Shays' Rebellion and the Debt Ceiling

[Wonky Pundit]

I never realized there were quite this many historical parallels. Cool!

Shay's Rebellion was such a crisis. Rooted in economic anxiety and political turmoil, it even involved a leader of a tea party.

The country had incurred massive debt during the Revolutionary War. But it couldn't pay it off because the Colonists, distrusting "big government," had created the Articles of Confederation to run the country, which weakened the authority of a central government.

The result was anarchy.

The federal government wasn't allowed to raise taxes to pay off war debts. Various states responded with crushing taxes. Shady bankers in states such as Massachusetts foreclosed on farmers' homes and threw people in debtors' prison. Some thought the country would dissolve.

The political leaders in Massachusetts, though, didn't seem to care, says Daniel Klinghard, author of "The Nationalization of American Political Parties, 1880-1896."

"The state Legislature was completely out of touch with the excruciating economic difficulties that people were going through," Klinghard says.

That's when Daniel Shays entered the picture. The Massachusetts farmer had fought in the Revolutionary War, only to return home and find himself -- like many fellow citizens -- facing foreclosure. He decided to fight back.

In 1786, he raised a private citizens' army called the "Shaysites." They marched on and shut down a debtors' court in Massachusetts and tried to storm a state arsenal. Samuel Adams, one of the Founding Fathers who had planned the Boston Tea Party, called for their capture and death.

Source

 

[Article 15]

bump

 

[Quantum Windbag]

I never realized there were quite this many historical parallels. Cool!

Shay's Rebellion was such a crisis. Rooted in economic anxiety and political turmoil, it even involved a leader of a tea party.

The country had incurred massive debt during the Revolutionary War. But it couldn't pay it off because the Colonists, distrusting "big government," had created the Articles of Confederation to run the country, which weakened the authority of a central government.

The result was anarchy.

The federal government wasn't allowed to raise taxes to pay off war debts. Various states responded with crushing taxes. Shady bankers in states such as Massachusetts foreclosed on farmers' homes and threw people in debtors' prison. Some thought the country would dissolve.

The political leaders in Massachusetts, though, didn't seem to care, says Daniel Klinghard, author of "The Nationalization of American Political Parties, 1880-1896."

"The state Legislature was completely out of touch with the excruciating economic difficulties that people were going through," Klinghard says.

That's when Daniel Shays entered the picture. The Massachusetts farmer had fought in the Revolutionary War, only to return home and find himself -- like many fellow citizens -- facing foreclosure. He decided to fight back.

In 1786, he raised a private citizens' army called the "Shaysites." They marched on and shut down a debtors' court in Massachusetts and tried to storm a state arsenal. Samuel Adams, one of the Founding Fathers who had planned the Boston Tea Party, called for their capture and death.

Source

How are there any parallels? Do you really think that anyone is going to lead an armed rebellion to keep the government from raising taxes?

 

[Quantum Windbag]

bump

I bet you think that was an intelligent comment.

 

[Moonglow]

But I though only current U.S. citizens were polarized and frayed?

 

[Article 15]

bump

I bet you think that was an intelligent comment.

I bet you weren't online this morning when a troll was spamming the boards and I was bumping any and every thread to keep his trash off the main page of the site.

I didn't even read the OP.

 

[whitehall]

Shays rebellion was put down before we even had a Constitution. Jefferson dismissed it as a minor incident. What is the point of bringing it up when we are 14 TRILLION in debt today with a real unemployment number of around 26% and a president who thinks we can tax our way back to economic wealth after he spent our grand kids future on a failed stimulous that only paid off crooks and political supporters?

 

[Wry Catcher]

bump

I bet you think that was an intelligent comment.

LOL, he bumped the thread. One does that whein they feel the thread has merit and has not moved forward.

 

[RetiredGySgt]

bump

I bet you think that was an intelligent comment.

LOL, he bumped the thread. One does that whein they feel the thread has merit and has not moved forward.

