Did the Articles of Confederation Fail? Probably Not

Did the Articles of Confederation fail?

Probably not.

By Larsen Plyler, it has taken in many cases

to be fact that the reason the Constitutional Convention

was called and that the Constitution was ratified

was because of the failure of the Articles

of Confederation system.

The folks at Heritage have made their position clear.

The first plan the framers tried

after declaring independence was called

the Articles of Confederation.

The government that the Articles created failed

because it was too weak to coordinate

national policy among states with different priorities.

Now this is not particularly a criticism

of the Constitution, though I believe there is room for that.

But I simply want to raise questions.

What if the Articles were not failing?

What if they were doing exactly what they were intended to do?

What if the Articles were successful?

But success was not in the agenda of powerful people.

First consider the words above.

It was too weak to coordinate national policy

among states with different priorities.

Exactly.

But that's not why it failed.

That was precisely why it was created.

The regions and the states did have different priorities.

Yes, Rhode Island could, on its own, veto legislation.

When other states agreed to a tariff,

Rhode Island could, as a lone New England state, say no.

Of course, the other 12 states were

welcome to pass their own tariffs

and donate the revenues to the central government.

Why did Rhode Island have to do what they did?

That was no failure.

It was success.

In fact, the Constitution made demands

on all of the regions and states that violated their priorities.

Second, the Articles of Confederation

demonstrated that a weak central government

was not incapable of accomplishing what

needed to be done.

But it did demonstrate that the causes and purposes

to which the national government took action

needed to be in the interest of all,

or it needed to be handled on a local basis.

But keep in mind that it was under the Articles government

that the war for independence had been won.

It was under the Articles that the treaty, which

drew favorable boundaries for the new nation, was drawn.

It was under the Articles that the Northwest Ordinance

was organized.

Let me mention the Ordinance, which

would provide the basis for bringing in the Midwestern states,

was a demonstration that the US

was not pursuing European imperialism.

But wanted expansion on equal footing

with the earlier states.

The rejection of imperialism, while short lived,

was evident in the Articles.

Third, consider that the greatest example of Articles' failure

should tell us precisely the opposite.

Shaz's rebellion is often used as evidence

that there needed to be a stronger central power

to address the needs of the young nation.

But that comes from a perspective that

says that placing more power in the hands of people

further away from the people is better.

What folks often miss is that the issue which Shaz's rebellion

was corruption in the local government,

in this case of Massachusetts.

Rather than being evidence of the need for more power,

it was a demonstration of the danger of corruption,

even on the state level that needed to be addressed.

A very helpful work on this is Leonard Richards.

Shaz's rebellion.

We should note its subtitle, The American Revolution's

Last Battle.

This was not a call for more centralized power,

but a challenge to the power that was already being abused.

Fourth, ponder the people behind the writing

of a new constitution.

Men like Madison, Hamilton, and even Washington

were men who wanted stronger central power

in order to make other states go along with their plans.

Sure, Madison would eventually become a Jeffersonian,

but during and after the War of 1812,

he demonstrated himself to be interested

in larger central power and more government spending.

He was responsible for the organization

of the Constitutional Convention, which was underhanded

in its own way because it was supposed

to be a revision of the articles.

That plan went out of the proverbial window.

All of the actual windows were shut so that no one knew

what was going on behind those closed doors.

Could there have been amendments to the articles?

Sure, perhaps the prospect of a confederation

should have been embraced, and like all human efforts,

corrections need to be made along the way.

But the Constitutional Convention disregarded that.

In addition, the ratification efforts also

used some underhanded methods both in the way

that the new document was resented

and in the conventions that they created to ratify it.

Notably, they avoided using the state congresses

because they did not want to deal with state governments

who would see that they were indeed losing power.

They framed people who opposed the new constitution

as anti-federalists.

But it was those men who really believed in federalism.

They really wanted a true division of power.

In reality, one of the men who most strongly defended

the Constitution as a document that would limit government,

Alexander Hamilton, was the one who most doggedly pursued

a looser reading of it.

He contended that a Bill of Rights was unnecessary

because the Constitution limited what the government

was allowed to do.

Then he championed a financial plan

that broke through the boundaries of a strict reading.

And yet perhaps he was right, along with others,

that if specific rights were not listed

in the Bill of Rights, that the central government would

assume that a person did not have them.

That has indeed been the case.

Fifth, considerations of the Constitution

often overestimate the document.

I say this with gratitude for the degree

to which the government has been limited.

It could have been worse.

Many of the ideas were rooted in much older concepts,

but we can see that when power is held in one place,

regardless of what a document said or says,

there is little limitation that will hold.

Only decentralization can serve as a real check or balance.

Remember the compromises in the Constitutional Convention

about representation in Congress, the count of enslaved people,

the way to raise funds for the central government?

No one was satisfied with what had been created.

And this only brings us to the reality

that the Constitution under which we lived today

is not the one they wrote, due to Supreme Court decisions

overreaching executives, expanding bureaucracy

and amendments, especially the 14th and other factors.

For more content like this, visit mises.org.