Respond to the following prompt... despite the number of 'cons' to the Articles of Confederation, did it provide a stable form of government for the period in which it was in effect?
Post two comments...
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
skip to main |
skip to sidebar
An Interactive Way of Learning US History
Users
Blog Archive
Contributors
Yes. Even though the Articles of Confederation had several flaws and shortcomings, it was sufficient for the period in which it was in effect. The United States had only recently won independence, so obviously they were still in the process of developing their own government.After defeating Britain and becoming completely independent, the US had to quickly make a government in order to avoid total disorganization. Seeing as the US was a brand new country, and that the states were severely hindered by British rule before the war, any government without British rule seemed like an improvement. The Articles of Confederation provided the US with adequate organization, paved the way for westward expansion, and provided political processes that were satisfactory for the time being. They were far from perfect, but they were good enough for the US to get by.
ReplyDeleteI agree that the Articles of Confederation served as an essential system of organization in a state of political chaos, considering the early period of development of the United States. However, I think that it should have been the first aspect of the United States up for modification once the war was completely ended. As the United States government gained stability and could focus its full attention on improving its own nation, the government should have put all its energy into attaining political organization, the most central aspect of any nation, rather than solving social issues of slavery and westward expansion. Eventually the issues of the Articles of Confederation did go too far, which led them to establishing an alternative system of governing years after the revolution, but I think it would have been much more effective if this political shift occurred at the start of nation's independence, avoiding the social unrest that followed.
ReplyDeleteI think that the Articles of Confederation can be considered the first constitution to the United States. Although it had many flaws it kept order at the time and was a good ordered placeholder and learning experience for the people. As we discussed in class there were pros to the Articles such as the formation of the Treaty of Paris and our gain on Westward expansion. The problems of debt and equality over all states truely showed the Americans how they would need to fix the government but for the time being America got by when they followed the Articles of Confederation.
ReplyDeleteDespite the fact that the Articles of Confederation had many problems with it, for the most part, it was a pretty good first try. It served as a framework for American government and helped to shape what they wanted in a government. It also showed how they can change. Because many people were unhappy with the Articles of Confederation, it caused the states to unite together to formulate a new plan. Overall, even though the Confederation isn't really considered a success, it formed the base for the government to come.
ReplyDeleteI agree with Isha that it was the best first government and it did cause many problems. The United States was still unsure what they wanted in a government so their first try wasn't that great. It stilled help the United States get 'on their feet' for the first few years as an independent country.
ReplyDeleteI believe the Articles of Confederation was a stable form of government at the time after the revolution. The colonies needed some kind of governing system that would make the colonies more united in political terms; the Articles of Confederation provided that stable form of government that represented all of the seperate states which united them more. Although it had many flaws and cons, it was a good first step politically speaking for the United States and was a step in the right direction. All they needed to do was amend some aspects.
ReplyDeleteI agree with Isha's point that it was a good starting government for the United States but it should have been improved and reformed earlier on after the war and much of the social unrest and rebellions could have been avoided.
ReplyDeleteI agree with Tyler's point that it was a good first try. Even though it was flawed, it was a good experience for the US in a way. They were able to learn from their mistakes in order to develop the Constitution. Without the knowledge gained from their mistakes, the Constitution might not have been as effective as it was.
ReplyDeleteI don't think The Articles of Confederation were effective at all. America could have done sooo much better for their first government. I mean, granted, it WAS their first try, which is obviously going to be flawed. However, when they went into war with Britain in the first place, they should have had an idea about where they were headed and what kind of government they were going to have. I feel like they thought they'd get independence and they'ed just live in harmony forever. They didn't really think it through.
ReplyDeleteHowever, there were SOME good ideas involved with the AOC, which set the basis for future governemnt (reorganize the territories,expand west for economic growth, etc) But they could have had a much better start instead of the unstable governemnt they provided, which had no central government, way to tax, or army.
