Subject: Shay's Rebellion, The Real History Not Taught In Schools from Leonard L. Richards book Shays's Rebellion The American Revolution's Final Battle

Subject: Shay's Rebellion, The Real History Not Taught In Schools 

     From: jackservant@msn.com  To: georgia_independence@yahoo.com   Date: Wed, 9 Nov 2005         

     Shays Fought the Revolution's Final Battle, and We Lost                          Shay’s Rebellion  by George F. Smith gfs543@bellsouth.net   

     Leonard L. Richards, a history professor at UMass–Amherst,  has written a groundbreaking book about Shays’ Rebellion,  the event that sparked the Constitutional Convention.  Leonard L. Richard portrays the Shaysites as Regulators in  the spirit of the Revolution fighting a plundering corrupt state. [3]  

     Shays’ Rebellion is usually described as a revolt of poor,  backcountry farmers in western Massachusetts during the  fall and winter of 1786 – 1787. During the Revolutionary War,  the individual states and Congress had issued fiduciary notes  to finance U.S. military operations. Fiduciary notes were paper  money the government promised to redeem in coin at some  point in the future. When the future arrived in the 1780s, the  holders of these notes demanded redemption, and the states,  including Massachusetts, were raising taxes to pay them off.  

     As the story is told, many farmers were too poor to pay their  taxes, so the courts were sending them to jail and seizing their  farms. The farmers were also in debt to merchants who had sold  them goods on credit. With the closing of the British West Indies  to American trade, the merchants, under pressure from their  creditors, were now demanding payment. To avoid paying their  debts, the story continues, Daniel Shays and a few other  “wretched officers” from the Revolution led backcountry rabble to  shut down the courts.   Massachusetts Governor James Bowdoin called out the militia to  put a stop to the uprising. When they failed to get the job done,  he turned to wealthy Bostonians to fund a temporary army. Led  by General Benjamin Lincoln, the army stopped the insurgents  from seizing the federal arsenal at Springfield in late January  1787, then crushed the rebellion permanently a week later in a  surprise attack at Petersham. Though the top rebel leaders fled  to other states, most of the others eventually returned to their  farms. Bowdoin agreed to pardon the rebels if they signed an  oath of allegiance to the state, which the vast majority did.  

      Although the rebellion ended in the rout at Petersham, “Shays’s  Rebellion” has lasted to this day as a propaganda tool for state  power.   

     Recruiting Washington:   

     As soon as the Revolution ended, the liars and murderers came  out of their snake pits in government offices across the country.   These were not the brave men who fought for freedom.  They  were weasels who had managed to insinuate themselves into  government offices as Presidential advisors, politicians and  bureaucrats.  Government-friendly versions of the rebellion  spread throughout the States and upset many elites, including  George Washington, who was enjoying a peaceful retirement at  Mount Vernon.    David Humphreys, one of Washington’s former aides living in  New Haven, told him the uprising was due to a “licentious spirit  among the people,” whom he characterized as “levelers”  determined “to annihilate all debts public and private.” [4]  According to Washington’s trusted friend and former artillery  commander General Henry Knox, who was planning to build a  four-story summer home on one of his Maine properties, the  insurgents wanted to seize the property of the rich and  redistribute it to the poor and desperate.   In a letter of October 23, 1786, Knox told Washington the rebels  “see the weakness of government” and thus feel free to pay little  if any taxes. According to Knox, the rebels believed that since the  joint exertions of all protected the property of the United States  from Great Britain, it rightfully belongs to all. The rebels, Knox  explained, believe that anyone who “attempts opposition to this  creed is an enemy to equity and justice, and ought to be swept  [from] the face of the earth.” [5]   Such comments didn’t surprise Washington. He had been buying  land in the Virginia backcountry for over 40 years and owned some  60,000 acres. The people who migrated to that area often ignored  his property markings, helping themselves to his timber and settling  down. This was a common problem of large landowners throughout  the backcountry of every state. In Washington’s judgment, these folk  were “a wretched lot, not to be trusted, and certainly not to be the  bone and sinew of a great nation.” [6]   On November 8, 1786, James Madison wrote to Washington saying he  and other officials had taken the liberty of nominating him to lead the  Virginia delegation at a May convention in Philadelphia. The upcoming  convention, as Alexander Hamilton had stated, would discuss how “to  render the constitution of the Federal Government adequate to the  exigencies of the Union.” [7]   But Washington had misgivings. A convention held two months earlier  at Annapolis had failed when only five states sent representatives,  Virginia not among them. Would the one in Philadelphia bomb and  leave his reputation tarnished? Besides, he had cited health problems  (rheumatism) as a reason for not attending a triennial meeting of the  Society of the Cincinnati in Philadelphia, to be held at the same time  as the convention. How would it look if he now accepted Madison’s offer?  [8]   On March 19, 1787 Knox wrote Washington hinting that (1) he would  be given the president’s chair at the upcoming convention, and (2) he  would not be presiding over some middling conference of officials  tinkering with the “present defective confederation,” but instead would  lead a prestigious body of men as they created an “energetic and  judicious system,” one which would “doubly” entitle him to be called  The Father of His Country. [9] 

