Talk:Shays's Rebellion/Archive 1

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)

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)

No, proper grammar would be Shays', not Shays's. Xihr (talk) 21:51, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

---

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

Mattwolf7 15:00, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

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)

Please, do. Msr657 17:48, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

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)

restriction

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

two links are wrong

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

Riot Act

[These comments were originally at Talk:Shaysites, which now redirects here. Copied here for completeness. Magic♪piano 02:15, 6 March 2012 (UTC)] The Riot Act was a British document; the corresponding U.S. act was the Militia Act, which wasn't made until 1792. - Keith D. Tyler ¶ 23:38, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

Marion Starkey in her "A Little Rebellion" (Alfred A Knopf, 1955) reports that the Riot Act in this case was legislation adopted by the Massachusetts General Court (legislature) on October 28, 1786. Drafted by Sam Adams,along with a suspension of habeas courpus law that was adopted two weeks later, the Riot Act, according to Starkey, gave the Governor powers to call out the militia and send it whereever its services were required - to allow the Courts of Common Pleas to remain open in the face of crowds of citizens blocking judges from the courts. This was needed because local militias, especially in the most dissident counties, could not be counted on to preserve order.

References

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

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)

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)

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)

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

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)

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. ---RepublicanJacobite_{The'FortyFive'} 16:52, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

I'm pretty sure Zinn based his views on Charles A. 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)

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. ---RepublicanJacobite_{The'FortyFive'} 17:27, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

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)

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. ---RepublicanJacobite_{The'FortyFive'} 00:11, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

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? ---RepublicanJacobite_{The'FortyFive'} 01:49, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

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)

I agree. Richards is a good choice. --Dunkelza (talk) 02:08, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

Too many historians ignore the fact that the Continental Congress paid regular soldiers and suppliers with notes and other debt instruments in such great quantities there wasn't enough specie to redeem them (hyperinflation). The colonial governments did the same thing, paying militia with notes. There was so much paper floating around that nobody would accept it for payment. ("Worthless as a Continental.") After the war, Alexander Hamilton, Roger Morris and other wealthy merchants bought this paper from veterans at huge discounts to par, then at the Constitutional Convention Hamilton and Morris insisted that the federal government assume all debt from the war and redeem the paper at par. The veterans got hosed twice: by being effectively forced to sell paper to speculators and then forced by the federal government to pay off that paper at par through forced taxation. Naturally veterans such as Shay were outraged and rebelled at such abuse. Hamilton in the Federalist Papers used Shays Rebellion, which he and his buddies had in fact created, as one of his arguments FOR the need of a strong federal government to suppress such rebellions and "traitors!" What chutzpah! Too bad Burr didn't off the SOB sooner! References: Conceived in Liberty vol.4 Murray Rothbard; The Federalist Papers, Hamilton, Madison, Jay —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.13.107.176 (talk) 01:46, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

Henry Gale Section

Another editor pasted a large section from an 1866 book. I am assuming that because of the published date it is no longer under copyright. While I personally think that such large copies are a bad idea, the material does add value to the article. I have followed one of the suggestions at Wikipedia:Plagiarism and placed the entire section in a block quote format, but I believe the best course is for me or someone else to paraphrase and trim the material at some future date. Tom (North Shoreman) (talk) 13:18, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

Lieutenant Simeon Wheelock ?

I'm sorry, but I can't seem to see what the Lieutenant Simeon Wheelock's unfortunate death has to do with anything. I don't see where his significance is established previous to his mention which appears to come from out of nowhere, nor that his death had any repercussions or significance to the rebelliion afterward. Am I missing something here...? Or did someone omit some pertinent information regarding Lieutenant Wheelock? If the mention adds nothing to the narrative, perhaps it should be removed. If there is some significance to his being mentioned, perhaps someone might elaborate and make that fact clear? But mentioning this individual moved from Uxbridge to Springfield and was killed by his horse while guarding the Armory appears to simply be tivia which has no bearing on the rebellion and as such has no place in the article. Howaboutyouthinkaboutit (talk) 02:17, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

Shays not Shaye

In the article, Daniel Shays' name is spelled incorrectly as Daniel Shaye, so the link direct to his main page. Can Someone fix this? Dennimen (talk) 14:50, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

Format error

Viewing from my Chrome browser, it looks like the eighteenth and last reference in the References section is jutting on the right side of the page. This may be an error on my side, but I would not know.

