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)
I don't think that it provided a stable form of government. That is why it actually needed to be thrown away and replaced with the Constitution instead of being revised. It provided some state stability, but the federal government was unstable. The instability of both was proven through challenges to political authority such as Shays's Rebellion. The large number of cons made the government put in place ineffective and instable.
ReplyDeleteWell, the answer depends on what the definition of stable is. In that time period the government didn't collapse and the nation didn't fall apart, so I guess it was stable in that sense. This didn't mean things went swimmingly. The government was plagued with many problems as Justin said. There were some uprisings and the nation was in incredible debt. I think that although the nation could have probably been considered stable during that small time period, it was on the brink of falling into instability. The congress was already moving from town to town and they couldn't pay of their debts without any source of income. If they had waited a few more years, America would have probably suffered another rebellion or foreign attack as the citizens started to get angry with their destitute conditions.
ReplyDeleteLike Justin said, I do not think that the Articles of Confederation provided a stable government for the states. In the time after the Revolutionary war, the states were almost completely on their own. They had their own currency, had no federal executive branch, and weren't taken seriously, among several other issues. They came together only to pass laws, which required a 9/13 majority vote. During this time, stability probably would have come easier to a unified country, as opposed to thirteen separate states. The federal government was undoubtedly weak, and their were many uprisings that showed how little they were respected. Since Congress couldn't tax the states, force states to comply with laws, and couldn't raise an army, they did not provide much stability for them. What the states needed, was a national constitution, which was later to come. They needed a strong government to provide protection, and organize taxes to pay off the accumulating debt. Everything was left up to the states, who treated themselves as independent countries. Although it was not the federal governments fault that they did not have adequate power, they did not provide stability in the time of chaos.
ReplyDeleteDespite all of the cons of the Articles of Confederation they provided a some what stable government for the period between the Revolutionary War and the drawing up of the Constitution. The Articles of Confederation did not do everything it was supposed to do, but it filled up the gap of no government for the period. During this time states’ governments were able to build up stability which in turn leads to a somewhat stable national government. The states were able to vote on national affairs while still being able to keep to their state constitutions which basically made the government somewhat functional. The problem was the nation was so overcome with a huge debt that made the debt almost unplayable because Congress could not tax the people as a nation. This caused many people to go broke. For example some states made their people pay in species which was almost virtually impossible to pay if an individual was a farmer at the time. In respects to dealing with major crises like the debt the government was just barley stable because of state governments doing some of these kinds of duties. For the short time the Articles of Confederation were in place the government was stable but only to a certain extent, but it was only needed to just be stable enough until everyone agreed on a constitution.
ReplyDeleteI do not feel that the Articles of Confederation provided a stable form of government. The time period in which they were used was a time of great vulnerability. Right after the American Revolution, the colonies had just been freed and were completely inexperienced. They had no knowledge of how to create a nation. The Americans could have really used a form of centralized government to give them some sort of direction. Instead, they had the Articles of Confederation. These articles established much more state power than national power and regarded the states as almost separate entities. During a difficult time such as this, unity would have been helpful. Instead, the states were practically their own countries. In addition, America had a tremendous amount of war debt that it was unable to pay back. The Articles of Confederation did not allow Congress to raise taxes, so the national government had no way of collecting revenue to stabilize their economy. This caused them to resort to consistently borrowing money which served only to run the country further into the ground.The government also did not have the power to raise an army. This prevented it from responding to internal issues, such as Shays's Rebellion. While the Articles of Confederation were in place, America was in a general state of instability.
ReplyDeleteSarah brings up a good point about what little respect America received. This was an issue not only internally, but in regards to foreign affairs as well. Because America was such a new nation and its government was so unstable, other nations did not take it seriously. When American delegates were sent to European nations, they did not understand whether the American representative was standing for one country or thirteen separate ones. This illustrates just how disjointed American was. The Articles of Confederation prevented them from achieving more unity because they allowed separate states to do things their own way and gave the federal government little jurisdiction. America's lack of unity caused other nations to be confused and not respect the country. This created a problem when America tried to establish commerce with other nations.
