What would happen if Shays rebellions succeeded in its mission and marched on Philadelphia
WI: Shays Rebellion succeeded
- Thread starter JosefStalin
- Start date
ManintheField
Banned
You mean Boston. Why would they march on Philadelphia?
They would have set up a more broadly democratic state government in Massachusetts, similar to the one in Pennsylvania. They would have begun paper money emissions similar to the ones in other states to ease the burdens of debtors. They may or may not have adopted something like the direct election of judges or perhaps even something more radical related to the judicial system.
In the long run the ramifications would have been enormous. A kinship social system would have successfully defeated and toppled a state-capitalist social system and one of the less democratic state governments would have been replaced by one of the most democratic governments. New York's state government, especially, would have started shaking in its boots. The Constitutionalist party in Pennsylvania would have seen a huge boost as they were joined by another radically democratic state government.
I can imagine there would be unofficial condemnation of what happened from some of the more securely limited franchise states and other butterflies in the other states, but I'm not exactly sure what they would all be. Similarly, there would be deep social implications as time goes on throughout the early United States. Popular power, which was already at a high ebb IOTL in this period, would drift even higher.
They would have set up a more broadly democratic state government in Massachusetts, similar to the one in Pennsylvania. They would have begun paper money emissions similar to the ones in other states to ease the burdens of debtors. They may or may not have adopted something like the direct election of judges or perhaps even something more radical related to the judicial system.
In the long run the ramifications would have been enormous. A kinship social system would have successfully defeated and toppled a state-capitalist social system and one of the less democratic state governments would have been replaced by one of the most democratic governments. New York's state government, especially, would have started shaking in its boots. The Constitutionalist party in Pennsylvania would have seen a huge boost as they were joined by another radically democratic state government.
I can imagine there would be unofficial condemnation of what happened from some of the more securely limited franchise states and other butterflies in the other states, but I'm not exactly sure what they would all be. Similarly, there would be deep social implications as time goes on throughout the early United States. Popular power, which was already at a high ebb IOTL in this period, would drift even higher.
ManintheField
Banned
There isn't going to be a Federal Constitution ITTL, at least nothing like what happened IOTL. Even if something like the Annapolis and Philadelphia Conventions happened, if pro-Ratificationists tried to pull in a democratic Massachusetts what they pulled in Pennsylvania, only a few years after armed resistance had ousted an unpopular government in MA, many people will just not accept it and will call alternative ratification conventions and reject the draft constitution.
If the federal government is in any way strengthened over the federal government of the Articles, it will be significantly weaker than that of OTL and might even take several rounds of drafting conventions and rejection by the states before it is adopted.
If the federal government is in any way strengthened over the federal government of the Articles, it will be significantly weaker than that of OTL and might even take several rounds of drafting conventions and rejection by the states before it is adopted.
I think the government would not be all that powerful. When Washington kicked Shays ass the entire US shat a collective brick and decide to not push the governments buttons. If Washington was defeated their would be more rebellions and possibly, if all goes wrong, separate states.
I don't think Washington was involved in Shays' Rebellion, which was put down by a combination of loyal elements of the Massachusetts state militia under William Shepard and a private militia under Benjamin Lincoln . Are you perhaps thinking of the later Whiskey Rebellion?
ManintheField
Banned
Washington was retired quietly at Mt Vernon at the time Shays Revolt occurred. The man who put down Shays and Co was Benjamin Lincoln.
This could be a really interesting direction for the US to take. I'd love to see a TL that explores not only more direct democracy taking hold, but how it ripples out to affect the make-up of the Union itself.
Let's hypothesize what would have happened to Shay and his rebellion after defeating the mercenaries arrayed against by the state of Massachusetts on the battlefield. Remember, those rebelling were mostly revolutionary war veterans turned western farmers who had become heavily indebted to be eastern banks. I can only imagine Shay's men, like all other peasant rebellions in history, had two goals: cancel the debt and redistribute the land. Canceling the debt is easy enough. Simply take Boston, storm the banks (and/or courthouses, I should research that point) and burn the records.
Lets stand back a moment and think. How does the major banking institutions of Boston having their scores burned in 1788 (I believe that was the year, correct me if I'm wrong) alter history? More specifically, what other records could be lost? Revolutionary war debts? How does that affect things? And what would the response of the other states be?
