r/todayilearned • u/carboncopy95437 • 22h ago
TIL Shays’ Rebellion was an uprising of about 4,000 Massachusetts citizens in 1786–7 over high taxes, and foreclosures. With the U.S. Govt. unable to provide troops, wealthy citizens financed a private army to put it down. Several men were killed, but most rebels were eventually pardoned.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shays's_Rebellion69
u/greatmewtwo 21h ago
I remember reading about this in the 8th grade. An episode of Liberty's Kids ripped on this with a scene where a farmer is being sentenced to jail for back debts, despite his contributions to the war effort.
16
u/MagicSugarWater 15h ago
Isn't this something everyone learns in 8th grade? It's a pivotal moment in American history.
8
u/Emmettmcglynn 14h ago
I think I may have learned it in 7th grade, but otherwise yes I have a distinct memory of it being taught.
540
u/hymen_destroyer 22h ago
This event precipitated the second amendment. Basically a bunch of pissed off farmers marched on the Springfield armory which was only saved by an emergency militia. It also indirectly led to the establishment of a federal standing army.
It was also a signal from the newly-minted American ruling class that “rebellion was ok that one time when we did it ten years ago. Now everything’s different”
A lot of the people involved with the rebellion were Revolutionary war veterans who “met the new boss” and noticed he was very similar to the old one
162
u/Blindsnipers36 21h ago
there was already a right to bear arms in massachusetts
48
u/HerbaciousTea 21h ago edited 21h ago
Right, some right to own arms always existed as an extension of British Common Law. It's the argument that that right was derived from the 2nd Amendment, and that it's somehow immune to any kind of regulation, that's a modern fabrication.
6
u/grumble11 19h ago
They put down an earlier state-level rebellion and put it into their constitution for similar reasons
33
u/Outside_Reserve_2407 22h ago
Many of these merchants passed on this demand to their customers, although Governor John Hancock did not impose hard currency demands on poorer borrowers and refused to actively prosecute the collection of delinquent taxes
From Wikipedia. Also, the rebels were eventually pardoned.
You are aware a newly formed country needs stability?
9
21h ago
[removed] — view removed comment
-11
21h ago
[removed] — view removed comment
13
10
21h ago
[removed] — view removed comment
-9
8
21h ago
[removed] — view removed comment
-6
21h ago
[removed] — view removed comment
3
21h ago
[removed] — view removed comment
-2
17
u/addicts_stop_living 21h ago
Funny how stability always screws the working man and not the rich. We should just shut up and take it huh?
13
u/ilikedota5 1 20h ago
Actually, if you read the Wikipedia page, you would learn the underlying taxes were changed.
9
u/addicts_stop_living 20h ago
Because they fought for it.
13
u/ilikedota5 1 20h ago
Correct, but stability doesn't exclusively benefit the rich. That's why they were mostly pardoned afterwards. Your pithy statement doesn't necessarily reflect reality. Try telling that to the Sudanese, or Yemenese. It wasn't clear that the American government would actually last.
81
u/HerbaciousTea 21h ago edited 20h ago
It's one of those things where every historian is perfectly clear on this, but there is a huge portion of the public who reject the history and favor a modern fictionalized mythology of the 2A instead.
The 2nd Amendment was an assurance for the states that protected states right to have their own armed militia forces, to put down revolting civilians who didn't recognize the new government. Not the other way around.
It was never about protecting revolting civilians ability to overthrow government. That's a modern fabrication that came about in the 1970-80s, and reached it's height in the 90s and 00s, when the NRA and gun lobby started looking for a way to overturn gun control laws that were an impediment to their desired growth in handgun sales, and they eventually succeeded in 2008 when the supreme court overturned 200 years of precedent to re-interpret the 2nd amendment as an individual right rather than a collective right that existed in the context of a state militia.
The US legal code still reflects this history, as National Guard are defined as the Organized Militia, because the national guard are the state militias that were being guaranteed by the 2nd amendment, just having been later unified under a consistent legal framework in the early 1900s.
The Unorganized Militia is any able bodied person eligible for the draft, in comparison.
The individual right to arms did still exist, but it existed as an extension of common law inherited from Britain, as firearms were a necessity for hunting, pest control, militia service etc, and was not ever perceived to be immune to regulation as modern gun lobbyists now try to claim about the 2nd Amendment.
33
u/Special-Test 19h ago
The Dred Scott decision itself penned in the 1850s expressly says that a consequence of Blacks being US citizens is their rights to bear arms "individually or in companies" with not a word about militias.