ReplyDeleteI can not consider America's government to have been stable during the period of the Articles of Confederation. Yes, the country never truly ended up falling apart, but it was on the verge to because of all the instability, which is why the constitution needed to be reworked. There were too many problems going on for anything to be called stable. On a national level, it definitely couldn't be called stable, because Congress couldn't do anything with the states' permission and never got all of the states to work together with them. Internally, within each state, there were also too many conflicts. Each state had to deal with the question of paying the debt at a reduced rate or at face value, and the creditors, in control of the government, always supported the latter, against the interest of the common people. This split, combined with the rising inflation and taxes, let to tension that broke out in the form of uprisings such as Shay's Rebellion.
ReplyDeleteWith all that going on, I don't see how it could be considered stable.
Scott, the question was for that period. Nothing truly bad had happened so far. Any rebellion that occurred was taken care of and eventually pardoned because the government understood what the people were going through at the time. And the fact that congress was not accomplishing because of the states vetoing does not make it unstable. All the laws were followed accordingly and there was no one group that tried to hoard all the power to themselves.
ReplyDeleteMoreover, I believe the states were not on the verge of falling apart, but on the verge of instability. None of the states at the time wanted to break away. Like Justin said, the Articles of Confederation acted like a plug in government that would function until a truly effective one was set into place. For its job it functioned perfectly. In addition, many people at the time also didn't have quarrels with the government. As we read today in class. They either didn't want to change it or wanted to make it even weaker. This does not sound like any instability is going on. The only reason we are disagreeing is because we have hindsight of what happened.
Even though there were so many cons, it was bound to be that way. The American Revolution was the practically the first time a colony had defeated it's"owner." Mind you that "owner" was not some little unknown nation, it was Great Britain. (who happened to be one of the most powerful nations) Because of this first upset, the Americans didn't have anything to model after, and look to for guidance, besides what they wanted and valued, to create a government. Therefore it is only natural that the American's first attempt at creating its own government wasn't the most stable. When writing the Articles of Confederation, it seems the Americans were thinking idealistically, rather than realistically, and didn't think things through. They were too focused on what they didn't like about British rule, and what they wanted as a new independent nation. For example, the national government wasn't allowed to issue taxes. How did they expect to pay off all the war debt? Another example is the idea that in order to make amends, all thirteen states had to agree. DId they really think every single state would agree on one thing? The balance of power was also very thrown off, which was what created most of the instability. The national government pretty much couldn't do anything except flee from all of the state authorities. (Hence the constant switching of the capital city) The state authorities held practically all of the power. The high power of the states added and brought out the weakness of the national Congress; causing instability and a need for change. The Article of Confederation did somewhat end up providing the model government they needed because when it was time for reform, they were able to know what did and didn't work, and it also provided a good frame to what the Americans wanted for their nation.
ReplyDeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteMarco, maybe nothing truly bad had happened, but it was about to. Saying it was stable would be like saying a building's stable, because it hasn't fallen apart, even though it's leaning precariously to the edge...no, it hasn't collapsed, not yet, but it's getting headed into that direction, which is what makes it unstable.
ReplyDeleteI didn't say that Congress itself was unstable, but the national government's system was, because nothing could be done because the states disagreed with each other. And then there was the issue of representation, when states like NY demanded more of a say in affairs than Rhode Island. That's a form of power struggle, which is usually a good mark of instability.
Despite the number of ‘cons’ to the Articles of Confederation, I don’t think it provided a stable form of government for the period in which it was in effect. Due to the fact that this was America’s first attempt to create some sort of basis for their nation, it was clearly going to have some faults. Although the Articles did provide some benefits such as expanding westward and abolishing slavery in the new territories, they were definitely not able to last very long. Since there was a weak central government and they were unable to raise revenue through taxation, the economy and political structure was feeble and flawed. In addition, all the states had formed their own currencies and passing laws required nine of the thirteen states’ approval. States acted as independent countries and there was no centralized power. The mount up of great debt was also a substantial issue and the Articles didn’t provide any solutions for these problems. Therefore, what America required was a national constitution, for which they would shortly have. The necessities included would mainly consist of first forming a stabilized government in which economic and political organizations are secure.
ReplyDeleteI agree with Sarah's viewpoint on how the states were acting as if they were independent countries. The differences in currency and laws separated the unity of the states. Therefore, other countries didn't take them too seriously. As a result, with the little respect given to the states, trade relations and commerce with other nations were threatened, which caused even more controversy amongst America. Overall, the government was at fault and in addition their lack of authority and power caused the states to act separately rather than as a union.