Speaking of political response, we are assuming Shay's army entered Boston unopposed and burned records. I had to imagine most of the state government and many wealthy merchants would flee at that sight, particularly since the urban poor who worked in the docks and the streets are likely to rise up also; there is potential even for mass looting (possibly targeted at the wealthy, but usually such activity devolves to indiscrimate looting and arson).
What next? Perhaps Shay declares the officials who fled illegitimate representatives and tries to set up his own government. Whether such an effort is actual successful depends on how invested his followers are in its success. And that returns to the second question. What is the situation of land distribution in rural Massachusetts? If it is monopolized by a few land holders who rent out shares to farmers, there would be an impetus to redistribute that land. If not, the rebellion may lose steam; Shay and his men would likely return west to their farms secure in the knowledge that they had broken their bonds to their creditors. And as a result, the Boston elite would reconvene and decide how to punish the upstart peasants; or if they even could.
Lets stand back a moment and think. How does the major banking institutions of Boston having their scores burned in 1788 (I believe that was the year, correct me if I'm wrong) alter history? More specifically, what other records could be lost? Revolutionary war debts? How does that affect things? And what would the response of the other states be?
Speaking of political response, we are assuming Shay's army entered Boston unopposed and burned records. I had to imagine most of the state government and many wealthy merchants would flee at that sight, particularly since the urban poor who worked in the docks and the streets are likely to rise up also; there is potential even for mass looting (possibly targeted at the wealthy, but usually such activity devolves to indiscrimate looting and arson).
What next? Perhaps Shay declares the officials who fled illegitimate representatives and tries to set up his own government. Whether such an effort is actual successful depends on how invested his followers are in its success. And that returns to the second question. What is the situation of land distribution in rural Massachusetts? If it is monopolized by a few land holders who rent out shares to farmers, there would be an impetus to redistribute that land. If not, the rebellion may lose steam; Shay and his men would likely return west to their farms secure in the knowledge that they had broken their bonds to their creditors. And as a result, the Boston elite would reconvene and decide how to punish the upstart peasants; or if they even could.
ManintheField
Banned
It wouldn't necessarily be any more directly democratic, it would just include a broader franchise earlier, as well as probably having similar institutions to the radical Pennsylvania Constitution of 1776. That is, a unicameral legislature, a weak executive with little capacity to over-rule the legislature, and other institutions of the radical wing of American politics in the North in this time period.
I agree, but I doubt the staying power of the rebellion's government. At the end of the day, the farmers were to back to their fields and families and the political class will come back of their holes to seek retribution.
ManintheField
Banned
I don't really think many of the actual rebels would become permanent members of the government. You would just see men being elected who can appeal to the broader franchise and policy being made based on this electorate's needs, rather than based on the needs of the constrained electorate that existed IOTL.
ManintheField
Banned
They were economic policies that were actually adopted, in part, a few years later. A hypothetical state government after a successful Shays Rebellion would have likely just emitted paper currency similar to what was happening in several other states at the time.
Well, A successful Shays' rebellion is not doable long term.
However let's just say that they manage to take Boston. They burn all the land and debt documents held by the courts, the government, and the banks. Such an event I think would spark one or both of two reactions, one potential, one guaranteed. The potential reaction is that it inspires similar rebellions across other states where similar preceding events occurred. The guaranteed reaction is that an army is called up to take Shays down.
If the successful taking of Boston does not inspire similar uprising across New England, it will lead to the congress calling up an army, and possibly calling up Washington out of retirement, to crush the rebellion. If this happens than we see the creation of a constitution with more authority vested in the Federal Government, and we probably don't see the restriction on the Federal government sending in troops into a state without that state's permission, along with a few other things.
However if the taking of Boston does inspire similar uprising across New England and possibly the rest of the United States, it will definitely call Washington out of retirement and put together an army. They would most likely try to take Boston back first and then hang Shay and the other leaders to make examples of them. They do this in hopes of scaring the other rebels in other states back to their farms so they don't have to fight more. This also leads to a constitution being formed with a much stronger national government, with little authority being granted to states. We might even see a model Hamilton proposed being adopted out of fear of too much popular democracy.
