Articles of Confederation

Wartime necessity

As the Continental Congress sought to navigate the intertwined issues of fighting a war for independence and managing affairs of state for the United States, it became increasingly apparent that a more effective, unified system of government was necessary. Each state already maintained its own government, but winning American independence required greater coordination between the 13 states. Enlisting the support of foreign allies, particularly France, Spain, and Netherlands, required having an official national government with duly appointed representatives, including Benjamin Franklin and John Adams in Paris, to negotiate treaties and contract loans for weapons and supplies. Relations with dozens of different indigenous societies necessitated consistent, coordinated policies, instead of a patchwork of programs enacted, often ad hoc, by the states. Ultimately, independence itself depended on a unified national government negotiating with the United Kingdom.

Structure of the government under the Articles of Confederation

For Americans steeped in the tradition of 3 coequal branches of the federal government, including a bicameral legislature, the government established under the Articles of Confederation may seem unfamiliar. The Articles of Confederation featured a unicameral, single house, Congress with each state exercising 1 vote; for most legislation, 9 out of 13 states had to approve the laws and the assent of all 13 was required for amending the Articles of Confederation. Congress exercised critical legislative functions including passing laws, requesting taxes, and establishing the Continental Army. Additionally, Congress could appoint a “Committee of the States” consisting of 1 delegate from each state with a nominal president limited to serving no more than 1 year in a 3 year span; 8 men ultimately served as “President of the United States in Congress Assembled” under the Articles of Confederation, but this position was quite different from the office of the presidency established under the Constitution. The Articles of Confederation did not establish a federal judiciary; many of the cases and disputes that the current Supreme Court adjudicates remained under the jurisdiction of Congress.

Strengths of the Articles of Confederation

While contemporary American views of the Articles of Confederation primarily point out the weaknesses, to which we shall turn shortly, it is valuable to consider the strengths of the Articles of Confederation, particularly in the context of the late 18th century. Given that Americans blamed King George III for many of their grievances and that the late 18th century has often been labeled the “Age of Absolutism” in European history, it is not especially surprising that the delegates did not establish a hereditary monarchy or other powerful executive. Unless Americans argued that a native born king was inherently superior to, and less likely to seize and wield arbitrary than, a foreign born king, Americans would likely prefer a government with no direct power center. We should also consider the meaning of “states,” particularly because that word frequently is a synonym for countries and not primarily for subnational geographic and political units. If the original United States was founded primarily as a loose alliance of sovereign and independent small countries seeking to liberate themselves from an oppressive foreign empire, then their insistence on granting all 13 states equal votes would reflect that understanding. Smaller states, both demographically and geographically, would likely prefer arrangements that enshrined their legal and political equality with their larger neighbors.

Weaknesses of the Articles of Confederation

As previously noted, contemporary discussions of the Articles of Confederation overwhelmingly focus on their weaknesses and/or their failure to provide an enduring, effective governing framework. Achieving a supermajority of 9 out of 13 states to pass legislation created a significant obstacle to enacting new laws, particularly ones that might be perceived as infringing upon the sovereign rights of independent countries. With Congress unable to require that states pay taxes directly to the federal government, the United States faced constant financial challenges; the Continental Army experienced multiple soldiers’ rebellions because of late payments. Congress also lacked the authority to control the country’s currency, allowing each state to continue minting and printing its own money, irrespective of a state’s solvency.

While some delegates in the late 18th century may have viewed the lack of a powerful executive branch as a necessary and positive antidote to the poisonous tyranny of Great Britain, emerging challenges and threats to the newly independent United States, including Shays’s Rebellion, revealed deeper concerns about the sustainability of this system. American resistance to the maintenance of permanent military units, the proverbial standing army that vexed many citizens at the time, required the Congress to appeal states to furnish militia units, and in the case of Shays’s Rebellion, even depend on privately hired militias to put down insurrections. Lacking a federal court system as well as an independent executive branch forced legislators to assume more roles and powers and could delay the adjudication of cases and provision of justice, particularly in an era of irregular and oft interrupted communications and transportation.