The end of the American Revolutionary War in 1783 should have seen the start of a bright new future for the newly minted United States of America. The 13 colonies had already ratified in 1781 a document that had raised rebels into the ranks of real nations. The agreement which was drafted in 1776 called the Articles of Confederation was as revolutionary as the war. While the Articles did help to form a nation, it did little to transform the attitudes of the haves toward the have-nots. The path toward rebellion against the status quo was as certain as the rising of the sun.

The abstract for the article Suppressing Shays’ Rebellion says it all in two sentences. According to Cain and Dougherty, the states had sufficient resources to fund a national army but did not free up these resources to the fledgling nation’s benefit. This revealed the weakness inherent in the Articles of Confederation (Cain, 1999, p. 233). The thirteen colonies were attempting to break free of British domination. An often hurled and legitimate complaint regarding the home country was that British politicians and merchants put self-interest and profits over the welfare of the people. The irony is that the newly formed and free United States of America emulated the British mantra of profit above people.

The famous rebellion, which helped to bring about an end to the Articles and gave rise to the Constitution, was led by a true American patriot. Daniel Shays was the son of Irish immigrants who had moved in the 1730s to the then British colony of Massachusetts (Shays’ Rebellion, People: Daniel Shays, 2012). Shays was exactly the type of success story of which every nation could be proud. He rose from a poor background to a captaincy in the Continental Army. His parents were without land of their own while he eventually ended up owning 251 acres of farm land. His service to his nation and his success as a gentleman farmer should have left him as little more than a footnote in early American history. The Articles of Confederation changed this war hero into a reluctant rebel against his own government.

The Articles of Confederation were the law of the land in American colonies and later the United States of America from March 1781 to March 1789. A relatively brief period from winning independence in 1783 until the ratification of the Constitution was enough to lead the United States to its first real economic crisis as a nation. The state government of Massachusetts decided to enact a ruinous policy that spelled financial disaster for honest, hardworking patriots such as Daniel Shays. The decision to pay off war debt by demanding tax payment strictly in limited amounts of gold and silver was a sure way to damage goodwill and good credit. Heroes and farmers both lost a lot because of ill thought out taxation which was unregulated by the national government.

Shays went from successful gentleman farmer to losing half his lands and being sued more than once for debt (Shays’ Rebellion, People: Daniel Shays, 2012). This sad state of affairs might not have come about if Congress had had the funds necessary to give the expected and essential back pay which every soldier deserved. The short-sighted policies of Massachusetts politicians created a formula for disaster. The government helped create the recession by refusing to release funds providing soldiers with money which they had rightfully expected. The economy suffered thanks to the fact that soldiers had little money to spend on goods in shops. The subsequent rebellion would likely not have happened if state governments such as Massachusetts had been required under national law to provide for its citizenry.

Daniel Shays simply wanted to live the newly born American dream. The Articles of Confederation favored the individual states to the extent that citizens only had recourse to governments who had an interest in keeping up the status quo. Shays’ Rebellion was no more than the cry of a desperate group of men who believed that they should be allowed to take their proper place in the American sunshine.

 

References

Berkin, C. (2011). Making America: A History. Independence, Kentucky. Wadsworth Cengage

           Learning.

Cain, M.J.G. & Dougherty, K.L. (1999, April). Suppressing Shays’ Rebellion. Journal of Theo-
          retical Politics, 11(2), 233-260. Retrieved from http://www.sagepub.com

Nettels, C.P. (1952, Spring). British Mercantilism and the Economic Development of the Thir

           teen Colonies. The Journal of Economic History, 12(2), 105-114. Retrieved from

           http://www.jstor.org

Shays’ Rebellion. (2012). Historic Scenes. Retrieved from
           http://shaysrebellion.stcc.edu/index.html

The British government and its merchants aligned to create a form of mercantilism that ensured the coffers continued to fill at a steady rate. An effort was made to ensure that the various British possessions, including the North American colonies, remained completely dependent upon trade with the homeland. According to Nettels, the British did want to achieve total self-sufficiency. This was not possible, even despite the protective tariffs put into place by the government. The tariffs and taxes imposed to keep the royals and merchants rich led to resentment among those who were under British domination. Mercantilism at its extreme was exclusionary and ultimately self-defeating for the British. 

The British did their best to create and support homegrown agriculture and industries. Citizens were encouraged to show initiative, and those who did were given benefits by the state (Nettels, 1952, p. 106). This was not act of socialism as Nettels points out. Those who showed initiative and succeeded were duly rewarded, whereas as those who risked all and failed were not propped up by the state.

The growth of colonial agricultural development and native industries led to the creation of the Navigation Acts. These acts were a trade barrier designed to funnel all trade from the colonies through British ports. Colonists were not allowed to trade directly with the other nations of Europe. The first act was created in 1651 and revised periodically in small ways. The act came about thanks to the Eighty Years’ War which ended in 1648. The British found themselves in a competition which saw a decrease in the power and profitability of trade. Thus, the requirement of the colonies to trade directly with the home country was designed to shield British merchants from a competitive war of which there was no guarantee of winning.

The colonists in the New World were supposed to remain agrarian and send to Britain produce such as tobacco and cotton. Whatever industrial development necessary was to be controlled and overseen by the British. The colonists were primarily in supporting roles, even when the British overseers were new to the shores. The local knowledge and expertise of the colonists was seen as less important to advancement than place of birth. At the same time, the British showed no aversion to exploiting the locals. The Navigation Acts were meant to ensure that the cotton, tobacco, and other colonial goods enriched the British above all.

Every law which protected British merchants came about not because of governmental innovation and policies, but rather as a response to developments which merchants (British or otherwise) were responsible for (Nettels, 1952, p. 108). According to Nettels, the colonists were given free rein in developing industries until such time as they threatened British industries and British profits. The Staple Act was pushed for by British merchants requiring colonists to buy manufactured goods and even slaves from the home country.

The colonists were subjected to the ultimate in protectionist policies. British interests came above all others. The growth of slavery in the colonies came about in large part as a method of colonists attempting to reduce expenditures. Although the slaves had to be bought from Britain, the workers then provide a source of cheap labor. Farmers were completely dependent upon the home country because of the artificial imbalance in trade. The colonists could only buy and sell to the British. Thus, conditions were set which left an indebtedness which could never be fully done away with. The Navigation Act did stimulate the growth of shipping and shipbuilding (Nettels, 1952, p. 110), but the colonists were still restricted in where those ships could sail.

The British government (thanks to the direct influence of the merchant class) did its best to restrict and manipulate colonial trade. The gross imbalance did much to lead the colonists down the path of rebellion. The infamous Stamp Act of 1765 happened to be the straw which finally broke the backs of the colonists. Trade restrictions and barriers were no longer enough to contain a people who wanted self-determination.

 

References

Berkin, C. (2011). Making America: A History. Independence, Kentucky. Wadsworth Cengage

           Learning.

Nettels, C.P. (1952, Spring). British Mercantilism and the Economic Development of the Thir

           teen Colonies. The Journal of Economic History, 12(2), 105-114. Retrieved from

           http://www.jstor.org.