How Private Usury Subverted the American Revolution Jubilee: The War of Independence was lost with the Signing of the CONstutution.
Before and after 1776 gold and silver loaned as private debt with interest was the basis for the money system. Unfortunately, their were no gold and silver mines in the former colonies, therefore they remained DEPENDENT on European bankers for a money supply. Just a DeBeers has a private monopoly over a semi-precious stone called a diamond. DeBeers engineers scarcity of diamonds to keep the value high. The difference is we are not required to used diamonds to pay our mortgage, private debts and taxes. Before and after the phony War of Independence Americans were required to use scarce gold/silver to pay their debts. While food and organic commodities were abundant they had no gold and silver. Usury made their debts compound and made debt contracts even more unpayable. Loan defaults, foreclosures, bankruptcies and loss of sovereignty were a mathematic certainty. Usury is the weaponization of the “love of money”. Usury is an asset confiscation racket.
Private usury rules behind the scenes with either a monarchy, Articles of Confederation, CONstututional Republic, democracy, parliament, communism or a fascist dictatorship. It doesn’t matter what form of government debt slaves choose for themselves so long as the private interest is collected. That private interest can be called taxes, if it makes the debt slaves happy. The debt slaves can vote for a new “administration” to collect revenue for the private usurers. It’s better PR for the private bankers to have the political theater of an election so the debt slaves believe they have choice. But, as George Carlin says “you have no choice. you have owners”.
Indeed we have owners even if NO GOVERNMENT EXISTED. Governments are merely the private collection company for private usury. Almost all governments have been replaced by municipal corporations. Everything already has been privatized therefore we live under anarchy already. There is NO GOVERNMENT. Let’s take that further. If there were no government, or private corporate revenue collectors we would still be debt slaves. The private bankers would then need to hire private individuals to seize property. That could be done with private debt courts and sheriffs all paid with the same control currency based upon debt and interest.
“Whoever pays the piper picks the tune”. If enforcers are paid with private debt money; they will represent the interests of the private debt “money power”. Or, as Jesus called them “the den of thieves”. He exposed the “money changers” and their usury theft. The “money changers” had the mercanary Roman soldiers do the execution. Private usury has been warring on humanity for thousands of years. This is why Jews, Christians and Muslims all forbid usury before they were corrupted by that very same power.
The ONLY way the enforcers will protect the People from the private usurers is if; the People must pay with usury-free money! “The only REAL revolution is usury-free monetary reform and a Jubilee” -Wayne Walton. The colonists rebelled for this very reason. They wanted usury-free paper barter scrip and a debt Jubilee. They were losing their farms with scarce gold/silver money based upon usury. Usury is a means of terretorial conquest! They risked their lives fighting the British as they thought that they would live under sacred economics found in the Bible. They fought for Jubilee debt forgiveness and abundant usury-free paper money. The “money changers” financed both sides of the Revolution as is the norm. The “money power” will often “lower the flag” to give righteous warriers the illusion of victory. Meanwhile, the same cabal remains in charge with a new “form of government” usury collection.
Under the Articles of Confederation America was under near anarchy. The private usurers’ tyranny was very naked as the Articles were very weak. The war against the King was over but the former colonists remained debt slaves. Elite lawyers had performed a bait and switch with the Jubilee. Debts were high and gold and silver money was scarce just as prior to the war. Farmers in western Massechusettes owed debts to the same Boston area financial interests. The same debt courts were foreclosing on their farms with the same sheriffs enforcing the same noxious, unpayable, usury-based contracts. Back then it was very obvious that the private bankers held the power. There was very little government to insulate the “money power” from the ire of the People. With a weak government the tyranny of “the den of thieves” was very obvious”. The “money power” rules with big government, small government or even no government”. Usury bankrupts the People on gold, silver, paper or digital money creation and lending.
