederate flags and American flags. Given the recent removal of the confederate flag, conservatives show much fear that the culture they have always defended is vanishing at a speed that is not under their control. Therefore, framing fear of loss of values as necessary to maintain loyalty and save the country is a great tactic on behalf of conservatives to not only victimize themselves but also carry on devastating
However, the liberal and progressive organizations that usually would have protected the civil liberties of the victims of McCarthyism backed down from the task. Although numerous Americans were disturbed and troubled by McCarthy’s allegations, there was an absence of effective outlets for them to express their opposition. Therefore, liberals and progressives merely did not mount a campaign against McCarthyism nor did they defend the victims’ civil liberties, or when few tried, it was not effective. Schrecker argues, “The destruction of the front groups and the left-led unions may well have had a more deleterious impact on American politics than the decline of the (Communist) party itself.” (Schrecker 105). This is because, as seen in the example of McCarthyism, with the demise of the left-led unions and organizations, the nation lost the network that created a public space where legitimate alternatives to the status quo could be presented.
Others such as John Randolph of Virginia, were against the War Hawk’s ideology. They thought that the people would disapprove due to repercussions such as taxes. Fear also played a part as they feared that the British would attack the ports they blockaded, possibly damaging trade and ergo, the economy. However, it didn’t matter in the end as President Madison sided with the War Hawks, asking Congress to declare