Christian clergymen meanwhile marched arm-in-arm with Jewish rabbis. The grand procession represented what many Americans hoped the United States would become: a diverse but cohesive, prosperous nation. Over the next few years, Americans would celebrate more of these patriotic holidays. In April , for example, thousands gathered in New York to see George Washington take the presidential oath of office. But the new nation was never as cohesive as its champions had hoped.
Although the officials of the new federal government — and the people who supported it — placed great emphasis on unity and cooperation, the country was often anything but unified.
The Revolution, some began to think, was not yet over. In the summer of , more than 2, desperate farmers began to prepare for one last fight. The farmers' difficulties in and were mostly the result of the hard economic times that followed the end of the Revolutionary War.
But the actions of creditors, lawmakers, and judges aggravated the farmers' plight. At the end of the Revolution, most Continental soldiers were paid with paper certificates issued by the new government. Since these men needed money now, rather than a promise of future funds or lands, most sold the certificates to speculators at greatly discounted prices.
The returning farmers had little to show for their military service. At the same time, both the individual states and the federal government were confronting enormous war debts. To pay off the state's debt, the Massachusetts legislature, led by men from the coastal towns, raised taxes and required that they be paid in hard money. Many farmers had mortgaged their land during the war years; they had no money to pay the new taxes.
The western farmers got little sympathy in Boston. An economic depression had followed the war, and the eastern merchants and businessmen were struggling with financial burdens of their own. The break with England had ended the lucrative trade with the West Indies, throwing many eastern merchants into a financial crisis. To raise money, they began to call in their debts. As merchants pressed their debtors for payment, the debtors turned to those who owed them money. A chain of lawsuits and foreclosures inflicted pain all across the state.
Eventually, the demand for immediate payment of debts reached western Massachusetts, and the already hard-pressed farmers began to receive summonses to face their creditors in the local courts.
The farmers were unprepared to have their mortgages called in, and they were shocked when creditors foreclosed on them and repossessed their farms. The farmers appealed to their creditors but had little success; the creditors were under pressure to pay their own debts. The farmers sought relief from the courts but found them determined to enforce the law. The leading citizens of the western towns faced the same pressures as the less well off members of the community.
As resentment turned to rage, men of all ranks began to talk of resistance. They discussed ways to counter the coercive measures of the government far away in Boston. At first, they petitioned the legislature for lower taxes, judicial reform, and paper currency to ease the tight money situation. When their petitions were ignored, the farmers tried more direct ways to fight foreclosure. On August 29 th , an armed group of farmers closed the Hampshire County Court of Common Pleas in Northampton, bringing all foreclosures to a halt.
In the weeks that followed, other farmers shut down courts in other towns. The band of farmers, some of whom were carrying only sticks, fled immediately. Contemporary engraving depicting Daniel Shays and Job Shattuck.
Insurgent leaders including Shays fled north to Vermont, still an independent republic at the time. The legislature pardoned thousands of rank-and-file Regulators as long as they paid a fine, surrendered their weapons and took an oath of loyalty to the states. Two rebel leaders were hanged for treason, but Shays came out of hiding in Vermont after his eventual pardon in Lincoln lost his race for lieutenant governor.
The newly elected legislature cut taxes and placed a moratorium on debts, helping to alleviate the economic crisis. Although plans for a Constitutional Convention were already under way, the uprising in Massachusetts led to further calls for a stronger national government and influenced the ensuing debate in Philadelphia that led to the drafting of the U.
Constitution in the summer of According to Edward J. Daniel Shays to General Lincoln, January 30, [33]. The Massachusetts Regulators felt that they were both following the tradition of regulation and carrying forward the ideals of the American Revolution. For many in the western counties the legislature had failed the "protection covenant" wherein the government was supposed to look after the welfare of its citizens and not let them fall prey to a minority the elite or be forced into "economic inequality.
The Regulators relied on the local militias to organize and provide legitimacy to these actions. As seen in Part I of this series, the militias had taken on larger roles in popular dissent in the colonies during the 18th century. The recent experience of the American Revolution further promoted the militia as the modus operandi. Locals did not view the militia as a "creature of the state" but thought they expressed local sentiments and, when incited to action, became the embodiment of "the body of the people.
But the Boston elite and government denounced both the Regulation and their use of the militia as rebellion and anarchy. They argued shutting down the courts was extralegal and had no place in a government that offered political representation. The opposition refuted the concept of Regulation and relabeled the Regulators as insurgents and rebels. They used the press to rebrand the Regulation as a rebellion.
In particular, opponents set up Daniel Shays not only as the leader of the rebellion but as a tyrant who would burn Boston to the ground and overthrow the government. Allen refused and publicly denounced the Regulation in the press to distance himself further.
As historian J. There was a "paradox of founding" that challenged the Founders to legitimize the new government after the Revolution. Federalists responded that the new Constitution solved this problem by creating a representative state with checks and balances. Riot and protest were obsolete under a representative government. In Federalist 28 Alexander Hamilton directly responded to the question of revolution and argued that the option would always remain legitimate but only after all legal recourse and the electoral process failed.
Antifederalists countered that popular dissent must remain a part of the political process. One of the powerful aspects of the Constitution was that it was an evolving document meant to be changed and amended. But for Antifederalists this process could not be limited to "proper channels" controlled by elite lawyers.
Indeed it was the duty of citizens to engage with government through their petitions and express dissent when necessary. Antifederalists were called Shaysites in papers from Maine to Georgia during the ratification debates. The strong rhetoric and actions of the Revolution blended with popular ideas about regulation movements that encouraged the citizens of the western counties of Massachusetts to act.
But political leaders were horrified by the insurrection and insisted that regulations had no place under a functioning representative government. They argued that the Revolution was over and the goals realized but citizens must now learn to accept their elected officials and work within the electoral process. These events also encouraged those in favor of a stronger federal government to pursue a new Constitution.
The country needed a strong government that proved that the Revolution was over and the new nation could function legitimately. Again the question of who had the right to assemble "the body of the people" would be raised by the citizens themselves.
Return to Legal Topics Table of Contents. Nash, eds. American History Online. Facts On File, Inc. Robert E. Robert J. Cottrol New York: Garland Pub.
It provided religious if not legal justification for usurping the power of a corrupt monarch. Mayhew, Jonathan A. An Online Electronic Text Edition. Electronic Texts in American Studies. Paper Robert A. Gross Charlottesville: University Press of Virginia,
0コメント