The study of Shays’ Rebellion gives great insight into the non-solution of simply creating “free markets”. A “free market” for currency is like “free trade”; each destroys the sovereign independence of self-sufficient communities. The “free market” for currency rarely offers usury-free solutions. As the private usurers own all of the land on the planet, they will require loans to be paid with interest. That money will be issued by private usurers as a debt with interest. Competing control commodities based on usury will be the necessary forms of payment. They won’t permit usury-free currency issued and loaned from the People’s value themselves. Money will remain scarce so that their can engineer defaults and seize assets through “theft through color of law.”
Please study the Shays’ Debtors Rebellion for insights on how the “money power” hijacked the energy of honest souls. It’s essential today as most “patriots” support the Rothschilds international gold/silver standard which is the exact thing that the former Colonists and Shays’ rebelled from. We already have scarce FRN’s; think of how much harder it will be to pay debts with even more scarce gold/silver. History repeats and the “money power” herds us toward their “loyal opposition” solutions.
The CONstitution gave greater power to the “money power” to collect interest called taxes. For PR purposes it’s valuable for debt slaves to believe that they are voting for governments and paying taxes. Debt slaves become less productive when they realize that taxes are simply interest payments to private bankers. Debt slaves lie to themselves by using the words taxes and government rather than interest and private banks. A “CONstitutor” is one who takes on debts of another. “We the People in order to form a more perfect Union” were FORCED to take on the war debts of the elite. To be paid back in scarce gold and silver of course. The CONstitution was a debt repayment agreement. The few would benefit from the energy of the many: “privatize the profits and socialize the losses”. They CONstitution benefitted the “money power” as now they could use public armies to collect their debts rather than hire a private army to do the same.
Today, the “money power” is “dividing and conquering” humanity in dozens of Hegelian dialects. It matters little what they get us to bicker about; so long as we bicker. In order for a tiny few to rule they must get debt slave to blame debt slave. Brother against Brother hate and division is what enslaves humanity all financed with usury debt. With control of money the Beast scripts what we bicker about. Today, that topic of division is gun control. However, just as during the Revolutionary War period gun control was a symptom of private bank tyranny. Many angry patriots are demanding secession and armed rebellion. They are far less educated about the destructive power of usury on scarce gold and silver than patriots 240 years ago. The correct solution then and now is debt Jubilee and usury-free sacred economics.
This above portion was written by Wayne Walton of mtnHours.com. mtnHours.com is usury-free, organic money which supports the universal debt Jubilee. Below is largely written by Michael Hoffman of Idaho. Please checkout his excellent book: “Usury in Christiandom: The Mortal Sin that Was and Now is Not”. This details how the Church was anti-usury like Christ for 1500 years. Then how it become subverted like the rest of Western society in order that we become permanent debt slaves for Mammon.
“Shays’ Rebellion Battle For the American Jubilee(1)”
Daniel Shays was born during the year of 1747. Shays was the second out of six children of his parents, Patrick and Margaret Shays. shays was wed at the age of twenty-five to Abigail Gilbert, together they had three children.Daniel joined the Brookfield malitia but he backed out on his commitment there and moved to Shutesbury where he joined the malitia there. Shays was reconized as a Sergeant but after the Batlle of Lexington and Concord Shays became Lieutenant Daniel Shays. He fought at Bunker Hill and Ticonderoga then he was refered to as Captain Shays.From 1775-1783 Shay served in the American Revolution with distinction by earing battlefield promotions for bravery. Daniel Shays led the farmers who rebelled against the state of Massachusetts because of the tax rates and major debt. the farmers called the rebellion Shays’ Rebellion after Daniel because of his bravery and leadership. In Feburary of 1787, Shay moved to Sparta, New York and lived there till he was the age of 78, dying September 23, 1825
Shays’ Rebellion And the Battle For the American Jubilee: The pusillanimous histories of the American Revolution and the early Republic, by Peter Marshall and similar writers, paint a rose-colored picture at variance with the documentary record. (But the private usurers subverted the true purpose of the Revolution to their own agenda, unknown to the American people of the time).
