1

Daniel Stetson
Dr. Holton
History 700
19 April 2016

Two Sides of the Same Specie:

Navigating Causes and Perceptions of Shayss Rebellion

Richards,LeonardL.ShayssRebellion:TheAmericanRevolutionsFinalBattle.
Philadelphia:UniversityofPennsylvaniaPress,2002.

Szatmary,DavidP.ShaysRebellion:TheMakingofanAgrarianInsurrection.Amherst:
UniversityofMassachusettsPress,1980.

Historians seem to agree that the causes and repercussions of

Shayss Rebellion played a pivotal role in shaping the young nation of

America in the 1780s. However, beyond this general consensus, much

is left for debate. Shayss Rebellion: The American Revolutions Final

Battle by Leonard L. Richards and Shays Rebellion: The Making of an

Agrarian Insurrection by David P. Szatmary reside squarely in the

middle that debate. Despite obvious differences in the roles that

taxation and debt play in Shayss Rebellion, the overarching difference

between these two authors is their view on the level of homogeneity

amongst the rural and merchant classes of Massachusetts. By

exploring individual political motivations, debtors prisons, local

interests, and state support, one can better understand where and why

Richards and Szatmarys interpretations diverge.

While Szatmary and Richards often provide straightforward

contrasts in their depictions of the origins of Shayss Rebellion, their

overarching themes also seep into their portrayals of contributing

 2

historical figures. Such is the case for John Hancock, Boston politician

and member of the Massachusetts merchant class. Both Szatmary and

Richards acknowledge Hancocks perception as a more agrarian-

friendly politician than his immediate predecessor, Governor James

Bowdoin. However, unlike Richards, Szatmary sees Hancocks

differences from Bowdoin as merely superficial, with the reality of his

gubernatorial actions pushing more of the same anti-agrarian agenda.

Richards points out that the early period of Hancocks governorship is

characterized by restored voting rights for some four thousand

Shaysites and full indemnification for all but a handful (Richards 39).

Szatmary fails to mention these actions, instead focusing on a quote

taken from a letter written by Hancock saying that extra-legal crowds

were what I abhor and detest as much as any man breathing and he

would, therefore adopteveryvigorousandefficaciousmethod,necessaryto

suppressthepresenttraitorousoppositiontothelaws(Szatmary115).Toimplementthis

antiinsurgentagenda,Szatmarypointsout,Hancockrequestsandreceivesarequisition

for800governmentsoldiers.MercyOtisWarrenwouldlaterobservethatHancockdid

not,"contravenethewisemeasuresofhispredecessor.Hewasequallyvigilanttoquiet

theperturbedspiritsofthepeople,andtorestoregeneraltranquility"(Szatmary115).

Challenging Szatmarys depiction of a heartless commercial

elitist, Richards makes the case that Hancock had long been a friend to

the agrarian class. As the governor prior to Bowdoin, Hancock had kept

rebellion in check by having little interest in activating the collection

 3

process (Richards 85). Furthermore, as a young, prominent merchant,

Hancock not only made a name for himself in the countryside by

providing bibles to impoverished churches but also allowed poor

debtors to pay in depreciated paper notes, a much appreciated gesture

for the yeomanry since most creditors were requiring specie. Further

questioning Szatmarys implication that the elite merchant class

worked in lockstep to oppress rural farmers, Richards points out that

Hancocks sympathy for poor debtors was seen as grandstanding and

potentially detrimental by the working class. Perhaps what most

importantly separated Hancock from his mercantile peers was the fact

that he had little money invested in state notes.

In the same way that Richards and Szatmary see Hancock

through different lenses, they also explain the realities of debtors

prison from differing perspectives. Farmers fear of debtors prison has

long played an important role in the historiography of Shayss

Rebellion. A fear of the cell would widen the divide between debtors

and creditors and imprisonment for unpaid debts would lead to farmers

becoming radicalized and willing to take up arms, Szatmary argues.

