Articles of Confederation Reality Check
In the early years of our country’s history the United States of America operated under the Articles of Confederation. On paper this document was largely similar to the Constitution we have today, yet some have argued in hindsight that the Articles served as a better protector of individual liberty. But if this were true, why did Americans who had just suffered through so much to establish freedom ever decide to abandon the Articles in favor of the Constitution? After all, the Constitution was ratified by a clear majority of delegates to state conventions. In fact, the vote was unanimous in three states and the average approval in the rest of the states was well over 60%. Furthermore, a majority of these delegates were men who would later go on to vote overwhelmingly for Democratic-Republicans. In addition, many men who had initially opposed the Constitution ended up voting in favor of ratification, including Sam Adams. Other anti-federalists who opposed the Constitution did so due to a variety of concerns about the new government, but only a small minority actually argued in favor of maintaining the Articles of Confederation. So why the overwhelming support for the Constitution among men who knew the difference between tyranny and freedom and who were willing to sacrifice so much for their ideals? The answer to this question reveals a situation which may have looked good on paper, but failed miserably in practice.
First of all, it is important to understand that the Revolutionary War was largely fought under the Articles of Confederation. (Technically the Articles weren’t ratified until 1781, but they had been used as a de facto government since 1777.) At first glance this might indicate that the Articles were a success, but a closer look shows a far different and bleaker picture. In reality, the weak and loosely formed government that operated under the Articles caused a great deal of suffering and misery for the soldiers who fought the Revolution. In all likelihood, the incompetent government probably caused the war to linger on for far longer than it otherwise would have, and many who fought under such desperate conditions attributed their victory to Divine intervention despite the inept government, not because of it. The soldiers, especially, were well aware of how miserably their government failed them. Forced to fight for freedom with inadequate food or supplies and little to no pay, large numbers of soldiers tried to march on Philadelphia three separate times to overthrow their own government. One time they came so close to succeeding that the members of congress fled Philadelphia in fear for their lives. This was the miserable contribution the Articles of Confederation made to our fight for freedom, and the people on the ground knew it.
Our early government’s ineptitude did not end once peace was established, though. In fact, the Articles of Confederation made it impossible to enforce the Treaty of Paris which had ended the war. Rather, Great Britain was well aware of our government’s weakness and refused to abide by all the stipulations of the treaty for at least two reasons. One, they knew they didn’t have to because we couldn’t make them, and two, we were incapable of upholding all of our obligations set forth in the treaty. Furthermore, we didn’t have a single head of government who could deal with this situation. Spain also noted our government’s incompetence and began to make power and land grabs in the southern half of the country. And our government under the Articles could do nothing about it. This pitiful reality was aptly expressed by Sam Adams when he wrote, “For want of this power in our national head, our friends are grieved, and our enemies insult us. Our ambassador at the court of London is considered as a mere cipher, instead of the representative of the United States." While in France Thomas Jefferson also complained stating, “There never will be money in the treasury till the confederacy shows its teeth. The states must see the rod.” In short, Europe was waiting anxiously in the wings for the inevitable collapse of the newly born nation. Fortunately the Constitution made it impossible for Europe to make good on their ambitions.
The Articles didn’t just create a hazardous foreign policy, though. At home the states were having a difficult time holding it together and by 1785 there was widespread talk of civil war. The Revolutionary War veterans still had not been compensated as promised and an organized movement was working to establish a military dictatorship to “save” the country from its perilous situation. States argued vehemently amongst themselves over trade policy, and the nation was suffering through a severe depression and inflationary crisis brought on by the lack of a sound monetary policy. Armed mobs had formed to protest the increasingly desperate economic situation, the most famous of which was Shays Rebellion. Things became so dire that even Sam Adams agreed to a proposal to hang anybody participating in such mob actions. Raw freedom without economic stability proved to be worse than what the Colonies had suffered through under British rule. This was not what America had fought for. This was not liberty at its best.
George Washington, a man who actually had to live under the Articles of Confederation, described the situation while corresponding with friends. “No day was ever more clouded than the present.... We are fast verging to anarchy and confusion,” he wrote. Later he lamented, “If ... any person had told me that at this day I should see such a formidable rebellion ... as now appears, I should have thought him a bedlamite, a fit subject for a madhouse." These are less than encouraging words from a man who turned down the offer to be a king. He knew what freedom was, and what he experienced under the Articles of Confederation wasn’t it. Even with two hundred years of hindsight, we all can still learn from his wisdom.
