The Articles left the hard money problems to the states. After the war, Massachusetts owed large debts, and it raised taxes and demanded they be paid in hard money (gold and silver coin), which few farmers had. Courts took farms and jailed debtors who could not pay. Many of those farmers were veterans who had fought the Revolution.
Key idea
In 1786 and 1787, armed farmers in western Massachusetts, many of them veterans and one of them a former captain named Daniel Shays, closed county courts so that no more farms could be taken. In January 1787 they marched on the federal arsenal at Springfield and were driven off by militia. Congress had no army to send and no money to raise one, and that worried leaders in every state.
Why it works
Why did a local revolt matter so much? It showed two things at once. First, ordinary people were in real distress after the war. Second, the national government could not keep order even at its own arsenal: the Massachusetts militia was paid for by loans from Boston merchants. To many leaders, including George Washington, it was proof that the Articles were too weak. Months later, delegates met in Philadelphia.
Worked example: Cause and effect
A student writes: "Shays' Rebellion caused the Constitution." Is that fair?
- A cause is something that helped make an event happen. Most events have several.
- Leaders had already called a convention, at Annapolis in 1786, to fix the Articles' trade problems.
- The rebellion made the danger feel urgent and convinced doubters, Washington among them, to take part.
- So it was one important cause among several (debts, trade quarrels, a Congress that could not tax).
Answer: Partly: it was an important cause that added urgency, not the only one.
Common mistake
Shays' Rebellion was not a battle with Britain. The war was over. It was an uprising of Americans against their own state government, over debts, taxes and the courts. Check the side: if the British are in the story, it is not Shays' Rebellion.
Historians weigh it differently. Some stress the farmers' grievances and see the rebels as defending their communities; others stress how the revolt frightened leaders about disorder. Both views use the same facts: the debts, the court closings, and the government's weak response.