Writing in 1980, Szatmary supports that assumption in his work,

stating, Fear of being jailed, as well as anxiety over possible tenantry,

polarized debtors and creditors (Szatmary 35). Richards highlights the

reality of being jailed for debt through the example of Luke Day.
 4

Richardss story of Day could, on the surface, seem to verify

Szatmarys claims of debtor prison playing a major role in Shayss

Rebellion. After all, Day was incarcerated for his debt and would later

play a major role in the rebellion. Prison life, as presented by Richards,

is in stark contrast to that presented by Szatmary. Szatmary argues

that the poor conditions of New England jails in the eighteenth century

made incarceration an extreme punishment (Szatmary 34).

Conversely, Richards points out that imprisoned debtors like Day were

only confined to jail at night and even then, slept in different quarters

than the felons. Szatmary ominously states that prison sentences were

indefinite, while Richards more precisely points out that most men

who were imprisoned for debt before 1800 were released within two

weeks (Richards 52). Furthermore, Richards argues that the

Massachusetts government was not interested in jailing penniless

debtors, as it was seen as cost prohibitive. In fact, Richards argues that

both creditors and debtors were weary of the system. No one, they

claimed, benefited from this bloodsucking legal system except

lawyers, judges, and court officials who collected fees at every step of

the way (Richards 51).

While trying to define a statewide sentiment toward debtors

prison can produce a wide scope of inquiry, reducing ones outlook to

the county and town level can provide more specific conclusions. The

argument over personal debt is most central in the difference between

 5

Richards and Szatmary. Appreciating how each writer could arrive at

such different conclusions can be best discovered by analyzing their

interpretations of Hampshire County. As a whole, Richards

characterizes Hampshire County as the states most rebellious county.

Szatmary focuses his attention on the countys debt cases, stating

debt cases from 1784 to 1786 involved 31.4 percent of the countys

male citizenry over sixteen as compared with 12.5 percent from 1770

to 1772 (Szatmary 29).

Being the most rebellious countycombined with such a

significant countywide rise in debt caseswould seem to support

Szatmarys conclusion of debts supreme role in Shayss Rebellion.

However, a closer look at Hampshire County by Richards suggests

otherwise. Considering the individual towns of Hampshire, Richards

points out that only two of the countys most rebellious towns were

also in the top ten when it came to debt suits. Additionally, three of the

top ten towns in suits were also the least rebellious. Contrary to

Richardss assessment, Szatmarys analysis seems to lump all the

towns of a county that stretched from Connecticut to Vermont

together. Szatmary points out that in Hampshire County from 1784-

1786, over 58 percent of all debt suits originated in the western

market towns of Northampton, Springfield, Westfield, Deerfield,

Hatfield, and Hadley (Szatmary 31). The implication from Szatmary is

that these suits widened the rift between classes, pushing the state
 6

toward armed insurgency. However, Richards seems to debunk this

assertion by adding that despite all the suits in the town of

Northampton, it provided no rebels to the cause.

Just as analyzing who took up arms against the government

helps us to better understand the political atmosphere of the time, so

too does taking a deeper look at those who directly supported the anti-

insurgency government force. Once again, our authors produce two

conflicting depictions. Szatmary states that wealthy merchants

quickly made Bowdoins suggested force a reality (Szatmary 85).

Richards, on the other hand, suggests that beyond Governor Bowdoin

and banker William Phillips, others were slow in parting with their

money (Richards 23). The depictions of those that joined the state

army are, once again, framed in a way to best support our authors

arguments. For Szatmary, he follows his account of merchants

cheerful giving with the point that some prominent merchant-

speculators even joined the government army (Szatmary 86).

Richards offers the example of Royall Tyler, an heir of a rich Boston

merchant who was so deep in debt that the opportunity to serve as an

officer was like manna from heaven (Richards 25). Continuing his

main difference from Szatmary, Richards is hesitant to meld the

feelings and motivations of either class into one representation.

In searching for the motivations of all those involved in Shayss

Rebellion, Richards and Szatmary arrive at few of the same

 7

conclusions. Often, keeping each authors main thesis in mind can help

one to predict how they will interpret the events of Massachusetts in

the 1780s. These presupposed interpretations build on themselves,

leading each author to his conclusion. Still, an appreciation of the

complexity of the economic influences involved can be gleaned from

both works, with an overall sense of rural frustrations coloring the

actions of those regulators who would come to be known as rebels.