Q#1: Why the Articles of Confederation Failed
The Articles of Confederation were the first attempt at a government structure to unify the states, which at that point in time was only thirteen. One of the reasons for the construction of the Articles was to show the world that America was a respectable independent nation. While the Articles were in use, weaknesses would appear that would ultimately fail to govern America which included, a weak national government, overpowered state governments, and trade/ economic problems. After eight years of the Articles of Confederation being in effect, delegates from the thirteen states realized it was time to fix the Articles and rewrite them into what is known as the U.S Constitution.
Newly independent …show more content…
The purpose of the Articles of Confederation was to unify the thirteen states, but in actuality the states were not unified at all. According to Phillip Hamilton, “Throughout the Revolutionary period, male citizens voted in ever greater numbers for their state representatives, and the voters increasingly demanded that these representatives fully address their specific needs and interests. Therefore, an avalanche of bills designed to appease local constituents were introduced in one state house after another. Most of these measures were passed without any regard to their impact on the nation.”* People identified more with their individual state rather than the country as a whole. This led citizens to believe that the national government was merely an idea or a distant entity, so they were not worried about how their state’s decisions would affect the national government. Another example of the overwhelming power of the states was that each state had their own form of military.* Congress did not have the jurisdiction to fight back against internal and external disputes, so retribution was left up to the states. An instance is Shay’s Rebellion of 1786 when citizens initially protested peacefully against taxes. It turned violent and since Congress couldn’t raise an army, rich men in Massachusetts had to gather money together for a militia. State militias were in charge of the country’s defense. (military or …show more content…
One thing to take into consideration is how people are judging the Articles of Confederation. Steven Boyd of the University of Texas at San Antonio had this to say about the way historians base their arguments against the Articles, “The criticisms about the Articles of Confederation are based on a set of assumptions that in anthropological terms could be described as ethnocentric. Ethnocentrism is the evaluation of a society or culture from the perspective of one’s own culture and imposing as a standard of judgment one’s own values.” Boyd is saying that the Articles of Confederation shouldn’t be judged by what the Constitution says because there were different thoughts and values at this time. A more valid comparison would be between the articles that governed America from 1781-1789 and previous confederations. Also, Boyd argued that the lack of a permanent capital during that time wasn’t a bad thing. If the nation’s capital was in a fixed place back then, the states farther would less likely come because there was no fast modern way of travel. Even though the majority of historians say that the Articles of Confederation were to weak to be successful, the opposing argument has valid points as
The Articles of Confederation were the first attempt at a government structure to unify the states, which at that point in time was only thirteen. One of the reasons for the construction of the Articles was to show the world that America was a respectable independent nation. While the Articles were in use, weaknesses would appear that would ultimately fail to govern America which included, a weak national government, overpowered state governments, and trade/ economic problems. After eight years of the Articles of Confederation being in effect, delegates from the thirteen states realized it was time to fix the Articles and rewrite them into what is known as the U.S Constitution.
Newly independent …show more content…
The purpose of the Articles of Confederation was to unify the thirteen states, but in actuality the states were not unified at all. According to Phillip Hamilton, “Throughout the Revolutionary period, male citizens voted in ever greater numbers for their state representatives, and the voters increasingly demanded that these representatives fully address their specific needs and interests. Therefore, an avalanche of bills designed to appease local constituents were introduced in one state house after another. Most of these measures were passed without any regard to their impact on the nation.”* People identified more with their individual state rather than the country as a whole. This led citizens to believe that the national government was merely an idea or a distant entity, so they were not worried about how their state’s decisions would affect the national government. Another example of the overwhelming power of the states was that each state had their own form of military.* Congress did not have the jurisdiction to fight back against internal and external disputes, so retribution was left up to the states. An instance is Shay’s Rebellion of 1786 when citizens initially protested peacefully against taxes. It turned violent and since Congress couldn’t raise an army, rich men in Massachusetts had to gather money together for a militia. State militias were in charge of the country’s defense. (military or …show more content…
One thing to take into consideration is how people are judging the Articles of Confederation. Steven Boyd of the University of Texas at San Antonio had this to say about the way historians base their arguments against the Articles, “The criticisms about the Articles of Confederation are based on a set of assumptions that in anthropological terms could be described as ethnocentric. Ethnocentrism is the evaluation of a society or culture from the perspective of one’s own culture and imposing as a standard of judgment one’s own values.” Boyd is saying that the Articles of Confederation shouldn’t be judged by what the Constitution says because there were different thoughts and values at this time. A more valid comparison would be between the articles that governed America from 1781-1789 and previous confederations. Also, Boyd argued that the lack of a permanent capital during that time wasn’t a bad thing. If the nation’s capital was in a fixed place back then, the states farther would less likely come because there was no fast modern way of travel. Even though the majority of historians say that the Articles of Confederation were to weak to be successful, the opposing argument has valid points as