College papers help


Articles of confederation and regulate interstate trade

After the outbreak of the Revolutionary War, the thirteen American colonies needed a government to replace the British system they were attempting to overthrow. They were fully ratified and put into effect in 1781.

The reign of the Articles of Confederation was brief. Why did the articles of confederation fail? What were the flaws of the Articles of Confederation and how did it distribute power?

  1. These are the economic quarrels referred to in your question.
  2. Inability to deal with internal and external threats It seems counterintuitive that a body of government would be tasked with declaring war, but not be allowed to commission an armed force. Moreover, what constitutes "interstate" commercial activity has also been subject to consistent debate.
  3. Modern unitarian governments include Britain, France, and Italy. Rebels initially protested peacefully, resisting the collection of taxes and debts from struggling Americans.
  4. Simultaneously, states would set high duties or tariffs on goods coming in from other states, which resulted in a near freeze in trade between the states themselves. They actually came out and said that "The reasons which may have caused the framers of the Constitution to repose the power to regulate commerce in Congress do not...
  5. In a federal government, sovereign power is given to both regional and central governments. Without a single executive to act as the head of foreign affairs, America was at a serious diplomatic disadvantage.

Read more to discover why by 1789 the former colonies were under the articles of confederation and regulate interstate trade of a new governing document—the Constitution of the United States of America.

This is most explicitly stated in Article II, which reads: Having dealt with the British Crown for so many years, the American colonies did not want to create yet another out-of-touch, national government. Moreover, Americans identified most strongly with their individual colony, so it seemed natural to construct an American government based on powerful state governments.

That said, during its short lifespan, the Articles of Confederation became increasingly ineffective at governing the continually growing American states. The main cause of this ineffectiveness stemmed from a lack of a strong, central government. From the absence of a powerful, national government emerged a series of limitations that rendered the Articles of Confederation futile.

Specifically, the lack of a strong national government in the Articles of Confederation led to three broad limitations. Economic disorganization Legislative inefficiencies Economic Disorganization The first flaw of the Articles of Confederation was its economic disorganization which led to financial hardship for the emerging nation. These problems were made worse by a series of economic limitations present in the Articles of Confederation. Congress could not regulate trade KmccoyUnited States Capitol in daylight In 1786, James Madison wrote a letter to Thomas Jefferson detailing the economic problems caused by disorganization and competition between the states: When Massachusetts set on foot a retaliation of the policy of Great Britain, Connecticut declared her ports free.

New Jersey served New York in the same way.

Expert Answers

And Delaware I am told has lately followed the example in opposition to the commercial plans of Pennsylvania. A miscarriage of this attempt to unite the states in some effectual plan will have another effect of a serious nature…. I almost despair of success. Under the Articles of Confederation, Congress had limited power to regulate trade.

Congress had no ability to negotiate trade agreements with foreign countries. The central government could enact foreign treaties, but such treaties were specifically barred from policing imports and exports.

The only power they lacked was the ability to make foreign treaties. Since the central government had so little trade power, there was very little economic coordination amongst the states. Each state had its own agenda and import and export policies differed greatly from state to state 2.

Commerce Clause

This meant that the national government could print money, but each state could as well. Consequently, America had no uniform system of currency which made trade between the states, and with foreign entities, much more difficult and less efficient. Only the states, not Congress, had the authority to impose taxes and raise revenue. Accordingly, Congress had to request for funds from the states. Unfortunately, this money was oftentimes not raised by the states or given to the national government long after it was due.

Not knowing how much and when states were going to pay their share severely handicapped an already-limited national government. Congress had few effective means to articles of confederation and regulate interstate trade its laws, raise revenue, or regulate the economy.

The result was a disorganized economy that lacked the ability to pay for itself. Lack of Central Leadership The second series of limitations that the Articles of Confederation had to contend with deal with was the lack of central leadership it provided. As detailed earlier, the Articles placed sovereign power in the hands of the state.

Most critically, this led to economic troubles, but it also led to leadership deficit. Lack of national leadership took various forms. No independent judiciary The Articles of Confederation offered no system of courts in the jurisdiction of the national government. This meant that the entire judiciary branch was dependent on the states. Since Congress had no means to enforce its laws, the states could simply ignore national laws without fear of retribution.

