Talk:Shays's Rebellion

It is definitely NOT "Shay's"

I'm surprised that there can even be any question about it. His name was Shays, not Shay. The standard way to form a possessive in English is to add apostrophe-s. Unless the possessor is a plural noun ending in s, in which case only the apostrophe is added. So it's cow -> cow's and cows -> cows' but ox -> ox's and oxen -> oxen's. And Shays -> Shays's. Katzenjammer 18:02, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

I thought we'd finally gotten over the apostrophe problem. Let's just leave it as "Shays'" since that's the predominant spelling. Even Strunk & White acknowledge the use of following apostrophes in historical context. --Dunkelza 03:14, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

As for how it is spelled, the National Park website spells the event three different ways on the same page. I think that means in Wikipedia, we need to not highlight one way as the official way or the correct way to spell this event. Thus I am deleting any references to a correct spelling. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Agenbite (talk • contribs) 04:51, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

No correct spelling -- great! Below is the monument, modest as it may be, to the last battle: spelling is clearly "Shays Rebellion." As it is the only monument I know of, I suggest this be the "authoritative source."--John Bessa (talk) 16:06, 22 October 2011 (UTC)

As it appears in the image above, it appears the name Shays is being used in a descriptive, as opposed to possessive, fashion. That is, we'd call it Kentucky Moonshine, and not Kentucky's Moonshine. Wonder if that point helps... --Foofighter20x (talk) 04:31, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

Most sources use "Shays'" or "Shays's"; see various titles in the listed references. We can forgive a stone carver for not adding an apostrophe. Magic♪piano 15:02, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

Just to be clear, I'm not making a case to change it from what it is, as it's been hashed out already. I just say the image and the thought occurred to me... Though, if I had been here and had a vote, I would have stood behind the "Shays's" version. -- Foofighter20x (talk) 17:20, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

It should definitely be Shays's Rebellion.  The only way "Shays' Rebellion" would be correct is if there were multiple Shayses leading the rebellion, and since there was only one Shays leading the rebellion, that makes it "Shays's."  allixpeeke (talk) 02:35, 5 September 2015 (UTC)

Sources I've seen on the specific subject of possessive nouns and proper names ending in S are quite varied in their assessment of proper usage. For example, this source says that it is appropriate for proper name possessives to omit the trailing S. This source notes that Strunk and White recommend the trailing S as a general rule, but that other style guides (e.g. that of the New York Public Library) disagree in the case of words ending in S. The fact that published sources discussing this event disagree in their treatment of the possessive form is to me an indicator that there is no single correct answer, and that either is correct, unless there is a specific Wikipedia MOS guideline on the matter. Magic♪piano 13:18, 5 September 2015 (UTC)

Even Strunk is not radical enough on this issue.  He makes exceptions for "ancient proper names" like Jesus.  I do not.  There are no exceptions.  allixpeeke (talk) 18:55, 5 September 2015 (UTC)

Good luck getting your point of view enshrined in MOS:POSS then. It allows both forms, as long as one is consistent within an article. Magic♪piano 20:10, 5 September 2015 (UTC)

Just getting it enshrined in MOS:POSS is not enough.  It should be enshrined in every English grammar textbook in the universe.  There's no reason why any source needs to deceive people into thinking it is ever proper to make a singular noun possessive by merely adding an apostrophe.  Similarly, there's no reason why any source needs to deceive people into thinking that it is ever proper to use "their" as a possessive singular determiner or "they" as a singular pronoun (or, for that matter, to deceive people into thinking that it is improper to split infinitives.)  allixpeeke (talk) 05:04, 7 September 2015 (UTC)

...says a man referring to himself as allix and not Alex or even Alexander. Hackwrench (talk) 00:34, 4 September 2016 (UTC)

Just chiming in to say there is also a monument in Petersham, Massachusetts that mentions the rebellion. It can be seen here. Note that i do not agree with its editorial content in the least. SageRad (talk) 18:18, 15 November 2015 (UTC)

I was taught by my 8th grade English teacher Mr. Burgess (his name ends with an s, so he might have known) that all words ending in s can be made possessive by simply adding an apostrophe to the end of it, Thus, the man's name was Shays so it can become Shays' Hackwrench (talk) 00:22, 4 September 2016 (UTC) And as for using their as a singular pronoun, I was informed that there was a long history of doing so until a relatively recent push to standardize English. At any rate, maybe all people trying to enforce a 'proper'English should be dragged behind horses and then shot! Jusy saying maybe, though. Hackwrench (talk) 00:30, 4 September 2016 (UTC)

