The Articles of Confederation laid the groundwork for American self-governance but faced severe weaknesses, creating significant barriers to true national unity.
Drafting the Articles of Confederation
Timeline and Context
The drafting of the Articles of Confederation was driven by the urgent need for a unified front during the War of Independence and a formal structure for joint governance.
1775–1776: As hostilities escalated, the Continental Congress recognised the need for a framework to legitimise their actions and coordinate efforts among the colonies.
July 12, 1776: The first draft, largely authored by John Dickinson, was presented to Congress shortly after the Declaration of Independence.
1777: After extensive debates and revisions, the final version of the Articles was approved by the Continental Congress on November 15, 1777.
This timeline demonstrates the cautious approach delegates took, balancing the desire for unity with deep suspicions of central authority.
Principles and Structure
The Articles reflected a cautious compromise, prioritising the independence of each state while providing minimal central governance. Core principles included:
Sovereignty of States: Each state retained its independence and authority, entering into a “firm league of friendship” rather than a strong nation-state.
Unicameral Congress: A single-chamber Congress served as the national government, with equal representation: each state had one vote regardless of size or population.
Limited Powers: Congress could conduct diplomacy, wage war, manage western territories, and coin money. However, crucially, it lacked the power to levy taxes or regulate commerce.
This structure was intended to prevent the emergence of a dominant central government, echoing colonists’ grievances against British overreach.
Delay in Ratification
Obstacles to Unanimity
Despite being finalised in 1777, the Articles did not become fully operative until March 1, 1781, when Maryland became the last state to ratify them. The delay exposed deep divisions and competing interests among the states.
Key reasons for the ratification impasse included:
Western Land Claims: Larger states like Virginia claimed vast territories extending to the Mississippi River. Smaller landlocked states, such as Maryland and Delaware, feared this would create unequal wealth and power. They demanded these lands be ceded to Congress for the benefit of all.
Mutual Distrust: States were wary of surrendering autonomy to a collective government. Achieving unanimous consent required assurances that no state would become too powerful.
The eventual ratification after the resolution of land claims marked an important milestone: for the first time, all thirteen states operated under a single written framework, albeit a fragile one.
Weaknesses of the Articles of Confederation
Lack of Central Authority
The Articles’ most crippling flaw was their failure to create an effective central government. Congress lacked an executive branch to enforce laws or a judiciary to interpret them. This meant:
No Enforcement Power: States could and often did ignore Congressional resolutions.
Voluntary Contributions: Congress could request funds but could not compel states to pay. Many states refused or delayed contributions, crippling the government’s ability to operate.
Financial Weaknesses
The fledgling nation faced severe financial distress:
War Debts: Massive debts incurred during the war remained unpaid due to Congress’s inability to raise revenue independently.
No Power to Tax: Attempts to implement a national import duty failed because amendments required unanimous approval from all states.
Reliance on States: States prioritised their own debts and local needs over national financial obligations, deepening economic instability.
These weaknesses left the Confederation government dependent on foreign loans and contributed to a fragile credit reputation abroad.
Inability to Regulate Commerce
The Articles did not grant Congress the power to regulate interstate or foreign trade, leading to:
Trade Barriers: States imposed tariffs on goods from neighbouring states, creating a patchwork of competing interests.
Foreign Exploitation: European powers exploited America’s disunity by playing states against each other in trade negotiations.
Without coherent trade policy, the nation struggled to rebuild its economy in the post-war years.
Economic Challenges and Social Unrest
Economic Depression
The post-war economy was plagued by:
Inflation: Excessive printing of paper money devalued currency.
Debt Crisis: Farmers and small landowners faced mounting debts, often payable in hard currency they did not possess.
Foreclosures and Tax Burdens: States increased taxes to service their own debts, disproportionately affecting rural populations.
Shays’ Rebellion
A stark symbol of discontent was Shays’ Rebellion (1786–1787):
Led by Daniel Shays, a former Revolutionary War captain, this uprising in Massachusetts saw indebted farmers forcibly closing courthouses to prevent foreclosures.
The state militia eventually suppressed the rebellion, but it exposed the Confederation’s inability to maintain order or respond to civil disorder effectively.
Many leaders, including George Washington, saw the rebellion as evidence that stronger national governance was necessary to safeguard property rights and public stability.
Interstate Disputes
Without a central authority to arbitrate, states clashed over:
Territorial Boundaries: Border disputes frequently erupted, some threatening armed conflict.
Trade Rivalries: Economic competition fuelled tension, undermining any sense of national solidarity.
These disputes made clear that unity could not be sustained solely on voluntary cooperation.
The Unresolved Status of Slavery
Slavery and National Cohesion
A critical and divisive omission in the Articles was the failure to address slavery, leaving a festering source of discord:
Regional Division: Northern states were beginning to restrict or abolish slavery, while the Southern economy was deeply entwined with slave labour.
Political Compromise: Any attempt to legislate slavery under the Confederation risked breaking fragile alliances. Consequently, the topic was largely sidestepped in formal governance.
Population and Representation: Disagreements over how enslaved people should count towards state populations foreshadowed conflicts that would resurface during the drafting of the Constitution.
By neglecting to confront the moral and practical issues of slavery, the Articles embedded a major fault line in the young republic.
Slavery’s Impact on Unity
Contradiction of Liberty: The continued practice of slavery clashed with revolutionary ideals of freedom and equality, generating ideological tension.
Future Conflicts: The silence of the Articles on slavery deferred but did not resolve disputes, ensuring that future generations would face an even more bitter reckoning.
The lack of consensus on slavery revealed the limits of unity under the Confederation and highlighted the deep cultural and economic divides between North and South.