Anyone read this book by Boston T Party?
http://www.amazon.com/Hologram-Liberty-Constitutions-Shockin...
Were the delegates representative of the people?
After all, the Constitution was ratified by a clear majority of delegates to state conventions. QUOTE
In Virginia the east was over represented at the expense of the west. That's the history of the south where the planter class dominated the poor farmers.
Those in the west tended to be more anti-constitution. As David Hackett Fischer pointed out, the backcountry people were the one group who generally opposed the Constitution.
The Constitution was ratified by ten votes in Virginia. A more equitable vote distribution could have changed history. Patrick Henry would have carried the day.
The Articles of Confederation was a coup d'etat, they seized pow
The Articles of Confederation was a coup d'etat, they seized power illegally from the Articles of Association!
Continental Association (1774)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Continental_Association
Since the Articles of Confederation was illegal, the Constitution could not be a coup e'etat.
To make matters worse, the Articles of Association was itself a coup d'etat, they seized power illegally from the Stamp Act Congress!!
Stamp Act Congress (1765)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stamp_Act_Congress
If that is not enough, even the Stamp Act Congress was a coup d'etat, as they seized power illegally from the Albany Conference!!!
Albany Congress (1754)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Albany_Congress
But there is more, even the Albany Conference is illegitimate, they pulled an illegal coup d'etat on the Dominion of New England!!!!
Dominion of New England (1686)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dominion_of_New_England
Oops, not even the Dominion of New England is kosher, because they committed a coup d'etat on the New England Confederation!!!!!
New England Confederation (1643)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_England_Confederation
So there you have it. I no longer support the Constitution, I support the New England Confederation!!!!!!
A vote for Ron Paul is a vote for James Madison.
I don't know why you wasted your time with all of that.
Who here has claimed the Constitution was a coup? (not that they haven't, I just haven't seen the thread)
Was it designed by some nefarious characters? Yes.
Was it written by some who were lovers of liberty? Yes.
Was the AoC perfect? No.
Should we study the AoC provisions before we make changes to the Constitution? Yes.
Is the Constitution perfect? No.
Were there provisions in the AoC that should have been included in the Constitution? Yes. (In my opinion)
So what's with all the nonsense above? Really.
Why are you setting up an argument no one made to then tear it down. Where does that get you?
I notice you focused merely on the time line of events and haven't bothered to discuss any of the actual provisions in either document. Have you been watching too much "minion media?"
yeah but..
I appreciate the history.
Okay, here goes...
#1) The three unanimous states were not considered critical to ratification.
They were the 9th, 11th, and 13th ranked states by population.
(New Jersey, Georgia & Delaware)
#2) All of these votes are by convention.
Rhode Island initially refused to form a convention and submitted the Constitution instead to its citizens directly. The Federalists BOYCOTTED this move. Why? Why not let the people decide directly? No, they wanted hand picked conventions rather than the people themselves decide, despite the fact that the document preamble begins with "We the People." This Rhode Island vote failed miserably 237 to 2,708 or 8% in favor. Of course, this was in a population of about 69,000, so not too many people were interested I see.
#3) Because these votes are by convention, there is no way to accurately 'average' the other states' votes.
There was no requirement to apportion the delegates to population, so delegate counts are not useful here. At best, one could extrapolate the percentages of the convention to the population of each state and go from there, but even this is not accurate since we saw in Rhode Island, when the people voted on the question, they REJECTED the Constitution. There is no evidence to any level of confidence that can say what the sentiment of the people generally in the country was at the time in any quantifiable sense.
#4) It can be argued that the Constitution suceeded due to a lack of a suitable alternative.
The anti-federalists were arguing for rejecting the Constitution, which had the implication of sticking with the AoC. Movements for change usually win out over preserving the status quo, not because they are good changes, but because the debate is lost early on that something needs to change. It is easy to identify a problem. It is much harder to show that an untried solution will not alleviate it.
#5) The Federalists were likely the cause of the AoC's downfall.