However let's just say that they manage to take Boston. They burn all the land and debt documents held by the courts, the government, and the banks. Such an event I think would spark one or both of two reactions, one potential, one guaranteed. The potential reaction is that it inspires similar rebellions across other states where similar preceding events occurred. The guaranteed reaction is that an army is called up to take Shays down.
If the successful taking of Boston does not inspire similar uprising across New England, it will lead to the congress calling up an army, and possibly calling up Washington out of retirement, to crush the rebellion. If this happens than we see the creation of a constitution with more authority vested in the Federal Government, and we probably don't see the restriction on the Federal government sending in troops into a state without that state's permission, along with a few other things.
However if the taking of Boston does inspire similar uprising across New England and possibly the rest of the United States, it will definitely call Washington out of retirement and put together an army. They would most likely try to take Boston back first and then hang Shay and the other leaders to make examples of them. They do this in hopes of scaring the other rebels in other states back to their farms so they don't have to fight more. This also leads to a constitution being formed with a much stronger national government, with little authority being granted to states. We might even see a model Hamilton proposed being adopted out of fear of too much popular democracy.
If Shays rebellion succeeds, it sets the precedent that anytime someone, anyone doesnt like taxes or the debts theyve incurred, they can instigate armed rebellion. This pretty much guarantees toothless central governments, be they state or federal, and destroys the banking system. Who's going to lend money if any debtor can simply refuse to pay.
ManintheField
Banned
I don't see why not.
First, very few if any of the Shaysites would be indebted to the (extremely few) banks in Boston. Off the top of my head I can only think of one that existed in 1786, I'm not sure if it was the only one or not. It may have been. Even then, in this period chartered banks lent almost exclusively to wealthy merchants involved in international trade, not back-woods farmers looking to finance a season's harvest.
The 1780's are largely a time before institutional money lending. Most money lending was between individuals.
The primary debts that existed in the 1780s were tax debts -- taxes owed that weren't paid. The reason these existed at all was because, in the wake of the hyperinflation of the Revolution and decades of British policy designed to drain specie from the future US, North America was very gold and silver poor at the time, especially the back country which had had little opportunity to participate in international commerce where such specie would come from.
In Massachusetts the state government was intent on paying it the debts it incurred during the Revolution very quickly and at 'face value' in specie. This meant drastically hiking property taxes on men who often had no vote and thus no real representation in the General Court. By refusing to take paper money for tax payments and by curtailing the issue of paper money vis the large issues of the Revolutionary period, the state government forced people into a double-pronged situation of both public and private debt deflation. Of course they revolted -- imagine what farmers would have done during the Great Depression if they were well-armed enough to imagine they might be able to beat the tax and debt collectors that founded them.
This was an issue that, while not Massachusetts exclusive, was very MA centric. Rhode Island and Connecticutt didn't face Shaysite revolts purely because their governments had already begun issuing more paper money and accepting that paper money in the payment of taxes (and generally recognizing it in courts for payment of private debts). Several other states did so, too, and most of the rest did one or the other. The states where Shaysite agitation happened -- more or less Massachusetts and New Hampshire -- were the only states to obstinately stick to their deflationary policies.
A. Taking Boston would not inspire similar uprisings across New England for the reasons I outlined above. Massachusetts also had an almost unique restrictive franchise vis the rest of New England.
B. Congress would never have been able to pay an army capable of defeating a Shaysite Massachusetts government. I'm not even sure Washington would have been willing to come out of retirement -- it took enough as is to bring him to the Philadelphia Convention.
There won't be other rebels in other states, for the most part. The problems that drove people to revolt in Massachusetts were mostly not present in other states in the same mixture and to the same degree. Likewise, the kinship relationships that mustered out in support of the Shaysites were generally not as strong or numerous in other states as in New England.
What is most likely to happen is what I have outlined several times in this topic: The Shaysites get a new Massachusetts state constitution that is much more radically democratic than the conservative one they had IOTL and you end up with Massachusetts following the same inflationary policies that other states followed (and that MA followed to a degree a few years later anyway).
