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.
With this victory, certain changes were made, several severe laws were passed, some of which banned many recreational and amusement activities. A very formal standard of living was imposed unwillingly upon the people. No matter how harsh the living and its laws sound, we should not forget that Puritans were the ones fighting against despotism and because of them and their austere way of life was England safe from falling into the hands of tyrannical
Still need a conclusion Overall would all of the revolution be considered a success or a failure? In my opinion it’s good that French revolution happened because People got their right, they don’t have to pay much taxes anymore, they are not under absolute monarch anymore, and they don’t have to steal bread to feed their families. If the revolution had not happened there would have been still an absolute monarch and most people in France would not have their right. Also throughout the whole revolution many people lost their lives to fight for their
This may not grant the church much power, but this eliminated the states power over the personal matter. Another law is clause sixty two which pardoned all men who rebelled against him. This is important because lots of people like clergy and barons were part of the rebellion, so this made sure that they weren’t in danger. “For a trivial offence, a free man shall be fined only in proportion to the degree of his offence, and for a serious offence correspondingly, but not so heavily as to deprive him of his livelihood” (clause 20). This clause states that any offence will be punished in a proportional punishment.
Thomas Jefferson wrote that if the government doesn’t protect the rights of its citizens, then people have the right to form their own new government. He wrote that the king has “Imposed taxes on us without our consent” (Declaration of Independence). The Boston Massacre is an example of this, because the colonists were tired of the Townshend Acts, so they protested against the British because they put taxes on the colonists to help themselves pay for the war. This shows that the colonists have a right to have their own, new government and separate from the king. Also, in the Declaration of Independence, it says that all men are created equal.
Common law is a big part of why the Magna Carta created for the people. Back in the day, people lived under feudal rule which did not gives rights to the people. Instead, citizens worked on the king’s land and paid taxes to the king. Due to this conflict, the people of Europe demanded that the king sign the magna carta, which limited the kings power and gave rights to the people. As www.britannica.com explains, “All these customs and liberties that we have granted shall be observed in our kingdom in so far as concerns our own relations with our subjects.
They weren’t only very strict but also they let commoners have a word. Their laws were extremely strict, but they also let they be honest and give they a second try. They created such a stable and efficient empire with the help of laws and order. The punishments that the Aztecs give to the criminal scared other, so they won’t commit a crime. Having no jails put a huge impact peoples think about crime and punishment.
No one can replace the ruler is a traditional opinion in ancient Indian’s brain. It decrease the number of people which want to rebel. Everyone is ruler’s follower because of Caste system and it’s really easy for king to control one country of follower. (What is India 's caste system?, by BBC NEWS, 25 February 2016)The caste system is based on birth. It told people must to do their own level’s job and everything was control before the man’s birthing.
A hero should always do well by his followers; Richard only proved to be loyal to himself only. He abused his people by saying he was “enforced to farm our royal realm, the revenue whereof shall furnish us” (1.4.45-46). King Richard taxed the poor to fund his luxuries and wars, without thinking of how it affected his people. King Richard thought like a man instead of a king and this lead him to not only losing his tittle, but his credibility. Instead of becoming a tragic hero, he became a tragic fool; not only did he abdicate his thrown, because he could not handle the pressure, he showed that was not fit to be a king, even if he was born for it.
Wolf Ladenjinsky (1957) argues that the ideological motivations behind the reform were just as important as the economic ones. The annihilation of landlords was necessary to, firstly, be faithful to the ideas of revolutions, secondly, avoid any retaliation action form the landlords that lost their possessions. The landlords were practically the only source of authority in the villages before the Party organizations were established. By annihilating the landlords the Party made sure that there would be less resistance during further reforms. Furthermore, as the “liquidation” of the landlords was the duty of the peasants, the Party could make the peasantry share the guilt for the crime (Ladenjinsky 1957).