Jump to content

Talk:Shays's Rebellion

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by North Shoreman (talk | contribs) at 16:17, 21 September 2009 (Undid revision 315313487 by 72.86.69.168 (talk)). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Old talk

Actually, in my 10th grade History book, it's listed as "Shays's Rebellion". Although I'm not sure if "Shays'" or "Shays's" is more grammatically correct.

—Preceding unsigned comment added by G00dynoshoes (talk • contribs) 22:39, 29 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This should really be Shays' Rebellion, not Shay's rebellion, but wouldn't that mean changing the name of the page and all It is his first rule: http://www.bartleby.com/141/strunk.html#1 

-Bugmuncher 23:32, 8 Aug 2003 (UTC)
I have a lot of respect for Prof. Strunk, and use his guide a lot; nevertheless he hasn't been with us in a while, and I'm not sure but that common usage may have changed since then. (Google would say it has, at least in this specific case, if that means anything.) If you want to move it to Shays's I certainly won't object; my main concern is that it obviously wasn't David Shay who organized it, and therefore the first title was inarguably wrong. - Hephaestos 02:42, 9 Aug 2003 (UTC)

More importantly, the page is basically a fairy tale right now. Yes, Shay's rebellion was over taxation, but it was also over the credit burden and the victory of finance capital over the countryside. And it certainly wasn't just "this one guy decided to get up and fight against taxes and a bunch of guys came with him". DanKeshet

I'm not sure how you can read Strunk and White -- even the first edition -- and come away thinking that it is supposed to be "Shays'." His last name ends in "s" but there was only one of him -- "Shays" is not plural. The article must be corrected to read "Shays's Rebellion," as it appears in every encyclopedia that follows the rules of standard written English. [Mr. Reznick (no user profile)]


The standardly accepted form is "Shays'" and the correct pronunciation is "Shayz", not "Shayzez". I will, however admit that "Shays's" does appear, even in recent works on the subject. Interestingly, none of the monuments I've found in the actual area of the Rebellion use an apostrophe at all. They all read "Shays", as if the name were originally "THE Shays Rebellion" or something. - Dunkelza 21:30, 6/28/2005 (EDT)

I moved the page to "Shays Rebellion" and redirected the other two spellings. I chose this spelling based on the monuments: http://www.shaysridesagain.org/memorial.jpg http://friends.backcountry.net/ccatalan/MassAT/atpix/Shaysmonument.jpg - Dunkelza 22:00, 6/28/2005 (EDT)

Dunkelza's second link is dead, and I don't always trust signs, but I see that the US State Department uses the same spelling as Dunkelza refers to: http://usinfo.state.gov/products/pubs/history/ch4.htm#articles The above article mentions "the Shays Rebellion." In the light of all this disagreement, it is appropriate to include alternate spellings in the main article, wherever it may end up. (One book on the subject, written by Leonard L. Richards, uses "Shays's" in the title and the editorial review on the book uses "Shay's!")

So the only two correct titles are probably "Shays's Rebellion" or the "Shays Rebellion." The former is heavily preferred based on google search results, and the latter seems to be used only by US or local government sources. (Perhaps bureaucrats invented the new name because they were afraid of misusing apostrophes!) I deleted the apostrophe-after version because there is no reason we need legitimize a wholly incorrect spelling; a redirect page is sufficient in that regard.

With reference to the Dunkzela's comment on pronounciation, I can't accept the assertion that "shayz" is the correct pronunciation. Many "official" sources can be wrong. Mirriam-Webster's online dictionary uses the incorrect " Shays,' " and it's entirely possible that most teachers simply get the name wrong (or they use the government-preferred pronounciation but use one of the 2 more common spellings). Remember that for at least a century, American history teachers perpetuated the myth that Columbus "discovered" the Earth was round!

Given the nature of the actual event, I still think it's INAPPROPRIATE to accept the government's spelling for this event, and instead we should use the most popular spelling. Yet I realize there is a contradiction here: the most popular pronounciation, "shayz," would not be correct if we used what I consider the better spelling. I'd prefer to change the spelling and hope that teachers and historians would fix their pronounciation.

Howard Zinn wrote, "We must not accept the memory of states as our own." I agree and would prefer an article titled "Shays's Rebellion," but I will not move the article again unless someone agrees or we could reach a consensus. [Mr. Reznick (no user profile)]

I appreciate Mr. Resnick's research. I hadn't realized that the State Dept. was using the apostrophe-free name. I also found the Howard Zinn quote ironic, in that I recall Zinn using the "Shays'" spelling.