I agree with Isha's statement, "the government should have put all its energy into attaining political organization, the most central aspect of any nation, rather than solving social issues." This was a time when people needed to believe in their government, and the government failed. The leaders were focusing on the wrong things.
ReplyDeleteI agree with Isha that the Articles were a very good starting point for America but they could have fixed it sooner to make the country even better because the leaders were focusing on the wrong things at the time.
ReplyDeleteI think that the Articles of Confederation was sufficient for the time being, but needed much improvement if it was to stay in effect. It was the foundations of a democratic government, which was a huge step considering that the country had been under a monarchy since its inception. Though I wouldn't call it an ideal situation, I believe that the Articles of Confederation kept the public relatively happy and limited the possibilities of complete disorder and anarchy. The government was nowhere near as structured as it had to be; congress had decided that anything that was different from British rule was passable, when what America needed was more centralized power. When the Articles of Confederation was in effect, it saw to the passing of several social reforms. However, its inability to deal with the country's debt and other economic situations led to the casting away of the Articles in favor of a new legislature. The Articles was a good start, but America had a long way to go.
ReplyDeleteI believe that while the Articles of Confederation were in effect they were good for the country. However, in no way was this a suitable long lasting government for the newly established country. It simply got the people on their feet until they could think of something better for them. Seeing what they came from under the monarchy and oppressive rule of Britain this was an achievement with which the colonists were happy. The country was a little baby taking its first steps and the Articles of Confederation was a fall. So like any little determined child would do it picked itself back up and tried again. When the articels of confederation were written the country was in dire need for a ruling government otherwise there new formed country would go into chaos. Even with its flaws it was a good start leading the country to westward expansion, peace with forgein countries (the Treaty of Paris), and a framework to hold the colonies together.
ReplyDeleteI agree with Alexis's point that the Articles of Confederation provided a framework to hold the colonies together. Without ths framework, the states may have fallen apart, since their independent governments were pretty efficient. Also, if the AoC hadn't been changed, the states may have begun working towards becoming individual countries.
ReplyDeleteEven though there were many flaws in the Articles of Confederation it still served as a somewhat stable form of government for the period of time it was used. It was only the beginning of the new American govenment so it was a fairly good try. The states desperatly needed to have some kind of politcal structure and the Articles gave them that. Instead of being 13 different states, it made the states more unified which they needed to succeed in making their new country.
ReplyDeleteI agree with Vishakha because as she said "the Articles of Confederation kept the public relatively happy and limited the possibilities of complete disorder and anarchy." Some form of stable form of government was needed to make the people happy and stay unified.
ReplyDeleteI agree with Vishakha's projection for the alternate fate of the United States if the new Constitution had never been drawn up, but on her point that the Articles held the colonies together, I believe that this was successful only for a very short period of time. Before long, the states were disagreeing on many different issues such as the abolition of slavery, as well as much less significant decisions such as the proposal of John Jay. These discrepancies only occurred because the Articles of Confederation did not provide an effective forum for resolving different opinions, instead requiring unanimous votes in order to take any action, which was rarely reached in the few years that this policy was implemented.
ReplyDeleteThe Articles of Confederation, despite its weaknesses, did provide a relatively stable government following the Revolutionary War. The articles prevented the U.S. from falling into a state of complete chaos by establishing a republican government that provided some sort of organization for the newly formed United States. Also, there weren't any significant uprisings or shifts of power under the Articles of Confederation, which shows that most people thought the political situation was bearable. The Articles united the states under one common identity, The United States and laid the foundation for future governments that were represented by the people.
ReplyDeleteI agree with Taylor's point regarding the effect the British government had on the development of the United States government. The colonists made it their goal to form a government that was unlike the British government in every aspect. They especially did not want a single centralized power, which is why all states were equally represented in Congress. But because this was their only goal in mind, they neglected to consider some of the benefits of a more centralized government. However, like Taylor said, the government provided by the Articles were sufficient for the time being.