ReplyDeleteI do not beleive that the Articles of Condfederation formed a stable goverment. With time, it became apparent that the Articles had created an unsatisfactory union of the states, chiefly because they established a weak central government. One instance of this was Shay's rebellion, where economically depressed farmers demanded debt relief and closed courts of law in western Massachusetts. Also, why would Articles of Confederation become amended so quicly if it provided a stable government. The Articles were proved to be a flawed, which was why they amended them in favor of creating a new constitution.
ReplyDeleteI feel like the Articles of Confederation did not provide a stable enough government. The states all acted independently of one another, with different laws, currencies, and there was hardly any interaction with the other states. They were "unified" but did not do anything together. I agree with what Michelle said, that in order for the government to be stable the states required a stronger national government. And the little national government that did exist did not have the authority to do anything that really mattered. Too much power was given to the states and the states did not interact with each other well enough to provide a stable form of government.
ReplyDeleteI also agree with what Dana said about this being an international issue. Because of all of the internal issues, America could not be taken seriously by other countries which also caused problems with trade within the states. I also agree with what Scott said, there were just too many problems to consider it stable. Yes, there were good things happening,however the bad far outweighed the good and caused way to many problems to be a successful and stable government.
ReplyDeleteNo, the Articles of Confederation did not provide a stable form of government from the period in which it was in effect. This document severely limited Congress and it’s power. They could not raise money by collecting taxes, control foreign affairs, and to pass laws they needed 9 out of the 13 states to comply with them. Many states refused to cooperate with Congress and therefore led to total chaos. There was no standardized set of laws throughout the newly independent nation and each state had their own different way of doing things. Aside from the how each state varied differently in their governments, America did not have an executive branch, and court system. The lack of an executive branch and court system made laws unenforced and caused unsteadiness. If there is not one set of rules that are strictly enforced citizens will just do what they want and the difference between right from wrong will be abstract. The newly independent people were working on their own individual states while they should have focused on creating a stable government where everyone abides by the same laws and carries out the same way. Also, under the Articles of Confederation they could not raise an army which made them vulnerable to other countries and the only form of protection they had was a weak and scattered militia. Militarily, they were not strong and had no form of protection. Economically they were also very unsteady and had lots of debt from the war. There was no way to pay of debt because the states refused to pass any acts regarding taxing individuals. The relationship between Congress and the states caused for America to have an unstable government where there was no uniformity and each state just did what they wanted.
ReplyDeleteAlthough there were a number of ‘cons’ in the Articles of Confederation, it did provide a “framework” for the newly independent nation that was tolerable to an extent and provided a temporary government that would have to do until the Congress worked out a permanent version. However, it definitely was not a stable form of government. Stability is defined as being firmly established and the new nation was hardly the picture perfect example of this supposed “stability”. The individual states were not stable alone as seen through Shays’ Rebellion. The Massachusetts government had to call other states for help instead of Congress because the states had more power than the central governmental body. If state governments couldn’t even control and settle their own disputes and uprisings, what did this say about what could happen in the future? If more uprisings were to ensue, they could seriously threaten the authority of the government and possibly lead to the downfall of a newly born, vulnerable nation. Furthermore, the Congress was not stable by any means. The Congress was constantly at the mercy of the states, depending on them for the future of the nation. If not all thirteen states agreed to an amendment, it could not be passed. If nine states out of thirteen did not approve a new law, it could not be ratified. This odd placement of power prevented the Congress from taxing states to create more income to settle the national debt, from creating a national currency to eliminate the thirteen different currencies, and from creating a national army that would provide some security for the new nation. During this period of time, the nation had put its citizens in a crazy, disorganized mess rather than a stable environment.
ReplyDeleteIn my opinion, the Articles of Confederation did not create a stable government despite the fact that it had many good factors. The Americans took the democratic movement too far and did not allow the Congress practically any power for they were afraid of having another tyrannical government like Great Britain had enforced against them. Therefore, the Articles of Confederation created a huge upset in the balance of powers, with small individual states having enough power to sway the entire government of America. Also, each of these states ran as if they were their own separate country. They had their own currency and their own set of rules; the mark of unity amongst the Americans was clearly invisible. Furthermore, because each state had their own wants and needs, it was impossible to get all 13 of these states to agree to one idea, which was needed to make amendments to the duly flawed Articles of Confederation. This forced even more disunity amongst the states as well as adding to the unstable government caused by the Articles of Confederation.
ReplyDeleteI agree with Carly that the fact that there was no real government to model off of made it hard to for the United States government. Countries that have had reforms in government or are making a new nation before just modeled their government after another country and added a small twist to it like the Glorious Revolution or the formation of Prussia.