 Fewmenleft (talk) 03:57, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

Dates

The introduction says, "The rebellion started on August 29, 1786", but this date is not mentioned again anywhere else in the article. Then later, we have, "Shays' Rebellion saw some of its opening salvos in Central Massachusetts, in the town of Uxbridge, in Worcester County, on Feb. 3, 1783." This is more than 3 years earlier than the supposed starting date. One of the references is a dead link, and the other goes to some writings by John Hancock, which would be a primary source, and I don't know enough context of the rebellion to understand what's going on there, but it's very unclear how February 1783 is related. Furthermore, we also see that Shays was incensed by the indictment issued by the Massachusetts Supreme Court on September 19 (I assume this is 1786, but it doesn't say), which would be after August 29 -- why would a rebellion start before the triggering event? Can someone please clean this up? howcheng {chat} 07:53, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

Merge Shaysites

The Shaysites article should be merged here, since it says nothing not already said here, in addition to being unreferenced. ---RepublicanJacobite_TheFortyFive 02:55, 21 October 2011 (UTC)

Since the little contained in the article is unreferenced, the Shaysites article should be made a candidate for deletion, not merging. The tag has been there since 2009; plenty of time for an editor to bring in some sources. The bit most in need of sourcing is the claim that the "Shaysites" called themselves "Regulators". As far as I can see, while they may have called themselves Regulators, Shays' grievances had no obvious connection to the aims of the Regulator Movement. So, even if the claim is true, it needs to be explained (and properly sourced). I'll send a note to the original author, wait a month for further action and/or comments, then propose 'Shaysites' for deletion if nothing changes. WCCasey (talk) 05:29, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

I am sorry for not responding sooner. Your comments make sense. Merge was just one idea, but there really is nothing to be merged. ---RepublicanJacobite_TheFortyFive 00:06, 7 November 2011 (UTC)

I decided to go ahead and be bold and simply turn that article into a redirect. There was no significant content to be merged. ---RepublicanJacobite_TheFortyFive 20:46, 21 November 2011 (UTC)

Simeon Wheelock

It seems that in Mounting financial crisis, after mentioning the events in February 3rd, 1783, it randomly skips ahead 3 years after mentioning the opening salvos of the rebellion to mention this man. Is that intentional and correct, or is that an error?

--216.137.220.54 (talk) 23:50, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

It's a fine example of terrible writing. Magic♪piano 02:16, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Shays' Rebellion/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: MathewTownsend (talk · contribs) 00:38, 31 March 2012 (UTC)

• will give this a try. MathewTownsend (talk) 00:38, 31 March 2012 (UTC)

review

• I find this to be an excellent article. I made a few edits that you're free to revert.[1]

GA review-see WP:WIAGA for criteria (and here for what they are not)

1. Is it reasonably well written?

   A. Prose: clear and concise, correct spelling and grammar:

   B. Complies with MoS for lead, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation:

2. Is it factually accurate and verifiable?

   A. Provides references to all sources:

   AGF as most were unavailable

   B. Provides in-line citations from reliable sources where necessary:

   C. No original research:

3. Is it broad in its coverage?

   A. Main aspects are addressed:

   B. Remains focused:

4. Does it follow the neutral point of view policy.

   Fair representation without bias:

5. Is it stable?

   No edit wars, etc:

6. Does it contain images to illustrate the topic?

   A. Images are copyright tagged, and non-free images have fair use rationales:

   B. Images are provided where possible and appropriate, with suitable captions:

7. Overall:

   Pass or Fail:

   Fascinating insight into this period of history. MathewTownsend (talk) 19:35, 4 April 2012 (UTC)

Thanks, glad you liked it! Magic♪piano 18:13, 5 April 2012 (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)

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)

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)

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" [2]
• 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 [3]. 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)

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

“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)

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)

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)

Yeah, just because some people run around saying "The sky is falling! The sky is falling!" doesn't mean it actually is... Shearonink (talk) 18:15, 5 July 2022 (UTC)

Move discussion in progress

There is a move discussion in progress on Talk:Bayes' theorem which affects this page. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you. —RMCD bot 17:01, 23 August 2023 (UTC)

I see that MOS:POSS has changed since this was last discussed here. Magic♪piano 17:41, 23 August 2023 (UTC)