they destroyed some of their crop
angry at losing face
The argument from outrage fallacy is when one tries to use loaded language and emotion to get people as angry as possible about an issue without giving a good reason to be angry.
The process of producing sugar required more labor than was available.
I have been researching lately, and I am sure it wasn't Eli Whitney. He applied for a 14 year patent and got it. He proposed that for someone to use it, they had to pay 2/5 of their profit in cotton. The farmers were angry at the tax, so they created their own version claiming it was a "new" invention. Eli tried to sue them but couldn't because of a loop-hole in the 1793 patent act. So, i think the farmers benefited the most. For more information go to http://www.archives.gov/education/lessons/cotton-gin-patent/ Hope this answers your question.
First you go buy a cow then you ask to be prime minister then you get angry and go to the hospital and stab yourself with a knife then buy a million dollar pen and break it the first time you use or you go to the dairy and throw an ice block at that person
the farmers were angry at the horses. because the horses keep kicking the farmers to the sky. Sal
because they were angry
because they were angry
it's better to say "What were the farmers during Shays Rebellion angry about?"and the answer to that is: The farmers were angry about being taxed by the government.
The farmers were angry with the cattlemen because the cattlemen kept destroying the farmers fences. Then the cows would eat the farmers crops. If that does not satisfy you, then you will need to make your question much more specific.
Shay's Rebellion
The Massachussetts farmers and Daniel Shay
Nathaniel Bacon? I second it, Bacon led this rebellion. :)
Exactly The Australian Government just seems to be Extremely Selfish towards the Chinese and they seem to not care about the Angry Australian Farmers.
The government never helped them
Farmers
Banned slavery.