ReplyDeleteI also agree with the fact that this was the United State’s first time making a government with such fresh new ideas. They were bound to make mistakes the first time. That is why I think people criticize the Articles of Confederation too much. It was only really just a preliminary place holder before the revitalized government would be made with the Constitution. And may I note that even our current government is not full proof. Our constitution can be changed by adding amendments. That just goes to show how even up today changes can be and are being made.
I really liked what Carly said about how the Americans were acting based upon ideal and not on reality. Ideally, no one wants to pay taxes. But do we have to? Of course. Without any form of stable income for the government, there is no possible way for nation to run under one uniform power. True, the Americans did not want another Great Britain and wanted more power to the people. However, it would have been impossible for America to have stability in its government without giving any power to Congress.
ReplyDeleteI also really liked what Carly said about the Americans not having a government to model themselves after. Since they had just broken free of Great Britain, it would be kind of hypocritical of a central government to come in and impose taxes, raise an army, and begin to enforce new laws. Doing so could have completely backfired on them. As the nation developed its own terms and amendments, they were taking little bits and pieces from other areas, such as France, and making up the rest as they saw fit. Ultimately, it ended up working for them, but before that, the country was completely unstable.
ReplyDeleteLaura makes a great point commenting about how fear was a huge factor. The Articles of Confederation did not have a specific and set way to go about doing things. No one wanted to enforce laws too harshly or try and have a stable government because they did not want it to get a tyrannical ruling as they experinced in Britian. Fear made Americans apprehensive to taking new steps and developing new ideas on their own, they did not want to take one extra step than was neccessary and ruin what they all had worked for. Americans did not want to see the years of bloodshed, battle, conflict, and chaos result in a repetition of history and the exact opposite of what they wanted.
ReplyDeleteThe Articles Of Confederation did provide a stable government for the it was in affect. Even though it created a weak form of Republicanism, the Articles of Confederation kept the U.S. from descending into anarchy. Now we look back at the Articles of Confederation and realize how vulnerable the U.S. was wile governing under these Articles. For the time it was being used the Articles provided a stable government, but If the U.S. were to continue using the AOC I think there would have been more events like Shays rebellion but much worse.
ReplyDeleteI think that given the situation of the country, the government was pretty stable for a new country. There were several good factors as well as bad, but what government doesn't have a flaw? Can it be said then that all government arent stable because of the several issues that arise? No, of course not. It depends on your perspective on what stability truly is. Is it even considered to be possible?
ReplyDeleteThe articles didn't provided the country with the stability like our modern government does, but taking into consideration their new status in the international level and different ideals (compared to us) I think that their new system was pretty stable. It set up the basics for our constitution now. If it was so unstable, like many might speculate, due to all of the issues, how could it become a basis for modern day? There had to be some form of stability within those words.
When people highlight the several cons of the articles back then, it isn't any different from the modern constitution. Sure, there are flaws but they didn't cause total chaos and dissention. They came together to talk about issues, and try to reach a compromise. To me, this is stability.
I also really liked what Carly stated about Americans focusing on their ideal government and not something that could be realistic. The Americans were too focused on what they hated about the British government and what they wanted for their own government that they didn’t look ahead and see what was plausible and what was pure imagination. It was interesting that Carly brought this up because it definitely added to the instability of the government, and it was a reason that I hadn’t even considered before.
ReplyDeleteI also agree with Justin that this was the United States’ first attempt at making a government and it couldn’t be perfect on the first try. Yes, we might criticize the Articles of Confederation a little too much but the reality is that there were too many flaws in it to be overlooked so easily. It was definitely an interesting perspective that was mentioned, that the constitution can be changed even today just by adding amendments or removing them, and not everything is set in stone.
I agree with what many people have already said, that it depends on what you consider stability. If you compare our modern government and the U.S. government under the Articles, you may say that the Articles provided instability. But lets look at what was occurring in the U.S. in the 1780's. The U.S. had just won its freedom to create a government in the image that they wish. America created a government that seemed would benefit everyone and provide stability, which it did. In the future there would probable be more instability in America but the U.S. had fixed the problems with the Articles before this could happened. For the time it was in use the Articles of Confederation provided stability necessary for a revolutionary country.