Leonard Richards's book as reference

The URL/links to Richards's book are to a sale listing at UPenn Publishing. A preview version exists at GoogleBooks, but there are statements within this article that directly reference the UPenn Publishing statements as if they are quotes from the book and they are not. I know that Richards is a respected historian and have no issue with using this book as a source/reference but the information/statements need to be quotes or need to be clearer, not synthesis by an unknown person on a publishing house website. This is just an FYI that I'll be tidying up some of the information. Thanks, Shearonink (talk) 18:55, 10 March 2015 (UTC)

I changed the reference here to long format instead of just the URL. SageRad (talk) 15:59, 16 November 2015 (UTC)

Pseudonym

(Name probably is assumed however multiple reliable sources attribute quoted material to this person. That being said, however, "plough-jogger" was another name for plowman/farmer. I have therefore delineated the name with quote-marks.)

I'd suggest two things. One, we do 'not have multiple reliable sources. We have a mistake by Zinn, multiplied, quoted and plagiarized. Secondly, I'd suggest that although Zinn is reliable in certain ways, he was a man with a strong, persistent habit of injecting his worldview in his work; something sourced strictly to Zinn, or to someone who used his work uncritically, has POV problems almost by definition. Anmccaff (talk) 20:08, 25 April 2016 (UTC)

The "Plough Jogger" as used to delineate this particular personage whose words are quoted is referenced in the following sources:

• The background of Shays's rebellion: a study of Massachusetts history 1780-1787 by John Willard Hahn (1946, University of Wisconsin Press)
• Heritage from Hamilton by Broadus Mitchell (1957, Columbia University Press) - Page 26
• A little rebellion by Marion Lena Starkey (1955, Knopf) - Page 15
• AmericanHeritage, American Voices: Colonies and Revolution by David C. King (2003, John Wiley & Sons) This book delineates the quoted words as being from an interview with one of the farmers, and as From an Interview in the Massachusetts Centinal, October 25, 1786
• Harvey Wasserman's history of the United States by Harvey Wasserman (1975, Harper & Row)
• Yale Journal of the Law & Humanities (Volume 25, Issue 2, Article 3) by Aaron T. Knapp (2013 Yale University PhD dissertation) found at http://digitalcommons.law.yale.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1412&context=yjlh which quotes from the statements and says these words are found in The Massachusetts Centinel/October 25, 1786 in a article or section called The Spirit of the Times.

To me this "Plough Jogger" seems to be along the same lines as "Publius", the pseudonym by Hamilton, Madison & Jay in the writing of the Federalist Papers. It would seem that a "report" was published on October 25, 1786 that credited the speaker or interviewee as being "Plough Jogger", which in that day & age would have been understood not to be someone's real name, somewhat the same as if I interviewed a political adherent in the present US election season and said the interviewee was Hillary Clinton Supporter or Bernie Bro. This speech was published in a paper of record and the person being interviewed was credited as "Plough Jogger". Unless we can find a reliable source that states this was not a real person but rather a straw man, standing in for the interviewer, I think setting the name/title off by quote-marks might be the best solution. Shearonink (talk) 21:36, 25 April 2016 (UTC)

Well, "Publius" is a liitle more prep-school than grammar, but yeah. "Duhh," even. An obvious pen-name or other pseudonym, that quite likely was also a Cincinnatus reference. Of the cites you have above, how many have you seen in the print, vs the screen? Hahn uses it quotes, and obviously realizes it isn't a real name. Anmccaff (talk) 22:15, 25 April 2016 (UTC)

This is what I have been able to find in my short bit of research online today, here are the refs:

Hahn's writing seems to be a dissertation, due to its poor quality on the page, he sets the names off in quotes on his Page 33:

• "Ploughjogger" writing in the Massachusetts Centinel states that "every person knows that we have waded through a long, bloody, and expensive war..."

Broadus Mitchell writes (page 26):

• A farmer--"plough-jogger he called himself--from the heart of Shays country, expressed in the Massachusetts convention"

On Page 15 Marion Lena Starkey refers to the speaker:

• Old Plough Jogger still had the floor. "I have been obliged to pay and nobody will pay me."

