Talk:Articles of Confederation

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

You have new messages (last change).
A Wikipedian removed Articles of Confederation from the good article list. There are suggestions below for improving areas to satisfy the good article criteria. Once the objections are addressed, renominate the article as a good article. If you disagree with the objections, you can seek a review.
Removal date: No date specified. Please edit template call function as follows: {{DelistedGA|insert date in any format here}}
Portal:United States
 United States Portal
This article is within the scope of the United States WikiProject. This project provides a central approach to United States-related subjects on Wikipedia. Please participate by editing the article, and help us assess and improve articles to good and 1.0 standards.
??? This article has not yet received a rating on the Project's quality scale. Please rate the article and then leave a short summary here to explain the ratings and/or to identify the strengths and weaknesses of the article.

Featured on Template:March 1 selected anniversaries (may be in HTML comment)

Contents

[edit] Early talk

No, John Hanson was not the first President of the United States. See [1]. There was no such office at the time he presided over the congress. -- Someone else 22:05 Dec 9, 2002 (UTC)

John Hanson was also not called "President of the United States in Congress Assembled". He was "President of Congress". We should not encourage the misperception that he was referred to as "President of the United States in Congress Assembled" during his time in office. See [2] -- Someone else 00:39 Dec 10, 2002 (UTC)


The Numbers correspond to the article numbers in the original document. The reason that there were some blank numbers is because i am editing the page and will add all the summeries

Part 9 "defines the rights of the central government" -- it would seem like this article should list a summary of them. Tempshill 23:31, 17 Nov 2003 (UTC)

The military, for instance, was always underpaid; at a time when the nation's borders were still vulnerable, the consequences of this could be disastrous.

I edited this to "...the consequences of this, it was worried, could be disastrous." With the perspective of 220 years, do we know yet if this was indeed disastrous? (this would be an interesting analysis, by the way.) Tempshill 23:31, 17 Nov 2003 (UTC)

Great Britain maintained a series of forts on American land along the Canadian border (the Northwest Posts), in violation of the peace terms, with the intent of creating general disturbance and rallying the Indians against American settlers. The Americans did finally succeed in getting the Posts removed, but IIRC this was not accomplished until the Jay Treaty of 1795. Military campaigns against the tribes of the northern Ohio basin occurred as early as Washington's presidency. The moral basis of land seizure aside, it would have been difficult to keep order in this region with the army in a state of near-collapse. The Spanish likewise held outposts along the Mississippi River, but IIRC these posed less of a concrete threat. (If I had my old textbook notes available, I would be able to offer a considerably better-informed response to all of your queries.) -Smack 08:00, 18 Nov 2003 (UTC)

--

Weren't the delegates and the state legislatures the same people?

[edit] Military Unrest

Some generals threatened to turn the military against the government if sufficient funds could not be raised.

This nugget of information demands more detail on such a treasonous threat. Did anybody get jailed for this? Was it actually influential on the creation of the Constitution, or just a lone nut? Tempshill 23:31, 17 Nov 2003 (UTC)

It was not a lone nut. I have, unfortunately, forgotten both the name of the scheme and the names of all of the people involved, though I think it was called something like the "Newport Conspiracy." -Smack 08:00, 18 Nov 2003 (UTC)
It was the Newburch Conspiracy whose name you're thinking of, but thats a later event. The trouble mentioned here was rioting troops and veterans in Philadelphia, but I don't think any generals were involved. I'm cecking before update. Lou I 08:13, 25 Jan 2004 (UTC)

It was the 'Newburgh' conspiracy, check your spelling MichaelHa 01:47, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Constitutional Convention

After debate, Congress endorsed the plan to revise the Articles of Confederation on February 21, 1787.

Does this mean a revision of the articles of confederation, or was this revision the Constitution? (And, on a copy editing note, did they endorse the plan on this date, or did they endorse the plan to do the revision on this date?) Tempshill 23:31, 17 Nov 2003 (UTC)

The Philadelphia Convention of 1787 certainly had no authority to produce an alternative document to the Articles. I do not know whether the Congress eventually sided with the Federalists or the Antifederalists. (This is purely speculation, but the fact that the Convention acted outside its authority with impunity may be yet another sign of the weakness of the central government at this time.) -Smack 08:00, 18 Nov 2003 (UTC)

The 'plan' was actually a report of the Annapolis Convention (1786]. Congress slightly shifted the requested date and wrote a letter to the states endorsing the call for a meeting. Lou I 08:13, 25 Jan 2004 (UTC)

Just my two cents: the "plan" endorsed by the Congress was a major revision of the Articles, to be ratified as such. What emerged was a wholly new Constitution which (technically illegally) superseded the Articles. Since all 13 states did eventually ratify, and if you make the case that the new constitution was a de facto amendment to the Articles, then it turned out legal. But the constitution was to take effect after the ratification of nine states, which means it changed the rules of amendment before it could legally take force under the old rules. Not that any of this matters in the slightest; its just fun.  :-) TimeLord mbw 06:10, 7 Mar 2004 (UTC)
Was this issue (i.e., the improper adoption of a new "Constitution" without either repealing the Articles of Confederation or using its legal amendment process to change it) ever considered by the Supreme Court??

