\"Writing.Com
*Magnify*
SPONSORED LINKS
Printed from https://www.writing.com/main/view_item/item_id/1179350-The-Articles-of-Confederation
Item Icon
by Ian Author IconMail Icon
Rated: E · Other · History · #1179350
Essay about how the Articles of Confederation were ineffective in governing our country.
During the Revolutionary War (1775-1783), the need arose for a central government, and a document that differentiated between the powers of that government and the powers of the state governments. After recently rebelling against a monarchy, the Americans were cautious in giving the federal government limited authority. The Articles of Confederation were submitted to the Second Continental Congress eight days after the signing of the Declaration of Independence, on July 12th, 1776 to create a “league of friendship and perpetual union” between the 13 states. Over a year of discussing and compromising passed before Congress adopted them on November 15, 1777. The Articles were revised, adjusted, and finally ratified by Maryland, the last of the 13 states, in 1781. Despite the significant contributions the Articles made to the present Constitution, they were largely ineffective in governing our country through any more than the Revolutionary War.

The Articles of Confederation were very simply constructed, and based the government, rather than the present three branches, on one body—Congress. Under the Articles, all the states were equal, with just one vote each. Congress had no real power, and so it had to call upon the states to enforce its directives. All powers not explicitly given to Congress were completely denied to it and reserved for the states, stressing the Americans’ fear of a strong national government. In order to pass any law, nine of the thirteen states had to agree to it, and to make any amendment to the Articles themselves it had to be agreed upon unanimously.

Since Congress had no power under the Articles of Confederation, it could not collect taxes. It asked that states pay taxes, but could not force them to do so. In a letter written to Congress from the Rhode Island Assembly (November 30, 1782), Congress’s request for tax money was outright denied, because it would “press peculiarly hard upon this State.” As a consequence of Congress’s lack of control over the states, it could not pay its debts to the creditors that it borrowed funds from during the Revolutionary War. Also, Congress could not form an army, because it lacked finances to pay soldiers and obtain supplies. It hadn’t even paid the soldiers that fought during the war. All of this caused the blooming country to appear very weak to the rest of the world and to its own citizens.

The lack of any army left the nation powerless to be commanding in foreign affairs. The British still controlled forts in the United States, and were constantly attacking American trade ships. John Jay, who became Secretary of Foreign Affairs, instructed the United States Minister to Great Britain (March 7, 1785) to “insist that the United States be put, without further delay, into possession of all the posts and territories within their limits” and force them to “make remittances”. The problem with all of this is that Congress could not back his words with any power or force. Anything Congress wanted depended on foreign nations’ cooperation and generosity, because the United States couldn’t actually do anything about it, as the Articles gave Congress no authority.

In respect to foreign affairs, not only could the United States not request anything fruitfully, but also they had to accept whatever the countries with which they were negotiating decided. John Jay was sent to Spain to negotiate with its Minister—Diego de Gardoqui. In Jay’s speech to Congress (August 6, 1786) he stated that the Spanish minister “insists on our relinquishing [our right to navigate the Mississippi]” and that after many discussions “he would still insist that the Mississippi must be shut against us.” This is a perfect example of the United States’ helplessness in negotiating with foreign countries.

A small farm owner named Daniel Shays was frustrated with postwar debt and mounting taxes, and initiated a rebellion against the federal government on August 29, 1786. Small farmers of the time were still using bartering instead of monetary economics, in the western part of Massachusetts, which forced them to sell their land for one third of its true value to the citizens in the East, in order to pay the taxes. A letter from John Jay to George Washington (June 27, 1786) expressed fear that the “orderly and industrious” people would begin to follow in Shays’ footsteps—doubting their central leaders, security of their property, and the liberty of which they are assured. In other words, people were not satisfied with the Articles of Confederation or the central government, and were willing to fight for the leaders and virtues in which they truly believed.

So that all of these problems could be fixed, Congress asked each state to send representatives to a convention in the summer of 1787 to supposedly make amendments to the Articles of Confederation. However, when the convention met they almost immediately decided to just start from nothing, and in doing so went against the Articles that were, at the time, the law. The Framers of the Constitution completely ignored the Articles, but learned from their mistakes—the new Constitution of the United States created: a stronger, more centralized federal government, powers to create laws and enforce them, and branched the existing national government into three different parts. Although the Articles of Confederation were ineffective, they helped the Founding Fathers realize what needed to be changed, and got the country through the Revolutionary War—an important time period in the country’s history.
© Copyright 2006 Ian (apwbdfawkes at Writing.Com). All rights reserved.
Writing.Com, its affiliates and syndicates have been granted non-exclusive rights to display this work.
Printed from https://www.writing.com/main/view_item/item_id/1179350-The-Articles-of-Confederation