ReplyDeleteI think I'm going to go with "no" on this one. While I admit that the Articles of Confederation were a sort of "backbone" to our developing nation, they definitely were not stable enough to last very long. Without judicial or executive branches, Congress could not keep the entire country running, and indeed it wasn't doing that because Congress barely had any power at all. With no authority to create taxes or regulate trade, the federal government had virtually no means of making revenue, besides what the state governments so graciously donated. The national legislature also could not effectively legislate because it needed the approval of 9 states. With so many restrictions, it's no wonder they didn't get anything done. And maybe the situation might have been all fine and dandy if America had relatively few problems for the federal government to solve. But we all know this isn't true. Soldiers were still waiting for long overdue pay, farmers hoped to be reimbursed for the fields that were damaged during the war, and settlers all over the country wished to move westward. So if Congress couldn't do anything to ameliorate their problems, the disgruntled citizens would only grow more and more displeased. Eventually they could have rioted and caused uprisings, as was evident during Shays's Rebellion. And then Congress displayed its weakness even more because it couldn't raise a national army to combat the rebels. Who knows what kind of chaos could have erupted if the Articles of Confederation hadn't been revised and then done away with when they had. I personally don't think any good could have risen from the Articles if they stayed in place.
ReplyDeleteI agree with Christina in that the Articles weren't the best way to start off a country, and I like how she included some benefits that they provided. But in the end, they were something very close to a mistake.
ReplyDeleteAlthough there were many "cons" to the Articles of Confederation, it still provided as a stable form of government for the period in which it was in effect. After the war, there was much anarchy and confusion and an organized system was needed. The Articles of Confederation, though weak, DID strengthen the unity between all 13 colonies as well as bring forth some strengths as well (ex. westward expansion, the Treaty of Paris, etc.) However, nevertheless, the Articles of Confederation were still a weak political system which is why it led to the creation of a stronger one, the Constitution.
ReplyDeleteMelinh's comment is interesting to read as it helps me to try and understand another viewpoint. And although yes, I do agree with many of her points, such as how it was weak for Congress not to be allowed to have the authority to create taxes or regulate trade, I still believe the Articles of Confederation maintained a somewhat good control over the new chaotic country. However, I too do not believe that "any good could have risen from the Articles of they stayed in place"; I just think for the time being, it served a good purpose.
ReplyDeleteI agree with Tracy in the idea that the Articles of Confederation unified the colonies. This common identity was also a strong message to other countries that they can make it and they will stick together to create a successful country
ReplyDeleteWhen considering the Articles of Confederation, it is important to remember they were created during the revolutionary war. Americans were terrified of a central government holding too much power, so creating the Articles was a natural response. I believe they did provide a stable government for the time, but the first priority of Congress should have been reforming them. The inability for Congress to collect taxes, raise an army, or regulate commerce coupled with a lack of executive or legislative branches didn't bode well for future stability. Without a judicial branch, the national government couldn't resolve disagreements between states. Even when laws were passed, there was no executive branch to enforce them. That said, the Articles of Confederation were an attempt at something that had never been done--building a government from scratch. In refining, and eventually dropping, the Articles, we learned to work together as a more cohesive unit, which helped us gain more respect.
ReplyDeleteI think Mehlin's comment is very good because it has the most clear stance out of any of those posted. She also wrote in a very conversational and therefor, easy to understand tone.
ReplyDeleteAt the time, the Articles of Confederation were perfect for our country. We were somewhat underdeveloped and needed some kind of central government so that one person didn't take all the power for himself. The colonists had already seen what happens when there is one with all he power and that was probably the last thing they wanted to happen. Additionally, the articles provided a backbone for the individual states' constitutions. They gave most of the power to the states themselves to take care of, avoiding controversy between states on laws enforced by Congress. Though the Articles allowed for our country to maintain somewhat of a stable government during the Revolutionary War, I believe they should have been removed right after the end of the war. The Americans lacked law enforcement and a judicial branch, which allows them to solve disputes between states. The Articles, though necessary at the time, should have been altered immediately after the revolution as to remove such "cons" that restricted our development as a nation.