The American revolutionaries fought for a reordering of society; indeed, for the overthrow of debt, usury and dispossession from the land, as symbolized by their objective of declaring the mighty legal earthquake that is the Biblical Jubilee. The Scriptural warrant for Jubilee was inscribed on the Liberty Bell and more importantly, upon the hearts of the ordinary men and women who had pledged their “lives, fortunes, and sacred honor” to the call to arms against oppression and tyranny, of July 4, 1776.
The Pollyanna historians have tended to paint the early years of the new republic as idyllic, even utopian, a time when the freedom-loving farmers found their hearts’ desire and richly enjoyed the fruits of liberty which their blood, sweat and tears had made possible.
Patriot activists today enshrine those early times and cite them as precedent against the depredation of Clinton and Dole, Reno and Freeh, Kempt and Powell. It is a dangerous precedent to establish, born of historical illiteracy. The early Republic never did get around to declaring the Jubilee, though the great experiment in personal liberty begun in the wake of the Revolution was in general a blessing to mankind, in comparison to the fearsome oligarchies still holding power in Europe. (International Private Usury Banking Power) But once the war had been won and the yeomanry were no longer the essential motive engine for securing independence from Britain, in many regions power was consolidated in the hands of reactionary (private usury) mercantile interests.
The lawyers (Then, as now, most lawyers were financed by private usury) and bankers had only gone underground during the Revolution and like all parasites were quick to re-emerge when peace was at hand, to declare their “right” to rule the manual laborers who had done the frontline fighting. As the watch-fob crooks came out of the wood-work, the veterans of ’76 were there to meet them, first with petitions for redress of grievance and later with rifles.
Conservative historians declare that the Shays’ Rebels were forerunners of Bolshevism, “ingrates” who sought to “level” frontier society into some disgusting precursor of Marxism. Such an interpretation can only be put forth by those who know little or nothing of the Bible-based aspirations of the American yeomanry.
There was nothing “Bolshevik” about Shays’ Rebellion. The criminal class was not among the farmers, who Jefferson had nominated as the true “Chosen People” if ever there was one, but among the usual suspects lurking at the top of the Pharaonic pyramid. We had to smile when Pat Buchanan visited Los Angeles some years ago, in the wake of the devastating Mexican-African riots there, and proclaimed, in the coded weasel words of Republican conservatism, a statement to the effect that whites are better citizens than the Mexicans and Africans, because whites don’t riot. In truth, the white race is the most insurrectionist nation the world has ever seen, or was, until feminism and TV flea’d the lion’s rump and pared his claws.
The Second American Revolution: Massachusetts after the American Revolution was largely subsistence culture. Farmers made up more than half the population and these were independent freeholders who valued freedom over material wealth, eking out a living on the rocky soil, but reveling in their status as king of their own castle. These farmers jealously guarded their hard-fought status and were especially fearful of having to work off their land, for a wage, a condition they compared to peonage and slavery.
The life of the farming community in that era was close-knit and reflected in patterns of clan and kinship. Contrasted with this agrarian community was the cosmopolitan society of the seacoast towns. Here the focus was chiefly on the acquisition of wealth. Lawyers were at its center. Before the 18th century, New England’s laws had been largely consonant with Bible law. The vocation of the law clerk was to help to implement the Mosaic statutes and facilitate, rather than obstruct, property and business transactions. But by the 1780s law had degenerated into a means fro the regular collection of debts and loans.
During the 1780s many clergymen collaborated with the mercantile elite. Money culture slowly replaced the Bible ethos in major coastal towns and the function of the ministry changed. Government-paid clergymen upheld usury from the pulpit. The tax-exempt status of New England ministers, coupled with the payment of their salaries mostly from tax funds, tied them to the lawyers and bankers.
