Arguments Against The Articles Of Confederation

Hear ye, hear ye! Captain Shay, I have something to say: your rebellion is valid. If the Articles are challenged, Continental Congress reconvenes; democracy’s a victory; the Congress’s back at play -- your farmers live to see another day. In light of the recent uprisings against high taxes and heightened sympathies with other nations, I’d like to address the growing concerns about our new government structure, outlined in the Articles of Confederation. It is hopeful that not only citizens are concerned about the Articles’ inadequacy; prominent politicians James Madison and Alexander Hamilton have voiced their opposition and demanded a new charter for the United States. So, fellow Americans, be assured that our Revolution was a worthwhile cause: there is already a strong case for reform, argued by the world’s most innovative and influential thinkers, on behalf this new nation. Let’s not forget the purpose of the Revolution, the controversy that not only won us a war, but a new country. Dedicated volunteer armies spent years fighting the Redcoats to free the colonies of the tyrannical

Perhaps the Articles’ most pressing problem is the lack of power they ascribe to the federal government. According to Article II, “Each state retains its sovereignty, freedom, and independence, and every power, jurisdiction, and right,” aside from the few exclusively federal powers the Articles detail. Though the authors aimed to avoid the autocracy so prevalent under British rule, they may have gone too far to the opposite side. Because of the various unfair taxes imposed on the colonists, politicians chose not to give federal government the power to tax, which has resulted in the central government slipping further into debt. To make things more difficult, each state’s sovereignty has created multiple monetary systems with differing values, leading to trade discrepancies between