In reference to the pronunciation: I live in Western Massachusetts. I know how the descendents of the Regulators pronounce it. :)

Yes, that's a bit snarky of me, and I apologize. It doesn't change the veracity of the statement.

I'd also like to encourage Mr. Resnick to sign up for a free account.

- Dunkelza 11:55, 7/3/2005 (EDT)

Dukelza is correct-- Zinn uses the apostrophe-after version. No offense taken by any snarkiness... if anything, I should apologize for being so anal retentive. But I suppose attention to detail is what makes this site work as well as it does. I won't change the article again. Local information is definitely preferable, and more in concert with the idea of "what I know it..." I'll get that free account on my next wikibreak. ;-) [Mr. Reznick (no user profile)]

In looking at how other rebellions are named, you have The Dorr Rebellion, named after Thomas Wilson Dorr, not Dor's Rebellion, so I would think the proper term would be The Shays Rebellion, much like you would say The Whiskey Rebellion. Intersetingly, the news articles I've read recently on Rep. Christopher Shays a Republican calling for Tom Delay's removal have referred to his actions as The Shays Rebellion. I think the name has often evolved to Shays' Rebellion because saying the The is awkward and thus creating a possessive where one may have not been before. Growing up in Massachusetts I've mostly have heard it called shays and shayz. I've never heard it called shayzez.

-noldrin 00:24, 7/4/2005 (EDT)

Hello andy

I like the Bold text

Well, guess I qualify for old talk...if it took place in Worcester and Petersham, it took place in Central AND Western Massachusetts. Thanks!!

dumby dumby dumby


Every academic who has written a book on the subject calls it Shays's Rebellion. The guy's last name was Shays, not Shay. It's simple grammar....just because it looks funny doesn't mean it's wrong. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 141.213.222.100 (talk) 02:07, 16 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No, proper grammar would be Shays', not Shays's. Xihr (talk) 21:51, 16 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
No, proper grammar would be Shays's, not Shays'". - —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.215.187.52 (talk) 07:37, 5 September 2008 (UTC) [reply]

Annapolis Convention

I'm skeptical that the Shays Rebellion had anything to do with the Annapolis Convention, which began September 11, 1786, less than two weeks after the start of hostilities. It certainly can't have been organized that quickly. Do we have a reference or source anywhere regarding the conclusion about "lack of institutional response"? --Dhartung | Talk 19:25, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Your right: it didn't. Annapolis was a consequence of the positive results of the Mount Vernon Conference, which achieved an agreement achieved between Virginia and Maryland over a few interstate topics between the two states that they each wanted to resolve. Foofighter20x (talk) 23:34, 21 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Huge Revision, 19 Feb 2006

Dhartung, you're correct: the linkage with the Annapolis Convention isn't legitmate at all.

I did a huge revision of this, and probably will do more, based on Leonard Richards' 2002 book on the rebellion. What was here was a very typical compilation of the various legends and outright falsehoods that grew up around the rebellion, a lot of which ended up in various town histories. Szatmary's book tended to repeat a number of those falsehoods, in addition to adding an often inappropriate class-warfare element that, while sometimes useful, tended to obscure the basic story. Dr. Richards research demonstrated quite a bit that's wrong with that history - it just doesn't stand up in the records - and I hope you can respect that this represents an effort at correcting a history that's fascinating and unusual. Take a look at Richards' book: it's highly readable and succinct.

Connor McLaughlin destroyed this rebellion not that nobody george washington!!! Talk 15:31, 19 February 2006

In regards to Szatmary's book...

I'm actually using a copy of his book right now for an essay, and I would like to know the criticisms against the book that are mentioned in the end part of this article.

I would greatly appreciate it and can be reached at Sol_of_d00m AT yahoo DOT com.

Effects

The Effects subheading in the article states that Shay's rebellion, concurrently with the Whiskey Rebellion in PA, both led Gen. George Washington to unretire and begin championing a new government. However, I am fairly certain that the so-called Whiskey rebellion took place after the ratification of the new Federal Constitution. I know for a fact that President Washington rode with Federal troops to PA to put down the rebellion and enforce the excise tax, both as a symbolic act for the new Federal unity provided for in the Constitution and also the more immediate and pressing job of collecting taxes to retroactively finance the American War for Independence as provided for in Alexander Hamilton's plan. I was fairly certain that Shay's rebellion was an isolated incident but that it sent a "wake-up call" to the cheif architects of the later Constitution and of the Articles. Please refresh my memory if I am mistaken. Kindest regards.