That would involve the Supreme Court making a determination of its own legitimacy, and if it found itself illegitimate, it would be unable to rightly determine its legitimacy. You can see the problem. Galen M 22:40, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Sinatures and Apology

The version of this page from Jan 14 to Jan 18 was wrong. I added material to the section on thee people who signed the articles that was inaccurate. I found it on the Web and it sounded good, so I paraphrased it and inserted it here. Further research showed me it was just plain wrong. I've emailed the site, and if they fix it, I won't name them. But I haven't yet gotten a reply. In the meantime a adjusted our description to match history. My sincere apology to anyone who was bothered by the changes. Thanks, Lou I 08:13, 25 Jan 2004 (UTC)

I finally got around to fully sorting out the confusion about the signatures by spending some days reading the Journals of the Congress. I hope the article now does a much better job of explaining both the ratification and signing process, as well as WHY there was confusion. Tanks for your patience Lou I 20:05, 29 May 2004 (UTC)

[edit] On the term "nation" and the Constitution

I don't want to get into a 'wiki war' here (or whatever the term may be), but I'm not going to accept the interpretation that the Constitution created a single nation. The word nation appears NOWHERE in the Constitution in reference to the United States.

The simple fact is that when the Constitution was written, the terms "state" and "nation" were nearly coterminous. There is absolutely nothing in the Constitution that expresses or implies that a nation was being created. The term union is accurate, nation is not. That's why it reads "to form a more perfect union," not "to form a nation."

I'm compromising by not explicitly mentioning the fact that the states were originally, and LEGALLY are still today, INDEPENDENT SOVEREIGN nations. I'm compromising by just removing the offending passages.

I'll disagree with this. First of all, your argument that the absence of the word 'nation' in the Preamble means that the Constitution was not intended to establish one has no weight. First of all, the original meaning of the word 'nation', and AFAIK the one current at the end of the 18th century, was a culturally cohesive group of people, not a political unit. Second, it seems reasonable to me that the authors of the document would hesitate to peg down in a single word the sort of "more perfect Union" they were creating, leaving that interpretation instead to the reader. I could go on about this, but I don't want to further belabor this peripheral point.
As for your point itself, the states are not entirely independent, and hardly sovereign. Article VI says clearly that the Constitution itself, as well as all federal laws, are "the supreme Law of the Land", thus undermining the sovereignty of the states that existed under the Articles. Long before the creeping expansion of the powers of the federal government during the 20th century, a series of decisions of the Marshall Court put a stop to any insistence on state sovereignty. --Smack 00:01, 1 Jun 2004 (UTC)
Yet it remains that the a statement such as "The United States of America is opposed to..." is grammatically incorrect from the standpoint of the constitutional text itself. The proper construction is "The United States... are...". From which we may infer that neither a nation nor a state was created by the Constitution, but an agreement to act in concert--in union--was. The difference with the Confederation was that the people conferred supremacy on the union. --24.180.28.156 20:53, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Suggest 14 possible wiki links and 10 possible backlinks for Articles of Confederation.

An automated Wikipedia link suggester has some possible wiki link suggestions for the Articles_of_Confederation article:

  • Can link state legislatures: ...o and seven members. Members of Congress were appointed by state legislatures; individuals could not serve more than three out of any six... (link to section)
  • Can link national government: ... the colonists were reluctant to establish another powerful national government. Jealously guarding their new independence, the Continental... (link to section) — links to an article on coalition governments. Mateo SA | talk 06:23, Jan 16, 2005 (UTC)
  • Can link new independence: ...ther powerful national government. Jealously guarding their new independence, the Continental Congress created a loosely structured unic... (link to section) — links to New Independence Township, Minnesota (not what this sentence is talking about). Mateo SA 18:33, Dec 1, 2004 (UTC)
  • Can link unicameral legislature: ...ence, the Continental Congress created a loosely structured unicameral legislature that protected the liberty of the individual states at the ... (link to section)
  • Can link Great Britain: ...== The [[Treaty of Paris (1783)]], ending hostilities with Great Britain, languished in Congress for months because state representa... (link to section)
  • Can link instrument of government: ...fied front when dealing with the European powers. But as an instrument of government, they were largely a failure. Congress could make decisions... (link to section) — about the Instrument of Government, a British constitution. Mateo SA | talk 06:23, Jan 16, 2005 (UTC)
  • Can link national congress: ...onfederation chronically short of funds. The states and the national congress had both incurred debts during the war, and paying congress... (link to section) — not relevant; links to modern-day institutions called "National Congress." Mateo SA 18:33, Dec 1, 2004 (UTC)
  • Can link land survey: ...act. The [[Land Ordinance of 1785]] established the general land survey and ownership provisions used throughout later American exp... (link to section)
  • Can link western land claims: ...787]] noted the agreement of the original states to give up western land claims and cleared the way for the entry of new states.... (link to section)
  • Can link federal government: ... convene in [[Philadelphia]] to discuss improvements to the federal government. After debate, Congress endorsed the plan to revise the Art... (link to section)
  • Can link self-governance: ...ng under this initial document provided valuable lessons in self-governance and somewhat tempered fears about a powerful central govern... (link to section)
  • Can link National Archives: ...4]]. ==Signatories== The copy of the Articles in the U.S. National Archives has a series of signatures on page six. A list of them is p... (link to section)
  • Can link York, Pennsylvania: ...ew Hampshire, Massachusetts, Rhode Island, Connecticut, New York, Pennsylvania, Virginia, and South Carolina signed the articles to indica... (link to section) — This one is obvious (and a bit funny). Mateo SA 18:33, Dec 1, 2004 (UTC)
  • Can link John Wentworth: ...gates signed at the next meeting they attended. For example John Wentworth of New Hampshire added his name on August 8th. John Penn wa... (link to section)

Additionally, there are some other articles which may be able to linked to this one (also known as "backlinks"):

Notes: The article text has not been changed in any way; Some of these suggestions may be wrong, some may be right.
Feedback: I like it, I hate it, Please don't link to — LinkBot 11:32, 1 Dec 2004 (UTC)

[edit] When did Articles dissolve?

Constitution became effective on 3/4/1789 and the Articles were superseded on that date. The ratification date of 1788 is irrelevant.

Norm

[edit] =======================================

Since the Articles were in name & resolution, perpetual, were they not in effect until all 13 states adopted the new Constitution? So for a while perhaps both documents were in effect. Didn't amendment require more than 9 votes? Anyway, can it be clearly said it expired when 9 states ratified the Constitution?--JimWae 21:39, 2005 Jan 15 (UTC)

Yes, because every state in the Union approved the new process for ratifying the Constitution, though they didn't all approve the Constitution itself right away. WikiAce 17:28, 28 May 2005 (UTC)

The convention that created the Constitution was empowered only to amend the articles, thus it seems correct & still NPOV to say that according to the terms of the Articles themselves, they were in effect until 1790 when ALL 13 states approved the Constitution --JimWae 19:23, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

Wiki does not invent legalisms. The old Congress disbanded when the new Constitution took effect (taht is when 9 states ratified). Rjensen 20:17, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

You are saying that the old Congress sat until 9 states ratified the new one, and then no longer sat, am I right? Still, I do not recall which article states that lack of sittings means the Articles are defunct. Did the holdout states in some way agree to the ending of the Articles before they ratified the new Constitution? --JimWae 20:27, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

Here is some relevant info: http://libertariannation.org/a/f11e1.html#3 Apparently the Congress sent the Constitution to the states for approval - however, it did still sit after 9 states had adopted it --JimWae 05:19, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

The Consitution did not take effect immediately after 9 states ratified it, it merely took 9 states to have it take effect. It did not take effect officially until March 4, 1789. As for the old Congress and the Articles, I am no legal expert but since the Constitution is the "supreme law of the land" and any other law that does not conform with it is void did that not automatically nullify the Articles on March 4, 1789 and therefore the old Congress disbanded then?--Kalsermar 18:02, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

But the holdout states were not part of "the land" until they ratified. So it seems some states were not part of the USA for some time in-between

  • 28 Sept 1787 Congress sends Constitution to States for ratification
  • 2 July 1788 Ratification formally announced
  • 1 Nov 1788 Congress under Articles of Confederation adjourns
  • --JimWae 19:13, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Order of Presidents

I reverted an edit that placed Hanson first. After the Articles were aproved, the list is now in the order in which these men sat in the chair. Lou I 11:39, 3 Jun 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Order in which the states ratified the Articles

What's the source on South Carolina being the first? I can't seem to find it on an original source. Just curios. 69.19.2.36 1 July 2005 21:10 (UTC)

[edit] Canada

Is Canada still preapproved? Whoa...what-if... — 217.199.130.81 08:55, 2005 Jul 7 (UTC)

No. The clause about Canada was part of the Articles only; Canada is not mentioned in the Constitution. (But modern-day Canada is not really the same as the entity called "Canada" in the Articles, anyway.) — Mateo SA | talk July 7, 2005 17:00 (UTC)

[edit] Suggestion

Some discussion about how government under the Articles failed would improve this article. This is actually what I was looking for when I searched for the page-- what were the inadequacies of the Articles that were corrected by the Constitution? For study about the Constitution, understanding how the historical events that demonstrated how the Articles proved ineffective is pretty fundamental.

Thanks for the article. Jack McGhee 03:16, 15 October 2005 (UTC)Jack McGhee

I also think this is a much needed section. Something beyond the fact that the federal gov under the Articles of Confederation had no power to tax. I came here from Whiskey Rebellion, where it is stated that "The ineffective government of the United States under the Articles of Confederation...". To me "ineffective" seems POV, but I'd like to gather a few more facts before I follow the "be bold" philosophy here. 66.173.192.96 07:12, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Neutrality

I've been doing some extensive research on the Articles of Confederation and the events leading up to the ratification of the US Constitution, and this page does not approach the issue of the Articles in an unbiased or objective point of view. There needs to be editing so that the pros and cons are presented in a neutral manner, rather than simply the cons so as to explain why they failed.

The explanations contained in the article are true, and were the popular criticisms during the time period of the Articles, but they are not listed as criticisms or areas in need of improvement; just presented as fact.

There are many events and political explanations to explain why the Constitution was ratified after the Articles, few of which are mentioned within the page.

ACloseFollowing 21:07, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

very good

[edit] Drafted by...?

Shouldn't the article mention who drafted the articles of confederation? That would be helpful.
WiWillieWiki 14:50, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] a real nation in 1775

The USA became a real nation in 1775, not 1781. It had all the attributes of a real nation, such as the power to make war and sign treaties in the name of the USA. The 13 states all supported this nation. It was not necessary to have a written constitution to be a real nation-- Britain, France and other major powers did NOT have a written constitution. The article now makes clear the difference between de facto and de jure status, citing in this case a British treatise, Francis D. Cogliano, Revolutionary America, 1763-1815: A Political History. London: 2000. Historian Winton Solberg adds in 1775, "It immediately became the recognized revolutionary government, with its main task to conduct the war and lead the colonies ultimately to independence." [1] Editors who want to make changes need to have sources that support their changes. Rjensen 06:14, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

Standard sources. Wiki has to be based on the best scholarship, and a good example is Cogliano, the author of several in-depth studies (he's based in England). All the reviews in the professional journals have been favorable. See Michael A. McDonnell, Reviewed Work(s): Revolutionary America, 1763-1815: A Political History by Francis D. Cogliano The William and Mary Quarterly > 3rd Ser., Vol. 58, No. 2 (Apr., 2001), pp. 550-553 in JSTOR. Equallyt favorable is the review by J. D. Bowers

The History Teacher > Vol. 33, No. 3 (May, 2000), pp. 404-405 in JSTOR. Rjensen 08:28, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

    • I´m afraid the scholarship of Rjensen is suspect, or a form of original research by selecting non-cannonical research conclusions by others. The Declaration of Independence focuses on the power of independent and sovereign states to wage war, etc. [3]. Any standard review shows that confederation/constitution are the sources of political nationhood (nation-state): "Following the European colonization of the Americas, the United States became the world's first modern democracy after its break with Great Britain, with a Declaration of Independence in 1776. The original political structure was a confederation in 1777, ratified in 1781 as the Articles of Confederation. After long debate, this was supplanted by the Constitution of a more centralized federal government in 1789." [4] Hasta Nakshatra 06:58, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
reliable sources--better to use real scholarship than short, unsigned web pages that have no great credibility. The Declaration clears states a nation called the "United States of America" would "assume, among the powers of the earth, a separate and equal station." Actually, the 4th of July, 1776 is still celebrated in the US as the nation's birthday (not some date in 1781 or whenever). Rjensen 11:01, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
  • The DoI talkes about individual States becoming independent. I wish you would discuss more before going around making sweeping changed to numerous articles. --JW1805 (Talk) 17:13, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] "edentified"

"edentified" is a typo. please fix. -- 85.179.174.79 05:08, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../a/r/t/Talk%7EArticles_of_Confederation_4784.html"