How Our Government Enacts Change: Then and Now

The Articles of Confederation are considered by many to be the first system of organization and law that existed in the early United States. It provided for a form of central government, even though it was intentionally created to be weak, and most influential decisions were made independently within each state. The Articles of Confederation fulfilled simple duties such as preserving sovereignty of the states and it provided the one of the earlier frameworks for the future creators of the American Constitution to draw upon. This was an extremely loose agreement between the new states of this fledging nation, but its ineffectiveness and problems did not really come into question until rebellion struck and unrest became a threat to the stability of the delicate confederation.

Shays’ Rebellion began in Massachusetts among a group of rural farmers who were struggling to pay the high debts and operation costs of their new farms. These lands were seized and the Massachusetts government did little to respond to this economic crisis that was negatively effecting this farmer population; the faraway central government under the Articles of Confederation did even less to help. Daniel Shays led the resistors by calling special meetings, protesting, and leading in an armed revolt against a military force organized by the Massachusetts governor. Shays’ band of rebels lost easily in battle, but the underlying sentiment of distrust and disappointment in the government and its ability to protect the interests of its citizens remained strong. This uprising confirmed the fears that some national leaders had about the dangers of state governments going unchecked, so these leaders met again for a second convention and the constitution that we know and abide by today was crafted. Shays’ Rebellion illuminated the problems that American citizens were having with their government and in return leaders rewrote the entire foundation of government to set up a system that would better benefit states, the central government, and most importantly the people.

Since Shays’ Rebellion and the formation of the current United States’ government, unrest and discontent, albeit not exactly armed conflict as seen in Shays’ Rebellion, have occurred throughout U.S. history. The Civil Rights movement in the 1960’s was founded on the injustice faced by African Americans that was perpetuated by American laws and society. More recently the movement for gender equality has banded millions of men and women together to fight against gender discrimination. The Women’s March was the largest single-day public demonstration in U.S. history, delineating how widespread and important this public sentiment is. The difference between Shays’ Rebellion and the Civil Rights and gender equality movements, aside from the use of outright warfare, is the reactions from the American government. Shays’ Rebellion led to a complete restructuring of the governing system that would better protect the people and their interests. But today, concerning issues that are equally as important to the people now as the economic problems were to Massachusetts farmers in the 1700’s, it is harder to see effective change from the government that would help American people. This begs the question of how well does the government react to the discontent of its people today when compared to how it has reacted in the past? Does the fact that American government and law is much more complex today give reason to why effective change takes longer to come into fruition than it did at the time of Shays’ Rebellion? Or do the polarized sides of our modern government prevent this change from taking place when the people need it to?

7 Responses to "How Our Government Enacts Change: Then and Now"

Joanna Briand says:

January 30, 2018 at 7:05 pm

Hello Carlin,

Thank you for your post. I think you did a great job summarizing Shay’s Rebellion and how it contrasts to the difficulty of enacting change wanted by Americans within our modern day’s complex government. I think this is an interesting topic as there are so many changes that the American people want, but, as you stated, it is much harder to provoke action from our government than it was during the time of Shay’s Rebellion.

As our textbook discusses, our Founding Fathers intentionally made it difficult to alter or amend the Constitution. Regardless of how many people want a certain change, it is up to the government and its officials to go through the set processes and have the willingness as well as enough agreement to carry through with what American people want.

I think the concerns that you raise regarding how well the government reacts to America’s discontent is applicable to the current gun law situation. After so many attacks and violence that has taken place within our country’s borders, there is a large population that ever so desperately wants to see a change in the seemingly lenient gun laws that our country currently upholds.

However, our Second Amendment states: “A well-regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. It seems to be interpreted that the right to bear arms applies to everyone, and that the government cannot restrict guns. I personally think it doesn’t say the right of every individual to own guns. However, this interpretation seems to be a major obstacle standing in the way of any change being made.