You are correct that the Whiskey Rebellion was later, in 1791, according to the article. Shay's Rebellion was by far the more significant in terms of public policy. The Whiskey Rebellion was actually more of an Anti-Federalist response to the Constitution than a prelude to it. I'm not sure why the W.R. is in this article, actually.
Shay's Rebellion was not exactly an isolated incident. Indeed, the Republic of Vermont was extant at the time and men like Washington believed that Vermont was in active revolt from their rightful state of New York (or perhaps New Hampshire). So tied together were these two "rebellions" that Shays and a number of other Regulators sought (and received) asylum in Vermont. --Dunkelza 00:21, 2 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
It's worth noting that both rebellions where prompted by laws favoring the wealthy at the expense of the poor. Small distillers had to pay a higher rate than big distillers, and the farmers in western Mass were in debt because they had been fighting rather than farming. Unlike the Boston bankers and speculators, who played war profiteer at home. Katzenjammer 18:12, 18 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]


Shays Rebellion incorrectly redirects to Shay's Rebellion which is a double redirect

Mattwolf7 15:00, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]


Communism

Shays Rebellion article says that the farmers involved in the uprising were misrepresented as (and among the names used was the word "communists.") Communisim to my knowledge did not exist until another hundred years when Karl Marx wrote "The Communist Manifesto" in 1848) Were people called communists before that time??? djdickerson@yahoo.com

The communism bit is a quote from a book. I'm not sure that such a large quote is appropriate and the use of "communist" is certainly an faux pas (specifically an anachronism) by the author. Can we cut down the quote or paraphrase to avoid this confusion? --Dunkelza 03:14, 29 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Please, do. Msr657 17:48, 1 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Although it sounds like it was too long, it's too bad you took out the whole part out about misrepresentation. That was probably reliable historical information, demonstrating how parties saw the conflict as class conflict. For your future consideration, it would not be an anachronism if elites accused rebels of being communists at that time or earlier. (Though it is true that red baiting didn't really hit its stride until the 20th century.) Marx (1818-1883) did a lot, but he did not invent communism any more than he invented capitalism (or the words for them). Communism's an old form of political-economy. Marx is a famous political economist, chiefly of capitalism, but as you are aware he supported communist social organization. Blanche Poubelle (talk) 22:58, 9 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

restriction

Does anybody know what are the 3 restriction that came about because of Shay's Rebellion? 

but I don't know how to change them. The two gentlemen hanged link incorrectly to a) An antique dealer b) a senator, both in the 21st C.

Can someone correct this - and delete my message when you have done it. I was only doing a friendle visit


References

Unfortunately, most of this article will have to be deleted as it is unreferenced. Trade Down 23:36, 2 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This article has very little information on the course of the rebellion itself..its all about causes and consequences.I find that a little odd. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 12.218.175.254 (talk) 23:51, 4 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I've tried to add a little more about the Rebellion itself. Of course, that data helps point toward the significance of Shays' Rebellion, and why it has a Wikipedia entry. The significance lies in the fact that the rebellion against property confiscation alarmed American elites and gave Hamliton, Madison and Jay (the Federalists) "ammunition" to convince other Founding Fathers that the federal state must have stronger powers, not least to control the "mob" (people who are not capitalists or plantation owners).

In other words, indignant elite reaction (see the Abagail Adams quote) to Shays' Rebellion was a major event that determined not merely that Washington would come out of retirement, not only that the federal state would have strong powers, but also that people who were not major property owners would be treated by American law as a threatening "mob" rather than as rational partners who helped elites win the War for Independence. That's a formative moment in American history, American politics, and American law, regardless of how understandably uncommitted the rebels were to rebelling against the new country they had just fought for. Blanche Poubelle (talk) 23:18, 9 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Incomplete Article

Is it just me, or does the article jump from the causes of the rebellion to the conclusion? The Northampton Courth House isn't even mentioned in this version! There is a tremendous amount of history here, including a number of battles after Springfield. --Dunkelza (talk) 04:02, 29 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Be bold.  Xihr  07:15, 29 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Neutrality / POV pushing

This article seems like the Constitution and Federal government were created by rich, white men to oppress everybody else. I'm sure there are people that believe that, and you've found a book written by one of you (Howard Zinn) to cite as a reference for your claims. However, the selection of facts, diction and tone show a definite bias.

