Editing Shays's Rebellion (section)

==Impact on the Constitution==
[[Thomas Jefferson]] was serving as ambassador to France at the time and refused to be alarmed by Shays's Rebellion. He argued in a letter to James Madison on January 30, 1787, that occasional rebellion serves to preserve freedoms. In a letter to William Stephens Smith on November 13, 1787, Jefferson wrote, "The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants. It is its natural manure."<ref name=" Foner, Eric 2006">Foner, p. 219</ref> In contrast, [[George Washington]] had been calling for constitutional reform for many years, and he wrote in a letter dated October 31, 1786, to [[Henry Lee III|Henry Lee]], "You talk, my good sir, of employing influence to appease the present tumults in Massachusetts. I know not where that influence is to be found, or, if attainable, that it would be a proper remedy for the disorders. Influence is not government. Let us have a government by which our lives, liberties, and properties will be secured, or let us know the worst at once."<ref>Lodge, p. 2:26</ref><ref>Feer, p. 396</ref>

=== Influence upon the Constitutional Convention ===
[[File:Washington Constitutional Convention 1787.jpg|thumb|upright=1.1|The 1787 Constitutional Convention by [[Junius Brutus Stearns]], 1856]]
At the time of the rebellion, the weaknesses of the federal government as constituted under the [[Articles of Confederation]] were apparent to many. A vigorous debate was going on throughout the states on the need for a stronger central government, with [[Federalism in the United States|Federalists]] arguing for the idea, and [[Anti-Federalists]] opposing them. Historical opinion is divided on what sort of role the rebellion played in the formation and later ratification of the [[United States Constitution]], although most scholars agree that it played some role, at least temporarily drawing some anti-Federalists to the strong government side.<ref>Szatmary, p. 120</ref>

By early 1785, many influential merchants and political leaders were already agreed that a stronger central government was needed. Shortly after Shays's Rebellion broke out, delegates from five states [[Annapolis Convention (1786)|met in Annapolis, Maryland]] from September 11–14, 1786, and they concluded that vigorous steps were needed to reform the federal government, but they disbanded because of a lack of full representation and authority, calling for a convention of all the states to be held in Philadelphia in May 1787.<ref>Szatmary, p. 122</ref> Historian Robert Feer notes that several prominent figures had hoped that the convention would fail, requiring a larger-scale convention, and French diplomat [[Louis-Guillaume Otto]] thought that the convention was intentionally broken off early to achieve this end.<ref>Feer, pp. 391–392</ref>

In early 1787, [[John Jay]] wrote that the rural disturbances and the inability of the central government to fund troops in response made "the inefficiency of the Federal government more and more manifest".<ref>Szatmary, p. 123</ref> [[Henry Knox]] observed that the uprising in Massachusetts clearly influenced local leaders who had previously opposed a strong federal government. Historian [[David Szatmary]] writes that the timing of the rebellion "convinced the elites of sovereign states that the proposed gathering at Philadelphia must take place".<ref>Szatmary, p. 127</ref> Some states delayed choosing delegates to the proposed convention, including Massachusetts, in part because it resembled the "extra-legal" conventions organized by the protestors before the rebellion became violent.<ref>Feer, p. 393</ref>

=== Influence upon the Constitution ===
[[File:Nathaniel Jocelyn - Elbridge Gerry (1744-1814) - 1943.1816 - Harvard Art Museums.jpg|thumb|upright=1.1|[[Elbridge Gerry]], depicted in this 1861 portrait, opposed the Constitution as drafted, although his reasons for doing so were not strongly influenced by the rebellion.]]

The convention that met in Philadelphia then was dominated by strong-government advocates.<ref>Richards, p. 132</ref> Delegate [[Oliver Ellsworth]] of Connecticut argued that because the people could not be trusted (as exemplified by Shays's Rebellion), the members of the federal House of Representatives should be chosen by state legislatures, not by popular vote.<ref>Richards, p. 134</ref> The example of Shays's Rebellion may also have been influential in the addition of language to the constitution concerning the ability of states to manage domestic violence, and their ability to demand the [[extradition|return of individuals from other states]] for trial.<ref>Szatmary, p. 130</ref>

The rebellion also played a role in the discussion of the number of chief executives the United States would have going forward. While mindful of tyranny, delegates of the Constitutional Convention thought that the single executive would be more effective in responding to national disturbances.<ref>{{cite book |last1=Milkis |first1=S. |last2=Nelson |first2=M. |title=The American Presidency |location=Washington |publisher=CQ Press |year=2003 |edition=4th}}</ref>

Federalists cited the rebellion as an example of the confederation government's weaknesses, while opponents such as [[Elbridge Gerry]], a merchant speculator and Massachusetts delegate from Essex County, thought that a federal response to the rebellion would have been even worse than that of the state. He was one of the few convention delegates who refused to sign the new constitution, although his reasons for doing so did not stem from the rebellion.<ref>Feer, p. 395</ref>

=== Influence upon ratification ===
When the constitution had been drafted, Massachusetts was viewed by Federalists as a state that might not ratify it, because of widespread anti-Federalist sentiment in the rural parts of the state. Massachusetts Federalists, including Henry Knox, were active in courting swing votes in the debates leading up to the state's ratifying convention in 1788. When the vote was taken on February 6, 1788, representatives of rural communities involved in the rebellion voted against ratification by a wide margin, but the day was carried by a coalition of merchants, urban elites, and market town leaders. The state ratified the constitution by a vote of 187 to 168.<ref>Szatmary, p. 133</ref>

Historians are divided on the impact the rebellion had on the ratification debates. Robert Feer notes that major Federalist pamphleteers rarely mentioned it and that some anti-Federalists used the fact that Massachusetts survived the rebellion as evidence that a new constitution was unnecessary.<ref>Feer, p. 404</ref> Leonard Richards counters that publications like the ''[[Pennsylvania Gazette]]'' explicitly tied anti-Federalist opinion to the rebel cause, calling opponents of the new constitution "Shaysites" and the Federalists "Washingtonians".<ref>Richards, p. 139</ref>

David Szatmary argues that debate in some states was affected, particularly in Massachusetts, where the rebellion had a polarizing effect.<ref>Szatmary, pp. 128–132</ref> Richards records [[Henry Jackson (Continental Army general)|Henry Jackson's]] observation that opposition to ratification in Massachusetts was motivated by "that cursed spirit of insurgency", but that broader opposition in other states originated in other constitutional concerns expressed by Elbridge Gerry, who published a widely distributed pamphlet outlining his concerns about the vagueness of some of the powers granted in the constitution and its lack of a [[United States Bill of Rights|Bill of Rights]].<ref>Richards, pp. 141–143</ref>

The military powers enshrined in the constitution were soon put to use by President George Washington. After the passage by the United States Congress of the [[Whiskey Act]], protest against the taxes it imposed began in western [[Pennsylvania]]. The protests escalated and Washington led federal and state militia to put down what is now known as the [[Whiskey Rebellion]].<ref>Richards, pp. 135–136</ref>