I think this leads back to your concerns about our government and their role in law change. Even though so many people are behind it, there will always be the people that stand for the current gun laws and use them to their advantage. Although there are those that want to see a change in gun laws because they think it will help limit the number of attacks that happen every day, there are still civilians that do not use guns for such despicable deeds. There is also the fact that the Second Amendment is simply up to interpretation at this point. It seems as though there is never enough we can do as Americans to see a change if things like this are keeping the government from reacting. Maybe America is too comfortable and at peace with its ways.
Gwynna Ryan says:

January 30, 2018 at 9:10 pm

Carlin,

This post is really interesting. Your question about the difficulty of policy change today as opposed to during the 1700s is compelling. It is worth noting that Shay’s Rebellion was armed, and thus necessarily a threat to the government. The government’s response in changing the Constitution was then made to prevent future popular uprisings like Shay’s Rebellion. The crafting of the Constitution intentionally made policy change difficult for this reason to avoid bending to the whims of the people while still giving essential liberties and freedoms. The Civil Right’s movement, though eventually successful, took years to yield any results. Similarly, the Women’s March has been relatively ineffective at changing policy, though it is still young. Perhaps, the success of Shay’s Rebellion can be attributed to it both being an armed rebellion as well as occurring before policy changes, like the Constitution, that then made policy change difficult.
Hannah Grow says:

January 31, 2018 at 1:40 pm

Carlin,

Thank you for this compelling critique about the complexities of American law and its role in enacting policy change. I think an interesting point has been raised in the comments regarding the involvement of weapons in Shay’s Rebellion, and how that was an immediate threat to the government that sparked policy change. However, I would like to use a modern example of how even an armed rebellion and violent protests are incapable of sparking any immediate policy change in the government today.
Throughout 2014 and 2015 the city of Ferguson, MO experienced some of the most violent protests this country has seen in recent years over the fatal shooting of Michael Brown by Darren Wilson, who was not indicted. The violent protests were a cry for change regarding policy brutality towards the black community not only in Missouri but the United States as a whole. Although Ferguson saw the resignation of a few members of the police force, there was little repercussion in the country as a whole or any form of policy change.
This continued unrest in the United States towards police brutality was made evident this year when Colin Kaepernick and fellow NFL players made more peaceful pleas to call attention to the problem by taking a knee during the national anthem before games. It sparked extraordinary debate across the nation and yet there has still been no significant policy change. The government is no longer responding to peaceful or violent protests and I think as made evident by the Ferguson riots it is not indicative of the complex American law but rather the polarization of opinions that exist within our modern government.
Virginia Myers says:

January 31, 2018 at 7:04 pm

Dear Carlin,

Thank you for your post. Your thoughtful remarks and the previous comments have prompted me to think further about modern day examples of protests and how the government reacts to America’s discontent. I can’t help but think about the Unite the Right rally in Charlottesville, Virginia in August of 2017. The goal of the rally was to oppose the removal of a statue of Robert E. Lee from Emancipation Park. White supremacists, white nationalists, neo-Confederates, Klansmen, neo-Nazis, and various militias were among those who protested. The event turned violent when protesters clashed with counter-protesters, leaving over 30 injured and one woman dead after a car drove into a group of people. A Vice video came out where a white nationalist was interviewed by a journalist about the protest and the death of the woman. He felt no remorse for the situation and indicated that he and his far-right group came to Charlottesville in “ravenous pursuit of violence.” The interviewee, Christopher Cantwell, explains why he is racist against black people, bringing up Tamir Rice who was killed by police officers in Cleveland. He refers to the young boy as a “little black asshole behaving like a savage.” He also stated that “black people are just prone to violent behavior.” He showed the journalist all of his guns that he brought for the weekend and he was armed with AKs. As Joanna brings up in an earlier comment, the issue of gun control is a widely debated issue, and the Charlottesville protests and Vice video fueled the fire on both sides of the argument. Both sides think that reasons like Charlottesville is why we should or should not have gun control.