King has the speech or interview's words set off on Page 118 as being

• "From an Interview in the Massachusetts Centinal, October 25, 1786" [1]
• So far as I can tell, Wasserman does not delineate the speaker as being "Plough-jogger/Plough Jogger" but he does quote the same words and says on Page 117 of the 2003 edition that it's "a newspaper interview with one of the farmers" Page 118

The Yale Journal reference is from Aaron T. Knapp's PhD dissertation, the complete essay can be found at [2]. Knapp refers to "a contemporaneous newspaper report purporting to have penetrated the minds of the insurgents and appropriately entitled The Spirit of the Times quoted one leading Shaysite's mission statement":

• "The great men are going to get all we have, and I think it is time for us to rise and put a stop to it, and have no more courts, nor sheriffs, nor collectors, nor lawyers!" This information is sourced from The Spirit of the Times, MASS. CENTINEL, Oct 25, 1786

The only way I can see to actually see what was said would be to get a hold of a digitized copy or microfiche copy that last out the complete article. The various authors & experts don't seem to lay out the actual source-material as it appeared at the time, but Zinn doesn't seem to be completely wrong in this matter. It is absolutely clear to me that "Plough Jogger" is a pseudonym of some sort, that there might have been someone who actually said those things & was quoted as saying them but there was never a living individual named Mr. Plough Jogger.Shearonink (talk) 23:17, 25 April 2016 (UTC)

Not completely wrong, but it suggests a truly superficial reading; grab a soundbite to quote and move on. Wrong enough, I'd say. But I think your edit fixed it enough, just so long as some bozeau doesn't take one of the many cloned sources and revert it based on them. Anmccaff (talk) 05:46, 26 April 2016 (UTC)

Sounds good. Maybe there's some way to get a hold of an actual image of the Mass. Centinel/Centinal article/interview, to see what it actually says. It would be even better if I could find some contemporaneous sources that react to the interview and see how they delineate the so-called "name", if they put it in quotes or use adjectives like "so-called" or a pseudonym-type word to characterize Plough Jogger. In any case, I'm going to put a permanent link to this discussion up at the top of the talk page and a hidden comment about the quote marks within the text, so people can refer to it before reverting or changing. Shearonink (talk) 16:53, 26 April 2016 (UTC)

I added some more refs - that this interview exists, that the person is named as a "plough jogger". Left comment re: Zinn but hid it from general readership's view pending any further developments. Shearonink (talk) 19:33, 26 April 2016 (UTC)

• Original source of "old plough jogger" quotation: The quote is from an unauthored piece called "The Spirit of the Times" in the Massachusetts Centinel (Boston, MA) vol VI, issue 11, 25 October 1786, p. 42. Marion Starkey re-imagines the tavern meeting in his book A Little Rebellion and pulls a long quotation, giving voice to "old plough jogger" which is likely where Zinn found the reference (Starkey includes no direct citations, hence the confusion). Accusing Zinn of "hiding" his citations is highly ungenerous, as he lists Starkey as a source. As others have noted, "plough jogger" was an often-used term for a type of person, with connotations anywhere from lower-class to a politicized populist persona -- letters of grievance through the 1800s are signed "Plough Jogger." Thus the newspaper journalist referred to "an old plough jogger" at the meeting who said this.

Numerous historians other than Zinn have used the quote, including Elizabeth Beaumont, The Civic Constitution: Civic Visions and Struggles in the Path Toward Constitutional Democracy ch. 3, and as mentioned above, Aaron Knapp in his article "Laws Revolution." The full quote, pulled directly from a digitized version of the Massachusetts Centinel, is below. Its slight typographic divergence from the quote as given in People's History is, I think, a change that occurred in the transcription from Centinel to Starkey to Zinn:

“.... I inquired of an old plough jogger the cause and aim of the people of that assembly? He said to get redress of grievances. I asked what grievances? He said we have all grievances enough, I can tell you mine; I have laboured hard all my days, and fared hard; I have been greatly abused; been obliged to do more than my part in the war; been loaded with class-rates, town-rates, province-rates, continental-rates, and all rates, lawsuits, and have been pulled and haulled by sheriffs, constables and collectors, and had my cattle sold for less than they were worth: I have been obliged to pay and nobody will pay me: I have lost a great deal by this man and that man and t’other man; and the great men are going to get all we have; and I think it is time for us to rise and put a stop to it, and have no more courts, nor sheriffs, nor collectors, nor lawyers; I design to pay no more; and I know we have the biggest party, let them say what they will.” — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.125.29.245 (talk) 15:03, 12 October 2016 (UTC)

Very militant

The article makes no attempts at addressing that there are alternatives to military action. There is no mention that there was or wasn't negotiations. Hackwrench (talk) 00:39, 4 September 2016 (UTC)

Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, it does not publish WP:OR, it is a compendium of information published in reliable sources. If reliable sources have statements about the various alternatives to the putting down of Shays' Rebellion that were proposed at the time or these sources mention that negotiations took place or reputable historians have written articles/books about the circumstances surrounding the Rebellion (that then include if there were negotiations or not) in the intervening years, then the article could include that information. Otherwise?...no. Shearonink (talk) 01:53, 4 September 2016 (UTC)