The Reign of Shylock: Boston mercantile interests convinced yeomen to make their purchases on credit and accepted farm goods for payment. Retailers later withdrew credit from their farmer-customers and demanded payment in gold and silver. The yeomen faced the loss of their farms and merchants, lawyers and speculators stood to profit. Farmers were being trapped into a chain of debt. “The constables are vending (seizing) our property…it is sold for about one-third the value, our cattle about one-half the value,” angrily petitioned the townsmen of Greenwich, Massachusetts in January 1786.
Property seizures enraged the farmers and reinforced their fear of becoming landless “wage laborers.” “The mortgage of our farms, we cannot think of with any degree of complacency,” said a Conway, Massachusetts man. “To be tenants to landlords, who we know not and pay rents for lands purchased with our money and converted from howling wilderness into fruitful fields by the sweat of our brow, seems to carry with it in its nature truly shocking consequences.”
Taxes were tilted against the landowners and in favor of the mercantile class. Thousands of farmers left the state for the western wilderness because of high property taxes. A small farmer without sufficient property for settling his debts faced an indefinite jail sentence. Considering the horrible state of New England jails during the 18th century, incarceration for indebtedness represented cruel punishment.
But Massachusetts retailers did not hesitate to throw indebted yeomen into prison. In Hampshire County from 1784 to December, 1786, they sent to jail for an average two-month term, seventy-three men with relatively small debts and arrested hundreds of other farmers. Significantly, no retailer sat in a jail cell.
The case of Timothy Begelow, an indebted Massachusetts farmer and Revolutionary War veteran who died in a damp cell of the Worcester County prison, became a cause cï¿½lï¿½bre among the farmers. One Hampshire County farmer and Revolutionary War veteran spoke of how he had “labored hard all his days” and did more than his share of the fighting against King George, but now, with the war over, and liberty supposedly realized, he had been “loaded with class-rates, lawsuits…hauled by sheriffs, constables and (tax) collectors.” He predicted the lawyers would “get all we have.” (2)
Now that the British king had been disposed of there were plenty of aspirants to his throne. New England’s republican heritage was hardly the sole experience of colonial America. Even in New England the history of subjecting white laborers to some form of bondage went all the way back to Plymouth Rock.
There were bond servants on the Mayflower and a “goodly body” of white slaves aboard the Puritan fleet that arrived in Massachusetts in 1630. Georgia had been founded expressly as a penal colony for white slaves. Maryland had been a “semi-feudal domain, composed in part of manors owned by great landowners and tilled by white bond servants…”(3) The citizens of the new American Republic were determined to forge a heritage of freedom and to maintain the hardy and independent spirit which had sustained them in the New World. Unfortunately, matters were not necessarily resolved with their victory over the Redcoats, as many historians mistakenly allege. America had its own homegrown aristocrats who felt they were more deserving of elite privilege than the monarch across the sea.
The Founding Fathers had motivated the Continental army and the militias of the 13 colonies with vision of a post-Revolutionary Biblical Jubilee according to Leviticus 25, wherein all debts would be wiped out and everyone would start over in the new Republic with a clean slate. The American soldiers took them at their word: “With the ending of the American and the Treaty of Paris of September 3, 1783, there was jubilation in the streets. The future looked bright…Many people even…believed that their debts had been dismissed when the war ended.” (4)
This was the promise represented by the inscription on the Liberty Bell, but it proved to be an empty one. Still, the yeomen were slow to wrath. They wanted to farm, not fight. Before turning to armed resistance, New England farmers sought justice through peaceful petitions. During the years 1784 to mid-1786, yeomen in the majority of Massachusetts’ small towns forwarded their pleas to the Boston courts.
The farmers were not anxious for more blood-letting. They had faith in their new leaders and they sought relief through legal, non-violent means and channels, from the courts to the legislature. Since gold and silver were beyond their attainment, the oppressed New England farmers desired to have barter legalized through the currency of paper money which would represent so many bushels of corn or wheat or hours of labor. This demand was one of many of the reforms headed under the proposition, “tender laws.”
