EARLY DOCUMENTS

BIG IDEA:

*Three documents formed the foundation of American democracy.

ESSENTIAL QUESTIONS:

*Why does a nation need a strong constitution?

*Is total freedom a good thing?

VIDEO #1: The Articles and Shays's Rebellion

VIDEO #2: Articles of Confederation: History Channel

VIDEO #3: Articles of Confederation: Fact vs. Fiction

Was Daniel Shays a TERRORIST or a justified HERO?

In 1786–1787, Daniel Shays led a group of farmers in Massachusetts who were angry about high taxes, debt, and the loss of their farms. They used armed protests to shut down courts and attempted to seize a government weapons arsenal. The Massachusetts government responded by calling out a militia to stop them.

2 minutes max opening statement. At minimum, opening statements should be :60 long.
2 arguments with evidence. Make sure you share specific evidence in your opening statement.
2 rebuttals to the other side. Prepare to be able to challenge at least 2 points made by the other side.
1-minute closing statement. After debate time, each side will have a :45-:60 closing argument.
Use historical evidence, not opinions only. Again, make sure you add some actual facts and evidence. What did he do? Why? What were the consequences of this?

We will meet today as groups and work on a doc with key points to make.
Tomorow we will split into PODS, possibly 3v3 or 4v4, to debate in smaller groups.

Side A: Argument

Daniel Shays WAS a Terrorist

Daniel Shays: A Threat to Order (Government Perspective)

After the Revolution, Massachusetts had a large war debt. To pay it off, the state raised high taxes, especially on farmers.

After the American Revolution, Massachusetts needed money to pay war debts. To do this, the state raised taxes.

Farmers had a hard time paying because taxes had to be paid in gold or silver, not crops or paper money. Many farmers didn’t have cash, even though they owned land.

If farmers couldn’t pay their taxes or debts, courts took their land and sold it. Some farmers were even sent to jail for debt.

In 1786, the Massachusetts government faced a serious challenge to its authority. Groups of armed men, led by Daniel Shays, used force to interfere with the legal system.

They blocked courts from meeting, prevented judges from enforcing laws, and threatened public order. These actions went beyond peaceful protest and directly attacked the rule of law.

Shays and his followers attempted to seize a government arsenal, putting weapons into the hands of rebels and increasing the risk of violence. State leaders believed this posed a danger not only to Massachusetts but to the stability of the entire nation, which was still weak after the American Revolution.

There was even a small battle, which resulted in the deaths of 4 or 5 men with Shays. Many more were wounded.

State leaders believed enforcing debts would protect the economy and maintain order.

Shays used violence and armed force to try to change government policies.
His followers shut down courts by force, stopping the rule of law.
The rebellion intimidated government officials and citizens.
He attempted to seize a government arsenal, a serious threat to public safety.
His actions caused fear and instability in a fragile new nation.

Key Question for This Side:
If a group today used weapons to force the government to change laws, how would we label them?

Side B: Argument

Daniel Shays Was a justified HERO

Daniel Shays: Standing Up for Farmers (Farmers’ Perspective)

After the American Revolution, many farmers in Massachusetts faced serious hardship. High taxes, rising debts, and unfair court rules caused families to lose their land and livelihoods. Despite fighting for independence, farmers felt ignored by a government that seemed to protect wealthy merchants instead of ordinary citizens.

Daniel Shays was supposed to be paid as a soldier, but he often wasn’t paid fully or on time.

Daniel Shays served as an officer in the Continental Army during the American Revolution.
Like many soldiers, he was promised pay, but the government ran out of money during the war. Soldiers were frequently paid late, paid in paper money that lost value, or not paid at all.
After the war, many veterans—including Shays—were still owed back pay.

Shays’ lack of pay helped fuel his anger. He had fought for independence, yet returned home to debt, taxes, and the risk of losing his farm. This experience was common among the farmers who joined Shays’ Rebellion.

In short

Daniel Shays was promised pay, but the failure to deliver that pay fairly and reliably was one of the key reasons he later protested the government.

From the farmers’ point of view, their actions were not acts of terror but acts of survival. They targeted courts and government policies, not innocent people.

Shays and his supporters believed they were defending the freedoms they had fought for during the Revolution. To them, the rebellion was a last stand against economic injustice, not a threat to democracy.