Monday, March 26, 2007

Here in Springfield, the majority of people drive or walk by the site of an event that was a turning point for our nation and never realize it. In January, the anniversary of Shay's Rebellion was noted here. I wrote the following piece for the papers I edit.

I really believe we live in very dangerous times. We have a president bent on unjustified war. We have a Congress lacking the will to stop him. Corporations control more and more of our daily lives. The era of the American middle class appears to be almost over. More and more people are working poor with little real hope for economic advancement.

We need a rebellion. Not with guns, not with violence, but with a re-affirmation of what this country represents. We need to bring jobs back to this country. NAFTA should be repealed. We need to protect American manufacturing with tariffs. We need a tax code that is fair to everyone. We should realize that new jobs must come out of the effort to address the conditions that have caused global warming. We need to protect ourselves by actually attacking the root causes that create terrorist activities.

I don't think it's too late for this nation, but the clock is ticking.

It's hard to believe that a Burger King stands almost on the spot of one of the most significant events in American history, but the fast food restaurant at the corner of State and Federal Streets is about where a group of angry farmers and Revolutionary War veterans made history.

It was there that Daniel Shays and his group of rebels were marching to take over the arsenal at the Springfield Armory. Although they failed, Shays's action proved to be the catalyst for the call for a Constitutional Congress and the drafting of the American Constitution.

Shays's place in American history was recently examined by a two-day symposium on Jan. 27 and 28 sponsored by the Springfield Armory National Historic Site and Springfield Technical Community College (STCC).

Richard Colton, the historian for the Armory museum, recently took this writer on a tour around the STCC grounds and where Shays's army made history.


Colton began the tour in the archives of the Armory museum. There he used several books from the collection to explain why Shays and his followers took the step of armed rebellion.

In one almanac from 1780, Colton pointed out a chart showing the inflation of the paper currency from the time of the Revolution to that year what had been $100 just a few years before now was $4,000.

The severe decrease in the value of money was coupled with high taxes to pay off the cost of the war, he explained. Actions by the Massachusetts Legislature had disenfranchised many residents taking away from them the ability to vote and make legal changes.

Colton said the Massachusetts Constitution, the oldest printed constitution, stipulated that one had to own property in order to vote and run for office.

"The true elite were unresponsive to the common people," Colton said.

With hard economic times, the state's courts were seizing farms and throwing people into debtor's prison.

"People thought the courts were out of control," Colton added.

The Articles of the Federation, Colton added, had not resulted in creating a nation, but instead "13 little countries" bound loosely together. Each state, for instance, produced its own currency.

Shays was one western Massachusetts resident who decided to take steps to correct matters. A Pelham farmer and landowner, Shays was a highly decorated Revolutionary War veteran who left the military with the rank of captain.

The deteriorating conditions of the early Commonwealth promoted Shays to band with others who felt the need for a new revolution and on Jan. 25, 1787, Shays led a makeshift army of about 1,200 to the federal arsenal in Springfield.

The arsenal, Colton said, had more guns, artillery and ammunition than anyplace in New England. Colton said if Shays had captured the arsenal he could have made Springfield his base camp for a longer challenge to Boston's power. He could have even established a new capitol here.


It is a numbingly cold day on the STCC campus and one wonders if it was as cold when Shays led his army down what was then called Boston Road, but what is now known as State Street. Shays had assembled his forces in the east and was marching from Wilbraham to the federal arsenal.

As Colton led me across the green in the center of the campus, he pointed out that this is not the complex Shays would have been approaching. Even though a number of the buildings are well over a century old the West Arsenal building built in 1808 is almost 200 years old none of them were standing when Shays and his men came.

Walking toward the entrance of the college, Colton said a militia force had been called to protect the arsenal from Shays. Although roughly the same size, the militia had the advantage of field pieces or cannons.

Colton said that Shays was hoping to rout the arsenal's defenders simply by intimidation of his forces, however, when Shays was fired upon by the cannon, the battle was over.

Old Boston Road had a curve to it and Shays had placed his most experienced men in the front of his formation. The cannon fire did not hit them but fired over them and struck the less seasoned fighters who were marching around the curve.

