Articles of confederations?

Question

Im writing a summary on why the articles of confederations failed and this is onw argument that i wrote

Another problem arose with the Congress. The larger states were expected to contribute, but had only one vote. States stopped sending delegates to the meetings because they thought it was unfair for the larger states to have one vote just like the smaller states. Thus, it was hard to make decisions about problems in the country because according to the Articles all states had to agree with the change.

What else should I add?and whats someways i can make it sound smatter?

Answer 1

You should include a little known fact. My great, great, great grandfather , Renegade Rene, was a member of that very same organisation. They threw him out only after they would break for lunch, and having ham and eggs, they would return for the sessions in Congress. Well, after much bickering and never getting anything done, they were refer ed to as 'ham and eggers' , thus the famous term used today!!!!!!!!!!

Answer 2

I took US Government class, last semester and passed with a C. It was the hardest ever, and I thought I'd probably fail the whole thing. I would help you, but I forgot alot of stuff. SORRY

Answer 3

In May 1786, Charles Pinckney of South Carolina proposed that Congress revise the Articles of Confederation. Recommended changes included granting Congress power over foreign and domestic commerce, and providing means for Congress to collect money from state treasuries. Unanimous approval was necessary to make the alterations, however, and Congress failed to reach a consensus.

In September, five states assembled in the Annapolis Convention (1786) to discuss adjustments that would improve commerce. Under their chairman, Alexander Hamilton, they invited state representatives to convene in Philadelphia to discuss improvements to the federal government. After debate, Congress endorsed the plan to revise the Articles of Confederation on February 21, 1787 but then later decided because of continuous arguments to finally ratify them on October 18 1789.

According to their own terms for modification, the Articles were still in effect until 1790, when every one of the 13 states had ratified the new Constitution. The Congress under the Articles continued to sit until late in 1788, though seldom with a quorum near the end.[1]

September 28, 1787 - Congress sends Constitution to States for ratification
July 2, 1788 - Ratification of Constitution formally announced by Congress, following ratification by ninth state, New Hampshire, on June 21, 1788
November 1, 1788 - Congress under Articles of Confederation adjourns
April 1, 1789 - House of Representatives under Constitution reaches a quorum
Historians have given many reasons for the perceived need to replace the articles in 1787. Jillson and Wilson (1994), in addition to the financial weakness point to the norms, rules and institutional structures of the Congress, and the propensity to divide along sectional lines.

Rakove (1988) identifies four factors that explain the collapse of the Confederation. The first involved the demonstrable, overt defects of the Articles as a federal constitution--James Madison said the defects were sins of omission that its framers could hardly have avoided making. The lack of a financial base was devastating, but inevitable since Congress had no administrative infrastructure. It could not collect customs during the war because the British blockade shut down the ports, and after the war tariffs were vetoed by Rhode Island. Rakove notes that after 1776 the state governments acted as administrative auxiliaries of Congress. On the whole, Rakove concludes, their failure to implement national measures during the war "stemmed not from a heady sense of independence but rather from the enormous difficulties that all the states encountered in collecting taxes, mustering men, and gathering supplies from a war-weary populace." [4]

The second group of factors Rakove identified derived from the substantive nature of the problems the Continental Congress confronted after 1783, especially the inability to create a strong foreign policy. The original circumstances of the Confederation's adoption help to explain why the Anti-Federalists emphasized securing amendments to the Constitution rather than attempting to retain the Articles as the fundamental charter of the union. Finally, the failure to achieve widespread popular allegiance to the Confederation was due to its inability to mobilize a class of leaders who could identify its future with their own political advancement.

Rakove concludes that the Articles "had in fact been irrelevant to the actual conduct of national affairs until the eve of the victory that secured independence. No formal charter of government could bestow more than a modicum of legitimacy on a revolutionary body waging a revolutionary war." [5] That is, Congress' power rested instead on the popular support for Washington's war and the ability of local government, especially the militia, to keep disaffection from the war effort within tolerable limits. In practice, Congress followed the Articles of Confederation before they were formally ratified, and thus they provided stability during the war years and after.