Post-Revolution America was not a fairy tale. It is common knowledge that war of any type is a rather expensive endeavor. Naturally at some point these costs of war must be paid regardless of the state of the economy. It further being common knowledge that the Federal Government of the United States was not allowed to levy taxes per the Articles of Confederation, as such this burden fell on the states. Shays Rebellion lead by Daniel Shays, was an uprising to close the courts and prevent property seizure of unpaid debts (Manning). In the foreword to Henry Knox’s, Secretary of War and Revolutionary War Artillery Commander, letter to George Washington it is mentioned that many members of the states felt oppressed by the taxes levied on them. The
…show more content…
The common man could not have land to himself. This is reflected in Post-Revolution Massachusetts. As William Manning states, “Property was selling almost every day by execution for less than half its value. The jails were crowded with debtors.” In other words people were losing their land as they had limited money pay for the ostensibly high taxes imposed on them (Manning). Per Bowdoin’s piece, it is stated that the state of Massachusetts further worsened the financial state, “The debt of Massachusetts alone, was $5,000,000, and taxation of course heavy. The number of debtors was so great, that in 1782 the legislature had been reduced to resort to the empirical expedient of an Act, requiring creditors to receive, in payment for their debts, cattle and other specific articles of property, tendered by the debtors.” Again a reflection of the failure of competency, common folk are losing their cattle and property in order to pay for the debts. Logic would state and eventually occurred that if the United States had a strong federal government, and was argued for during the Constitutional Convention, the Federal government could absorb the debts of the states, thereby spreading the cost to many from few. The Rebellion itself had provided yet even more reasons for stronger federal
The common man could not have land to himself. This is reflected in Post-Revolution Massachusetts. As William Manning states, “Property was selling almost every day by execution for less than half its value. The jails were crowded with debtors.” In other words people were losing their land as they had limited money pay for the ostensibly high taxes imposed on them (Manning). Per Bowdoin’s piece, it is stated that the state of Massachusetts further worsened the financial state, “The debt of Massachusetts alone, was $5,000,000, and taxation of course heavy. The number of debtors was so great, that in 1782 the legislature had been reduced to resort to the empirical expedient of an Act, requiring creditors to receive, in payment for their debts, cattle and other specific articles of property, tendered by the debtors.” Again a reflection of the failure of competency, common folk are losing their cattle and property in order to pay for the debts. Logic would state and eventually occurred that if the United States had a strong federal government, and was argued for during the Constitutional Convention, the Federal government could absorb the debts of the states, thereby spreading the cost to many from few. The Rebellion itself had provided yet even more reasons for stronger federal