The green troops fled and Shays's army had to retreat. Shays had a price on his head and fled to Vermont. He eventually settled in New York where he received a pardon and died in 1825.

Colton said that contemporary historians did not treat Shays very well and wrote accounts of the rebellion with a pro-government slant. Even with that bias, Shays's actions pointed out the inequities that existed the need for a stronger federal government.

The symposium attracted historians from throughout New England to address the rebellions and its impact.

In a letter to James Madison on Jan. 30, 1787, Thomas Jefferson wrote about Shays's Rebellion: "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."

© 2007 by Gordon Michael Dobbs


Tommy said...

Very informative!

Marky Mark said...

Oh Cripes, you too? Is every post going to begin with how totally fucked we are thanks to the Regime now?

He got to you, didn't he? He put something in your food at Applebee's.

Crap. CRAP!!!

Mike Dobbs said...

Mark...what did I say that wasn't true?

Bill Dusty said...

Mike! We agree on something once again ;-) I never liked the idea of NAFTA (as it is), if only because it allowed for a Third World economy (Mexico's) to exist as an "equal" with our own. But with their cheap labor and zero labor standards, our workforce could hardly compete (from a cost-saving standpoint). We see that now with China - even without a free trade agreement. I always thought (at the time it came into effect) NAFTA should have been just us and Canada, and maybe Chile (which today does have a bilateral FTA with us).

Cheers! - Bill

Marky Mark said...

Oh, Mikey, there's not any blatant untruth in THIS post. It's just the way you say it, and the wrongness in the REASONS you give for the gloom and doom. And the fact that you are so 100% sure you are right about that.

I confess. I over-reacted. Just please don't start the the Regime this and the Regime that all the time.

The one where you went off the radar about Rushie and his ilk was pretty scary. That's the one where I thought the Bissette pod had grafted onto your neck. Here's another great quote from that one:

"Oh, but it's okay to out an undercover CIA agent because her husband embarassed the Regime."


Mike Dobbs said...

Mark, again what is factually wrong here? NAFTA has put the American worker at a disadvantage, but not the corporation that can shift jobs out of the country. The middle class is disappearing. Thousands of people have died in a war to protect us from terrorists in a country that did not attack us.

The Bush administration is spending money it doesn't have a tremendous pace, especially when you consider he is supposed to be a conservative, whatever that label means these days.

How am I supposed to spin this stuff to make it sound hopeful?

I am hopeful that if people get pissed off enough they will start to force decisions. I want to see those things I mentioned ( the end of NAFTA, a simple tax code, the encouragment of a new economy based on green technology) and more, such as term limits for the Congress so the same old farts can't rule our lives forever.

I want Osama's head on a pike and everyone else who was involved in 9/11. But the current administration doesn't care about that not do they care about homeland security. Thousands of containers come into this country unchecked...can you say, bomb?

Marky Mark said...

There you go again.

"The current administration" is the root of all evil in your mind.

Spread the love, my friend. They ALL suck, and I happen to think the current-admin-obstructionists suck worse.

"The Bush Admin" is spending money it doesn't have - as if when we finally get that admin out of power the pork will stop.

I do salute you for throwing congress in there.

I do not think things are as hopeless as you think they are. And I don't think Bushies are the biggest problem we have. Or the "Regime" as you say.

Marky Mark said...

And I know you think the money we don't have is flowing substantially faster to the "unjust" war than it is to pork. At least, I think you probably think that. And that it's "Bush's war" etc.

Marky Mark said...

But hey - it's your blog! And I honor your right to say anything you please! I was just a fan yelling out a request, that don't mean you have to play it!

Your fan,

SRBissette said...

Mark, wake up. This President we have in office today is toxic. It ain't me. It ain't your relative. It's reality, and Bush and his cronies only provide further evidence DAILY of how toxic they are and have been.

A Burger King on such a historic site -- that says it all, really (that's not Bush's fault, mind you, but) reflective of so many layers of apathy and lack of any sense of history one can barely articulate the situation -- nice job doing so, Mike.

SRBissette said...

PS: It IS Bush's war -- pure, simple, and completely unprovoked.