These laws had been in effect in some areas of the colonies during the revolution, when the Founders were anxious to keep the moral of the yeomen high and their wrath focused on Britain. By means of the tenders laws, farmers paid their debts through a legalized form of barter, wherein crops were taken directly as payment or exchanged for specie.
The “Pests of Society”: As their petitions increasingly fell on deaf ears, the citizens of the new Republic began to examine what force it was that chiefly obstructed them. Like the great anti-Masonic movement that would appear forty year later, the farmers discovered that one of the chief obstructions to reform was that class of parasite known as lawyers, who the farmers termed, “the pests of society” and “an altogether useless order.”
In running up against the society of lawyers, the farmers felt their petitions were crashing against the equivalent of their famous New England stone walls. One of the rebels allied with Shays, Thomas Grover, gave as his reason for revolt, the “large swarm of lawyers…who have been more damage to the people at large, especially the common farmers, than the savage beasts of prey.” (5)
As early as 1782, with the war with Britain still officially underway and the Treaty of Paris, concluding hostilities, a year off, the first stirrings of forceful resistance were exhorted by the radial activist Samuel Ely, a homeless, itinerant clergyman, who was not tax-exempt or tax-supported by the state. Ely was a hater of oppression and a ferocious opponent of the Massachusetts plutocracy. He told the farmers that the merchants and bankers who oppressed them should be “made a sacrifice of and given to the fowls of the air and the beasts of the field.”
This was not just talk. In April of 1782, Pastor Ely roused a band of farmers in Northampton for an attack on the judges of the debtor’s court. In a speech he told the farmers: “Come on, my brave boys, we’ll go to the woodpile and get clubs enough to knock their grey wigs off and send them out of the world in an instant.”
Then followed hand-to-hand combat between the farmers and the militia defending the courthouse. The farmers were driven off and Ely was seized and imprisoned. But not for long. Two months later, more than a hundred farmers attacked the building where Ely was confined and released him.
The following autumn farmers closed the debtor’s court in Cheshire County, New Hampshire. In early 1783, American freemen, led by Job Shattuck of Massachusetts, assaulted tax collectors and tried to close the Springfield tax court. There was no U.S. Constitution at this time. The law of the Commonwealth was the 1780 Massachusetts constitution, widely derided by the yeomanry as a “lawyers and merchants constitution.” In New England, only the territory of Vermont had a plan of government equitable to the working men. But in the midst of these early stirrings, most of New England’s farmers continued to seek peaceful recourse. For three more years the majority prayed, petitioned and supplicated while the lawyer-controlled state capitals stonewalled.
Shutting Down the Courts: During this period the legislatures and courts issued anti-farmer rhetoric remarkably similar to the “hater” characterizations with which today’s American patriot groups are tarred. The General Court of Massachusetts referred to the protesting farmers of 1786 as “traitors, incendiaries” and “vile creatures.” The legislature threatened the farmers with arrest just for “daring to inquire into the present gross mismanagement.”
In August the peaceful petitions came to an end. Though no violence was used, the farmers were no longer in a supplanting mood. A hardscrabble Pelham farmer and former American Continental army veteran, Captain Daniel Shays, began to organize a mass movement of courthouse closings. Shays’ friend, George Brock, spoke for both when he said that he thought he saw in the politicians and lawyers of post-Revolutionary New England, the shadow of the same “aristocratical principle” the British had manifested. These veterans were not willing to tolerate a home-grown dictatorship under a patriotic gloss. Having been once again treated like subjects, once again they arose; like lions.
In September 600 farmers closed the courts in Worcester, as well as at the birthplace of the American Revolution, in Concord. 800 laborers united into a militia of their own making and closed the debt court at Great Barrington. 500 farmers marched on the court in Bristol County and shut it.
By September the rebellion had spread to New Hampshire, the “Live Free or Die” state where the farmers went their Massachusetts brethren one better: they seized the capital and held the governor and the legislature captive. In Western Massachusetts, the stronghold of the insurgents throughout the rebellion, Daniel Shays led 1500 farmers and laborers to Springfield where they occupied the courthouse for three days. By December 1786 Shays was at the head of an army of 9,000 farmers.
