The United States of America was never perfect. In 1786, Daniel Shays, a farmer and a veteran of the revolutionary war that created the United States, led an armed rebellion to protest the poverty of the people due to the high taxes and economic depression. Shay’s rebellion was believed by some historians to be a wakeup call that demonstrated how weak the government was under the Articles of Confederation; and ultimately led to the creation of a new system that is still our constitution today by generating discussion and deep concern. While believed to be a turning point in American history, some historians argued that it was not a significant event in American history.
The newly created country suffered economically after the war. In 1785, …show more content…
In 1785, a convention to consider “how far it may be necessary, in their opinion, to alter or enlarge” the Articles was proposed. The Annapolis convention, after a while of preparation, took place in 1786 with delegates from only five states. The convention was to “take into consideration the trade of the United States” since the national government had no authority to regulate trade between the states. The delegates ultimately decided to support the call for a bigger convention in Philadelphia. Louis-Guillaume Otto, a perceptive French diplomat believed that the decision not to wait for delegates from other states, when knowing that some were on their way, was intentional so that the organizers would have an excuse to call for another bigger convention; believing that impatience seemed unusual for the eighteenth century. The Annapolis convention among other events laid the groundwork before the rebellion. Shay’s Rebellion did not even speed the process of change. The rebellion did not change the delegates’ minds. It was mentioned by only nine speakers and they only mentioned it once as evidence of instability. A historian said that “Shays’s Rebellion frightened [George Washington] out of retirement and into politics.” It is said that without the Rebellion, “Washington would not have attended the convention or have lent his name to the Federalists on behalf of ratification.” Madison and Hamilton were also concerned by the Rebellion but, like Washington, the rebellion did not give them new information. Therefore, it is hard to say that the rebellion simply changed the Founding Fathers’
The newly created country suffered economically after the war. In 1785, …show more content…
In 1785, a convention to consider “how far it may be necessary, in their opinion, to alter or enlarge” the Articles was proposed. The Annapolis convention, after a while of preparation, took place in 1786 with delegates from only five states. The convention was to “take into consideration the trade of the United States” since the national government had no authority to regulate trade between the states. The delegates ultimately decided to support the call for a bigger convention in Philadelphia. Louis-Guillaume Otto, a perceptive French diplomat believed that the decision not to wait for delegates from other states, when knowing that some were on their way, was intentional so that the organizers would have an excuse to call for another bigger convention; believing that impatience seemed unusual for the eighteenth century. The Annapolis convention among other events laid the groundwork before the rebellion. Shay’s Rebellion did not even speed the process of change. The rebellion did not change the delegates’ minds. It was mentioned by only nine speakers and they only mentioned it once as evidence of instability. A historian said that “Shays’s Rebellion frightened [George Washington] out of retirement and into politics.” It is said that without the Rebellion, “Washington would not have attended the convention or have lent his name to the Federalists on behalf of ratification.” Madison and Hamilton were also concerned by the Rebellion but, like Washington, the rebellion did not give them new information. Therefore, it is hard to say that the rebellion simply changed the Founding Fathers’