Is Rebellion Necessary to an Effective Government?

After Shay's Rebellion, Thomas Jefferson and George Washington expressed opposing views on this specific rebellion, and the nature of rebellions in general. Thomas Jefferson says, "I hold it, that a little rebellion, now and then, is a good thing, and as necessary in the political world as storms in the physical." Jefferson supports the notion of rebellions as "learning experiences", in which the government can learn what grieves the public people enough to actively protest for change. Jefferson also says that rebellions need to be constant, and the government needs to be "mild in their punishment of rebellions, as not to discourage them too much". He desires that governments should accept rebellions as learning experiences, and in handling the rebellion, the government should not be too harsh. Therefore, the government can always adapt to the desires of the people, and make sure that drastic revolution is never a consequence of unanswered protest. Furthermore, the public will be encouraged that their action is promoting progress, therefore they will be able to see that the government is listening to their concerns. In the end, this promotes a healthy, peaceful relationship between the government and the public which results in progress.

George Washington's philosophy, on the other hand, is to "Know precisely what the insurgents aim at. If they have real grievances, redress them if possible; or acknowledge the justice of them, and your inability to do it in the present moment. If they have not, employ the force of government against them at once." His fundamental belief, in terms of rebellion, is that "Influence is no government"; that the people should never publicly rebel because most concerns cannot be immediately addressed. He essentially is saying that the public doesn't really influence the government, so there is no point in rebellion. Consequently, the people will become increasingly enraged, irrational and impatient (because their concerns are not being remedied) so that they're numbers will "snowball" over time and before the government knows it, revolution will be on their hands. His proposition, is to kill off the rebellion as soon as possible (before it's too late), and use force if necessary so that there is not even the slightest chance of revolt.

Personally, I tend to agree more with Jefferson's argument, because I believe that relatively peaceful rebellion (ex. protesting with signs, marches etc.) expresses public distaste to the government. An effective government is one that is based on the pillars of the "social contract"; basically, a government that serves for the people. Therefore, the government needs to be aware of the people's opinions and be able to reach compromises with the people that do not impose on the government's power, but also respect the wishes of the people (in order to avoid displeasing them, and ultimately causing them to rebel). I think that this awareness can often only be reached through protest, because the government is usually preoccupied with larger, international concerns, so that they overlook relatively lesser issues. In other words, I believe that protest and rebellion is often the only way to raise awareness of the public's concerns. Protest makes the scope of the problem seem more realistic and urgent to the government, and causes the priority of addressing the concern to increase because the issue will be in the very face of the government. Jefferson supports "a little rebellion now and then", because it is true that rebellion every so often brings the previously unknown concerns of the people to the government. The keywords are now and then, because if rebellion were to be constant, then there would always be chaos, and the government would have too much on their hands to deal with. It is also unrealistic to assume that the government can address all of the people's issues, while also dealing with external affairs such as trade, war, foreign relations etc. In conclusion, I think that progress hinges on two things, 1) the ability of the government to be understanding of any rebellion, and to be able to adapt itself to address the needs of the people (and thus avoiding future future revolution), and 2) the understanding of the people that the government cannot deal with all of their issues at once (rebellion is understandable only every now and then), and that the government cannot address ALL of their issues because some would simply be impossible within the confines of a constitution, or be a compromise to the nature of a government.

Acceptable, non violent, protest

Some Questions:

Who's argument is more convincing theoretically; Jefferson's or Washington's?

Within the the confines of a real government, which opinion is more realistic? What can the government realistically think about government?

What are your thoughts on the importance of rebellion in societies?

I believe that rebellion should never be violent (because there are always non-violent methods such as protest), and bloodshed is unnecessary, however is there justification for violent rebellion?

http://www.associatedcontent.com/article/408258/shays_rebellion.html?cat=37
http://www.marcvallee.co.uk/blog/2009/01/gaza-protest-170109/

Comparing and Contrasting Taverns and Salons

Colonial Tavern (up); Salon during Enlightenment (down)

After reading about taverns, I drew a parallel between the role of taverns and salons. Taverns during the American Revolution played a similar role to Salons during the Enlightenment, in that they encouraged discussion, debate and psychological progress, however there were fundamental differences in how they impacted their respective societies. Salons were hosted by wealthy, upperclass women, who invited intelligent, upperclassmen to discuss enlightenment-ideas such as "general will" or "the social contract". The actual discussion of such ideas was part of a larger public sphere, and in the process of debate, ideas were built upon or created by individuals so that ultimately there was an infinite amount of ideas being created. During the enlightenment, salons invited the upperclass to experience ideas that were formerly confined to highly intelligent philosophers during the scientific revolution. Salons allowed the upperclass to expose themselves to ideas that were thought of by philosophers, and that were formerly limited to these philosophers.

In the 1770s, taverns were a staple part of American towns, and cities. The appeal of Taverns were that they "provided alcoholic drinks,... where people could meet and talk openly in public" (Brinkley, 106). However, in addition to being a social establishment, Taverns were very similar to salons in that they played a huge role in the public sphere, because here, "taverns and pubs became the central meeting places for airing the ideas that fueled resistance to British policies" (Brinkley, 106-107). Essentially, taverns provided privacy and comfort for all colonists, where opinions could be discussed freely. Naturally, a lot of these opinions centered on politics and either outrage or content with the British government. Furthermore, just as in the salons, public resistance accumulated rapidly as ideas (about resistance) were debated, discussed and tossed around; ultimately resulting in brand new ideas that were supported by the masses. Eventually, this 'brainstorming' led to actual resistance groups such as the Sons of Liberty, who actively resisted Parliament.

Both Salons and Taverns generated an overwhelming surplus of ideas that spread because of the public sphere, however there was a major difference between the two. Taverns were entered by "educated and uneducated men alike... those who could not read---and there were many---could learn about the contents of Revolutionary pamphlets from listening to tavern conversations" (Brinkley, 107). Taverns, unlike salons, encouraged all facets of society to discuss revolutionary ideas, while the discussions in salons were attended solely by educated men (who were invited by high class women). The consequences of this disparity were that ideas created in taverns influenced the poor, the uneducated AND the upper class, while the ideas in salons only influenced the educated men and the wealthy hostesses. Perhaps, the added volume of participants in taverns led to more emotion, and subsequently more active resistance than salons, which primarily only encouraged more thinking (and not so much, active resistance). Perhaps, this is why the American Revolution was an actual, violent revolution, while the Enlightenment and the Scientific Revolution were merely intellectual movements.

Do you agree with me that salons and taverns played similar roles in their respective revolutions? What do you think were the consequences of taverns influencing the poor and the rich alike? And the consequences of salons only being attended by the high class?

http://candiceroland.umwblogs.org/page/2/
http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Salon_de_Madame_Geoffrin.jpg