At no time were any of these protests a “mob action.” The farmers marched into the towns with self-imposed military discipline. Through condemned as “seditionists” and “wicked rebels” by the Boston merchants and speculators, this was pure cant, since only twelve years before, in 1774, farmers had closed the Springfield court by similar means, to the general acclaim of the very men who now censured the populist actions of the post-Revolutionary yeomen.(6)
In a tone of outrage, the Secretary of War under the Articles of Confederation, Henry Kinos, wrote to George Washington that the Shays rebels “are determined to annihilate all debts public and private.” Exactly! That’s what the Jubilee constitutes. But some of the Founders would have none of it. “Washington was thoroughly frightened. On hearing the news he redoubled his efforts to obtain a stronger constitution; one that could afford national aid in suppressing such local disturbances.”(7)
While the fortunes of the farmers’ uprising in New Hampshire and Massachusetts were in ascendant in late 1786, incipient farmer revolts were put down by the militia in Vermont’s Windsor and Rutland counties. The skirmish at the Rutland county courthouse involved an exchange of gunfire between the farmers and the militia. At New Haven, Connecticut, a courthouse seizure was halted by means of the mass arrest of the yeomen.
A Police State — In 1787 America: In many cases the actions of the American Republic’s ruling class in the post-Revolutionary years surpassed Janet Reno and Louis Freech in despotic arrogance. For example, in March of 1787, Vermont lawmakers enacted The Riot Act authorizing county sheriffs to shoot rebellious farmers on sight.
Meanwhile in Massachusetts, Governor James Bowdoin, part-owner of the Massachusetts State Back, whose worthless currency (on par with our present “Federal Reserve Note”), was a source of the farmers’ wrath, was determined to crush Shays’ Rebellion and called upon the militia to stop the farmers at the Worcester courthouse. To the utter consternation of the banker-governor, the Massachusetts militiamen refused. The militia commander, Jonathan Warner, reported, “Notwithstanding the most pressing orders, there did appear universally that reluctance in the people to turn out in support of the government.” As one Shrewsbury judge noted, the Massachusetts militia were “too generally in favor of the people’s measures” to turn their guns on their fellow farmers. This was true of the militia throughout Western Massachusetts. It sent shockwaves through the ranks of the (private usury) lawyers and speculators and caused some to hope for the imposition of new monarchy.
Noah Webster, the famous lexicographer, found himself wishing for a “limited monarchy” after watching aghast as the people of the Massachusetts backwoods claimed their rights as Americans against the coastal merchant, private usury elite: “I was once as strong a republican as any man in America. Now a Republic is the last kind of government I should choose. I would infinitely prefer a limited monarchy, for I would sooner be the subject of the caprice of one man than the ignorance of the multitude.” (8)
Massachusetts began passing draconian laws curtailing the rights of the people and effectively establishing a dictatorship. The Massachusetts Riot Acts of 1786 ordered the killing of any rebellious farmer and instituted a property seizure law more tyrannical than even our contemporary confiscation laws. Rebellious farmers were to “forfeit all their lands, goods and chattels to the Commonwealth.”
The legislature of Massachusetts also suspended the writ of habeas corpus. “Suspect” farmers could be placed in preventive detention and incarcerated indefinitely without trial. Freedom of speech was also banned if it was “to the prejudice of the government.”(9) (Believe it or not) The chief sponsor of this shameful police state legislation was none other than the once great revolutionary, Sam Adams.
The farmers remained defiant, however, and continued to close courts. Governor Bowdoin sought help from the central government. The confederation Congress voted the state of Massachusetts a handsome war chest of more than a half million dollars and a force of 1,300 troops, but funds for the punitive campaign had to be appropriated by the individual thirteen states. Under the Articles of Confederation, the Congress had little power over the treasury.