ReplyDeleteI too find Melinh's comment interesting and it allowed for a different view point. She did mention the several flaws with the Articles of Confederation and how they did nothing to help our country. I disagree. I thought our country was very delicate at the time and anything could have happened. We needed some kind of central government to refrain from a dictatorship or a tyranny. I agree with every single flaw she pointed out, but I also stand by my point that the Articles of Confederation did provide a stable government at the time.
ReplyDeleteThe Articles of Confederation did not establish stability during its effect. In fact the nation was only a short time away from total collapse when congress decided to draft a new constitution. The government was far too weak and ineffectual to resolve internal conflicts such as Shay's rebellion. With the debt problems becoming worse each day, there were bound to be many more similar rebellions through out the states. Also, the government lacked legitimacy in foreign eyes. Britain denied us ports causing trade deficit that crippled the eastern ports. On the other side of the nation Spain closed the Mississippi River, halting expansion into the west. Up North, Britain still controlled Canada, where troops were stockpiled. All around the states, foreign powers were encroaching, and congress could do nothing about it.
ReplyDeleteReading the above comments, I have come to the conclusion that the Articles of Confederation mainly served as a way to prevent dictatorship, and did little to establish a stable government. After most revolutions in history, one group seizes power in the height of revolutionary hype and chaos. However, The Articles of Confederation temporarily stopped any person or form of government from obtaining power. By the time the new constitution was written, the revolutionary spirit had died down, and such issues were now less of a threat.
ReplyDeleteAlthough the Articles of Confederation inhibited dictatorship, they also inhibited any form of stable government. Thus, congress was incapable of solving the debt problem, achieving international respect, and resolving the social issues behind Shay's Rebellion.
The Articles of Confederation were sent for Ratification in 1777 and finally ratified in 1781, after basically four years of deadlock. It didn't get off to a good start, and it did not set the basis for a government that couldn't do much besides "managing foreign affairs", running a national postal service, and in general setting a whole lot of precedent for a Government without there actually being a solid authority. That said however during the period it was in effect it provided the bare minimum needed to keep things held together - although Congress openly chafed at not being able to tax or raise an army it was only near the very end when the Constitution was being sent out to replace it where its flaws would claim it. So even though it deprived the national government of crucial infrastructual powers in taxation and military force - it managed to stem off disaster for the years it was in place by the times things started to snap (Shay's Rebellion for example.), steps were being made to draw up a stronger basis for the nation's government.
ReplyDeleteThe Articles of Confederation, while the foundations to the American political system which eventually became a success, was in essence, a failure. There was no stability within the states, and local and personal interests outweighed any national interests. The Conferderation lacked a sufficient amount of power, as citizens of the newly independent nation feared the potentiality of a monarchy.
ReplyDeleteAdditionally, because an ample amount of power was granted to the states, no solution to the war-time debt could be resolved, and taxes could not be levied on a national level. Military issues also arose, as well as diplomatic problems for no other country granted America her respect because she represented no central idea, but rather 13 individual thoughts. Looking at the internal situation,the Confederation was also weak, as they had no control over North America. Not only were we disrespected on a diplomatic level, but we also couldn't defend our own land from Spain. They blocked off the river, inhibiting us from trade, land, and economic gain. Unfortunately, no conclusion was drawn because the the south and the north wanted different solutions.
Asa far as the Articles of Confederation goes it worked for the short time it was in place. it let the states do what they wanted gave the congress time to plan how to set up their new government. Right after the Revolutionary war I am not sure congress had the ability to control every state, however later on the congress was more stable and were ready to enforce a new Government.
ReplyDeleteThe idea that Jon raised that the Articles of Confederation was the backbone to our nation, is very valid. Although I would like to think of the Confederation as a failure, his point made me think that they technically didn't fail but rather just minimally succeeded, as the "United" States did not collapse during the period of the Confederation.
