If you're seeing this message, it means we're having trouble loading external resources on our website.

If you're behind a web filter, please make sure that the domains *.kastatic.org and *.kasandbox.org are unblocked.

Main content

Info Brief: Summary of Shays' Rebellion

Read about the reasons for constitutional reform, including the threat of mob violence and Shays' Rebellion.
The economic situation in America grew dire by 1786. Revolutionary war debt ravaged the budgets of the national government and some states. States tried a variety of measures to address the debt crisis—including debt relief. Businesses were failing, and trade suffered. And under the Articles of Confederation, the national government could do little to help.
In late 1786, farmers in western Massachusetts—facing high land taxes (and growing debt) and feeling that the economic (and governing) class in Boston didn’t represent them—took matters into their own hands.
Under the leadership of Daniel Shays—a 39-year-old farmer who had fought in the American Revolution, including at Lexington and Bunker Hill—the farmers organized themselves into an armed fighting force and marched through the western part of the state. The farmers seized control of court buildings, preventing the state government from taking possession of their farms. They forced debtors’ prisons to close. And they attempted to commandeer the arsenal at Springfield, Massachusetts. Their plan was to march to Boston and confront the Massachusetts government.
Under the Articles of Confederation, Congress had no power to raise an army. They could ask the states for help—but they couldn’t force them to raise troops. As a result, a Massachusetts militia eventually put down the rebellion.
For many in the Founding generation—including George Washington, Alexander Hamilton, and James Madison—Shays’ Rebellion was proof that the Articles were too weak to govern the country. They feared that this might be the first of many violent uprisings. The national government had no real power to stop future uprisings or to address the underlying problems through good policy.
As George Washington wrote in a 1787 letter to Henry Knox:
“[I shall] be extremely anxious to know the issue of the movements of the forces that were assembling, the one to support, the other to oppose the constitutional rights of Massachusetts. – The moment is, indeed, important! – If government shrinks, or is unable to enforce its laws; fresh maneuvers will be displayed by the insurgents – anarchy & confusion must prevail – and everything will be turned topsy/turvey in that State; where it is not probable the mischiefs will terminate.”
Washington worried that failing to end Shays’ Rebellion would show that the national government was weak. That would only lead to the spread of additional rebellions and insurrections.
Though many national figures shared Washington’s view of the need for a stronger federal government, not all did. Here’s what Thomas Jefferson wrote to John Adams in 1787:
“I own I am not a friend to a very energetic government. It is always oppressive. The late rebellion in Massachusetts has given more alarm than I think it should have done. Calculate that one rebellion in 13 states in the course of 11 years, is but one for each state in a century & a half. No country should be so long without one. Nor will any degree of power in the hands of government prevent insurrections. . . .”
But eventually, enough key national leaders concluded that the nation needed to hold a convention—one that might work to propose a strong national government, whether through revisions to the Articles of Confederation or even through a new constitution. Key figures like James Madison and Alexander Hamilton pushed to ensure that the nation called that convention and that America’s most beloved leader—George Washington—would be there when it happened.
On February 21, 1787, the Confederation Congress did agree to call for a convention of state delegates to meet in Philadelphia for the “sole and express purpose of revising the Articles.” However, the Framers instead crafted an entirely new framework of government—the U.S. Constitution.

Want to join the conversation?

No posts yet.