Which of the following problems did shays' rebellion show about the article of confederation

*this list goes on but, considering you haven't put the following problems there is not much i can answer*

- no power to raise funds for any army/navy

- no power to control trade between states

- no power to tax, impose tarrifs

- no executive branch

- no power to regulate currency (use monopoly money? sure!)

- no power to make states honor any agreements made

** now for your question. **

as listed above with the weaknesses under the articles, Daniel shays believed this new system was serving the wealthy elite and crushing everyone else. Each state had power to control trade, currency, militia, taxes, and so forth. The major problem was in nearly all states were just about bankrupt and thought to add extra taxes on top of existing taxes. Many, such as farmers, would lose their land (or go to prison) because of these taxes. The worse part? If you lose your land you lose your status. No status means no voting and this new government is taken from each. Shay’s rebellion showed the government simply was non-existent for them as a result of this. It was not working for them, and Shay decided a change needed to happen. This showed the major problems with the article of confederation as the national government was simply too weak to do anything. The national government did not have enough power under the articles of confederation and were helpless to stop the bloodshed resulting from Shay’s rebellion.

*hope this works somehow **

- sam