The states constituted virtually separate nations and most could see no advantage in paying for a war against the people of Massachusetts. They refused to appropriate the monies and the scheme failed. The lawyers and bankers of Boston would have to pay for their war out of their own pockets, something this class of men has traditionally been loath to do. Without significant armed opposition, by early 1787, the farmers were beginning to establish a groundwork for economic reforms aimed at destroying usury and defanging the lawyers courts.
The Masonic Connection: The bankers and lawyers could no longer hide under color of law and the camouflage of government authority. It was obvious that the army they would raise would be a mercenary one, serving mammon, not justice. The personnel commanding the counter-revolutionary forces gave ample testimony of this. Government troops were led by judges of the debtor court such as Thomas Cobb and wealthy Freemasons, such as Benjamin Tupper, Hnery Lincoln, Rufus Putnam and John Paterson.
It would appear that the Shays uprising did not enjoy the approbation of the American based “Lodge,” as the 1776 revolt had. It seems that only those rebellions sanctioned and partly stage-managed by Freemasonry were allowed to flourish in the new Republic.
This is not to suggest, as some critics have alleged, that the American Revolution was little more than an open-air masonic ritual. That is the propaganda of the lodge itself, claiming credit for the fundamentally decent and noble 1776 struggle for individual freedom, which was beyond its competence and resources to control, though it was undoubtedly a factor in the struggle.
The 1776 revolt was as legitimate and necessary a people’s uprising as Shays’ Rebellion. The Freemasons of America saw in the 1776 Revolution an opportunity and encouraged it in the hopes of channeling and controlling it. The shays Rebellion was another matter entirely. Now that America was free of Britain, the home-grown “commercial interests” intended to take charge of the parasitic enterprises of speculation and usury. Talk of “Jubilee” and Biblical justice was so much hogwash to the masonic money men.
An intriguing racial note was injected when the leader of the American Freemasonic Lodge, Prince Hall, offered the government the service of several hundred Negro masons in the shooting and suppression of the Shays farmers of Massachusetts. Recognizing that the spectacle of armed blacks making war against white yeomen might be just the spark that would ignite the overthrow of the Boston plutocracy, Hall’s offer was politely declined. Hall ingratiated himself with the Massachusetts masonic elite in other ways, however, and contemporary Afro-American masonry is named in his honor and continues to serve an Uncle Tom function on behalf of the ruling class. According to researcher K.A. Badynski, the most prominent Prince Hall Freemason today is retired General Colin Powell.
The laws were stacked against the farmers and a high-paid mercenary army under able commanders was forming in Boston and would soon march against them. As the opposing camps formed for battle, one observer assessed the men comprising each side, indicating that Shays’ ranks were made up of “the most laborious part of the people,” from farmers to “reputable mechanics.” Their foes consisted of, “lawyers, sheriffs…impost and excise collectors and their… servants and dependents.”
Shays’ men were unwavering in their resolve. Aaron Broad pledge, “I am determined to fight and spill my blood and leave my bones at the courthouse till Resurrection.” Soon the raids against Shays began. 300 banker-paid troops, commanded by the lawyer Benjamin Hichborn, assaulted the home of Job Shattuck; in resisting the attack, Shattuck was slashed with a sword. Dozens of other farmer-leaders of the rebellion were seized and their homes invaded. “The seeds of war are now sown,” proclaimed farmer Elisha Pownell on December 2, 1786.
While many of the upper class urged the farmers to surrender, the erudite Dr. William Whiting came to their defense, proving that the battle was not a class struggle, but a war between liberty and tyranny: “Whenever any encroachments are made either upon the liberties of the properties of the people, if redress cannot be had without, it is virtue in them to disturb government.” Ethan Allen promised the commander of the Massachusetts state troops that Vermont would apprehend and return fugitive Shays men, who were camped by the hundreds in Vermont. Exactly two Shaysites were sent back; a couple of horse thieves.
