A Spoon Full of Rebellion

While rebellions tend to be rooted in violence and can often cause alarming problems, they are also vital for society to progress. Not only are there “checks and balances” within a government, but the people of a society and the entire government check and balance each other, and a rebellion is one way the people check the government. Yet, in some cases the response of the government on a rebellion can be one way the government checks the people. On one prominent rebellion that took place early in the development of the United States, Thomas Jefferson said, “I hold it, that a little rebellion, now and then, is a good thing, and as necessary in the political world as storms in the physical. Unsuccessful rebellions, indeed, generally establish the encroachments on the rights of the people, which have produced them. An observation of this truth should render honest republican governors so mild in their punishment of rebellions, as not to discourage them too much. It is a medicine necessary for the sound health of government.” I think that Jefferson was right in his positive outlook on rebellions because he knew that sometimes the only way to get what’s right and fair is to rebel, which is exactly what the Americans did to Britain.

The rebellion Jefferson spoke of was Shays’s rebellion, where angry farmers in various parts of New England rallied behind Daniel Shays (a former captain in the U.S. continental army) to protest the burdensome taxes placed on them. The rebellion lasted for about two years, and finally came to an end in January 1787, when an army of state militiamen met Shays’s rebellion and dispersed them. Although Shays’s rebellion did not have a profound effect on taxes and farmers, it did cause the urgency for a new national constitution to increase. When the news of Shay’s rebellion spread through the states, it urged many leaders to appear at the national convention, where many prominent leaders met to discuss the future of America. They were implored by Shays’s rebellion because it showed that the national government needed to strength its grasp on the people, while also alleviating the burdens of taxes on the people. The national convention was the starting point of the writing of a new constitution, and the rebirth of a new nation. Without the outrage caused by Shay’s rebellion, many of the famous leaders who appeared at the convention (such as George Washington) might not have come.

Another rebellion was the Whiskey Rebellion, which took place in 1794. Farmers of Western Pennsylvania refused to pay the excise tax on whiskey, and often resorted to harassing tax collectors. At Hamilton’s urging, George Washington summoned the militia of three states, gathering a total of 15,000 men, and personally marched the troops to Pennsylvania. Once the rebellion saw the troops, they quickly dispersed, and the government ended up winning the allegiance of the Whiskey rebels by intimidation. Unlike Shays’s rebellion, the Whiskey rebellion was the government’s “check” of the people. The results of the Whiskey rebellion proved to the people that the government was strong, and united enough to bring down further problems. Moreover, the Whiskey rebellion showed the progression of the American Government from Shays’s rebellion, and ultimately tarnished the appeal of another rebellion.

While resulting in evil or justice, a rebellion is a “medicine necessary” for the balance between the power of the government and the strength of the people.

Give Me Freedom, or Give me Representation

Although there are multiple varying causes for a revolution, usually a major social or economical issue is rooted at its core. For the American Revolution, such causes are not evident. In Gordon S. Wood’s essay Radical Possibilities of the American Revolution, he claims, “ [There was] no mass poverty, no seething social discontent, no grinding oppression. For most white Americans there was greater prosperity than anywhere else in the world.” Of course not all of the colonies were prosperous, but through hard work and determination most of the colonies thrived, without the help of Britain. After the French and Indian War, the colonies didn’t need Britain to protect them, and therefore (for the most part), Britain wasn’t involved in the development of the colonies. Yet, the colonies were still part of Britain, and wanted representation, but they didn’t get it. Thus, they were left to develop the colonies on their own, and in turn created a new way of governing and living. When England did try to interfere, colonists became either angered or suspicious. In England’s first involvement with colonies after the war, they imposed numerous taxes such as the Mutiny Act of 1765, the Sugar Act of 1764, the Currency Act of 1764, and most importantly the Stamp Act of 1765. After working vigorously to keep afloat, the colonies were angered and also fearful that they were trying to be degraded, and made inferior to Britain. There reasoning for this was simple, the taxation had no representation. In addition to being fearful about taxation by the British, when the British showed compassion or passed a “helpful” law, the colonists were skeptical. For example, the Quebec Act, extended the boundaries of Quebec to include the French communities between the Ohio and Mississippi Rivers, and also granted political rights to Roman Catholics. While, the Quebec Act showed religious tolerance, many colonists believed it was a plot (by the British) to subject Americans to the authority of the pope.

The main reason why colonists protested most of the laws set upon them by the British was because they had an initial taste of freedom and self-government. Once their eyes were opened to the possibilities of fidelity, they were inevitably going to doubt everything that others forced them to do; they were no longer naïve or ignorant. Albeit, numerous colonists wanted to be part of Britain (hence the petitioning for representation) they also wanted to be American, and free, and unfortunately they couldn’t have both. Patrick Henry’s famous line, “give me liberty or give me death,” sums up the American sentiment toward the British in the period leading up to the war. They were desperate, and tired of being ignored by the British, and perhaps coming to the realization that the freedom in America was priceless, and being part of a grandiose country like Britain paled in comparison. Americans hungered for freedom once they got a taste of it, and subconsciously they knew that reverting back living by the word of Britain was impossible.