      While Washington absorbed those prospects, he thought about the  British prediction that American-run government would soon collapse.  It was especially disheartening to see it falter in Massachusetts, the  state with the most “balanced” constitution, where the influence of the  unwashed was supposedly kept in check. Washington, Madison and  other elites suspected their “transatlantic foe” was working secretly with  Daniel Shays to help fulfill their prophecy. And if left unchallenged, the  upheaval would spread to other states, where “combustibles” like Shays  were waiting to explode and wreak anarchy. As Washington told Lafayette  later, he could not resist the call to help establish “a government of  respectability under which life, liberty, and property” were secure. [10]   Shays’s Rebellion, then, went from a problem to an opportunity. It was  used by certain elites to pry Washington from retirement and send him  to Philadelphia, where his status as America’s foremost icon bestowed a  noble splendor on their power grab. Staunch opponents forced them to  compromise, and the document they created would soon be graced with  a set of amendments that initially limited their power. Nevertheless, the  new constitution was a big step forward for conservatives, who now had  a government strong enough to protect them from troublemakers like  Daniel Shays and his gang. The bad guys lost, the good guys won, so we  have been told.  

      A Closer Look at the Rebels   Richards decided to write a book on Shays’ Rebellion when he discovered  by accident that the Massachusetts archives had microfilmed the  signatures of the 4,000 men who signed the state’s oath of allegiance in  1787. Since many of the insurgents also included their occupations and  hometowns, he was able to gather more information about them with the  help of town archivists and historians.   Richards makes some strong points about why the standard story of Shays’  Rebellion as an uprising of debtor farmers does not wash.   1. The western counties of Massachusetts as a whole did not rebel against  the state, nor did the vast majority of poor farmers. Of the 187 towns that  comprised the five counties in which the courts were shut down, a mere  45 towns provided almost 80 percent of the rebels. Seventy-two of the 187  towns did not produce a single rebel, while 34 others produced only 1-4 rebels.   The most rebellious county by far was Hampshire County, producing nearly  half the insurgents. Here, too, turnout was uneven, with eight towns not  yielding any rebels, while five others produced over 100. Colrain was the  banner town of Hampshire County, with two-thirds of the town’s 234 adult  males bearing arms against the state. Yet two small farming communities  close to Colrain, Heath and Rowe, produced not a single rebel. [11]   2. The rebels were repeatedly described in the newspapers as “destitute  farmers” or “debt-ridden farmers.” Although the number of debt suits in the  1780s skyrocketed, Richards found that “there is no correlation – none  whatsoever – between debt and rebel towns.” [12]   Only two of the most rebellious towns ranked among the top 10 towns in  suits for debt, but three of the least rebellious towns were also among the  top 10.   Colrain, the most rebellious town, had 12 families involved in debt suits  during 1785 and 1786. Yet only four of these families provided men to the  town’s total of 156 rebels. Their leader, James White, who led the assault  against the Springfield arsenal, was convicted of high treason. He was also  one of Colrain’s creditors. By contrast, the non-rebellious town of Granville  had an unusually high number of debt cases during 1785 and 1786.   At the time of the rebellion, Daniel Shays owed money to at least 10 men.  But of those 10, three were rebel leaders. For every rebel who went to court  as a debtor, another went as a creditor. [13]   3. Shutting down the courts in Massachusetts had been a form of protest at  least since 1774. That summer in the western town of Great Barrington,  1,500 men shut down the Berkshire County Court in response to British  oppression. Patriot leaders applauded it.   In 1782, the Reverend Samuel Ely, a Yale graduate, raised a mob against  the court in Northampton to protest the new Massachusetts constitution,  which he claimed made a mockery of the Revolution – a constitution,  incidentally, that John Adams drafted with help from James Bowdoin and  former radical Samuel Adams. Two-thirds of western Massachusetts agreed  with Ely, concluding that the “great men” now in power were costing them  more than the lackeys under George III. [14]   4. Private indebtedness was common with backcountry folk in all states,  not just Massachusetts. Ordinarily, it was not a problem. As Richards  points out, these debts were often circular, as one neighbor might owe  labor to another, who in turn might owe cordwood to a third, who in turn  might be indebted to the wife of the first neighbor for her services as a  midwife. Debts were expected to be paid, but without going to court. [15]   Massachusetts wasn’t the only state to experience a surge in debt suits.  In 1786 creditors in Connecticut took over 20 percent of the state’s  taxpayers to court. Yet there was no comparable revolt in Connecticut.   