From the beginning there were those who wanted a monarchy. Hamilton, one of the most prominent Federalists and supporters of the Constitution, was just such an individual. He thought the AoC too weak to survive. There is something of a self fulfilling prophecy here. If he was working to constantly undermine the AoC and the Congress at that time, then he would create the very situation he claimed to be solving with the Constitution. With 215 years of hindsight, we can now see that Hamilton was a shyster and every defect of the Constitution which he explained away, has reared its ugly face for the exact reasons the anti-federalist feared, though it did take longer than expected. The argument isn't that the people thought the AoC was good and they wanted to keep it. Their perception clearly was that it was insufficient. But notice they did not send delegates to Philadelphia to draw up new ones. They sent them there to discuss AMENDMENTS.
In reality, that is exactly what they did. Since most of the text of the two documents is identical. Though there are stark differences. Those differences are fundamental and so they were not submitted as mere amendments. Technically however, the AoC is still in effect. If it were not, the USA would not exist. It was the AoC which created the union. The Constitution merely constituted a government for that union. If for whatever reason, the Constitution fails to function, the States still have the AoC to use to conduct their common affairs. The Congress of the Articles is still authorized though no state has sent delegates to it since 1789.
Sure, the Constitution provided a few needed changes such as in the realm of monetary policy. But it also dispensed with other needful measures which in hindsight have made a mess of things.
Would we have survived under the AoC to this day? Probably not. The detractors of Liberty and the advocates of centralized power would have obfuscated and torn the country apart. Heck, they managed to do just that by 1860. They are doing it again today. And in many respects, they have been enabled by the Constitution, not restricted by it. Provisions of the AoC that were left out of the Constitution might have well prevented this mess.
If we are to seriously ask ourselves, "What went wrong?" Then we have to take a look at the origins of the present government and what we had before. It is the only way we can reconcile the struggle for liberty with what we have today, and where we want to go tomorrow.
Well Said
Technically however, the AoC is still in effect. If it were not, the USA would not exist. It was the AoC which created the union. QUOTE
Just one questionable point. The AoC did indeed create a union of thirteen, but was the union under the Constitution the same union?
The Constitution says when nine states have ratified the new union will go into effect, so they were prepared to leave as many as four states out.
Actually the new union of the Constitution began with eleven states, North Carolina and Rhode Island would ratify later.
The fact that the two unions were composed of all thirteen states is an historical accident, it didn't have to happen that way.
The Constitution formed a new union.
The Constitution speaks nothing of a "new union" but only that
the preamble states as a purpose to make the current one more perfect.
The AoC was never abolished. It is still the law of the land. Though it isn't being followed and has for now, been superseded by the Constitution.
The Constitution did not create a separate union, but rather created a government for a union that already existed. The reason they wanted nine, was that it was thought that if 3/4 of the States agreed to the new government (not new union) that this would be sufficient to begin operations and the others would follow. They were correct.
Article VII specifically has the word union in it, no where. Here is the text:
ARTICLE. VII.
The Ratification of the Conventions of nine States, shall be sufficient
for the Establishment of this Constitution between the States
so ratifying the Same.
If the Constitution created a separate union, why was the previous one not dissolved? Why is there no creation clause? Why does the Constitution presuppose the existence of a union?
It wasn't a new union that was created, rather simply that a government, which did not exist before, would be in effect for those States who had ratified it. Presumably had the other four failed to do so, and they kept sending delegates to the AoC congress to handle their own affairs, it would have been interesting to see what the other nine would have done. Would they still send delegates, now to both Congresses? Would they send one delegate representing the new general government?
Nevertheless, the AoC was never dissolved or repudiated officially, and the Constitution contains none of the language which creates any union as the AoC does.
What happened to the perpetual union?
the preamble states as a purpose to make the current one more perfect.
QUOTE
In the AoC its called the "perpetual union", meaning everlasting, forever.
In the Constitution the term is dropped. Why? Maybe they realized it wasn't going exist anymore for those states that ratified the Constitution.. If there was no change, there's no nead to replace the description by calling it a "more perfect union".
New Union
If the Constitution created a separate union, why was the previous one not dissolved? Why is there no creation clause? Why does the Constitution presuppose the existence of a union? QUOTE
Each state independently decided whether to withdraw (secede) from the "perpetual union" of the AoC. This union was effectively dissolved when only one state remained (a state can't be in union with itself).
The creation clause is, as you state, Article VII.
Of course the Constitution presupposes the existence of a union. The Constitutional Convention is based on that presumption, but the union is that of the AoC.
The Constitution proposed a new union with as few as nine states. How could a union of thirteen be the same union with only nine states? It was entirely possible to have had two unions, one of nine states under the Constitution and one of four states under the AoC.
