Articles of Confederation - Limited National Power, Strong StatesThe Articles of Confederation was the first constitution of the United States. It provided for a very limited national government to handle the affairs of the states. The Second Continental Congress went about drafting it shortly after setting up a committee to draft the Declaration of Independence. The Articles were not ratified until 1781, less than a year before the British General Cornwallis surrendered.
The Americans wanted to avoid giving too much power to one central authority. Keep in mind that they were in the process of fighting a war against an oppressive centralized government. Also, it would be hard to get people in authority in the individual states to give up some of their power to a governing body outside of their area. So the Articles only gave the national government one branch of government, the legislative branch. This means that the Congress could pass laws, but had no power to enforce (executive) or interpret (judicial) those laws. It was not given the power to directly tax Americans nor to raise an army. This means that they would have to rely upon the states for money and soldiers to fight a war. States would have the power to comply with the request or to reject it.
It's Hard to Get Things Done When Need Everyone's Approval
The Articles of Confederation worked more like the United Nations than today's U.S. Congress. Americans were more closely identified with the state that they lived in than the country they lived in. The structure of the new national government ensured that few decisions could be made with the support of an overwhelming number of states. If Congress needed to pass a law that 7 out of 13 states (a majority) believed was necessary they couldn't pass it, because the Articles required that 9 states (a super-majority) had to accept a law for it to pass. If the Articles weren't working out and a major change (an amendment) needed to take place, all of the 13 states had to agree before that change could take place. Try getting all 12 of your friends to agree with you on the type game you are going to play.
What the Articles of Confederation Did Well
There are a couple of the things that were successful about the Articles of Confederation. They found a way to organize and settle western (today we call them midwestern) lands. The Land Ordinance of 1785 set up a way in which the Northwest Territories (the modern-day states of Ohio, Indiana, Michigan, Illinois and Wisconsin) would be organized for settlement. The land would be surveyed and organized into a neat grid pattern. Townships would be made out of 36 square mile blocks. The sale of 4 of the blocks would go to the national government and the sale of 1 of the blocks would go to fund public education.
The Northwest Ordinance of 1787 established a way for the territories to eventually become states just like the original 13 states. They would 1) need to organize a local government, 2) get 60,000 to inhabit the area and 3) apply to the Congress for the right to be admitted as a state. If the territory became a state, it would get representation in the national government rather than be controlled by the national government.
Questions to consider:
1) There is general agreement that the Articles of Confederation were a failure. Should this be expected in the country's first attempt at creating a representative democracy? Explain.
2) Do you think that the newly independent states could have continued to exist as 13 independent nations not linked by any type of government? Would such a situation lead to wars among the new nations (states)?
3) If we are going to change the Articles of Confederation, how far should we go? What is the proper amount of power to give the national government so that it can effectively help the colonies and still not be tempted to overreach its bounds?
4) Under the Articles of Confederation every state was given 1 vote in Congress regardless of whether it was a state with a small population or a large population. For example, Connecticut only had 59,000 people while Virginia had 747,000 in 1790. Is this fair? Is this democratic? (Democracy is a government in which the people control the government, usually through voting. Should democracy require that states with more people get more votes?)
2) I don't think that the newly independent states would have continued to exist as 13 seperate nations. One reason being that they had to be interdependent. It would make it much easier to trade with a different nation(state) that shares the same laws as you by there being less regulation and more free trade, much like the European Union now. Another reason being that if the Natives would attack, the 13 colonies would need to help each other to fight a "common enemy", in which they all may benifit by getting more territory. If they colonies would have continued to be seperate nations, I think war would have been inevitable, with the colonies wanting to expand their territories, and fighting for resources.
ReplyDelete4) I do not think the Articles of Confederation's voting system was fair because if there is a bigger population, there might be a wider range of views on how to run the government. If there were more votes for bigger states, it would have been more democratic becuase there would be a greater chance for everyones opinions to be heard.