Wrong, he bumped it because of a troll. As to merit it has no parallel to the current situation. Shay revolted AGAINST higher State Taxes and illegal BANK and Court handling. The current situation only parallels it if he thinks citizens will rise in rebellion if the debt ceiling is raised.

 

[Wry Catcher]

I never realized there were quite this many historical parallels. Cool!

Shay's Rebellion was such a crisis. Rooted in economic anxiety and political turmoil, it even involved a leader of a tea party.

The country had incurred massive debt during the Revolutionary War. But it couldn't pay it off because the Colonists, distrusting "big government," had created the Articles of Confederation to run the country, which weakened the authority of a central government.

The result was anarchy.

The federal government wasn't allowed to raise taxes to pay off war debts. Various states responded with crushing taxes. Shady bankers in states such as Massachusetts foreclosed on farmers' homes and threw people in debtors' prison. Some thought the country would dissolve.

The political leaders in Massachusetts, though, didn't seem to care, says Daniel Klinghard, author of "The Nationalization of American Political Parties, 1880-1896."

"The state Legislature was completely out of touch with the excruciating economic difficulties that people were going through," Klinghard says.

That's when Daniel Shays entered the picture. The Massachusetts farmer had fought in the Revolutionary War, only to return home and find himself -- like many fellow citizens -- facing foreclosure. He decided to fight back.

In 1786, he raised a private citizens' army called the "Shaysites." They marched on and shut down a debtors' court in Massachusetts and tried to storm a state arsenal. Samuel Adams, one of the Founding Fathers who had planned the Boston Tea Party, called for their capture and death.

Source

How are there any parallels? Do you really think that anyone is going to lead an armed rebellion to keep the government from raising taxes?

I do. I think recent history suggests the New Right is spoiling for a fight and while most of those who hold anti-government opinions don't act violently several have, which makes your question rather silly.

We know there are militias active in America and we know they are armed; We know McVeigh and Rudolph acted against American Citizens in cowardly acts of violence, and both feared or hated the Federal Government. So why would you dismiss an armed revolt by radicals? Of course the leaders of today's radicals are Chicken Hawks, but fellow travelers and the menatlly ill may not be and may hope to become martyrs (funny about that, American faux patriots acting no differently than the 9/11 attackers).

 

[CitizenPained]

It's a good thing the federal government can tax now. No crushing taxes and devaluing of currency without the knowledge of all of Americans...who keep voting for this shit.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

bump

I bet you think that was an intelligent comment.

I bet you weren't online this morning when a troll was spamming the boards and I was bumping any and every thread to keep his trash off the main page of the site.

I didn't even read the OP.

Wow, you saved the board.

I am not impressed.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

bump

I bet you think that was an intelligent comment.

LOL, he bumped the thread. One does that whein they feel the thread has merit and has not moved forward.

Not moved forward since yesterday afternoon? Not buying it. Besides, he claimed he was doing it to bury a troll.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

I never realized there were quite this many historical parallels. Cool!

Source

How are there any parallels? Do you really think that anyone is going to lead an armed rebellion to keep the government from raising taxes?

I do. I think recent history suggests the New Right is spoiling for a fight and while most of those who hold anti-government opinions don't act violently several have, which makes your question rather silly.

We know there are militias active in America and we know they are armed; We know McVeigh and Rudolph acted against American Citizens in cowardly acts of violence, and both feared or hated the Federal Government. So why would you dismiss an armed revolt by radicals? Of course the leaders of today's radicals are Chicken Hawks, but fellow travelers and the menatlly ill may not be and may hope to become martyrs (funny about that, American faux patriots acting no differently than the 9/11 attackers).

You think recent history suggest that, do you? Can you give me some actual examples of anyone on the right calling for people to do something illegal, like break into foreclosed homes and revolt against the court system? The last time I looked the people calling for that kind of action were people on the left, not the right.