Historical accuracy of illustration used in Infobox

I would just like to say prior to an edit I am making that the current image in the infobox File:Shay's Rebellion.jpg, while by no means a poor illustration in its aesthetic, is not an accurate portrayal of the incident at Springfield. If you read further into the article it states "There was no musket fire from either side", with Szatmary as the citation. This is also corroborated in the Springfield Technical Community College's (the college which uses the site today) page on the encounter seen here ("without a musket being fired on either side"). It seems further on some portrayals were embellished with that detail but to the best of my knowledge the only public domain portrayal I've seen showing the incident accurately, with grapeshot fired to disperse the militants, is this one here- File:Shays forces flee Continental troops, Springfield.jpg, but if a depiction that is 1) accurate, 2) in the public domain, and of a better quality exists, I would welcome its replacement. --Simtropolitan (talk) 14:59, 18 March 2019 (UTC)

I would also append this with, an "accurate" illustration, as far as sources indicate should show 1) no musket fire, 2) a line of multiple artillery/cannons on the side of the defending militia, 3) a backdrop of the armory similar in appearance to File:Conflagration_of_part_of_the_Old_Springfield_Armory,_March_2,_1824.jpg, rather than its grander buildings today. Any image showing buildings on the Armory grounds today is inaccurate as the oldest were constructed in the early 19th century.--Simtropolitan (talk) 15:41, 18 March 2019 (UTC)

Misleading reference to the "Tree of liberty" by Jefferson

I'm not at all familiar with editing Wiki pages, yet, and I wanted to ask for assistance with what seems to me to be a misleading reference.

It is true that Jefferson had written to Madison regarding the topic of rebellion, but the quote directly after this statement is not from this letter.

Here is the letter to Madison from Jefferson, in which the rebellion is discussed: Here is a letter to William Stephens Smith, which actually contains the quote:

The edit I'm looking to make is to reference the quote and the preceding sentence separately with the archives.gov sources. --RowdyElectron (talk) 18:24, 28 April 2019 (UTC)

References

Really was about banks and land ownership system, not just taxes

The article seems bent on making it seem like it was ALL about taxes, whereas it was against the top-heavy ownership of land by banks and the wealthy as well. It was a rebellion against the land ownership system of capitalism which works for the rich and hurt the poor who were working the land. Shays was losing his farm to the bank was he not? Seems like this page was edited by "Libertarians" to make it seem like government is the problem not a class war on the poor. It was about debt-ridden citizens saying "Hell no!" not just about taxes. 2604:6000:F38E:1300:C8FD:584A:7A68:D822 (talk) 12:04, 5 July 2019 (UTC)

What evidence do you have that (a) there were even banks in Massachusetts at the time, and (b) they owned, controlled, or lended against any significant portion of the land at issue? Credit was usually issued by local merchants. Also, the proximate cause of the rebellion was stepped-up tax collection. The relationships between farmers, merchants, and tax authorities is (contra your assertion) documented in the article. Magic♪piano 16:00, 7 July 2019 (UTC)

I don't. In fact you're correct that it was not debt to banks, which arose in the US shortly after Shays' Rebellion and mostly did business making mortgages to slavers using slaves as collateral, as i have been learning. But the more important point of the way the article is lacking is that debt in a system of land ownership in which ordinary people were heavily in debt was as important a factor in the rebellion as the tax laws. This was a key part of the context. The section of the article on Background mentions debts as an important factor in the set of causes of the rebellion, but doesn't make it clear at all what the debts generally were for or to whom. But the section certainly makes it clear that private debts were a huge factor in the losing of land and property that led to the rebellion. It was most clearly not only taxes and debt ranks with taxes among the main drivers of the rebellion and should be named in the lead. 2604:6000:F38E:1300:D9DA:625D:E2C5:78ED (talk) 10:47, 17 August 2019 (UTC)

This source might relate to this issue. https://www.sceneonradio.org/s4-e2-the-excess-of-democracy/

Akornoh (talk) 22:36, 21 September 2020 (UTC)

“Federal government” didn’t exist

“The federal government found itself unable to finance troops to put down the rebellion, and it was consequently put down by the Massachusetts State militia and a privately funded local militia.”

This sentence should be corrected to indicate which organization couldn’t “put down the rebellion” and why. The federal government didn’t exist until well AFTER this event. Akornoh (talk) 22:23, 21 September 2020 (UTC)

Conspiracy Section Needed?

