Shay's Rebellion
By hofferp
@hofferp (4734)
United States
May 8, 2010 2:26pm CST
Shay's Rebellion occurred in MA in 1787.
The Rebellion was founded on the belief that the new confederation of states would pay off the war debts of the Continental Army. The rebels believed in socialism; that the people had fought the British; therefore, the people owned all commercial businesses in the colonies.
Do you believe there is both relevance and a parallel to today's American political discussion?
(I have a bet with my roommate on this discussion...)
2 people like this
5 responses
@bestboy19 (5478)
• United States
8 May 10
I had never heard of Shay's Rebellion, so I had to do some reading to see what you're talking about. From what I've read, I don't see anything that says the rebels were socialist and believed they owned all commercial businesses in the colonies. These were people who rebelled because they were going to lose their farms because Massachusetts taxes, to pay for the war and the interest on state securities, were so high and the government would only take gold or silver as payment.
http://www.history.uconn.edu/people/articles/Gorss_Yankee_Rebellion_NEQ.pdf
Check out this link. Maybe it can answer your question.
1 person likes this
@bestboy19 (5478)
• United States
12 May 10
Just as today, the government is putting financial pressure on the average citizen with the bulk of that finance going to social programs that only help a few, and the average citizen not among those few. And just as some came out in protest back then, many are coming out in protest today. So yes, there are parallels, not violent, but protest all the same.
@TTCCWW (579)
• United States
9 May 10
If I understand the question correctly I would have to say that some of the issues are a parrallel political discussion that we don't seem to be having.
Europe is being forced to have this very conversation all weekend long so that they have an answer for the world before the stock market opens on Monday morning.
In the UK they are talking about limiting any wage in the country to 250K max. This is an extreme measure but they are in a lot more financial trouble then America is.
We have in the last few years had the biggest expansion/explosion in growth ever in history and 96% of that growth has gone to the top 1.2 percent of the people.
I don't think anyone thinks bad things about people who do well and make an honest living but there is something wrong with a guy making 800K a year and his shoes are made by some one making .50 cents a day and living in squalor.
Should the government be in the business of business, no way, can they keep people honest, they could do a lot better job.
@TTCCWW (579)
• United States
9 May 10
As much as I hate to put the government in charge of many things, they can be effective regulators and enforce laws that would stop some of this and encourage shared wealth. Most of our best American companies practice some type of wealth sharing they just are not in the news...
There is a new movement going on in some of our colleges to start teaching ethic's again so maybe all is not lost. We have had this winner takes all attitude for the last 30 years and now we see the downfall. So maybe all is not lost, look to the next generation, maybe. lol
@hofferp (4734)
• United States
9 May 10
I agree there's something wrong with the picture. You want people to work hard and succeed, but what happens when you have only the extremes and a disappearing middle class? I don't know that I have an answer. I would hope we would try and bring everyone up, rather than bring the top (successful, rich, etc.) down.
@dawnald (85135)
• Shingle Springs, California
12 May 10
I was reading about this just the other day. Howard Zinn's "A People's History of the United States"...
People felt disenfranchised then and they feel that way now. Sure there's somewhat of a parallel. Back then, the 'haves' were rich landowners and the 'have nots' were slaves, servants, poor landless folk and women. Now the 'haves' are the big corporations and their CEOs and large stockholders, and the 'have nots' are those of us who are barely (or not) hanging on to our homes, fighting for some kind of health insurance, losing our jobs, etc.
@hofferp (4734)
• United States
13 May 10
Yeah, the disparity between the rich and poor seems to be widening. I'm generally not for the redistribution of wealth, but I am having a problem with the disparity. I'm not sure how we take care of the middle and poor classes without ripping up the rich class???? Thanks for your thoughts, Dawn.
@hofferp (4734)
• United States
9 May 10
Sorry, had to run in to town and see my Mom, go to dinner, etc. and I'm just now getting back to our discussion. The bet wasn't about MyLot...so I didn't think I needed to go through THE HEAD OF BOOKIES. This was my roommate's discussion... I bet him no one would answer, because his "contributions" to the MyLot community are always so "off the wall". You would agree this is an off-the-wall discussion, wouldn't you? Don't you think I should win the bet just because...?
. even on topic ones, unlike this one. i think roomie wins but of course i take 10% 
. if you want to win the bet 'just because' which is perfectly reasonable i will have to take 20% for the extra admin costs. your call.