As for militias, so the fuck what? If they scare you you are free to form your own militia to combat them. It might help you get over your unreasonable fear of them if you realize that most of them are simply people who will more than likely rise up and fight for the government rather than against it.

I know there are a lot of idiots and nutcases out there. I also happen to know that there are a lot more sane people than there are crazy ones. That, more than anything else, is why I dismiss armed revolts.

That might also explain why I think the TSA is a joke. I am not a fucking idiot who is afraid of the highly improbable.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

This is the parallel, not the ‘rebellion’:

The country had incurred massive debt during the Revolutionary War. But it couldn't pay it off because the Colonists, distrusting "big government," had created the Articles of Confederation to run the country, which weakened the authority of a central government.

The result was anarchy.

As with the Articles of Confederation during the 18th Century, today we have clueless, naïve rightists advocating ‘small government’ and a return to the tyranny of the states.

 

[Wry Catcher]

How are there any parallels? Do you really think that anyone is going to lead an armed rebellion to keep the government from raising taxes?

I do. I think recent history suggests the New Right is spoiling for a fight and while most of those who hold anti-government opinions don't act violently several have, which makes your question rather silly.

We know there are militias active in America and we know they are armed; We know McVeigh and Rudolph acted against American Citizens in cowardly acts of violence, and both feared or hated the Federal Government. So why would you dismiss an armed revolt by radicals? Of course the leaders of today's radicals are Chicken Hawks, but fellow travelers and the menatlly ill may not be and may hope to become martyrs (funny about that, American faux patriots acting no differently than the 9/11 attackers).

You think recent history suggest that, do you? Can you give me some actual examples of anyone on the right calling for people to do something illegal, like break into foreclosed homes and revolt against the court system? The last time I looked the people calling for that kind of action were people on the left, not the right.

As for militias, so the fuck what? If they scare you you are free to form your own militia to combat them. It might help you get over your unreasonable fear of them if you realize that most of them are simply people who will more than likely rise up and fight for the government rather than against it.

I know there are a lot of idiots and nutcases out there. I also happen to know that there are a lot more sane people than there are crazy ones. That, more than anything else, is why I dismiss armed revolts.

That might also explain why I think the TSA is a joke. I am not a fucking idiot who is afraid of the highly improbable.

In your first paragraph you ask for examples of people on the right calling for "people to do something illegal" and I can't. I can recall and point out remarks made by candidates and former candidates (and maybe an eleceted official or two) using language or symbols extolling a need to 'lock and load' and language similar to the rhetoric in the prelude to our civil war. Rhetoric whiich can and does encourage "idiots and nutcases out there". Can you name counterpoints to McVeigh, Rudolph or Roeder on the left?

As for people on the left, there is no doubt the rioters at WTO meetings and extremist such as the fringe members of PETA have participated in violence - but they are not Democrats or liberals or progressives, they are criminals and radicals.

Sane people can and do encourage" the idiots and nuts" assuming Hannity and O'Reilly are sane, their words may have echoed in the head of Reoder as he cowardly killed Dr. Tiller.

Armed revots like Waco, where an insane cult leader lead 54 adults and 21 children to their deaths should give you cause to reconsider you opinion on armed revolts. As for Militias, the House of Representatives is authorized "To provide for organizaing, arming, and disciplining, the Militia, and for governing such Part of them as may be employed in the Service of the United States, reserving to the States respectively the Appointment of the Officers and the Authority of training the Militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress" (Article I, Section 8, clause 16; see also, clause 15, "To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrectons and repel invasions").

No where in the Constitution is a private person authorized to establish a Milita.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

This is the parallel, not the ‘rebellion’:

The country had incurred massive debt during the Revolutionary War. But it couldn't pay it off because the Colonists, distrusting "big government," had created the Articles of Confederation to run the country, which weakened the authority of a central government.

The result was anarchy.

