Why the Articles of Confederation Failed

Political tomfoolery began decades before wealthy donors dumped millions of dollars into the brimming pockets of candidates. The Articles of Confederation, the initial governing document of the U.S, centers on the phrase: “The said States hereby severally enter into a firm league of friendship with each other” (We the People). As elusive and diluted as any pundit could wish, that phrase aptly sums the reason for the failure of the Articles of Confederation. The sovereign states that signed and ratified the Articles were not friendly. Rather, they were weak political entities desperate to survive the onslaught of foreign aggression, internal conflict and economic instability. They fought with each other and the Articles of Confederation could, by the states’ own admission, do nothing to prevent the political carnage.

Statesman John Dickinson proposed the Articles of Confederation in 1776, and after a brief bout in the Continental Congress, it was unanimously ratified in 1781 (“Articles”). The substantial content of the Articles begins with the phrase, “Each state shall retain its sovereignty, freedom and independence, and every power, jurisdiction and right, which is not by this Confederation expressly delegated to the United States” (We the People). The states considered themselves individual political entities – “thirteen little countries” (Frank). They were loathe surrendering their sovereignty, and so “the central government under the Articles was too weak since the majority of the power rested with the states” (“Weaknesses”). The Articles of Confederation was a “series of suggestions which states could ignore” (Frank). Morris Fiorina proposes the idea that “the Congress was far from all-powerful: it had to rely on cooperation from the states if it hoped to accomplish anything.” But the states were not cooperating with Congress – or with each other.

There were three primary areas of conflict between the states. They viciously competed over open western territories, the taxation of interstate commerce, and the control of the national government and its responsibilities (national defense, unique minting of money, legislation, etc.)

At the time of British colonial America, most of North America was unexplored. Eager to claim the prized western lands, the thirteen independent colonies played hardball for cherished ownership. Northern states vied with southern states to establish free versus slaves states (Johnson). Small states attempted to gain more territory to match the resources of their larger neighbors, such as Virginia, New York and Pennsylvania. Conflicts between one, two or even three colonies might have been easier to solve, but sundry conflicts between thirteen autonomous colonies were difficult and costly.

There was no united sense of “America” in the colonies. The colonies felt no compunction competing, and even extorting, one another economically. This situation was exacerbated because of the division of labor and production specialty in the colonies. Southern states required northern industry and finished products; northern states needed southern agriculture and raw goods (Johnson). As such, sought-after materials warranted premium prices. And, as most of the colonies were located on the coast, they placed high tariffs on imported products (Frank). Rather than assisting one another economically, the states looked after their own interests first.

Due to their population size, cultural diversity, economic specialization and fear of centralized government, the states could not agree on how to govern. The one-state, one-vote political system propagated by the Articles of Confederation was a hasty compromise on a significant issue. Michael Frank, professor of political science at Anderson University, points out that “large states wanted a proportional system of representation; smaller states wanted a one-state, one-vote [system].” As a result, the states allocated relatively little power to the national government. The U.S. government could it raise or maintain a standing army or navy, regulate currency between the states, tax products, expel invasive British posts, etc. Therefore, inflation skyrocketed, the British remained, and there was no trained militia – the American Experiment tottered on the brink of failure.

The Articles of Confederation was based on a hasty political compromise between thirteen self-interested states. It granted limited and ineffective powers to the ruling national government, and reserved the clout to the states. This fostered a dog-eat-dog system; such would have occurred if several statesman had not come together to fashion a new and improved governing document; the Constitution. Though far from perfect, it gave teeth to the snarl of federal government, and although far from perfect, “it’s a pretty good system” (Fiorina).

Sources:

“Articles of Confederation.” Countrystudies.us/united-states. U.S. Department of State. n.d. 1 February 2010. Web.

Frank, Michael. Class Lecture. “American National Government.” Anderson University. Anderson, Indiana. 25 January 2010.

Fiorina, Morris, et al. The New American Democracy. Alternate 6^th ed. New York City: New York. Pearson, 2009. Print.

Johnson, Paul. A History of the American People. New York City: New York. Harper Perennial, 1999. Print.

“Weakness of the Articles of Confederation.” Radford.edu. Radford University. n.d. 1 February 2010

We The People: The United States and other American Documents. New York City: New York. Fall River Press, 2009. Print.