The authors of the Articles of Confederation were supportive of creating a strong central government.?

Question

True or False?

Answer 1

False is the obvious answer. However, the idea that the Articles of Confederation failed is also false. They accomplished exactly what they were meant to do, that is, represent 13 separate countries as a whole in the war against the British, and to be recognized as that whole in international relations. These 13 separate countries were recognized as such in the 1883 Treaty of Peace between Great Britain and these various “States” in Article one where each individual State was named and recognized as Free, Independent, and Sovereign. A strong central government was not one of the goals of the Articles of Confederation.

With peace a different set of incentives for the use of a central government came to the fore and not everyone viewed the existence of such a government in the same manner. Some individuals (such as Patrick Henry) never supported a general government any stronger than that created in the Articles of Confederation. Others (such as Alexander Hamilton) wanted a new, very strong general government. The debates leading to the convention, the debates within the convention, and the debates concerning ratification, all reflect this diversity of view concerning a general government.

Even with ratification of the Constitution there was little desire for a strong general government. The general government was a creation of the States through the delegated powers of the written Constitution and these powers (or lack thereof) limited the general government in the mind of Founders. If the Founders could have seen what the general government would become (our current federal government) they never would have ratified the Constitution.

There are many misconceptions about the Articles of Confederation. For example, in Article II it states: “Each State retains its Sovereignty, Freedom and Independence, and every power, jurisdiction and right which is not by this Confederation expressly delegated to the United States in Congress assembled.”

From this many people have concluded that the States had independent freedom of action in all matters and that is not true. It is the last words of Article II which are relevant here; “which is not by this Confederation expressly delegated to the United States in Congress assembled “

This came to bear (for example) in Article VI with the following: “No State without the consent of the United States in Congress Assembled, shall send any embassy to, or receive any embassy from, or enter into any conference, agreement, alliance or treaty with any king, prince or State. . . . “ In other words, no member State could make treaty with any other country.

In those times and to a large extent government currency was fear by most people. Private banks commonly created and issued their own script which was based on their private reserve holdings. Government script had no such reserves and therefore wasn’t valued by most people. While there was a short period of a central federal bank after ratification of the Constitution, a solid alternative to private bank script didn’t come into being until 1913.

Again, the Articles of Confederation accomplished what they were initially intended to accomplish as a war time government. It was with peace that its flaws became most apparent. Then the debate as to real nationhood began to rule the day.

Answer 2

False. The Articles of Confederation were abandoned because they did not create a strong enough federal government. Even the federalists (people wanting states' rights) agreed that we needed the constitution in order to establish a more perfect union.

Answer 3

FALSE!! They were wary of a strong central government with the fear that tyranny could easily become reality again under s strong leader. That is one reason the Articles failed: because the states were left to make treaties with other countries, were left to create their own currency, and were left to negotiate trade polices. The result was an unwieldy government that could not control the states.

Chow!!

Answer 4

False. It is because the articles were weak towards a strong central government that it failed. The constitution made up for that weakness.

Answer 5

Maybe. They also had uppermost in their mind, an English invasion. Isn't it amazing how things have changed over the centuries when, now the two countries are watching each other's backs in the Middle East.