ReplyDeleteI agree with Marco, when he says that the only reason why we're disagreeing is because we know what happened in the end. If you think about it from their perspective, during that time period many people like the way things were working out, as we read in class today. Even though there were also many that disagreed with the way things were, states like South Carolina didnt flip out and attack Rhodes Island. I think that's pretty stable compared to other incidents like the Civil War...
ReplyDeleteI believe the Articles of Confederation were a nice attempt at a stable government, but the numbers of cons outweighed the pros too much for there to be any hopes of a stable government. One positive aspect of the articles was that it encouraged westward expansion. This led to the acquisition of more territory, and expanded America's domain. However, during the time period they were written, Congress could not tax the colonies. War debt was unable to be paid off, and loans had to be issued to foreign allies (French and Dutch). This was a huge factor that contributed to the unstableness of the government, as it showed America and the rest of the world that the government had a hard time adjusting to problems. I like how Justin mentioned that the United States was young and inexperienced and they were experimenting with different styles of government. They were bound to make mistakes, but it was crucial that they learned from them.
ReplyDeleteTwo comments? Alright, alright.
ReplyDeleteThe Articles of Confederation weren't really all that great... I mean, sure they encouraged people to head out west and get themselves some good ol' land, and the majority of the people liked the Articles since they didn't encroach upon the power of the states and there was virtually zero risk of a dictator/monarch seizing power. BUT, regardless, the Articles of Confederation weren't anywhere close to the best.
They seemed like something that the American leaders slapped together hastily during a period of hectic conflict (cough cough REVOLUTION cough), and they weren't downright horrible (no guillotines, no dictators, no heads on pikes in the streets), but they were rushed. Plus the revolutionary hype was all over the place, and the whole "power of the people" ideal was taken a BIT too far since it was swept up by the power of the rebel spirit. People actually were scared of centralized government. They thought it would automatically lead to doom.
We know that's obviously not the case. The Articles were very flawed, and most of those flaws came out of not giving the central government enough power over the state governments. One currency for the entire nation is DEFINITELY better than thirteen different ones. And war debts can certainly be paid off quicker if the central government has some sort of steady income (TAXES). And foreign trade can cause lots of issues if it isn't properly regulated for the nation as a WHOLE.
However, I have to say that even though the Articles were weak and flimsy in nature, they were sufficient enough until the nation got its business together and wrote up the Constitution of the United States. They weren't great, but they were good enough to pass for a temporary government while a better one was put into place. I guess the Americans needed some sort of bridge from a revolutionary war to an established peace. The Articles of Confederation helped that out a bit. They were just a precursor to something better, like props in a show. Usually through rehearsals actors use stand-in props that aren't the actual items used during the performance since the actual ones haven't come in yet or haven't been found or are on their way but not quite present. The Articles of Confederation served as America's stand-in prop of a government system. And the Constitution was the real thing.
After looking at the cons of the Articles of Confederation, I believe it was necessary to get rid of that document because it wasn't affective. The Articles simply weren't doing a good job because the government was so powerless it couldn't even begin to dig America out of its huge multi-million dollar debt as well as unite the states on more than a substantial level of political coherency. It did, however, posses many pros, but since the negative reality weighed it down so heavily, a stronger government needed to be established. A major factor of its failure also had to do with the era of it being created. America was a brand new baby-country and had yet to get off its feet. Defenseless and not yet demanding respect from the world, the Articles of Confederation might have never survived due to its extremely loose attempt at congregating the states into a single country.
ReplyDeleteAs mentioned above, I really liked the idea of an era of fear. A good reason the Articles of Confederation was created in the first place was to prevent a strong central government, for fear of turning into another dictatorship or oppressive monarchy (like England). This prevented them from doing so immediately following the American Revolutionary War. While maybe the Articles of Confederacy had some major flaws, I honestly think it laid the foundation for a well-thought out constitution that would balance powers equally, and deal with actual (rather than virtual) representation.
ReplyDeleteBingo Chris Gardener! That's an important point; the fact that America was a new nation making a new government pretty much from scratch. They were bound to make mistakes! But, like you said, they LEARNED from their mistakes and they were willing to revise them and make them better. They weren't afraid to change, and they were also willing to make compromises. That's super important.
ReplyDeleteJimmy's got a good point too. The Articles of Confederation were definitely good enough to keep America from descending into anarchy. Though, I do think that maybe if they were in place for longer, if that crucial compromise hadn't been reached in Philadelphia, we may have become a giant puddle of anarchy. Fun fun fun. The British would've probably had a party and they'd so rub our faults in our faces. "Told ya so!"
