The Articles of Confederation: Why They Failed and What We Learned

    Late in the 18th century, shortly after our nation declared its independence from Great Britain, the United States was governed by a doctrine called The Articles of Confederation. The document was drafted during the meeting of the Second Constitutional Congress in 1777, and ratified four years later in 1781. The articles’ main agenda was to govern our United States while shying away from any semblance of monarchy, the idea of which was still a bitter thought in the minds of our nation’s citizens. For the most part, the articles did what they were intended to do; they existed for seven years as our nation’s sole tenet of government and watched our nation go through a period of exponential growth. Yet many people debate whether or not the Articles of Confederation made for an effective form of government. The Articles were replaced in 1788 by The Constitution, as is well known, but many people claim that the Articles were an effectual means of governing our budding nation. Yes, it is true that during the time the Articles of Confederation were empowered our nation saw great development; new territories were discovered and claimed, foreign policy was established with Spain at our southern border, and the sense of nationality in our nation reached a new high as the monarchy of British rule was forgotten. But all of this does not mean that the Articles of Confederation were truly an effective means on governing our nation. On the contrary, rather, the Articles of Confederation provided a weak doctrine by which to rule because they did not allow for taxation, they led to unequal distribution of a wealth that was by no means impressive, and they gave far too much power to the states, making the idea of a central government all but superfluous.
     Pure capitalism, although a good idea on paper, is, in reality, nothing more than an ideal. For an economy to truly flourish, and for a government to be fiscally responsible, some redistribution of wealth is needed. Under the Articles of Confederation, the central government was granted the right to impose a tax, but in order for such a bill to pass, the states themselves had to approve it. Needless to say, each time the central power tried to institute some sort of tariff, the state governments rejected the idea. The Articles of Confederation were designed in such a manner as a direct result of the colonist’s outrage at the British Monarchy’s taxation without representation during the time of the revolution, which is, by all rights, understandable. However, as time went on, it became clear to our nation’s leaders that a mistake had been made. Money was needed, and the states refused to give it. The views of the states are summarized in a letter from the Rhode Island Assembly to Congress in 1872 regarding Congress’ recommendation to tax imported goods. The Rhode Island delegates claim that the tax would be unequally imposed, thus making the tax doubly unfair to those states hit the hardest, that the idea of the tax goes against their State Constitution, and that the tax also goes against the idea of liberty in the United States. All of these points are valid, but views such as this, although completely justified, hurt our nation. When the constitution was put into place, our forefather’s made sure to rectify the problem of taxation. The Articles of Confederation gave power to the states, which is by all means a positive thing, but overall this became one of the articles’ downfalls.
    A nation’s success can often times be judged by it’s economy and net worth. During the time the Articles of Confederation were in effect, our nation was growing. We had just severed ties with the English and were beginning to flourish as a separate entity. Expansion of land, growing population; From 1770 to 1792 alone, our nation saw went from a meager to 2,148 citizens to over 4,000. The United States was becoming a stable country, or so it seems. Although such a growth in population may lead to the belief that as our nation grew physically, it did financially as well, but such a thought is unfounded. In 1775, just 6 years before the Articles of Confederation were instituted, The United States estimated market value was $6,555,000. By 1788, the last year of the Articles of Confederation, the market value was just $4,901,000. The answer as to why this happened explains another weakness of the Articles of Confederation. The fact that our nations estimated market value decreased is not the issue at hand, as all economies experience growth and loss on a daily basis. The problem is, in addition to our nation’s economy not growing to match the population, that the money our nation did have was unequally distributed. As John Jay stated to a letter in a letter to George Washington, the wealthy people of our nation found themselves content under the Articles of Confederation. The lack of taxation in The United States caused to rich to get richer, and the poor to get poorer, all the while allowing our nation’s economy to plateau. Sure, expansive private funds can supplement the growth of a nation, but when the upper class is the minority, and is far more wealthy than the majority of the populace, things tend to get unstable. Such was the case with The Articles of Confederation. Although they did not lead to the failure of our nation’s economy, they did cause a lack of financial progression and an uneven distribution of what wealth there was, and were therefore a weak system with which to govern.
    Many people argue that the Articles of Confederation were an effective means of government because they gave power to the states, a concept that was previously unheard of. The base of this argument holds water, but, under close analysis, it can be seen that the power given to the states was more of a problem than anything. The states could veto taxes, which threw the economy off balance. The states could also make their own laws that were not governed by a federal system, which caused great inconsistencies from state to state. The states also each had their own currency, which led to an economic crisis that Charles Beard referred to as being “hopelessly muddled.” The Articles of Confederation were instituted with the intent of giving the states power, but they did there job too well; they gave the states too much power. This wouldn’t have been so bad if the Articles had allowed for a federal governing system, but they didn’t. This imbalance of power is one of the biggest reasons that the Articles were eradicated, and is also one of the reasons why the Articles of Confederation were, in the end, a failure.
    The Articles of Confederation were a respectable attempt by our nation’s leaders to establish a form of government for our new nation. Our forefathers found themselves on a learning curve, and the Articles on Confederation were a stepping stone on the path to governmental stability. No, the Articles themselves were not an effective form of government for the reasons stated above, but they were not useless. Experience leads to growth, and the Articles of Confederation gave our nation’s leaders the experience they needed to govern a country. So although they may not have been effectual, they were a positive endeavor, and did, in time, give our forefathers the knowledge they needed to frame the Constitution.