      The Massachusetts War Debt:

    It wasn’t debt that triggered Shays’s Rebellion, Richards argues, but the  new state government and “its attempt to enrich the few at the expense  of the many.” [16]   The most glaring instance of this abuse was the decision of Massachusetts  to consolidate its war notes at face value. Even when issued, the notes  traded at about one-fourth par and later declined to about one-fortieth face  value.   Many soldiers were paid in these notes and out of desperation sold them at  about one-tenth their value. Boston speculators swooped up eighty percent  of these notes, and forty percent of them were owned by just 35 men. Every  one of those 35 men had either served in the state house during the 1780s  or had a close relative who did. [17]   Legislators praised the speculators as “worthy patriots” who had come to the  state’s aid in its time of need. But these men did not buy the notes directly  from the government; they bought them from farmers and soldiers at greatly  depreciated prices, who were now being taxed to redeem them at full value.  The speculators, most of whom had stayed home during the war, would now  benefit at the expense of veterans.   James Bowdoin had run for governor in 1785 in place of the state’s  perennial governor, John Hancock, who had declined to run for reelection  because of gout. Bowdoin held some £3,290 in state notes, and his  supporters were conservative merchants and fellow speculators. The election  was bitter and close and eventually decided in the legislature. In his  inaugural address, Bowdoin pledged to honor the state’s debts in full with  new taxes.   Initially, the legislature tried to collect the taxes with impost and excise duties,  but then added a poll tax and property tax. The poll tax taxed every family for  each male 16 years or older. Poll and property taxes were going to pay 90  percent of all taxes, while impost and excise duties would account for the other  10 percent. Thus, a regressive tax ensured a wealth transfer from farm families  with grown sons to the pockets of Boston speculators.   As Richards observes, “Taxes levied by the state were now much more oppressive  – indeed, many times more oppressive – than those that had been levied by the  British on the eve of the American Revolution.” [18]  

     Petitions Ignored:  

     From 1782 - 1786, small communities throughout western Massachusetts had  pleaded with the legislature to address their concerns. Their petitions had always  been polite and deferential, but their meaning was clear: the rural economy was  in bad shape, and the new government was just making it worse.   In the summer of 1786, the legislature once again ignored their petition and  adjourned. Newspapers in some towns counseled patience, but in other towns,  such as Pelham, the people had had it. In mid-July Pelham town fathers met  and began coordinating with nearby communities to hold a countywide convention.  They decided to find “some method” of changing the state constitution and thus  getting a more responsive government.   They met on August 22 and set forth 17 grievances, six of which necessitated a  new constitution. They also agreed to break up the court the following week in  Northampton as their method of getting the legislature to reconvene. [19]   Thus, Shays’ Rebellion began as peaceful petitioning and escalated into violence  only after the state repeatedly ignored the petitions.   

     Shays’ Regulators:  

     Ten years earlier, the Continental Congress endorsed the declaration that  governments are instituted among men to secure their inalienable rights,  and that whenever any government became destructive of those ends, it  is the right and duty of the people “to throw off such Government, and to  provide new Guards for their future security.”   It was in this light that the rebels saw themselves, Roberts explains.  Their enemies called them dissident debtors, Shaysites, insurgents,  malcontents, and rebels, but from the very beginning they understood  themselves to be Regulators whose purpose was “the suppressing of  tyrannical government in the Massachusetts State.” [20]   “Regulator” in this sense had an honorable history dating back to  England in 1680 and had been used in the Carolina uprisings of the late  1760s. As a Regulation role model, however, the Shays Regulators drew  upon the success story of Vermont in the 1770s. In a dispute with New  York land speculators, Bennington farmers had stopped courts from  sitting and terrorized surveyors sent on behalf of the speculators. Later,  Ethan Allen and his Green Mountain Boys established the independent  republic of Vermont. Not surprisingly, the Massachusetts gentry saw the  Vermont leaders as outlaws, while Allen denounced “’those who held the  reins of government in Massachusetts [as] a pack of Damned Rascals.’”  [21]  

      The Constitution of 1780:  