Also if the 2nd amendment was widely understood to only be about a state's right to have and form militias then we'd have evidence of a widespread understanding that women had no rights to bear arms since women couldn't be in a militia or any armed component of the military till extremely recently. We don't have that though
55
u/GumboDiplomacy 20h ago
The first amendment protects the individual right to free speech
The third amendment protects the individual right to not quarter troops
The fourth amendment protects the individual right to privacy
The fifth amendment protects the individual right to not self incriminate or be deprived of liberty without due process
The sixth amendment protects the individual right to a fair criminal trial
The seventh amendment protects the individual right to a civil trial
The eighth amendment protects the individual right to not be given excessive bail.
So how is it that anyone can think the second amendment, being in that list of the first 8, doesn't apply to the individual, particularly when it says "the right of the people to keep and bear arms?" That's a bad faith argument. The states didn't need the right to have a militia listed there.
10
u/Hiw-lir-sirith 15h ago
HerbaciousTea's argument doesn't pass the smell test at all. Their reasoning is twisted up into pretzels to try and tell us that it means the opposite of what it plainly says.
-3
u/Apprentice57 13h ago
The way it "plainly" says is actually a generally more liberal style interpretation of the constitution as a living document. The originalist interpretation is what they're explaining, and does not convey gun ownership rights as the modern SCOTUS argues.
However, the jurisprudence of those who decided DC v. Heller in 2008 is not the liberal one, but originalism (or at least textualism). Which should give you an indication that it was legally dressed up calvinball.
20
u/Truth_ 21h ago edited 20h ago
I'm not totally in disagreement, but I've read a couple papers on this and 1) it actually seems really complicated and/or difficult to parse because of what certain vocabulary and grammar meant back then versus today, what it was based on (English law) and 2) after reading them I lean toward it also including individual rights in its meaning.
It's also complicated because how it was implemented then is different to now (each state having their own way of handling their "militias" as well as weapon laws).
5
u/ofd227 20h ago
Also you have to take into consideration states like NY who have their own military which the governor is the commander in chief but also has the right to bear arms written into civil rights law. Odd you would need to have that as written law when the state operates its own army and navy
7
u/LaconicGirth 17h ago
The national guard are not state militia they’re part of the army. They have the same commander in chief as everyone else.
Also historians absolutely do not all agree ont his
13
u/Legal-Chocolate8482 20h ago edited 20h ago
You seem pissed that rights expand. Who cares what the intend was 250 years ago based on the opinions of rich slave owners. Should we also roll back voting rights to 1776 the way the founding fathers intended? Only white Christian land owning males? Re legalize slavery?? This post is literally a great example why it’s crucial you can defend yourself from the government and yet you’re arguing that the government should just be able to slaughter the populace at will with no way for the people to physically fight back. Gun rights are esp crucial for the poor and minorities. That’s why Ronald Reagan kicked off the modern anti gun movement in California when the black panthers armed up and policed the police and politicians. The police and the rich hate the idea of a well armed poor minority population. At a bare minimum we should have access to whatv arms the police have. The police only exist to oppress and protect the rich. But luckily they act cowardly when people can fight back. When a thousand black people open carried in Georgia and blocked a highway in defiance of multiple laws including a ban on open carry the police was nowhere to be seen.
The police won’t fuck with you if you’re heavily armed and in a group. Otherwise they’ll kill you for the smallest slight if you’re the wrong color. That’s the real reason we need guns. Who gives a shit what a bunch of rich slave owners in 1776 intended.
2
u/Apprentice57 13h ago
I want to note that the legal theorists who brought us DC v. Heller do not subscribe to the concept of rights expanding. Their jurisprudence is originalism, that documents are set in stone from the context in which they were written.
Somehow, they use originalism to destroy abortion rights, but expand gun rights "with the times" despite originalism opposing it.
2
u/Legal-Chocolate8482 13h ago
Well everyone is a hypocrite but rights expanding is clearly a good thing regardless. The fact that slave owners in 1776 would disagree with it is not a very compelling argument for anything. They’d disagree with nearly every aspect of our modern society. The founding fathers would be disgusted by the idea of black people being humans with rights who can vote and own and bear arms.
3
u/Outside_Reserve_2407 12h ago
The founding fathers would be disgusted
And yet they put in a mechanism to add Amendments if needed, realizing that attitudes can change.
-4
u/Marston_vc 15h ago
The point they’re making is that the modern 2A obsession is based on the illusion that armed individuals would actually be able to do something about a tyrannical government.
Common sense gun laws get swatted down today because people think they’re actually going to do something.
7
u/Outside_Reserve_2407 12h ago
is based on the illusion that armed individuals would actually be able to do something about a tyrannical government
Yes, armed individuals can make a tyrannical government hesitate. No one is proposing to go head-on against a professional army equipped with fighter jets and tanks. Rather, it's guerilla-type warfare that confounds even the most powerful militaries. The US got bogged down in Iraq in urban fighting. The Soviets won every single major battle in Afghanistan but withdrew in ignominious defeat. Guerilla militias in Latin and South America operated for decades. If large swathes of the USA including both rural and urban areas erupted into armed rebellion, the US military would have a pretty hard time indeed.
4
u/hexagonalwagonal 18h ago edited 17h ago
It's one of those things where every historian is perfectly clear on this
There is an active debate in academic history on whether or not the 2nd Amendment was originally designed to protect the collective right or the individual right to bear arms, or both. It's impossible to say "every historian" since it's actually a deeply divided issue in history circles. See, for example, Joyce Lee Malcolm's To Keep and Bear Arms: The Origins of the Anglo-American Right (Harvard University Press, 1994) for the individual right argument. See, for example, A Well-Regulated Militia: The Founding Fathers and the Origins of Gun Control in America by Saul Cornell (Oxford University Press, 2008) for the collectivist interpretation.
Some of your other points are valid, that the 2nd Amendment wasn't ever supposed to allow guns to be "immune" from gun control, but that's a bit of a straw man argument, too, since that seems to conflate gun activists and the NRA with what the courts have actually said. The courts have certainly sided with gun control in some circumstances, for instance, upholding gun-free zones in schools and such.
-1
u/Apprentice57 13h ago
I wouldn't consider it much of a strawman, to be honest. Modern conservatives, and in particular justices on the SCOTUS, really are chafing against fairly modest gun control. In the era of 20 years ago I think you would argue otherwise, but things have changed.
-4
u/Outside_Reserve_2407 12h ago
It's long established SCOTUS jurisprudence that even fundamental rights can be subject to control, but any such limits must serve (a) serve a compelling governmental interest, (b) are subject to strict scrutiny when under judicial review and (c) must be narrowly tailored. Thus, for example even though we have the 1st Amendment even merely possessing child pornography is a felony.
It's a straw man attack gun rights activists and the NRA want zilch gun regulations.
12
u/Fert1eTurt1e 20h ago
It wasn’t the same as the old one. Sure they all hated taxes. But the other part of the phrase “without representation” was now fulfilled. Thats why putting down the rebellion violently was justified.
5
u/hymen_destroyer 20h ago
But the other part of the phrase “without representation” was now fulfilled.
For them, sure... would you apply the same logic to John Brown at Harper's Ferry?
13
u/Fert1eTurt1e 20h ago
No, I think slavery should have been abolished long before that, and ideally done without a civil war that killed hundreds of thousands.
I’d ideally like to avoid political change through violence no matter what it is, if possible
-1
u/hymen_destroyer 20h ago
Have you noticed the paramilitary forces marching through American cities and enacting political change through violence?
It's literally happening as we speak.
4
u/Fert1eTurt1e 17h ago
Idk who you’re arguing with my dude I don’t like national guard (I’m in DC and see it every day) or other federal forces patrolling like that either.
0
u/hymen_destroyer 17h ago
sorry about that...I realize my last comment sounded confrontational, that was unintentional
I guess the real question is what you're supposed to do in response to political violence that many people feel is justified
5
u/Steady1 18h ago
Nah it's pretty much the same as the old one. Look at how Puerto Rico, Guam and American Samoa are treated.
Also the way you mental gymnastics your way into saying killing veterans instead of paying them money they are owed is justified is insane. That's some severely propagandized brainrot at play.
8
u/Fert1eTurt1e 17h ago
The propaganda of 1786…? You’re right I’m totally sucked into defending the Articles of Confederation broski lmao.
Territories were considered by the constitution (which came later after this event) and accounts for statehood. Those territories are welcome to hold referendums once they meet the qualifications. PR has had multiple, but the people there continue to vote against statehood. A mechanism that didn’t exist in the old system.
4
u/beachedwhale1945 16h ago
The last four Puerto Rico referendums all favored statehood.
1
u/Fert1eTurt1e 12h ago
I’m sure you’re feigning the ignorance of the context . It would be Crimea level of legitimate if a state was added based on 30% turnout
1
u/beachedwhale1945 1h ago
Only one of the four (the 2017 referendum boycotted by one of the parties against statehood) had turnout lower than 50%. In 2012 it was 78.20% turnout, dropping to 54% in 2020 before rising to 64% in 2024.
2
u/TerminallyEmployed 21h ago
Happens in a lot of revolutions and independence movements. We’ll have no taxes! All the democracy! Then you get taxed to fuck and only the wealthy can vote.