1) I believe that yes that should have been expected because before the Articles of Confederation they were accustomed to salutary neglect, a Parliamentary government, and absolute monarchy. Obviously they did not have the slightest clue about what democracy is and how to promote those human rights that they fought the British for. Although they did had a very structured idea of what they wanted to do, the execution did not go as smoothly as the Americans wanted it to be. It was a first attempt after being accustomed to a very different types of political systems, and in my opinion the Americans did better than expected.
ReplyDelete1) I disagree with Michelle because to me the Articles of Confederation failed miserably. The American colonists were acting like they had life all figured out and how much easier it would be without the English king. However, if they would've seen the perspective of what it really takes to run a country, they would've known laws have to be enforced and a strong centralized government is needed for laws to be enforced. I feel the colonists were jumping the gun a bit. Yes, the American colonists were politically scarred by the English government, but they should have known what was expected. Also, if the American colonists didn't know what democracy was, why were they so headstrong into having a democratic government. I truly believe the American colonists were just acting like little babies and not taking into consideration that government is give and take: there are taxes and there needs to be a centralized government. The American colonists just wanted to do whatever they wanted but that's not how it should be in government.
ReplyDeleteI dont think that the states should of been given as much power as they were given. The reason that i disagree with that agreement is that everyone was all over the place. There was no structure, and there was no one higher then the state, thus making it hard for anything to happened. The government that the independent states had were as if they were their own country and not apart of the United States.
ReplyDelete1)The fact that the Articles of Confederation were a failure should be expected in the country's first attempt at creating a representative democracy. The colonies for years were treated with salutary neglect, though the English king did not interfere with them other then with trading the English crowd did serve as one unify force for the colonies, they had some what of a structured outline created by Britain. Now that they were separate from Britain they were lost. They failed not only because it was there first attempt but because each individual state had aimed for a selfish attempt.
ReplyDeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteQuestion #2: I agree with Bonnie because if the native attack them it will be easier to defeat them if all 13 colonies were united.
ReplyDeleteQuestion #1: Yes i think that this should be expected from a country's 1st attempt because the united states was governed by England for a long period of time and so the united sates did not know how to set up a stable government for themselves.
I would have to agree with Sidorela because if everything is scattered and unorganized it would make it that much harder to keep anything under control such as the government.
ReplyDelete#1: It should've definitely been expected that the men writing the Artiiclees of Confederation were going to make a mistake. It's logical. The only form of government they were familiar with was Britain and they wanted nothing to do withh it; they had nothing to base their new government on. The men who wrote it had to come up with it from scratch, this is why I believed it failed. They were bound to make mistakes.
ReplyDelete3) I think one change to the AOC would be to add regulating trade and tariffs between the states and other countries. I also think the AOC needs more control over the 13 states so the laws they create would be enforced properly(Executive Branch). But I don't think that the AOC should be able to control all the states and the states to have no power or say how the government is run.
ReplyDeleteI agree with most of my classmates. I think it is reasonable that the Articles Of Confederation failed. This was the first time they were trying to conduct a government. They had no role model. They had been ruled by England for years, which is not great example of democracy. In addition to other questions I think it is very unfair that the smaller states and larger states had the same amount of votes. This means that whoever voted in a smaller state had more voice than those voting in the larger state. This policy in my opinion made everything unorganized, unfair, and not a democracy.
ReplyDelete#4 i dont think that is very democratic for a state who has almost 800000 to receive one representative while one who has about 60000. The reason i believe that is because there are all types of people in the US and they all have different opinions and one representative cant simply represent that much people, the representative power needs to be separated.
ReplyDeleteKerline, understanding ur argument i completely disagree with you, there was nothing wrong with the British government, it was one of the strongest in the world. The reason that they did fail is that they wanted to be liberal and artsy while not thinking for the future and how this liberal country will be able to function. What type of government will ever be strong if they cant even shut down a little rebellion. From wanting to get away from one of the greatest governments at the time thye failed. once they came to their senses they knew that a modified british government is what they needed.
ReplyDelete