EDIT: Seriously guys, Shays' Revolt wasn't just generic peasants revolt #354285, it was an incipient civil war between a kinship based, town-centered agrarian culture based mostly on barely above subsistence agriculture and local handicraft manufacture versus an infant plutocratic culture based on commercial ties centered on large urban port areas. Similar tensions existed up and down the seaboard but managed to stay below a boil because political compromise happened without the threat of violence. Compromise in MA, on the other hand, only happened after desperate Boston merchants were barely able to defend their control of the government and started throwing bones at the popular faction. The goals of the Shaysite faction and the causes of the revolt are significantly more complicated than you all seem to be thinking. Even I'm barely scratching the surface.
EDIT2: Like, I guess it's hard for you guys to understand this, but talking about the revolutionaries burning land records is probably one of the most ridiculous things I've ever heard on this website. These were small farmers who owned their own land and were revolting, in part, so that they could keep it. Why in the hell would they burn the public register that held their title deeds?
Last edited:
Three points about the Massachusetts political/economic situation that'll be very significant here:
* The rebels did own land. Just about every farmer owned land, if it hadn't been auctioned for back taxes in the leadup to the rebellion. So yes, after revamping whatever they change, they'll return to their farms.
* Unlike Pennsylvania, New England had town meetings, with direct democracy. They're well-known channels for debate on state matters, as well as local government. Town meetings frequently sent instructions to their state legislators, which they almost always felt honor-bound to obey. Several years later iOTL, town meetings will elect delegates to the Federal Constitutional ratification convention - after debating at great length and binding the majority of delegates with specific instructions and explanations of reasons. Whatever changes the rebels make to the Commonwealth's Constitution will almost certainly involve town meetings.
* The rural town meetings' main complaint wasn't that they were formally disenfranchised - they could elect legislators just the same as any other township and bind them with instructions. Their problem was that they couldn't pay their legislators. A couple years previously, Massachusetts had stopped paying legislators from the state treasury and instead assigned the job to the respective townships. For the eastern towns, this wasn't a problem: they were generally richer, and travel costs to Boston were lower. For the west, though, this was so much of a problem that for several years leading up to the rebellion, most western seats in the legislature went entirely unfilled. This was why they felt they had to rebel. If they make any legal change at all, it will be paying legislators from the state treasury.
* The rebels did own land. Just about every farmer owned land, if it hadn't been auctioned for back taxes in the leadup to the rebellion. So yes, after revamping whatever they change, they'll return to their farms.
* Unlike Pennsylvania, New England had town meetings, with direct democracy. They're well-known channels for debate on state matters, as well as local government. Town meetings frequently sent instructions to their state legislators, which they almost always felt honor-bound to obey. Several years later iOTL, town meetings will elect delegates to the Federal Constitutional ratification convention - after debating at great length and binding the majority of delegates with specific instructions and explanations of reasons. Whatever changes the rebels make to the Commonwealth's Constitution will almost certainly involve town meetings.
* The rural town meetings' main complaint wasn't that they were formally disenfranchised - they could elect legislators just the same as any other township and bind them with instructions. Their problem was that they couldn't pay their legislators. A couple years previously, Massachusetts had stopped paying legislators from the state treasury and instead assigned the job to the respective townships. For the eastern towns, this wasn't a problem: they were generally richer, and travel costs to Boston were lower. For the west, though, this was so much of a problem that for several years leading up to the rebellion, most western seats in the legislature went entirely unfilled. This was why they felt they had to rebel. If they make any legal change at all, it will be paying legislators from the state treasury.
ManintheField
Banned
Here we go, I like this post.
1. Great, love it.
2. I agree. I think control over town delegates to the General Court may become more formal in a new constitution.
3. This I'm not 100% on board with. While also very true, Massachusetts did have more restrictive property requirements than many other states in the North. While Rhode Island had similarly high property requirements, Rhode Island was a very small state so travel times and the coastal/urban/commercial and backwoods/town/agrarian divide was much smaller.
What do you think would happen in the event the revolt actually got off the ground and managed to at least threaten Boston to the point where serious concessions can be bargained for?
1. Great, love it.
2. I agree. I think control over town delegates to the General Court may become more formal in a new constitution.
3. This I'm not 100% on board with. While also very true, Massachusetts did have more restrictive property requirements than many other states in the North. While Rhode Island had similarly high property requirements, Rhode Island was a very small state so travel times and the coastal/urban/commercial and backwoods/town/agrarian divide was much smaller.
What do you think would happen in the event the revolt actually got off the ground and managed to at least threaten Boston to the point where serious concessions can be bargained for?