Explosive tensions of a newly forged country play out in ‘Shays’s Rebellion’
“In monarchies, the crime of treason and rebellion may admit of being pardoned or lightly punished; but the man who dares rebel against the laws of a republic ought to suffer death.” That’s firebrand Sam Adams talking. In 1787 Adams — the Father of the American Revolution — was furious with the insurrection by fellow citizens discontented with inequitable economic realities in the inchoate American nation. Having freed themselves from Britain only four years before, many Americans wondered if they had exchanged a foreign tyranny for one closer to home.
In “Shays’s Rebellion,” author Sean Condon presents a brisk overview of strife in post-colonial America. Guns fired for independence had hardly cooled when onerous taxes were imposed on the populace to pay off state and federal debt accrued during the conflict. In Massachusetts, there was widespread disgruntlement. Bankers and merchants in Boston were pitted against farmers and their sympathizers residing mostly in central and western parts of the state. Harassed for overdue taxes, distressed farmers were subject to forfeiture of property and imprisonment. Tax collectors sometimes confiscated farm animals. Such officials were targets for scorn and physical resistance. One angry citizen said they “ought to have their asses kicked.”
Courts in a number of counties had been forcibly shut down. Meetings known as conventions were held to discuss urgent concerns and formulate demands for redress of grievances. Eastern creditors were indifferent. Powerbrokers and their lawyers perceived complaints as cagey attempts to avoid paying what was legitimately owed. Debtors were accused of laziness and a fondness for alcohol, thus solely responsible for their hardship. Smug creditors advised hard work and sobriety to relieve the farmers’ plight. Tensions roiled.
Some government defenders attributed unrest to pro-British provocateurs bent on destabilizing the young country. In Virginia, George Washington viewed the trouble in New England with grave concern. He believed the British were sowing discord and feared it could spread. Washington wrote: “What stronger evidence can be given of the want of energy in our governments than these disorders? If there exists not a power to check them, what security has a man of life, liberty, or property?” He proposed strengthening federal government with an “energetic Constitution.”
But restive and resentful citizens of numerous towns and farming communities needed no outside provocation. Historians have noted “the overall tax burden in the 1780s was several times higher than it had been at the end of British imperial rule.” Since a strong federal government did not yet exist — as lamented by Washington — authority for law, taxation and currency lay with respective state legislatures and their militias. Condon writes: “In the fall of 1786, there were less than seven hundred soldiers in the entire U.S. armed force, and nearly all of them were stationed in forts in western Pennsylvania.” They were far from the unguarded federal armory in Springfield, Massachusetts soon to be set upon by angry “regulators” as the insurrectionists were called.
Massachusetts Governor James Bowdoin proclaimed he would meet disturbances with stern retribution. Revered Revolutionary War hero General Benjamin Lincoln convinced wealthy Bostonians to donate money to arm and supply an able force to quell the agrarian revolt. Before Lincoln and his assembled militia could make their way west in inclement winter weather, armed regulators led by war veteran Daniel Shays were approaching Springfield Armory. Shays, like other rebel leaders, and many fellow insurgents had fought against Britain. Having made sacrifices and risked lives, they expected respectful consideration from the new political order. With entreaties ignored, the frustrated band made the march to relieve the federal facility of its store of weaponry. From there they planned to march on Boston.
Shays’ men confronted a line of local militia standing in deep snow before the armory. Militia cannons fired warning shots that failed to disperse the regulators. Artillery was then aimed directly at the rebellious crowd. Four died and others were wounded.
Shays’ men scattered. “The government militia suffered only one injury, when one of the men operating the cannon was accidently hit and suffered the loss of both arms and his eyesight.” This was not the end of hostilities. Other engagements, skirmishes and some vicious acts of vengeance followed into the spring. Once animosities were contained, General Lincoln eschewed a vendetta. He wished to quickly pacify insurgents and bring them back into the loyal fold. Shays and others who played prominent roles were spared the gallows. In time, Shays was pardoned.
America’s first civil war was a brief albeit violent affair. Aggrieved citizens felt ignored and reviled by what they feared was a burgeoning aristocratic elite within the newborn country won with their sweat and blood. Events of 1787 spurred formation of a strengthened and more united constitutional federal republic. Questions of centralized power versus localized control of law and resources remain debatable subjects today. What recourse have the poor and marginalized when their problems linger and are unaddressed or unresolved? When is it time to question the legitimacy of a government? And then, what is to be done?
Historian Sean Condon has produced a fine work of early American history. It will appeal to anyone interested in the interplay of political, social and economic forces in an avowed representative democracy.
The saga of Shays’ Rebellion should not be forgotten.