Consider this passage from the Legacy section. "Manufacturers desired a strong federal government capable of enforcing protective tariffs; moneylenders whose international financial transactions were conducted in gold wanted the federal government to put a stop to paper money (such an innovation as Rhode Island had introduced to allow gold-poor citizens to pay off debts); land speculators wanted military protection for invading Indian lands; slave owners wanted federal protection against slave revolts and to capture slaves attempting freedom; bondholders needed a federal government able to tax and so pay off bondholders with interest.[10] Of the 55 white, property-owning men who drew up the Constitution in 1787, most were lawyers; most were men of wealth--in land, slaves, manufacturing, or shipping; half of them had money loaned out at interest; and 40 owned government bonds." —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jimbo dan (talk • contribs) 16:36, 26 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Talk about a lack of neutrality. Statements like "you've found a book written by one of you (Howard Zinn) to cite as a reference for your claims" are totally inappropriate. Who is this "you" to whom you are referring? You act as if this article was written by a conspiratorial cabal of leftists. The quote you offer above is sourced. If you have other sources that offer a different interpretation, please add them to the article. But, your statement above is proof of nothing, and your tone is not constructive. ---RepublicanJacobiteThe'FortyFive' 16:52, 26 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I'm pretty sure Zinn based his views on Charles Beard, and since Beard's methods weren't that great, I suggest other sources. You might try the works of Forrest McDonald if you'd like to balance the article between views from the left and right. Foofighter20x (talk) 17:01, 26 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Zinn does quote Beard, yes. But, what is the problem with Beard? Can you provide a source that disputes his argument? If so, please add it to the article. ---RepublicanJacobiteThe'FortyFive' 17:27, 26 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Like I said, go read McDonald. He raises his specific objections to Beard in the first parts of his work We the People... Not to mention, the Beard's work is just one big giant fallacy of ad hominem argumentation (in that the general reverence given the Constitution should be cast away due to the author's having financially benefitted from its crafting). In particular, it's an attack concerning vested interest. Just because a person (or group of people) benefit from an action is not grounds in and of itself to say that the action is a bad thing. I'll add what I can to the article when I get around to it. I'm working on other things. Of course, feel free to read works by authors with viewpoints opposing your own in the meantime. It's the only real way to learn something; when you are learning things that challenge your own beliefs. Maybe you might find something interesting that you feel the article needs in the interim, before I can get to it. Foofighter20x (talk) 21:57, 26 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Well, frankly, I have neither the time, the interest, nor the inclination to read McDonald. As for the rest, your opinion is all well and good, but it does not help the article. The original poster made the allegation that the article was intentionally written so as to push a point-of-view. I happen to believe he is incorrect, but welcome any additions to the article that are well-sourced and add to the topic. If you would care to do so, that would be of great benefit. ---RepublicanJacobiteThe'FortyFive' 00:11, 27 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This article needs a few additions, but mostly some wholesale deletions. The "Legacy" section is half the article, and all POV. And it's not even about Shays's rebellion, it's about motivations for the Constitution. You could put it in a "Motivations" section in the US Constitution article, but there it would get noticed by people who cared enough to fight the edit war. What happened in Shays's rebellion? How many people were killed? Where did the significant battles take place? Historical facts and figures may be dry reading, but it's what encyclopedias are for. Encyclopedias aren't for pushing your view of the US Constitution as an instrument of upper class oppression. It's even a view I largely agree with but it pisses me off because I just wanted some basic data about Shays's rebellion. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.12.246.133 (talk) 21:18, 16 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

One has to question the POV and neutrality of the line about Thomas Jefferson where it is stated "... who was siring bastard children from his slaves,...". While it is accurate, it's not in keeping with the article and seems to have nothing to do with surrounding content. Any reason not to remove this one section of the sentence? Aristophrenia (talk) 06:03, 23 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Other references?

Howard Zinn is, like it or not, is an accomplished historian. However, he has attracted his fair share of criticism for his many unorthodox interpretations of the historical record. Could the supporters of the article as it is please look at the sources which Howard Zinn cites, and include those in the article as well? Supplying references to the material which Zinn used to make his claims would do much to quell this socio-political debate.

For example, what prompted me to write this was the following paragraph: "Samuel Adams disingenuously claimed that foreigners ("British emissaries") were instigating treason among the presumably childlike commoners, and he helped draw up a Riot Act, and a resolution suspending habeas corpus. Adams proposed a new legal distinction: that rebellion in a republic, unlike in a monarchy, should be punished by execution." As I'm not well-versed in United States history, I'm in no position to say this is true or false. However, based on my "popular" understanding of Samuel Adams, this seems to be an extremely atypical and cynical description of the man. And, since Zinn has attracted so much controversy, it is hard for a layman like myself to gauge how true this statement is.

