2007-02-14 11:29:19 · 6 answers · asked by PHUONG T 1 in Arts & Humanities ➔ History
It gave too much power to the state governments and that prevented the central, national government from getting anything done.
the states were allowed to produce their own currency, write their own laws and constitution, charge their own taxes, and trade/not trade with whomever they wanted.
without a central government controlling these things, the newly formed country was less like a single country and more like thirteen different ones
2007-02-14 11:40:15 · answer #1 · answered by insaneaznskillz 1 · 1⤊ 0⤋
The historic shortcoming became, the Articles of Confederation, made a loose 'confederation' of small and vulnerable states, all too dinky to flow it on my own, and none of whom have been required to help or be unswerving to the others. They set up in result.... a 'non usa'...of separate states... that would desire to be basic prey for takeover via any unified capability.
2016-12-17 10:11:04 · answer #2 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
It left a central government without any means of supporting itself or pay for anything like national defense: The central government was dependent on whatever the individual states were willing to pay - which quite often was *nothing.*
No central currency. Each state was free to mint or print its own.
2007-02-14 11:36:57 · answer #3 · answered by bata4689 4 · 1⤊ 0⤋
They had no way to enforce the Articles. The colonies just did as they pleased.
2007-02-14 11:36:35 · answer #4 · answered by LexiSan 6 · 2⤊ 0⤋
Had no head of state
Had no way you get the colonies to do anything
2007-02-14 11:33:25 · answer #5 · answered by dem_dogs 3 · 1⤊ 0⤋
People didn t agree on it and delegates didn t show up.
2015-03-23 11:10:10 · answer #6 · answered by Ryan 1 · 0⤊ 0⤋