If Allen was compelled to play politics in order to guarantee the autonomy of his beloved Vermont against the covetous designs of other states and factions, Thomas Jefferson was free to speak his mind. Jefferson’s statement concerning Shays’ uprising constitutes the intact voice of the ’76 Revolution, untainted by the hypocrisy of some of the new lords of the American nation. He wrote: “I hold that a little rebellion now and then is a good thing and as necessary in the political world as storms in the physical…It is a medicine necessary for the sound health of government.”(10) Historian Marion Starker borrowed Jefferson’s characterization for the title of her 1955 book about the Shays’ movement, A Little Rebellion.
In April and May of 1787 star chamber “courts” tried captured Shays insurgents. Among these, John Bly and Charles Rose were hung. Pockets of farmer resistance continued for months and assaults on those who loaned money at interest, such as factory magnate Josiah Woodbridge, continued.
But Shays’ rebels lacked funds and as hunted fugitives, it was difficult for them to maintain efficient organization. Daniel Shays’ military strategy had not won the conflict and hard luck contributed to his men’s losses. But neither can it be said that the Shays rebels were defeated.
Many were unknown to the government in an era before photographic wanted posters and telegraph communications. These men resurfaced as “reformers” and played a part in the resistance to the sedition laws of John Adams in 1798. Others like Says himself melted into the American frontier.
The wildlands of New York and Ohio offered territories with fewer laws, better soil and greater opportunities for free men. Some fared well, others never recovered form the loss of their farms and earthly possessions in Massachusetts. Daniel Shays and a hundred yeomen fled to New Hampshire after which they drifted apart and went separate ways. Captain Shays took up residence in upstate New York and lived the rest of his life in penury. He was so poor that upon his death his second wife didn’t even bother to probate his will. The worth of combat is not always determined by success on the field. Those who will only fight if victory is guaranteed, are looking for an insurance policy, not a battleground.
In some cases the very act of resistance is so significant it is itself an achievement. By fighting the tyranny emanating from within, the farmers of western Massachusetts confirmed their ancient heritage of unending struggle for freedom. Thanks, in part, to Shays’ Rebellion, the intractable fighting spirit of the yeomen of early America would remain kindled for decades to come, first in the anti-Federalist resistance to the U.S. Constitution of 1789 and the Sedition Act of 1798, and later, in 1826, a year after the deaths of Shays, in the populist movement against lawyers and Freemasons which shook the Northeast forcing the closure of masonic lodges across the region.
Daniel Shays, Luke Day, Job Shattuck and the other thousands of fighters, were not awed by the prestige of the Founding Fathers, or the glittering cosmopolitan works of their merchant “betters.” They insisted on holding their leaders to the principles of 1776 and in compelling them to make good on the Jubilee.
In our time our people also wax sore with debt. Never was the cry of Jubilee more apropos or more necessary than now. Does the blood of Daniel Shays flow yet in our veins? (11)
1. By Michael A. Hoffman
2. Hampshire Gazette, October 25, 1786.
3. The Rise of American Civilization, by Charles A. and Mary R. Beard; They Were White and They Were Slaves, by Michael A. Hoffmann II.
4. The Ballad of Daniel Shays, by Michael Paulin.
5. The History of the Insurrections in Massachusetts, by George R. Minot.
6. The Embattled Farmers: The Massachusetts Countryside in the American Revolution, by Lee Newcomer.
7. Beard, The Embattled Farmers: The Massachusetts Countryside in the American Revolution, by Lee Newcomer.
8. Connecticut Courant, November 20, 1786.
9. Acts and Laws of Massachusetts, 1786.
10. Letter of Thomas Jefferson to James Madison, January 30, 1787.
11. From the Independent History and Research newsletter, which has since evolved into Revisionist History Magazine, Independent History, Box 849, Coeur d’Alene, Idaho 83816.
Here’s an excellent video from Michael Hoffman on his new book “Usury in Christiandom: The Mortal Sin which Was and Now is Not”