I believe that the states had all the rights to take the tools and properties of the farmers to pay off the farmer's debts. I think that the property was a kind of collateral for the money that the farmers borrowed for the ammunition. I do not think that Daniel Shays and his band of farmers had any right to rebel and close down the banks. I do think, however, that what he did was also a good thing. It made the states realize that a stronger central government was needed. It was used by important people such as George Washington, James Madison, and Alexander Hamilton to help convince the different states to give more power to the central government. I believe that the rebellion in itself wasn't very significant or important, but what it is really what our country is about. The Ability to express what we think. Shays and his men did it in a fairly violent way, but none the less, they were expressing their rights as American Citizens to protest the unfair treatment that they were getting. This rebellion would have had no historical significance if the Massachusetts militia had stopped it in time. This has very little to do with the entire country not being strong enough, but more with Massachusetts being in itself weak. On the other hand, if the entire country had been stronger, maybe the separate states would have been stronger. In conclusion, I think that Shays rebellion is unimportant, and almost pointless, except for what it stands for, and the fact that it helped make our country stronger. Many other rebellions have happened since then, but this particular rebellion is important because of when it happened. If it hadn't happened at such a crucial time in our country's history it would have been put down immediately, and no one would ever have heard of it.
Please join StudyMode to read the full document