Viable "Unfederalized" US Map?

The men involved in the unrest that we call Shays' Rebellion certainly did not want Massachusetts to default.


Their demands, if met in full, would have caused a default. There's no practical difference between wanting a default or wanting policies which will cause a default.

In fact, they probably weren't thinking in those terms at all: None of these men were the types to overly concern themselves with high matters of state.

That's very important. While Shay and his followers didn't know and weren't concerned with the long term results their demands would create, those results would still be caused by their actions.

A default and the economic chaos that would follow would have been an unintended consequence and not an actual goal.

They actually got a lot of their concerns addressed, even in military failure. A new, somewhat more democratic constitution was adopted, the burden of taxation no longer fell so heavily on the western counties, and ultimately the Federal government assumed state debts, anyway.

Yes they did. Some of the reforms they wanted were laudable, some would have been disastrous, and one of the largest reforms they unwittingly helped spark was the Constitution.
 

Shackel

Banned
I find it rather funny, Don, that you decided to say this isn't a school when your comments are based more on my terms than the idea itself.
 
I find it rather funny, Don, that you decided to say this isn't a school when your comments are based more on my terms than the idea itself.


I don't find this thread funny, I find it sad instead.

As for your idea, I addressed it in the first sentence of my first post:

Both the map and the time line are undoubtedly anachronistic and border on ASB. As with many time lines of this type, most of the trouble arises from your inability to think like someone in the 1780s instead of someone in the 2010s.

Along with the various factual errors it contains, your idea doesn't work because you're applying anachronistic thinking to situation. I remarked on your use of the term "amphibious landing" and all the assumptions that term contains in an attempt to point that out to you. Commenting on the term "amphibious landing" wasn't meant to be part of a vocabulary lesson, but rather was meant to illustrate anachronistic thinking.

Putting it more simply, your idea doesn't work because you don't yet understand how the governments and people of the time "worked". If you don't want to believe me, perhaps another poster's comments will help:

While it does suck he's being an asshole about it, Don is at least partially right in the sense that you don't seem to know very much about the time period.

Please note, I said you don't yet understand. You could very easily research the time in question and develop the understanding you need.
 
Last edited:
Top