A precedent was set under the Constitution that a state could withdraw (secede) from the current union to join another. The Constitution was born in secession.
When the southern states withdrew (seceded) from the union of the Constitution, they were repeating what they had done before.
"It was the AoC which
"It was the AoC which created the union."
Wrong, the Articles of Association created the Union in 1774. The Articles of Confederation and the Declaration of Independence were power grabs.
Continental Association
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Continental_Association
A vote for Ron Paul is a vote for James Madison.
Try again. Here is the text from the AoC
Article I
The Stile of this confederacy shall be "The United States of America."
Article II
Each state retains its sovereignty, freedom, and independence, and every Power, Jurisdiction, and right, which is not by this Confederation expressly delegated to the United States, in Congress assembled.
Article III
The said states hereby severally enter into a firm league of friendship with each other, for their common defense, the security of their Liberties, and their mutual and general welfare, binding themselves to assist each other, against all force offered to, or attacks made upon them, or any of them, on account of religion, sovereignty, trade, or any other pretense whatever.
Article 1 named the union, Article 2 reserved powers, and Article 3 set it up. The rest of the articles define and delineate how the union will function.
The Articles of Association were merely that of belligerent colonies. The AoC was the creation of an entity known as the United States of America subsequent to the Declaration of Independence.
Oops, the Articles of
Oops, the Articles of Association was a coup d'etat that seized power from the Stamp Act Congress.
Stamp Act Congress
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stamp_Act_Congress
Of course, the Stamp Act congress was itself a coup d'etat, they seized power from the Albany conference!
Albany Congress
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Albany_Congress
BRING BACK THEH ALBANY CONFERENCE, ITS BETTER THAN THE CONSTITUTION!!!!
Wowza!
A vote for Ron Paul is a vote for James Madison.
You really need to chill.
The AoC was the creating document of a separate and distinct union known as "The United States of America."
Until then, it was merely a term of art, not an entity.
The Constitution is not a coup, but rather an attempt to perfect the flaws of the AoC. It not only failed in the long run, but left out some important features of the AoC that were not weaknesses.
the United Nations = the
the United Nations = the Articles of Confederation
Both have a bunch of unelected autocrats telling us what to do.
Neither has a separation of powers.
Neither has a bi-cameral legislature.
Neither has any checks and balances between the non-existance branches of government.
Neither can be amended without an act of God.
The United Nations has a worthless Bill-of-Rights, the AoC doesn't have a Bill-of-Rights.
Both the UN and AoC are worthless.
So if you support the Articles of Confederation, you support the United Nations.
A vote for Ron Paul is a vote for James Madison.
Get a grip
the same can be said for the Constitution.
The UN Charter and the AoC are miles apart by far. Try reading them first.
I agree with what you are getting at in comparing the AOC and UN
If one supports the AOC, one is supporting a trans-national government (because the states are sovereign nations). And if one supports a trans-national government, if one is being consistent, one should also support the trans-national government that is the U.N.
But, don't stop there, for the Constitution is also a trans-national government! So according to this reasoning, if one also supports the Constitution, one should be consistent and support the U.N.!
"But, don't stop there, for
"But, don't stop there, for the Constitution is also a trans-national government! So according to this reasoning, if one also supports the Constitution, one should be consistent and support the U.N.!"
No, because I said the Constitution has a bi-cameral legislature, SOME democracy, separation of powers, checks & balances, etc.
The UN has none of these, nor does the AoC.
A vote for Ron Paul is a vote for James Madison.
Yes, I realize that
I was just making an article based also on the comparison between the AOC and UN that you started. That's all ;-).
Perhaps a third is the answer.
Why not have Ron Paul take our first two constitutions, the Articles of Confederation and the Constitution and pull out the best of both. I think he would do a good job drafting a new constitution. Then we could start all over with a new constitutional government.
grant
Well, but can any political document keep a government limited?
I don't think so. Why? Because governments have an intrinsic incentive structure for expansion.
Is it not the incentive structure that is the problem (and not the political document)?
Explain this intrinsic
Explain this intrinsic incentive structure that any government inherently has, that is somehow not to be found on the market or in human nature.
Ventura 2012
power corrupts and absolute power corrupts absolutely
Jefferson recognized that the natural tendency of government is towards centralization and less liberty.
