Articles Of Confederation Report

As seen in the earlier paper, the Constitution and the Articles of Confederation played a significant role in the development and progression of the United States of America. Although the Federalist were involved in the transformation as well, one must also have an insight as what was occurring during the time of the switch. As one knows now, both documents relate to one another, and were intended to service America and protect the people’s freedom by imposing the law. The Constitution replaced the Articles of Confederation, because it was not stable, it limited the power of Congress, and limited the National government.

The Articles Of Confederation was approved in 1781, created an alliance of thirteen independent states. The states were only united in theory, even though the states acted on their own accord. Unlike todays government, the Articles Of Confederation consisted only of a one house legislature. There was no President, no executive branch, or court system. Also, each state had only one vote in the "congress".

To the highly-valued citizens of the United States of American, we believe in order for our newly-founded country to thrive, our constitution, the Articles of Confederation, and the system of government which it has formed must be replaced and a new constitution be adopted. We believe the Articles of Confederation have proven to be ineffective and the source of many hardships in our nation. To strive to solve this significant challenge, we have created and propose a new constitution, the Constitution of the United States, and federal government. As an explanation for our reasoning, this pamphlet has been written to clarify the Articles of Confederation’s weaknesses, how the new constitution can fix these problems, and present how the Constitution

After securing its independence from Britain, America was immediately faced with a crisis of how the budding country should be governed. The Articles of Confederation was the first effort to establish a democratic government in the US; however, this feeble attempt at a creating a stable government failed due to a lack of control over the states. Rather than a functioning authority in the nation, the Articles created a “firm league of friendship” between the states. To remedy this pathetic excuse for a ruling body, a Constitution was drafted, and rival sides emerged quickly on the main issues the new document was supposed to address. Two men that embodied this conflict were Thomas Jefferson and Alexander Hamilton, both passionate patriots who strongly believed that their proposed forms of government were in the best interests of the country, but they disagreed fundamentally on what that form of government should be.

“Nothing is more certain than the indispensable necessity of government, and it is equally undeniable, that whenever and however it is instituted, the people must cede to it some of their natural rights in order to vest it with requisite powers.” ( Federalists No. 2). As a fairly new country we are quick to abolish beliefs and ideals we create; the Articles of confederation has spawned a weak and tenderfoot government. As a lawyer with a beautiful family living in Pennsylvania, the governmental system at this moment is not granted the strength needed to refine, direct, and protect our rights and liberties. The weakness of the Articles of Confederation are showcased through: the lack of power to tax or regulate trade, an army to enforce rules,

After a fiercely fought revolution, the newly independent American nation struggled to establish a concrete government amidst an influx of opposing ideologies. Loosely tied together by the Articles of Confederation, the thirteen sovereign states were far from united. As growing schisms in American society became apparent, an array of esteemed, prominent American men united in 1787 to form the basis of the United States government: the Constitution. Among the most eminent members of this convention were Alexander Hamilton, Aaron Burr, James Madison, and Thomas Jefferson. These men, held to an almost godly stature, defined the future of the nation; but were their intentions as honest as they seemed?

The “search for national government” in Brinkley (2011) is broken down into five sections. The five sections are as follows The Confederation, Diplomatic Failures, The Confederation and the Northwest, Indians and the Western Lands, and finally Debts, Taxes, and Daniel Shays. In addition to discussing each section I will outline the successes and failures of the Articles of Confederation. After fighting a war with an overly restrictive and powerful federal government in the English monarchy America wanted the complete opposite from its own federal government.

However, in 1786, all the States invited by the Virginia Legislature for the discussion regarding the ways to reduce conflicts in Annapolis, Maryland, thought about doing a Grand Convention of all the States to have a deeper conversation about how to improve the Articles of Confederation. The next year, 1787, they held the Constitution Convention in Philadelphia. At the convention, there were two plans presented which were the Virginia Plan and the New Jersey Plan. The Virginia Plan pushed for relative representation among states in the legislature, a national government that has the ability to act directly on individuals, and a federal government more powerful than the states. On the other hand, the New Jersey Plan pushed for equal representation among states in the legislature, a national government that has the ability to act on states – and the states act on individuals –, and states are to be stronger.

Are you a citizen that agrees with the Articles of Confederation? Do you believe that all American citizens should oppose this current document that is establishing our country and ratify a new government, the Constitution instead? These questions are the basic unanswered problems numerous American people are facing at this moment in time. If you agree with the Articles of Confederation this write up, may alter your opinions on what you stand for. As for you, the opposing citizen, your opinion may finally get an answer; an answer that may potentially last our nation a lifetime.

This reflection paper involves my insights by responding to questions on Excerpts from the Federalist No.1, written on October 27, 1787. which is one of many essays by Alexander Hamilton. Hamilton tried desperately to defend the constitution for the good of the people even though he had certain doubts and wanted to ratify it. The questions I will be answering are related to what he has written and what my opinions are. I will answer to the best of my knowledge and my thoughts.

While some Americans thought the Articles of Confederation was good since it waged in a successful war for independence, many Americans concluded that under the Articles of Confederation, there were many issues formed such as providing limited central government, developing many economic problems, and foreign powers. “The framers of the Articles of Confederation kept in mind their complaint against Britain. Parliament had passed laws the colonists considered unfair. The new states did not want to risk giving too much power to a central government far from the people”(Pearson, 206). This shows how the Articles provided a limited central government that lead many Americans to disagree with the Articles of Confederation.

This important event had ended the monarchy power in the America and it marked a new beginning of a republic nation. The revolution was followed by an economic depression in the nation. The main problem was the Articles of Confederation gave too much authority to the states, leaving the Congress with so little power. The Congress had so little power that they could not do anything to enforce or protect the nation. Seeing, another Constitution of Convention is opened to revise the Articles of Confederation.

Following the Revolutionary War, America had just gained independance from Great Britain and needed to form a new government. The Articles of Confederation were established as an attempt to create a government that was unlike Britain’s. Unfortunately, the Articles of Confederation had several weaknesses. When in the process of repairing those weaknesses, the Federalists and the Anti-federalists formed. The Articles of Confederation were very weak as well as useless to America and because of this, the Federalists and the Anti-Federalists could not agree on a new type of government.

The new constitution, a document granting the framework for a new democratic government, replacing the Articles of the Confederation. This new document gained approval from some of the citizens, but also raised questions and concerns from others. There was a constant back and forth between the two groups on whether or not the constitution should be ratified. This editorial provides historical background on the issue and expresses my opinion on which side I would’ve chosen.

In one hand, the Articles of Confederation had a weak central government, differing form the strong central government in the Constitution. The Constitution’s government had a structure of three different branches; the legislative, executive, and judicial branch; unlike the Articles of Confederation that had no structure whatsoever. The Articles of Confederation had many problems like, the poor international trade, poor foreign relations and a weak economy in contrast to the Constitution that only had one problem, the struggle over the ratification. the Articles of Confederation achieved the Northwest Ordinance and the Northwest Territory and according to a history website, the Constitution achieved that we had a system of checks and balances, that we had a bill of rights, and, eventually, the survival of a bloody civil war intact. Lastly, the Constitution had three compromises: the Great Compromise, the Three-Fifths Compromise and the Slave Trade compromise.