Articles of Confederation: Fatal Flaw
|
|
From 1790 to 1800, Congress met in "Congress Hall." The first 10 amendments to the U.S. Constitution, known as the "Bill of Rights," were also added here. |
Philadelphia was the center of the nation from the time of the First Continental Congress1775) until the nation's capitol was moved to the District of Columbia in 1800. For thirteen of those years (from 1775 until the 1788 inauguration of George Washington as the first President under the present Constitution) our governing concept was a confederation of sovereign states. The framework of our rules was a little vague at the beginning of that period, eventually becoming explicit when the Articles of Confederation were ratified in 1781. Later on, when the Constitution was agreed to in 1787, there was another period of ambiguity until the newer rules actually began to apply. Speaking loosely, for thirteen years the country operated along the principles of the Articles of Confederation. For another twelve years, the United States were absorbed in the task of transition from the Articles to the Constitution.
During all the twenty-five years government was in Philadelphia, therefore, Americans were bedeviled by discovering what is unworkable about their original ideal of a loose association of states, discovering next that patchwork repair was not enough, finally after a fresh start, getting used to and revising a newer idea of living under a common central government of their own devising. Although it is commonplace to say the Articles were a weak failure, they did in fact accurately reflect American attitudes at the beginning of a formative period while flaws in those ideas relentlessly surfaced. Correction of demonstrated flaws in the Articles was an important force in shaping a Constitution which would not have been even barely acceptable without those proofs. We got it right, the second time. And we got it right in the environment of Quaker Philadelphia, where tolerant examination of new ideas was more venerated than in any place in the civilized world.
|
|
Edwin Corwin's John Marshall and the Constitution (click to buy) |
One by one, the main features of the present Constitution can be linked to correction of flaws in the Articles, later giving rise to a busy industry of legal scholars trying to reconstruct Constitutional Intent. Intent, however, cannot be understood without an appreciation of the main political battles being fought at the time, since strong opposing views, which except for slavery are the same disputes in action today, were being promoted, with a view to establishing partisan advantage in later struggles. Fine, everyone can agree it was complex. Still, what was the main flaw in the Articles? What, as they say, is the take-home point?
If there is any generally agreed summary of what was wrong with the Articles of Confederation, it would lie in a paragraph, which follows, from Edward S. Corwin's book John Marshall and the Constitution:
"The vital defect of the system of government provided by the soon obsolete Articles of Confederation lay in the fact that it operated not upon the individual citizens of the United States but upon the States in their corporate capacities. As a consequence the prescribed duties of any law passed by Congress in pursuance of powers derived from the Articles of Confederation could not be enforced."
And that's how many Revolutionary Americans, possibly most of them, liked to have it. They were in revolt against central government, not just the King of England. Thirteen years of near-anarchy taught them they must give some limited powers to a central government, but no more than absolutely necessary. Perhaps even the absolutely necessary amount was just a bit too much.
(472)
6th and Market Street Philadelphia, PA 19105  |
|---|
Google Earth |
