Articles of Confederation Article Notes

Introduction

The Articles were borne out of a fear of centralized authority after the Revolutionary War, limiting the national government’s power severely in favor of the states.
Though they may seem primitive today, they require historical context to understand their structure.

The Articles of Confederation created a confederation, or a loose alliance of states.
In practice, the following was put into place:
- A unicameral Congress, with one vote per state
- No independent executive for enforcement
- No national judiciary for disputes
- No taxation power
- Supermajority requirements for major actions
- Unanimity requirements for amendments
This generally reflects the attitude that power was best left to the states, though later, this would be their downfall.

Congress effectively had no real power under this system, harming national unity.
Funds to pay off the Revolutionary War remained unpaid as Congress could only request — not forcibly collect — funds, done through requisitions.
- Often, payments would not be made, resulting in mounting debt and an insolvent government.
Laws and treaties could not be coordinated across states. Foreign treaties and agreements were up to the interpretation of the individual states. Noncompliance often went unpunished.
Congress could not establish trade regulations under this system, with states imposing tariffs and protective measures against each other for better commercial advantage.

The failures of the Articles became the most apparent by the mid-1780s, best summarized into four failures:
- Revenue: Congress could only request money, resulting in instability, debt, and insolvency.
- Enforcement: Congress had no national authority to ensure national compliance with laws.
- Commercial: The United States became subdivided into rival markets that had no semblance of cooperation.
- Legitimacy and Security: Without power, the government had a weakened ability to preserve order and obedience.

Shays’ Rebellion (1786—1787) showed the confederation’s fragility, with indebted farmers rising in armed protest against courts that were seizing property and imprisoning debtors.
The national government lacked the authority to respond; in the end, state militias had to suppress the dissent. This sparked the national question of whether the government in its current state was capable of governing at all.

By 1787, James Madison concluded that Articles had defects beyond repair, stating that the government had become no more than a recommendation system as states only acted in their own self-interest.
He concluded that direct authority and state-level enforcement was needed to maintain an effective government.

Many agreed that the Articles should be changed, but how was a matter of debate:
- Do not change them at all
- Strengthen the government modestly to preserve state soverignty
- Create a national government with supremacy over states in defined areas
Madison supported the third option, arguing that liberty required a government capable of governing.
- Some of his proposals (such as a national veto over state laws) alarmed some other delegates.

The Articles, rather than being a failed first draft, should be viewed as a response against a centralized government after the Revolutionary War.
The lessons learned — that government required power to preserve liberty — showed a national question on how to best strike a balance between it and power, that remains discussed today.