I came across a letter from Elbridge Gerry to Rufus King that suspected Shay was backed by a group "for the purpose of reuniting the American States to the Government of Great Britain."

https://books.googleusercontent.com/books/content?req=AKW5QaeAr7h3W7girJz5Y8RWm1L2nsbFJNPA-ZlKHUofjxzQAH0AxfxxWQqftxplk-ekHINP6mACKaJFqFDnNP1ffAZu7OXjhnxrLCUYS2lVtK_qqXpeJx-ZxDVcOPqih2PE79GB2TABSAQhaLzm5RJBaw3X2Uqb7_hlfltfkYi9xQdH5xAh57Np5bCQRDdgeKZX2_lIx6y5mv4QjZJt5jfjl-PIHdev6hJurAefKudeD-I0uUvMixuJB4_Y7lQ3XpYM6k6cgNQKXBP7v2XAN_W44o5M_9TrVQ

I think a new section should be explored, and included. Philfromwaterbury (talk) 12:33, 3 July 2022 (UTC)

Your URL doesn't work. How about providing the title, author, publisher, page number? Shearonink (talk) 14:44, 3 July 2022 (UTC)

(edit conflict) If you are referring to the letter on page 197 of The Life and Correspondence of Rufus King: Comprising His Letters, Private and Official, His Public Documents, and His Speeches, Volume 1 by Rufus King (with the editor being his grandson Dr. Charles R. King) I don't see where the letter specifically states that it was Shay who was perhaps backed by incipient Tories. Per WP:PRIMARY it's also a primary source and that is problematic.

If reliable sources - respected/published historians writing in books and articles with editorial oversight etc. - have commented that it was Shay who was possibly/probably backed by reunification groups and those statements are backed up by good sources then I probably wouldn't have a problem with it. But I just don't see it in this case. This appears to be an off-hand remark written in passing by a prominent supporter of the Revolution within a private letter. I'm sure there were many people suffering in the aftermath of the Revolution who were not pleased with their resultant lot in life but that doesn't mean that funded/organized conspiracies actually existed in this case. For all we know, Gerry could have been led on by the informer in an attempt to grift/extort more money or to get favors from Congress/the national government. But it is an interesting...perhaps a section about how some prominent Revolution supporters believed anti-US conspiracies were happening in the aftermath of the Revolution might work, I just don't see the specific applicability to Shays' Rebellion. Shearonink (talk) 15:31, 3 July 2022 (UTC)

Forrest McDonald suggests that a belief in a British-led conspiracy was widespread (specifically that it was being orchestrated by Lord Dorchester, governor of Canada). Novus Ordo Seclorum: The Intellectual Origins of the Constitution, U Kansas Press 1985, page 79. (This book was a finalist for the 1986 Pulitzer Prize for History.) Magic♪piano 15:12, 3 July 2022 (UTC)

But does McDonald state that it was believed specifically about Shays' Rebellion? Or is it more that some in power within Congress and within the national government believed that these various events of the disaffected were fomented by British interests? Unless a historian and/or a Founding Father writes specifically about Shays' Rebellion being guided by anti-US interests (and real proof would be nice...) I don't think this theory belongs in this particular article. Shearonink (talk) 15:23, 4 July 2022 (UTC)

McDonald specifically claims this about Shays' Rebellion, citing (and implying there are more examples) letters from Henry Lee to Washington, and from Edward Carrington to Edmund Randolph. The letters, dated to the fall of 1786, are published in Edmund Burnett's multivolume set of Continental Congressmen's correspondence. Some more of the Founding Fathers' thinking on the subject could be added to the "Impact on the Constitution" section. McDonald also points out that much thinking about the rebellion outside Massachusetts was colored by a somewhat overwrought account [my opinion] of the threat it posed which was written by Henry Knox and widely circulated. Magic♪piano 16:45, 4 July 2022 (UTC)

Oooooo, this *is* getting interesting. Text along with cites with page numbers & specifics would be awesome then. And makes sense Knox would flog the perceived threat...I suppose it would play to increasing his power and prestige. Shearonink (talk) 20:09, 4 July 2022 (UTC)

Some more interesting tidbits: Daniel Shays and other leaders supposedly went to Canada to meet with Dorchester, presumably in search of military support (Alan Taylor, The Civil War of 1812, p. 33). Taylor also writes that part of Dorchester's brief was to promote reunion of the states into the British empire. This was apparently not secret, and was a cause for alarm in more strongly republican American circles. He openly sent George Beckwith, who had worked as a spy during the Revolution, to New York. Presumably his movements would have stimulated thoughts of conspiracy. There probably was not an *actual* conspiracy, though, because Dorchester's activities were limited by colonial authorities in London, and he seems to have done little more than cultivate parties disaffected by the failing confederation government. Magic♪piano 15:02, 5 July 2022 (UTC)