The Articles of Confederation provided a crucial first step towards American self-governance but proved inadequate for the demands of an independent, united nation. The inability to enforce laws, raise funds, settle economic disputes, or confront slavery underscored the need for a stronger federal system—setting the stage for the Constitutional Convention and the drafting of a new, more robust national framework.
FAQ
The colonists’ experience under British rule heavily influenced the cautious design of the Articles of Confederation. Many Americans viewed the British monarchy and Parliament as symbols of oppressive central authority, particularly due to policies like taxation without representation and harsh enforcement of trade regulations. To avoid replicating these perceived abuses, the drafters of the Articles prioritised state sovereignty and limited national power. They deliberately avoided creating an executive branch or national judiciary, fearing they could evolve into instruments of tyranny. The single-chamber Congress lacked enforcement mechanisms, reflecting a distrust of concentrated authority. Instead, the new government functioned more as a diplomatic alliance than a cohesive nation-state. This approach guaranteed that individual states retained their rights and independence, making voluntary cooperation the foundation of the Confederation. Ironically, while this design aimed to protect liberties, it ultimately weakened the government’s capacity to respond to national crises and maintain cohesion, necessitating later constitutional reform.
Under the Articles of Confederation, state governments held the dominant share of political power, functioning almost as independent countries loosely tied by a common alliance. Each state retained full sovereignty, freedom, and independence, except for powers expressly delegated to Congress, which were minimal. States controlled their own taxation systems, trade regulations, internal laws, and militias. They could also negotiate minor agreements with foreign powers, provided they did not conflict with national treaties. States issued their own currencies and tariffs, often leading to competing economic policies that hindered interstate commerce. They had the power to ignore or selectively comply with Congressional resolutions, which lacked binding force without an executive branch to enforce them. This autonomy allowed states to prioritise local interests, sometimes at the expense of collective national goals. While this decentralisation appealed to revolutionary ideals of self-government, it severely limited national coordination and hindered effective governance, highlighting the Articles’ practical shortcomings.
Foreign relations under the Articles of Confederation were fraught with difficulties, primarily due to the government’s lack of centralised authority and credibility. European powers, notably Britain and Spain, doubted the strength of the American government, seeing the disunited states as easy to manipulate. Britain retained military forts in the Northwest Territory in violation of the Treaty of Paris, knowing the Confederation lacked the military means or political unity to force their withdrawal. Spain controlled the Mississippi River’s mouth at New Orleans and restricted American navigation rights, crippling western trade and settlement prospects. Congress could not negotiate effectively, as any treaty or significant foreign policy decision required approval by a supermajority of states, which often disagreed. Furthermore, without the power to regulate trade, individual states made separate agreements, weakening America’s bargaining position. These diplomatic weaknesses undermined national sovereignty and highlighted the pressing need for a more cohesive federal system capable of commanding respect abroad.
The Articles of Confederation played a crucial but limited role in managing western expansion, which was a contentious issue after independence. Although Congress lacked broad powers, it did oversee territorial policy through key measures like the Land Ordinance of 1785 and the Northwest Ordinance of 1787, passed under the Confederation government. The Land Ordinance established a systematic process for surveying and selling western lands, which aimed to generate revenue for the national treasury and prevent chaotic settlement. The Northwest Ordinance, though technically post-ratification, built on these principles by outlining how new territories could progress to statehood on equal footing with existing states, promoting orderly expansion. Importantly, it banned slavery in the Northwest Territory, setting a precedent for the sectional divide over slavery’s westward spread. Despite these legislative successes, disputes over state land claims and lack of federal enforcement limited effective control. Nonetheless, these policies provided a foundation for America’s westward growth and influenced future territorial governance.
The Articles of Confederation had a profound impact on American political thought by vividly demonstrating the drawbacks of extreme decentralisation. The practical failures under the Articles—financial chaos, trade disputes, diplomatic embarrassments, and civil unrest like Shays’ Rebellion—convinced many influential figures that a stronger national framework was essential. Political thinkers began to shift from prioritising absolute local autonomy to recognising the benefits of a balanced federal system. This shift laid intellectual groundwork for the Philadelphia Convention and debates that produced the US Constitution. The experience under the Articles highlighted the necessity of checks and balances: a government strong enough to maintain order and unity but constrained enough to protect liberties. Key concepts such as separation of powers, federal supremacy, and a stronger executive emerged partly as corrective measures to the Articles’ weaknesses. Thus, while flawed, the Confederation period was critical in shaping American constitutional design and fostering a consensus that a resilient union required more than a loose league of states.
Practice Questions
Explain why the Articles of Confederation created obstacles to national unity in the years 1781–1787.
The Articles of Confederation created significant obstacles to national unity because they deliberately limited central authority, reflecting fears of tyranny. Congress lacked power to tax, regulate interstate commerce, or enforce laws, leaving states largely autonomous and often in conflict. Economic hardship, interstate trade barriers, and financial instability weakened trust in the government. Events like Shays’ Rebellion highlighted the Confederation’s inability to maintain order, exposing deep flaws. Additionally, unresolved issues like slavery divided states ideologically and economically. Collectively, these factors hindered effective governance and fuelled calls for a stronger federal system to unify the new nation.
Assess the reasons why ratifying the Articles of Confederation took until 1781.
Ratifying the Articles of Confederation was delayed mainly due to disputes over western land claims. Larger states, like Virginia, claimed extensive territories, while smaller states, like Maryland, feared this would lead to imbalance and domination. Maryland refused ratification until all western lands were ceded to Congress for collective benefit, ensuring fairness. Additionally, there was mutual suspicion among states reluctant to surrender autonomy to a central authority. These disagreements reflected deep-rooted concerns over equality and power distribution. Only when larger states compromised on land claims did unanimity become possible, enabling final ratification and tentative national cohesion.