As with the Articles of Confederation during the 18th Century, today we have clueless, naïve rightists advocating ‘small government’ and a return to the tyranny of the states.

That is not the parallel.

The rebellion occurred because state taxes were too high. The debt was a problem because the Confederation was not allowed to tax, but had no restrictions on borrowing.

Thanks for proving you are a partisan hack and an idiot, again.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

In your first paragraph you ask for examples of people on the right calling for "people to do something illegal" and I can't. I can recall and point out remarks made by candidates and former candidates (and maybe an eleceted official or two) using language or symbols extolling a need to 'lock and load' and language similar to the rhetoric in the prelude to our civil war. Rhetoric whiich can and does encourage "idiots and nutcases out there". Can you name counterpoints to McVeigh, Rudolph or Roeder on the left?

You admit you cannot provide examples on the right of anyone advocating anything illegal. I can point to people on the left advocating outright illegal acts, and even aiding and abetting in them. Vague references to language that is used by both sides doesn't count. You then ask me to counter a few acts of violence. Why would I have to find more examples of nutcases that commit violence?

As for people on the left, there is no doubt the rioters at WTO meetings and extremist such as the fringe members of PETA have participated in violence - but they are not Democrats or liberals or progressives, they are criminals and radicals.

I have never tried to claim anything else, yet you want me to prove that the people who support causes you disagree with are not Republicans, conservatives, or Tea Party members.

Do I detect a double standard?

Sane people can and do encourage" the idiots and nuts" assuming Hannity and O'Reilly are sane, their words may have echoed in the head of Reoder as he cowardly killed Dr. Tiller.

Did the Beatles encourage Charles Manson? Sane people do not encourage insanity.

Armed revots like Waco, where an insane cult leader lead 54 adults and 21 children to their deaths should give you cause to reconsider you opinion on armed revolts. As for Militias, the House of Representatives is authorized "To provide for organizaing, arming, and disciplining, the Militia, and for governing such Part of them as may be employed in the Service of the United States, reserving to the States respectively the Appointment of the Officers and the Authority of training the Militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress" (Article I, Section 8, clause 16; see also, clause 15, "To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrectons and repel invasions").

Waco was not an armed revolt, it was an armed raid conducted by the government on a group that had no criminal history. The search warrant obtained by the ATF was based solely on the fact that the parts that the Dravidian's had legally purchased could be modified to make the weapons illegal. The raid was conducted despite the fact that the ATF was specifically invited to come out and look at the very weapons in question. Using that standard we could break into your home because the common cleaning supplies you purchase might be used to make explosives, even if you said that we were free to look at them without a warrant.

I know you support the government no matter what, but they had no need to go in their with a SWAT team, especially when they knew children were at the compound. That makes them, and the people who approved the raid, responsible.

Should they have let them serve the warrant? Yes? Should they have let a bunch of men driving tanks and carrying guns into their home with their children? You decide.

No where in the Constitution is a private person authorized to establish a Milita.

The Constitution is not set up to prevent private people from doing anything. It is set up to define the powers of the government and the power it has to infringe on people's rights. That is why privacy and abortion are both constitutional rights despite the fact that neither is actually mentioned. You trying to argue from the position of an originalist regarding Constitutional law is ludicrous. It does not help your argument that I understand that the Constitution is more than its literal words.

If you were not a partisan hack you would know that about me.

 

[Kooshdakhaa]

This is the parallel, not the ‘rebellion’:

The country had incurred massive debt during the Revolutionary War. But it couldn't pay it off because the Colonists, distrusting "big government," had created the Articles of Confederation to run the country, which weakened the authority of a central government.

The result was anarchy.

As with the Articles of Confederation during the 18th Century, today we have clueless, naïve rightists advocating ‘small government’ and a return to the tyranny of the states.

Precisely! And it was George Washington who started calling for a more centrist government back at the time of Shay's Rebellion, in order to control some of the abuse of citizens that was going on at the hands of the state goverments.