Why did they change the articles of confederation?

Answer 1

The articles weren't changed so much as replaced. The "central" problem (forgive me) was that while the articles technically provided the national government authority to spend money for things in the common interest (notably the payment of Revolutionary War debts, building of roads and canals, financing of a standing army for the common defense), the congress of states under the articles did not have the authority to levy taxes, just to request money from the states. Add to this rampant currency devaluation among the multitude of securities and notes issued by the various states, and you have a serious economic problem. While congress had authority to establish a standard system of coinage, again it had no coercive power to make states accept it, thus states continued to issue their own currencies. A few attempts were made to change the articles, but as they stipulated that any changes must be approved unanimously, the competing regional and economic interests made it impossible to reach a consensus and it became obvious to many that an entirely new system with a stronger central government would be needed. Similarly, the congress could theoretically negotiate trade deals with foreign powers, but specific deals would obviously affect various regions and industries (textiles vs. fisheries, New York vs. Virginia, etc.) in different ways, again making consensus virtually impossible and leaving the congress with no strength with which to enforce its regulations. Moreover, the government under the articles had neither an executive nor a judicial branch, making the implementation of policy or the settling of disputes between states (another of the Articles' primary functions) slow and problematic. Ultimately, the founding fathers met in Philadelphia to attempt yet again to revise the Articles, and quickly concluded that they should be scrapped entirely and a whole new system devised that would remedy the deficiencies of the Articles (luckily, Madison showed up with a relatively complete plan from the get-go, "framing" (forgive me again) the discussion from there on out)). It is interesting to note that representatives from only seven or eight states showed up to the Philadelphia convention, making the framers criminals under the articles for even talking about changes, much less entertaining the notion of effectively overthrowing the national government. Thank goodness they had the guts, because the loose American union would almost certainly have splintered apart had federalism not been invented.

Answer 2

Articles of Confederation made the federal government too susceptible. @Dr. Dawkins fantasy The old democrats have been the classical liberals. The classical liberals of immediately are interior the Republican celebration. the two events' ideology shifted over the years because of the fact the politicial center shifted to the left.

Answer 3

If memory serves me correctly, The Articles of Confederation did now work well. The states had all the power. It was difficult to enforce the laws and there was confusion about what laws were in effect, etc. (Do the laws in Delaware circumvent the laws in Mass.?) The Articles reflected a decentralized government. That wasn't working well at all.

Answer 4

What was it, rope of sand when they needed a big honkin' chain, or something? I don't remember the quote. Let's suffice it to say that it just wasn't working like it was originally intended.

Answer 5

The national government was too weak. All the power was in the states.

Answer 6

the articles did not protect citizen's rights.

Answer 7

The voters wanted it

Answer 8

they found too many type-o's and the editors made them redo it... ;)