Ultimately, the Unite the Right rally was a huge opportunity for the government to acknowledge the existence of racism today, educate the public, and push for equality. However, this opportunity was completely ignored and missed…and to some, this indicated support or turning a blind eye to the far-right groups. Although the government may not have reacted in a way that produced change, the public has taken action to protest for equality. Last semester I attended the protests on Monument Avenue and was both horrified and hopeful. Horrified by those who held up confederate flags, yelling offensive claims and surprised by those who were there to spread love and hope to one day live in a nation who supports equality. When thinking about the effectiveness of democracy and whether it is working, tragedies like Charlottesville question whether our society is set up in a way to protect ourselves and experience the freedom that we preach to other nations. However, because of freedom of speech, these protests remind the oppressed that they are still not free in many parts of the nation, which makes me wonder if they feel this democratic society is working.

https://www.cnn.com/2017/08/13/us/charlottesville-white-nationalist-rally-car-crash/index.html
http://www.slate.com/blogs/browbeat/2017/08/17/the_viral_vice_documentary_was_the_perfect_rebuke_to_trump_s_charlottesville.html
https://www.cnn.com/2017/08/12/politics/trump-statement-alt-right-protests/index.html
Austin Marsilia says:

January 31, 2018 at 7:11 pm

Carlin,
Your comparison of 1700s American government to our modern day system is one that sparks thought. It is interesting to believe that a modern democracy is so difficult to influence, but when examined closer, this begins to make some sense. Unfortunately, our system of government has become much more complex than it was during the 1700s, making passing legislation much more difficult. In addition to this complexity, the difference between Shay’s rebellion and the modern day issues, such as LGBTQ protests, is arguably due to the fact that this group is a vast minority of the population. I am not condoning the mistreatment of any minority group, however, Shay and his followers represented the majority of the population in Massachusetts and the rest of the country. These people were farmers, an occupation that represented over 60% of the American population. Therefore, the colonial government was forced to react to the majority’s will. Once again, I am not saying that the persecution of any minority group is justified, however, this could be the answer to the question posed in your discussion.
Calum Johnson says:

January 31, 2018 at 10:50 pm

Carlin,

I agree that in today’s it is much more difficult to bring about great change. However, I do not believe that it is because the government cares less about its people’s discontent. Today, the issues that so many people want to fix are not crucial to the majority of Americans’ well being or the entire structure and stability of the government. The economic issues that brought Shay’s rebellion as well as the threat to the people and government were far more drastic to the nation as a whole. It required immediate action or the United States could have had many more chances to erupt. Although it would be fantastic for many of today’s issues to be solved with as much immediate action as back during Shay’s rebellion, the issues of today are not threatening enough to need be so quickly and radically dealt with.
Sara Milano says:

January 31, 2018 at 11:06 pm

Carlin,

Your analysis of Shay’s rebellion and its parallels to modern day demonstrations and protests are very interesting. The terminology itself has changed: Daniel Shays’ followers were known as “rebels.” Women’s March participants or civil rights activists are considered protestors. Does the use of violence or military force qualify a group as rebels? Further, is this the only way to enact change in our government? It’s an important question.

I think the impressionable state of the US Government and its guiding documents in the 1700s is definitely a factor in the ability of Shays’ rebellion to enact change. Shays’ rebellion awakened the US government to the flaws in the Articles of Confederation. The framers created the Constitution and restructured the government largely out of concern that it would not be safe without a stronger federal body. This action was more selfish and protective than one would assume.

Further, the amendments to the US Constitution that occurred after the Civil rights movement, as you’ve brought up, were also created in response to what the government perceived as a threat. As the protestors became more systematic, organized and numerous, it’s possible US leaders foresaw problematic racial uprisings if they did not appease the activists.

The protests of today are less threatening to the government despite the importance of the issues advocated for. Someone in a prior comment brought up gun control. Because violent attacks involving guns do not often threaten US officials, and because people who advocate for gun control are unlikely to be violent in their mobilization, is it possible the originalist interpretation of the second amendment and the intense lobbying of the NRA are enough to override the moral argument being made? I would say so.

When analyzing the actions of our politicians, we cannot be purely consequentialist. In understanding the forces that pressure our leaders to enact Constitutional or policy changes, we may be able to see that they are reluctant to change unless self interested motivations persist.

Comments are closed.