ReplyDeleteI agree with Tyler, the confederation was not wonderful, however it set a base of the constitution. also it let each state draft a constitution and then when the constitutional convention came around the founding fathers took the best of each constitution
ReplyDeleteI do believe the Articles of Confederation were sufficient during the time they were drafted for creating general unity during the war. However, I don't think these were intended to be used as a long term form of government. So, after the French won the war for the Americans, this was made clear as the new "country" fell into chaos with rebellions and an economic downturn. Basically, the Articles of Confederation were alright for the war period, but not for a long term government.
ReplyDeleteCompared to previous comments, I believe that the Articles were created mainly to keep the colonies together through the war, and as Chris said, to avoid a British style government(which is probably why it failed so miserably).
ReplyDeleteI agree with Joe, even though the Articles of Confederation provided more 'cons' than 'pros' it ultimately provided an effective government for the time period. The Articles of Confederation developed an organized system of government which did contribute to shaping the country in some ways. It unified the colonies in the way that the rights in one place were the same as another. It also provided land ordinances which developed brief westward expansion. This type of government would not have been effective for long term but for a short period time it was acceptable and provided some unification and ideas for what to change in the future governments.
ReplyDeleteEven though I agreed that the AOC were effective I can see where Christina is coming from disagreeing. I think they did not think it through but at the time they felt that was their only option.
ReplyDeleteI think the General comments point towards the Articles of Confederation being more of a stopgap and temporary setup for the nation. Chris made a good point when the Articles essentially managed to prevent a transition towards a government leaning towards Tyranny by restricting the national government. But that retriction of course as also pointed out led to a hodgepodge of issues slowly spiraling out of control, coupled with a disorganized face presented to the foreign powers.
ReplyDeleteDespite the vast amount of flaws in the Article, I do believe that it served as an adequately stable form of government for the time period. It served as a nice refresher from the old ways of Great Britain, and fit our newly developed country well. We cannot overlook the positive aspects of the Articles such as; the land ordinances of 1785 and 1787, and how the Articles indirectly unified the country in a political sense, by declaring equal rights for all states.
ReplyDeleteI agree with what Brittany said, in that the Articles kept the citizens of the United States relatively satisfied. However, the Article proved not to be suitable for the future advancement of a country.
ReplyDeleteThe Articles of Confederation were completely ineffective. Although it was destined to be flawed as a first try, they could have done many things differently. At the time they were created, most Americans feared a centralized government would have too much power, like that of the British government they fought to break from. These fears are certainly evident in the way Congress’s powers were defined. The Articles did not provide a stable form of government, which is evident since they went and revised them because they realised they had a problem. Without judicial or executive branches, Congress lacked the power they needed to keep the state governments in check. Because the states had so much more power than their country’s government as a whole, the states drifted apart and wrote their own constitutions. Congress couldn’t impose any taxes of any sort, did not have authority to raise an army, and couldn’t regulate trade. Many citizens grew angry, especially unpaid Revolutionary soldiers. In the end, the Articles only caused more problems than they fixed.
ReplyDeleteJoe H made an interesting point about how the Articles weren't really meant for long term governing. They were only supposed to create unity during the war, and were meant to be revised afterwards anyway. I never really looked at is a something meant to be temporary, only as a bad attempt at establishing a stable government.
ReplyDeleteThe Articles failed to provide a stable form of government because of the imbalance of power in them. Congress lacked any central authority, and an executive and judicial branch were non-existent. At the time in which it was in effect, the Articles did not allow the nation to solve one of its biggest problems at the time-the debt. The imbalance of power gave Congress absolutely no power to levy taxes.
ReplyDeleteI agree with what Gallagher said about the ineffectiveness of the Articles. I like the point that the Articles overcompensated on the country's fear of strong centralized government.
ReplyDelete