So yes, I think Zinn offers a valuable interpretation of US history, but I think it is folly to reference an entire event from only one mans perspective. What primary sources are available for Shay's Rebellion? Would anyone be averse to a major "gutting" of this article until further sources are available? We could simply add text back in once further references are found and cited. Monolith2 (talk) 17:19, 15 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Recent changes

Since the early part of this month, the size of this article has nearly doubled (from 9,868 bytes on 7 May to 13,997 bytes on 9 May, and then up to 16,891 bytes by 20 May), and all of that added content has been sourced to a couple pages in books by the aforementioned Zinn and a book by Eric Foner. Now, I have no problem with either of these sources, but I do have a problem with the addition of a great deal of content with very sparse sourcing. All of that added content resulted in the addition of a grand total of four new footnotes. A near doubling of the size of the article should have been accompanied by a great deal more and better sourcing. We would probably be best suited to remove all that added content and go back to the article as it stood on 7 May and build from there with better sources. Thoughts? ---RepublicanJacobiteThe'FortyFive' 01:49, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Photo in The end of the rebellion

I replaced the picture with one of my own because the writing on the marker is hard to read in the picture -- and photograph! I have taken pictures of the marker in all kinds of weather, but I will attempt another shot this winter with snow in the background to add somberness to the image, as it marks the end of the rebellion. --John Bessa (talk) 23:18, 17 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Shays: "What if?"

Obviously history takes distinctive turns, such as with the invention of the steam engine by Watt. When I ask "what if?" with respect to this rebellion, I am trying to show how history may have evolved if, say, Shays "regulators" had won.

Aa relevant parallel example of this idea, a "Yankee" boat designer (who recently died, and who was also from Massachusetts) was actually able to continue early American boat evolution as if engines had not taken over: "[Phil Bolger]." And he really did evolve American sailing and human-powered boats as if they are still in play as a commercial reality.

I have been personally affected by Shays Rebellion since I discovered the marker shown, with its fresh American flags. (Someone replaces them regularly). I became a long-haul trucker after the ruinous tech market crash of 2001, and the terror attack on my home-base of downtown Manhattan (effectively the home of free software), and during that period I came into contact with all of America (and Canada) nearly simultaneously. Leveraging this access, I attempted writing that would evolve Shays rebels' ideas into today's realities in a relevant way. This writing is still a work in progress (as I have not actually written down the "what if" aspects). I made it generic to include all enlightened American rebellious ideas, and then also attempted to inject my own pacifist ideas that at the moment focus on a "clean" model of Christ's ideas. I have evoked the early revolutionary symbol of the rattlesnake as it was found on the first battle flag, and also still appears in US Army symbolism and named my writing the Rattlesnake Rebellion.

Perhaps Shays rebels did not lose, and neither did the so-called Whiskey rebels. Perhaps we live in a continual give-and-take struggle between this type of super-democrat and the people they oppose, and that nothing in the end really changes, at least with respect to philosophy and society. I hope this writing will share my enthusiasm for Shays Rebellion and will inspire research here in this wiki article environment.--John Bessa (talk) 16:07, 7 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

POV of references

I've read Zinn, and several others, and I know well enough that Zinn is overrepresented in cites. Also, Zinn is NOT the leading historian on this topic either. Even Zinn admits that his American history is to tell the story from the under-included/represented sides of history which were left out of the "official" accounts. I'm not sure if the lack of cites is just due to failures of editors not to include cites for their edits or something else, but so long as Zinn's version appears as the primary source for this article, I'm tagging the article as POV per WP:UNDUE. I've also added a RefImprove tag. -- Foofighter20x (talk) 06:42, 27 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I believe that Dr. Leonard Richards' 2002 book Shays's Rebellion: The American Revolution's Final Battle should probably be used as the main source for this article. To my knowledge, his work is the only one that actually went back to primary sources from the affected area. For instance, he looked at the lists of known Regulators in the federal archives and tried to find out who those people were and why they had said they had fought. He also analyzed demographic information including things like household income and debunked the "poor farmers" myth that Zinn perpetuates. I'm still trying to find my copy of Richards' book, but it's got to be around here somewhere. --71.233.232.168 (talk) 05:04, 2 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Talk:Shays%27s_Rebellion&oldid=315317096"