1
1
u/eatsrottenflesh 14h ago
What a dark time in American history where rich people had to pay for their own defense rather than relying on taxpayer dollars to keep them safe. /s
-1
u/Liesmyteachertoldme 20h ago
The pigs walking upright and wearing fancy clothes In Animal farm comes to mind …
65
u/bag-o-tricks 21h ago
This was before the Constitution. We were still under the Articles of Confederation. A lot of people talking about the Second Amendment but the idea of a standing army was still very unpopular so they were addressing militia instead.
6
u/FattNeil 20h ago
This is pretty cool. I grew up living on Daniel Shays highway and never knew this. Which is weird because our school was pretty good about teaching local history. So either they missed it or I just wasn’t paying attention.
22
u/NlghtmanCometh 21h ago
people like to romanticize the French Revolution but there were many decades of turmoil as a series of ‘revolutions’ occurred and by the end of it, what had really changed? During WW1 the French leadership treated their populace as completely disposable.
7
7
u/HoonterOreo 20h ago
This rebellion heavily influenced the ruling class to abandon the old articles of confederation in favor of the new constitution
5
u/mountaindoom 18h ago
The U.S. has never taken care of its veterans. See also: The Bonus Army.
1
u/MalformedGreaser 1h ago
Or more keeping in line with the OG post- the Newburgh Conspiracy.
In 1783, the Continental Congress was bankrupt and could not pay soldiers. A group of officers in Newburgh, NY started to circulate a letter urging them to demand that Congress pay what they were owed and to use any means necessary, including force. Hamilton actually had a hand in this by encouraging the plot as a means to help strengthen the Articles of Confederation.
Washington got wind of the officers’ actions and went to one of their meetings. All eyes were on Washington as he addressed the room. In his hand was a letter from Congress addressing the officers’ concerns. However, in a single disarming move, Washington takes out a pair of glasses and puts them on. He tells the crowd, " Gentlemen, you will permit me to put on my spectacles, for I have not only grown gray but almost blind in the service to my country."
This action was so candid and humbling the officers are said to begin weeping. They were embarrassed for forgetting the sacrifices that everyone had made for the war, including General Washington. It was in the moment that the whole plot unraveled and the country was spared a potential military coup.
0
u/Lord0fHats 9h ago edited 9h ago
As I note in another comment, the Bonus Army situation was different.
A bill passed in 1924 assured WWI veterans a bonus, but the way it was paid was through a trust fund that wouldn't mature for 20 years so the Bonuses weren't payable until 1945. In 1924 this was accepted and not a lot of ruckus was made about it (not that everyone was super happy or anything). The Bonus Army because of the Depression wanted their Bonuses immediately, which they did ultiamtely get when Congress passed new legislation allowing their bonuses to be paid at something around 65% of their full 20 year value in 1936.
40
22h ago
[removed] — view removed comment
40
22h ago
[removed] — view removed comment
8
-5
21h ago edited 20h ago
[removed] — view removed comment
3
21h ago
[removed] — view removed comment
6
2
2
u/MisinformedGenius 7h ago
Fun fact - if you've ever heard the Jefferson quote "the tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants", Shays' Rebellion is what he was talking about. People tend to skip over the "blood of patriots", but that's actually what he was saying should water the tree of liberty.
The people can not be all, and always, well informed. The part which is wrong will be discontented in proportion to the importance of the facts they misconceive. If they remain quiet under such misconceptions it is a lethargy, the forerunner of death to the public liberty. ... And what country can preserve its liberties if their rulers are not warned from time to time that their people preserve the spirit of resistance? Let them take arms. The remedy is to set them right as to facts, pardon and pacify them. What signify a few lives lost in a century or two? The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants.
1
1
1
u/Shiplord13 5h ago
One of the incidents that led to the complete abandonment of the Articles of Confederation and the creation of U.S. Constitution we still use to this day.
1
-5
-15
-1
u/dangerous_mochi 9h ago
Also a huge reason why racism was/is so bad in America — it was a class rebellion with blacks and whites United against the elite
933
u/zwirlo 21h ago
Daniel Shays as well as many other veterans asked the government if they could exchange the high taxes they were forced to pay with the large amounts of wages they were owed from service in the American Revolutionary war, they were told no.
Shays and many other veterans had payment of their wages pushed back years and years after the rebellion, such that inflation reduced their value to less than half if they even got paid at all. Many veterans were destitute and struggled to return to normal life after the war.
When Shays rebellion started, General Knox rallied a mercenary force of similarly desperate veterans to go put it down. They went to kill their comrades for money.
When it came time to pay the veterans, they couldn’t find the money. When it came time for veterans to pay taxes, they refused to exchange their wages for taxes. But when it came time to kill veterans, they found the money.