      The Shays’ Regulators were outraged over the state’s new constitution  and the manner in which it had been ratified. A meager and partisan  convention had approved it without their consent.   In the fall of 1779, 247 towns sent delegates to Boston for a constitutional  convention. John Adams drafted a constitution, then left for France on a  diplomatic mission. Another convention was scheduled later that winter to  approve, disapprove, or modify Adams’ creation. Because of the severity of  the winter, only 47 towns were represented, most within 10 – 15 miles of  Boston. Their decisions on the document became the Constitution of 1780.   In general, it enhanced the power of the rich and well born. Though it  included a bill of rights, white male taxpayers had to be worth at least  £60 to vote, which was £20 more than their colonial charter under the king.  It allowed the house to conduct business when only 60 members were  present, favoring those most able to attend during the winter, the  mercantile elite in Boston. It also established an independent judiciary and  a senate, neither of which were answerable to the people, as well as a clause  forbidding any amendments to the constitution for at least 15 years. [22]  

     Defenders of the Rebellion: 

     Not all state leaders opposed the Rebellion. Moses Harvey, a legislator from  the small town of Montague, had been a hero in the war and was now a  captain in the local militia. He encouraged his men to join the rebellion,  calling his colleagues in the legislature a band of “thieves, knaves, robbers,  and highwaymen.” [23]   William Whiting, Chief Justice of Berkshire County, had been a dependable  conservative who had received a number of prestigious appointments and  was a scion of a wealthy family. Writing under the pen name “Gracchus,”  in honor of the Gracchus brothers from the days of the Roman republic,  Whiting published a letter accusing the leadership of enriching themselves  at the expense of ordinary farmers. He also faulted citizens for their  “inattention to public affairs for several years past.” “The people at large,”  he said, had an “indispensable duty to watch and guard their liberties, and  to crush the very first appearances of encroachments upon it.”   On October 20, 1786, the Continental Congress authorized the addition of  1,340 men to its 700-man army because the Massachusetts militia was  unable to suppress the rebellion. Congress decided it would be foolish to  tell the public the real reason for raising additional troops, so they  announced an Indian war was pending in the Ohio Valley.   It gave Boston legislators a good laugh, especially those from western  towns. But the sharpest critic was Baron von Steuben, the Prussian  drillmaster who had trained Washington’s troops. Writing under a false  name, the baron pointed out that Massachusetts had 92,000 militiamen  on its rolls. Theoretically, the militia system excluded the poor and  transient. Members were men of substance with deep roots in the  community. They were men of property. With such a force at its disposal,  why would the Massachusetts government need outside support?   There was only one plausible reason, von Steuben concluded: the  numerous militias supported the rebels, whereas the present system of  administration had the support of only “a very small number of respected  gentlemen.” If that was the case, how dare Congress support such an  “abominable oligarchy.” [24]   The recruitment effort failed, leading Bowdoin to hire an army without  legislative authority.  

      A Major Revisionist Work:  

      I believe readers will find Richards’s Shays’s Rebellion stands with  DiLorenzo’s The Real Lincoln and Kolko’s The Triumph of Conservatism  as a work of outstanding scholarship exposing the conservative stake in  bigger government. Strict constitutional government has a refreshing  appeal in today’s world because of the Beltway monster we have in its  place, but we should bear in mind the lessons of Richards’s research.  The constitutional movement included the familiar ingredients of plunder,  crisis, and lies to further government growth. The original Constitution  was a step forward for big government.  

 References   1 “Constitution Day ushers in mandate to teach the Constitution,” Donna Krache, CNN

2 “Learn, Dammit,” Dennis Myers  

3 Richards, Leonard L., Shays’s Rebellion: The American Revolution’s Final Battle, University of Pennsylvania Press, Philadelphia, 2002  

4 Richards, p. 2   

5 Richards, p. 130  

6 Richards, p. 130  

7 Richards, p. 127  

8 Cunliffe, Marcus, George Washington: Man and Monument, The New American Library, New York, NY, 1958, p. 124  

9 Rosenfeld, Richard N., American Aurora: A Democratic-Republican Returns, St. Martin’s Griffin, New York NY, 1998, p. 468  

10 Richards, p. 132  

11 Richards, p. 55-56  

12 Richards, p. 60  

13 Richards, p. 54  

14 Richards, p. 59-60  

15 Richards, p. 61  

16 Richards, p. 63 

 17 Richards, p. 78  

18 Richards, p. 88  

19 Richards, p. 6-8  

20 Richards, p. 63  

21 Richards, p. 64-68  

22 Richards, p. 72  

23 Richards, p. 14  

24 Richards, p. 16. 

     http://www.strike-the-root.com/cgi-local/birdcast.cgihttp://www.strike-the-root.com/cgi-local/birdcast.cgi October 17, 2005 discuss this column in the forum  George F. Smith is a freelance writer and screenwriter. Visit his website at www.libertyasylum.com  George F. Smith Archive   http://www.strike-the-root.com/donate.htmlhttp://wwwstrike-the-root.com/donate.html http://www.strike-the-root.com/subscribe.htmlhttp://www.strike-the-root.com/subscribe.html Reprint Rights  back to Strike The Root