Look back at my post above, it is easy to identify a "problem" and advocate a "change" to fix it. It is very hard to argue against that change if there is no alternative proposal other than the status quo offered.
For example, we will get socialized medicine in this country. But not because the people want it or because it is the best solution, or because of a defect in the Constitution. Rather we will get it because the "opposition" is focused on the defects of the change, rather than focusing on the assessment of the "problem." If there was honest debate about the validity of the claims of "millions of uninsured" or that this is an actual harm that should be addressed, much less by the federal government, then we will start to see the tide turn.
Few can argue with a straight face that we should do nothing at all.
There has ALWAYS been a propensity for people to look to government to "take care of them." This has been ingrained in people since the days of feudalism and monarchy. It isn't going to go away easily.
For our present time, we need to focus on winning the debates on EXACTLY what our problems are, WHY they are bad, WHO they affect, HOW they formed, and THEN and ONLY THEN should we look at any solutions. Many of our problems today stem directly from government. Instead of waiting for the communists to offer change, we need to do it first. We need to go on the offensive of identifying problems caused by unconstitutional government, then offer the constitutional solution.
And we need to do this fast.
Government is a institution
where the people occupying it have a legal right (ie. not a natural one) to rule. So, to study the incentive structure of government is to study the incentive structure of archism. Archism of course has a terrible incentive structure if one values liberty. To give an example, here's a common one that can be heard from Public Choice theory economists:
A bunch of corn farmers lobby the government to get a new subsidy for themselves. There is a strong incentive for it to get signed into law. Why? Because the benefits (a. thousands of dollars to each farmer, b. the politicians responsible for this will now have a special interest who will vote for them) are concentrated and the disadvantages are minute and dispersed (Joe Blow will end up paying $1 more in taxes per year, and thus will not have a huge incentive to protest this).
This incentive structure problem doesn't occur in the market, because markets run based on voluntary exchange. Government operates on brute force.
I've heard this argument
I've heard this argument before. I think it is accurate when applied to socialist democracies, but not to a true republic where the ultimate power holders(the people) value the rule of law, as long as that law limits the ability of governments to selectively dish out money to special interests.
What you are really describing is a tyranny of the minority. More democracy can fix that problem, in which is is more beneficial to represent the interests of the whole people.
Ventura 2012
Weaker federal government is good
Let's not forget, the native Americans and their federation had a st6ake in this and why there was a CONfederation established http://www.answers.com/topic/articles-of-confederation
Once the natives were pout of the way, along came the Constitution and bill of rights to protect us from the Constitution.
WE ARE GOING TO WIN!
___.---.___
.' ( ) '.
) /)' '( )
',_( ';-;'\_,'
|-|
(")
Yes, they were bad, but Constitution has only made things worse
Of course--government doesn't tend to operate well! If those soldiers were fighting in private militias they would have been much better of (private enterprise>statism).
Absolutely. And it would have been worse under a bigger government (ie. the Constitution).
Fundamentally Mamabear, you are invoking the principle that increasing government power is good. I don't think many people on this site will support you in that argument. Ron Paul himself wouldn't. He has said that he would have been an anti-federalist (and thus opposed to the ratification of the Constitution) back in the day.
Private Militias?
Um, the reason things were bad for the soldiers was mainly due to the lack of funding. How would "private militias" have solved the funding issue? The states refused to send any money for the war effort, the congress couldn't make them pay up, and private citizens weren't exactly forking over the money voluntarily. Who would have formed thess private militias and paid for them? It's not like the revolution was a money making venture that investors could have capitalized on.
Your arguments are extremely arrogant. You weren't there, you don't know what it was like, and you haven't experienced anything like this yourself. When people who lived through the experience write about what it was like, you second guess them as if you know better. You sound like every other ivory-towered academia who likes to spout nonsense just to hear himself talk. These people don't live in the real world, and never have.
reply
A) less money wasted in the overhead costs that come along with government bureaucracies.
B) Less money wasted as private allocation of resources tends to be extremely more efficient than government allocation.
Well don't you believe in freedom? If private citizens don't want to pay for some good or service, they shouldn't be physically coerced to.
Simple. Any individuals who wanted to do so.
You weren't there either. Furthermore, why does one have to have been there to make arguments about it?
Going to insults are you? Why don't you try and refute my arguments if they are so wrong?
bump!
bump!
A vote for Ron Paul is a vote for James Madison.