Also, since there was no national courts system, individual persons or states could not file complaints against the national government. The states could always ignore anything they disagreed with, but if a citizen had a grievance with the national government there was no system in place to hear the lawsuit.

No foreign affairs head One of the glaring differences between the Articles of Confederation and its successor—the Constitution of the United States—was its lack of a chief executive. Most notably, the lack of a presidential figure or body left America without a representative to conduct foreign affairs.

Britain actually complained of such difficulties, protesting that they did not know who to contact in order to initiate diplomacy. Without a single executive to act as the head of foreign affairs, America was at a serious diplomatic disadvantage. Inability to deal with internal and external threats It seems counterintuitive that a body of government would be tasked with declaring war, but not be allowed to commission an armed force. According to the Articles of Confederation, Congress had the sole power to make peace and war, but did not have the authority to raise an army of its own: Since it was dependent on state troops, Congress was severely limited in its capabilities to quickly and effectively responding to internal and external threats.

  1. Tweet Economic and the Articles of Confederation The Articles of Confederation represented a strong reaction against the strong central government of Britain, with its powerful King and Parliament.
  2. New Jersey served New York in the same way. Each state had its own agenda and import and export policies differed greatly from state to state 2.
  3. Shortly after signing of the Treaty of Paris in 1783, Britain began to break the agreement.

Abroad, Congress failed to defend American from the continuing threat of Britain following the Revolutionary War. Shortly after signing of the Treaty of Paris in 1783, Britain began to break the agreement. By 1784, the British were infringing upon American fishing rights and the British Royal Navy was impressing American sailors into forced conscription.

America’s First Failure at Government

Rebels initially protested peacefully, resisting the collection of taxes and debts from struggling Americans. The national government failed to come up with the funds to raise an army capable of putting down the rebellion.

It took a group of rich merchants from Massachusetts pooling their resources to pay for a militia. Considering the large discrepancy in state populations, states with larger populations were quite unhappy with this set-up. For example, in 1780, Virginia had over ten times the number of citizens as Delaware.

  • The Supreme Court tried to stem the tide by holding legislation to the limits defined by the enumerated powers;
  • This legitimate use of the commerce clause has continued to the present day;
  • This is most explicitly stated in Article II, which reads;
  • Under the Articles of Confederation, Congress had limited power to regulate trade;
  • The reign of the Articles of Confederation was brief;
  • Only the states, not Congress, had the authority to impose taxes and raise revenue.

In fact, Virginia had twice as many people as every state except for Pennsylvania, yet each state received only one vote in Congress. Regrettably, the opposite rang true since it took the consent of nine of the thirteen states to approve legislation. This meant that blocking a bill took only five of the thirteen states. Virginia, on the other hand, had a population of over 500,000. A very small percentage of the American populace could preclude bills from passing that could benefit the majority of Americans.

Requiring a unanimous vote made it extremely difficult to pass changes. Ironically, the fact that the Articles of Confederation was so poorly structured that it did not have mechanisms in place to fix itself.

Ultimately, the Articles were scrapped altogether in favor of an entirely new governing document. Constitution The main difference between the Articles of Confederation and the Constitution is that the Articles called for a confederate style of government, whereas the Constitution outlined a federal form of governance.

The divergence between confederate and federal models occurs when sovereign power is granted. The central government only has as much power as regional governments are willing to give to it.

Articles of confederation and regulate interstate trade only noteworthy examples are the Articles of Confederation and the Confederacy during the Civil War. Neither of these regimes lasted more than a decade. In a federal government, sovereign power is given to both regional and central governments. A strong and clear constitution is needed in order that power is clearly divided. This notion of a separated government was popularized by the Constitution of the United States and can be found in modern politics in countries such as Canada, Germany, and Spain.

The third form of government, that neither the Articles nor the Constitution proposed, is a unitary government.

Unitary governments place all power in the central government. Acting like the opposite of a confederacy, regional governments only have the power that is given to them by the national government. Modern unitarian governments include Britain, France, and Italy.

Before the Constitution video: The Articles of Confederation video: