Talk:Articles of Confederation

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Articles of Confederation was a good article, but it has been removed from the list. There are suggestions below for improving the article to meet the good article criteria. Once these are addressed, the article can be renominated. Editors may also seek a reassessment of the decision if they believe there was a mistake.

Delisted version: April 9, 2006
⚖
Law Portal
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Law, an attempt at providing a comprehensive, standardised, pan-jurisdictional and up-to-date resource for the legal field and the subjects encompassed by it.
B This article has been rated as B-Class on the assessment scale.
Top This article has been assessed as Top-importance on the assessment scale.
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.
B This article has been rated as B-Class on the Project's quality scale. See comments
Pennsylvania Portal
Articles of Confederation is part of WikiProject Pennsylvania, which is building a comprehensive and detailed guide to Pennsylvania on Wikipedia. To participate, you can edit the attached article, join or discuss the project.
B This article has been rated as B-Class on the quality scale.
Top This article has been rated as Top-importance on the importance scale.

Contents

[edit] The style united States of America or United States of America?

The style used in the Articles is 'an upper case "U" in United States of America [[1]]. In the Declaration of Independence, however, a lower case style is used.[[2]]. This confusion evidently crept in early. I recall that a printed version of the Declaration (either before or after the formal signing on August 2, 1776) used an upper case spelling due to a misunderstanding by the printer. Odin 85th gen (talk) 12:13, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Early talk

No, John Hanson was not the first President of the United States. See [3]. 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 [4] -- 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? no, actually they weren't cause the delegates and the state legislatures were different people at times.♥

--

why was there ever a constitution if they new if there was a chance that things won't go the way they wanted it to go?????? ♥ —Preceding unsigned comment added by Alice20002 (talk • contribs) 04:17, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

[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

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)

This website [5] has information on the purported order in which the states ratified the Articles. In sum the order presented on that website is:

  • Virginia
  • South Carolina
  • New York
  • Rhode Island
  • Georgia
  • Connecticut
  • New Hampshire
  • Pennsylvania
  • Massachusetts
  • North Carolina
  • New Jersey
  • Delaware
  • Maryland

The site also gives about 3 sources for this order, so if anyone has access to those sources (and the order turns out to be true), then perhaps the order of ratification could be included in the article?72.27.57.162 06:20, 19 August 2007 (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)

Under the Articles, there was no national currency, so businesses tried stay away from trading between states for fear of losing money in the exchange of state currencies. There was no standing army of the United States, and if an army needed to be formed for some reason or another, it would take a very long time to organize one. This can be seen in the response to Shays' Rebellion, which I believe it took something like 3 months to create a militia to drive Shays out. Interstate commerce not only suffered because of the lack of a unified currency, but also because there were no laws restricting states from imposing tariffs on goods from other states. And last, Congress had little financial support. It had to ask the states for money and, as you can probably imagine, this didn't get them quite enough money to support themselves. BrettAS (talk) 02:23, 14 February 2008 (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)

I don't believe that any one person is recognized as the drafter of these Articles. The Second Continental Congress, and committees of it, spent a year working on this. The various articles were written by different people, and most went through various edits before a final version was adopted. T-bonham 06:21, 31 August 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. [6]. 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." [7] 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)


The articles was changed because of the shay's rebellion which showed that the articles gave too much power to the state and not enough power to the national government. this is then when the U.S Constitution was made

[edit] Where are the Articles of Confederation kept today?

Are they on display somewhere? 70.88.213.74 22:26, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

They are kept in the National Archives of the USA, in Washington, DC (as mentioned in the article). But I don't believe they are actually 'on display'. I believe anything on display is a 'replica' of the actual document.
There is only one, single signed copy in existence. It is a faded, damaged, and rather brittle scroll. In fact, the only scans of that scroll are older ones -- rather poor, overlapping in some places and missing other parts of it altogether. But the Archivalist has not allowed any additional scans of this scroll, presumably because of it's delicate condition. T-bonham 06:28, 31 August 2007 (UTC)
Isn't that the same state as the Declaration of Independence? Yet that is on display. 132.205.99.122 21:02, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

No, compared to other documents from that era, the Declaration is actually in amazing condition. Of course it's been in an airlock tank as long as the technology to keep it like that has existed. So how long it would survive any handling is in question. 75.177.82.119 (talk) 22:38, 17 November 2007 (UTC) AKA (FinalWish on a sucky PC)

[edit] Remove disputable statement

Compared to the successor US Constitution, the Articles provided stronger protection of individual liberty. Thus, from the libertarian point of view, they were better than the Constitution, but from the statist point of view they were weaker. Roadrunner 17:05, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

I disagree. The Articles couldn't really provide any protection for individual liberty, and theoretically allowed the states to curtail individual freedoms. Simply giving states more power is NOT equivalent to libertarianism. -24.149.203.34 (talk) 04:38, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Nature of the government under the articles

There is no doubt that the nature changed, but there is a body of scholarship that does not accept that there were no attributes of nationhood in the United States prior to 1787. You only have to look at statements by Washington and Jay during the debate on the ratification of the Constitution to see the United States already referred to as a nation. This subject is not really covered in the body of the article so it is inappropriate to continue to try to place it in the lede as if there were only one opinion. Tom (North Shoreman) 23:25, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

For ease of reference, we are discussing the sentence: The Articles were replaced by the United States Constitution on June 21, 1788, changing the relationship from confederacy of states to one central state. Tom wants to eliminate the last phrase, putting a period after 1788.
Tom, I don't see that you have made a relevant counter-argument above. The phrase in question does not contest or question "attributes of nationhood." It is a comment about statehood, not nationhood. "Nation" has to do with language and customs. "State" has to do with political sovereignty. Obviously, since most of the colonists were from Britain, there were attributes of nationhood. Just as obviously, the former colonies had various state constitutions and governments. The Articles were a wartime expedient. They definitely did not set up a central state, with the power of e.g. direct taxation, like the later US Con. The text of the Articles make this quite clear. It was a treaty...
... between the states of New Hampshire, Massachusetts-bay Rhode Island and Providence Plantations, Connecticut, New York, New Jersey, Pennsylvania, Delaware, Maryland, Virginia, North Carolina, South Carolina and Georgia.
I. The Stile of this Confederacy shall be "The United States of America".
My concern is that most readers will misunderstand, and erroneously think that the United States was a central state at that time. In reality, becoming a "consolidated" (central) state was a major issue in ratifying the US Con later. Cf: The Federalist Papers, etc. PhilLiberty 00:02, 1 August 2007 (UTC)
The particular phrase you want restored is "changing the relationship from confederacy of states to one central state". A problem is, as I said, is that you are including in the lede a claim that is not reflected in the body of the article. Nowhere in the article is it discussed that the Constitution formed "one central state". In fact the term is nowhere referenced or defined in the article. The discussion within the article of the purposes of replacing the AOC, based on a reliable source (Jack Rakove), in fact only mentions specific powers deemed necessary for the central government -- it suggests nothing about creating "one central state". I have again reverted restored the original version of the phrase (as well as restored the other revision I made in the lede -- you offered no explanation for why you also reversed this. Tom (North Shoreman) 13:10, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Carol Berkin versus Gary Galles

A statement was added to the article sourced to Gary Galles to present the Anti-Federalist opinion of the Constitution. His statement:

The Antifederalists were opponents of ratifying the US Constitution. They feared that it would create an overbearing central government, while the Constitution's proponents promised that this would not happen. As the losers in that debate, they are largely overlooked today. ... Nonetheless, what the so-called Antifederalists predicted would be the results of the Constitution turned out to be true in most every respect.

Galles is an economist, not an historian, and the quote is from a political rather than a scholarly website. The boldfaced section that I added is clearly political commentary on events that resulted well after the ratification of the Constitution which is where this article should end.

I replaced the political quote with the following:

The opponents of the ratification of the new Constitution were referred to as the Anti-Federalists. While generally admitting that improvements were needed in the Articles of Confederation, historian Carol Berkin summarizes their opposition:
"Although they agreed [among themselves] that the proposed government was a national rather than a federal government, too poweful to be trusted,they differed widely on which elements of the new government were most dangerous to a republican nation.
What Anti-Federalists did share was a pervasive suspicion, a belief that the Constitution was the end product of a carefully laid conspiracy by a cabal of ambitious men."

The above is from a book published by historian Carol Berkin. It says basically the same thing as the Galle quote without the current political bias. In preferring Galle the other editor wrote as justification, "Sorry, quoting a second pro-centralization historian rather than an opponent is POV." In fact, there is no bias in the Berkin description -- it is an objective historical analysis by an established historian. The issue should be which characterization of the anti-federalists is more accurate, more reliable, more complete, and less biased. The political bias of Galle is clear.

The purpose of the article is not to debate the merits of converting from the Articles of Confederation to the Constitution from our modern perspective. Rather it is to show why the change occurred and the views of those who supported it back in the 18th Century and those who opposed it. Tom (North Shoreman) 11:03, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

Tom wrote: "The boldfaced section that I added is clearly political commentary on events that resulted well after the ratification of the Constitution which is where this article should end."
I don't agree. If we were doing an article on early flying machines, and had quoted someone as saying that heavier than air machines would never be able to fly, then it would be pertinent to note that airplanes were later invented disproving the contention. If we were doing an article about 1980s personal computers and quoted Bill Gates as saying '640k RAM is more than a personal computer would ever need,' then it is pertinent to note that PCs come standard with gigabytes today. It seems quite pertinent to note that the anti-federalist's predictions of government growth under the Con were pretty much right on. The growth of the US govt since then is non-controversial. Surely you would not debate otherwise. The heroification of the federalists by hiding the fact they were mistaken seems POV and unencyclopedic. We have high school text books for that! PhilLiberty 22:57, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
You are trying to analyze the 18th Century using a 21st Century perspective. The issue for the Anti-Federalists was not "government growth" but government power, specifically the locus of power. I doubt you will ever be able to find a single Anti-Federalist who spoke specifically about "government growth", but if you do it will be an isolated event. The story of the Articles of Confederation ends with the decision to abandon them, the reasons it was necessary to abandon them, and the replacement system they thought they were creating. The evolution of that new system is a different story.
Your statement that "The growth of the US govt since then is non-controversial" is absurd. Are you seriously suggesting that there is no controversy about the size of the Federal government today? Where the controversy is concerns whether the evolution of the government, expedited by significant changes in the Constitution like the 14th Amendment, is a good or a bad thing. You have entered into an article on events which concluded in 1790 value judgments based on the subsequent two centuries of history that, for the most part, are much more about politics, economics, power, and morality that the legal interpretation of the Constitution. You mistake the rhetoric common in those two centuries that encourages abstract references to constitutional law with the interests that have actually shaped the evolution of our government.
But I stray from the subject. The bottom line is that both McDonald and Berkins offer professional, peer reviewed analysis of the situation in America in the 1780's without straying into 21st Century political rhetoric which is 95% of the Galles article. Other than the 21st Century POV by Galles, Berkins' take on the Anti-Federalists is not any different than Galles'. You really should read McDonald's work -- he demonstrates that even right wing extremists can write relatively objective history when they try. I have not seen too many folks associated with the Van Mises people who even try. Tom (North Shoreman) 02:39, 4 August 2007 (UTC)
Tom wrote: "Are you seriously suggesting that there is no controversy about the size of the Federal government today?"
No, I am suggesting that there is no controversy that the power of government is greater today (by orders of magnitude) than what federalists envisioned, what they thought the Con would allow. Even the most ardent federalists didn't imagine the central govt tax rates of today, large standing armies based in foreign countries, central govt laws outlawing (what were then) common crops, even federal roads. The anti-federalists were quite prescient, in predicting e.g. that the general welfare clause would be used as a wedge for central govt power takeover, and that the Supreme Court would, in the long run, "interpret" in favor of more and more govt power. This is not just 21st century hindsight - before the ink was dry on the Con there was the Alien and Sedition acts, later Henry Clay's corporate subsidy ("internal improvements") and central banking power grab. The War of Northern Aggression ended any semblence of federal govt by consent. The anti-feds saw it coming.
We should use a quote acknowledging that the Con did in fact result in a vastly more powerful state, that the federalists promises were wrong and the anti-federalists warnings were right. The Berkin quote doesn't even hint that the govt became more powerful. PhilLiberty 03:03, 4 August 2007 (UTC)
I agree with Tom that a quote from respected historians carries much more authority that something from a web site with a political agenda. Wikipedia articles are not the place to advance controversial positions. older ≠ wiser 03:13, 4 August 2007 (UTC)
I will accept a quote from a "respected historian" that acknowledges that the govt did in fact become much more powerful under the Con. Wimping out with psychologising about "suspicions" of anti-federalists, and throwing out red herrings about differing on the exact process and conspiracies just doesn't hack it. Certainly there's a historian that admits the state became more powerful. PhilLiberty 03:44, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

Okay, here's a solid academic historian: Ralph Ketcham, and a reasonable quote:

Antifederalists feared what Patrick Henry termed the "consolidated government" proposed by the new Constitution. They saw in Federalist hopes for commercial growth and international prestige only the lust of ambitious men for a "splendid empire" that, in the time-honored way of empires, would oppress the people with taxes, conscription, and military campaigns. Uncertain that any government over so vast a domain as the United States could be controlled by the people, Antifederalists saw in the enlarged powers of the general government only the familiar threats to the rights and liberties of the people. - Ralph Ketcham, Roots of the Republic: American Founding Documents Interpreted, pg. 383

Is this better for you? PhilLiberty 04:11, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Lack of inline citations

This article is lacking inline citations. Good examples of proper inline citations are at Pontiac's Rebellion and Red vs. Blue. Cliff smith 00:34, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] First constitution of USA

I tried to change the statement in the article that says that the Articles of Confederation was the first constitution of the United States of America, but someone changed it back. In fact, the United States of America as we know it today didn't exist until 1789 when the USA Constitution was ratified. So the Articles of Confederation was not the first constitution of the USA, because the USA didn't exist. What did exist was a European-Union like league of independent states (nations).Leonard E. Patterson (talk) 16:18, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

Whether or not the "United States of America as we know it today didn't exist until 1789 when the USA Constitution was ratified", it was still called the "United States of America". It is still considered the same one nation, though it operated under two vastly-different constitutions. It is awfully hard to support the claim that the "United States of America" didn't exist when the Articles themselves give the nation's name as the "United States of America". In order to support this, you've had to add "as we know it today", which is just playing semantic games - the name of the country today is not the "United States of America as We Know It Today", but without that qualification your whole point is meaningless. Even assuming your interpretation is the correct and accepted one, putting contradictory statements like that in the article, especially without verifiable reliable sources, will just confuses readers. - BillCJ (talk) 19:44, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

Leonard E. Patterson (talk) 04:08, 29 February 2008 (UTC) The USA under the Confederation may have had the same name as the modern-day USA, but it was not the modern-day USA. The USA (Confederation) and the USA (Union, or also called "nation"), are different entities. The argument can be made that while the USA (Confederacy) was a "firm league of friendship" among a number of "free and independent states," the USA (Union) was a separate political entity that, although it replaced the USA league, was something completely different. Saying that the Articles was the first constitution of the USA, and then providing a link to the (modern-day) United States, is misleading. My point: The article as it currently stands is incorrect because it asserts that the Articles was the constitution of a union that did not yet exist, although the political body in place did have the superficial similarity of having the same name.

And the verifiable reliable sources which support my interpretation are the Declaration of Independence and the Articles of Confederation and Perpetual Union.

Perhaps I didn't express my interpretations eloquently enough to be understood, since the differences are not easy to distinguish. If I'm not clear in my explanation, point to the unclear parts and ask me to reexplain.

I had no problem understanding your explanation, eloquence or lack of it not withstanding. I'm a plain person, and speak plainly, and usually find that some people use eloquence when they wish to "obfuscate" the plain meaning of something, and to "bully" less-eloquent people into thinking they aren't as smart as the more-eloquent. I totally understand your point, but I disagree with your interpretation, as it doesn't follow the historical evidence of even the AoC itself. You wrote: "Saying that the Articles was the first constitution of the USA, and then providing a link to the (modern-day) United States, is misleading." The problem is, there is only one article on the United States to link to, and it covers the history of both "entities". I'm sorry, but many people disagree with your interpretation of the DoI and AoC. The first line of this article states: ". . . the Articles of Confederation, was the first governing document, or constitution, of the United States of America." It does not state: "the Articles of Confederation, was the first governing document, or constitution, of the Union." If it did, or if it said "federation", you might have a point, but it doesn't. To confuse matters even more, it wasn't until the end of the US Civil War and Reconstruction that AMericans, especially those in the South, stopped thinking of themselves as citizens of their home states first,a nd of the USA second - that didn't change with the adoption of The Constitution, but took over 70 years. Anyway, if you have reliable published (print or internet) sources that back up your "interpretation", you're welcome to cite them as an alternate view in a suitable section in the main text, but I don't think the Lead is the proper place for it. - BillCJ (talk) 07:14, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
  • On a side note, I don't see the comparison of the "League of Nations of America" (what else can I call it, since you are objecting to the name USA, even though its in the AOC) to the EU. Even here on Wikipedia, people can't agree on what the EU actually is - some what to call in a confederation, some want to call it a nation, while other refer to it as supra-national union. The latter is generally accepted as the best definition, but even then, you'll find the "EU-ish" (people who are citizens of EU via their member nations) trying to get the EU listed in charts such in WP article such as English-speaking Nations of the World, but not wanting to remove the member nations, such as the UK or Ireland, from the list. Of course, the UK-ish still want us to accept that England, et al, are "countries" or "nations", and include their flags in biographies, etc, even though their sovereignty is even more subordinated to their national government than the states of the US. My point is that comparing the USA under the AoC to the EU will not help to clarify the situation, since the EU's status is much more contentious than what we are discussing here! THe EU is a big mess anyway, with 25 or more mebers who all have a different idea of what the UN should be. In my opinion, the nations who want a much stronger Union (France, Germany, and some of there neighbeors) would be better off forming their own mini-EU as a tighter federation, and then have that entity be a member within a looser EU if they want to, but the rest of the EU would immediatley cry out about the return of the Napoleonic or Nazi empires, and it would all fall apart again. Of course, Europeans seldom choose simple or obvious solutions, partly why I'm glad my forebearers left Europe in the first place! - BillCJ (talk) 07:14, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

Leonard E. Patterson (talk) 14:10, 29 February 2008 (UTC)I'm intensely interested to see the historical evidence that supports your interpretation. I'm talking about official legal documents here. The documents show that the thirteen colonies became thirteen free and independent states with the Declaration of Independence, entered into a "firm league of friendship" with the Articles of Confederation, and created "a more perfect Union" with the USA Constitution. The "firm league of friendship" should not be thought of as synomymous with the "Union." I can't really respond to the argument you set forth because I still don't understand what it is. By the way, you might want to take a look at the Constitutional Congress Article and see if it's accurate to your knowledge after my changes (but we won't get into that much here).

Besides, I think that calling the Articles of Confederation a "constitution" rather than a "charter" or "framework" for a supernational league of nations is misleading. When people see the word "constitution," I am inclined to believe that they will also think of "one nation," while that was not the case at all under the Articles. And even if the Wiki Articles page does not specify "Union" or "federation," it is still grossly misleading.

The USA became a "Perpetual Union" with the Articles of Confederation. Abraham Lincoln was insistent on this fact in his First inauguration speech in 1861. He also cited that the aim of the US Constitution was to make "a more perfect union". It is therefore clear the Union existed before the creation of the US Constitution. The Articles was also a constitution, but based on a confederation form of government. By comparison, the US Constitution was based on a federation (federal) form of government. It is therefore clear that as the Union came into being in 1781 so did its first constitution. The US Constitution was therefore the second constitution of the Union. The historical evidence is quite clear and compelling on this issue. Budfin (talk) 16:55, 17 March 2008 (UTC)