Sarah, I thought it was good that you mentioned the central government's lack of respect from the people. I don't think the people were all that fond of having a central government; it reminded them of Britain and Britain was the land of "no no no's". They didn't take it seriously because they felt that their states should have the most power and make all the decisions. Despite this, I still think that the Articles of Confederation were stable ENOUGH to get America through the transition period between war and a new government system. They set a flaw-filled framework that could be improved upon.
In my opinion the Articles of Confederation was a good idea, but did not provide a stable form of government. Like how Jimmy said, the confederation was a lousy form of a republic. For example, the confederation gave equal voting rights to all the states. They failed to realize that some states had a much larger population so an equal say was proportionally incorrect. Another reason the articles of confederation struggled so much was because of post war issues. For example, America was in massive debt and had to keep borrowing money from foreign allies. They were never able to really properly tax colonies for income which affected things like the military. Overall, this was a shaky government and had many cons.
ReplyDeleteLikewise, Carly made an interesting point about the colonists fearing the centralized government. I concur with this statement because if I was a colonist, I would be scared if my leaders were clueless, and in some ways, afraid to challenge us (the states). This brings up an interesting point that there were different types of fear. Carly pointed out that the Americans didn't fear weapons of death, but they feared the potential of the government (which wasn't much at this time). They did not believe that the government formed from the Articles of Confederation would be able to run the nation. This lack of faith contributed to the missing support and unity throughout America. Of course this style of government would fail, it didn't have a backbone (American support)
ReplyDeleteI disagree with Jimmy's post. I don't agree that the Articles of Confederation kept the U.S. from descending into anarchy. In my opinion, the articles of confederation was leading the nation into an anarchy. The Shay's Rebellion was a warning to America that if things do not change than an Anarchy will form. In the FTR book, George Washington said that "we are fast verging to anarchy and confusion." George Washington was afraid that all of their republican ideologies will soon go away if things do not change. This is why it is very important the constitution was drafted because it prevented any form of anarchy or revolution.
ReplyDeleteDue to the fact that there was no major conflict and we remained independent through the time period, the Articles of Confederation did infact make a stable government for America at the time. There were many flaws to the newly formed American policy, but how else can a government improve other than trial and error. The Articles of Confederation was the colonists' first real opportunity to create what they believed to be the best form of government regardless of what England said. They looked at the mistakes and successes of other countries and used them to improve the new government. For example, the colonists did not want a monarchy, they did not want one person having too much power, and they wanted checks and balances. Although Congress was not quite the strongest branch of the government, the states enjoyed their power and the people were generally happy. By distributing the power, America's earliest government under the Articles of Confederation laid a stable foundation that would last for centuries.
ReplyDeleteThe American government had to go through a process of trial and error before they could reach their ideal government with all the right policies and completely serves the people. The current US government still tries to improve itself today. Addressed to all those who believe that cons of the government made it unstable, the disadvantages of the Articles of Confederation did pose issues but none too massive to make our government unstable. There are many cons in the US government nowadays that include paying too many taxes, health care, the list could go on and on but at the end of the day we have a sable government. The same applies to the first established American government, once you look deeper than the surface you will see that the foundation was actually correctly set so that it could be further improved in proceeding years. The United States has kept many of the same ideas from the Articles, checks and balances, unified states, levels of government, and the government back then was successful in serving its incredibly vulnerable country. Therefore the Articles of Confederation did indeed provide a stable government for America.
ReplyDeleteI don't believe that the Articles of Confederation provided a stable form of government. In order to maintain a stable government the Congress needed to possess a lot more power. It is reasonable to have some power, such as the regulating and limiting of local laws, to be distributed amongst the states and their local governments. However, when Congress has very little power and the States only rely on themselves for their own advantages then certain necessary issues are overlooked. States end up arguing because of the differences that exist within them, such as the size of their state and how much money they had to pay in order to support the economic system that was breaking down.
ReplyDeleteI agree with Scott's statement about the country being on the verge of falling apart because that's how it really was. If any more uprisings or mobs occured, once that did significant damage to the people of the states and to the Congress then I believe the nation would have ended up moving into a early, much smaller, but still a Civil War over the economic and political issues that were being handled at that time pertaining to the social classes of the states, their system of commerce, the level of respect which they received as a nation, the foreign powers that existed within their own home nation, and so on.
ReplyDelete