Articles Of Confederation Argumentative Essay

802 Words2 Pages

To keep or to abolish? This question rested in the minds of many people who thought about the Articles of Confederation. Some believed that the Articles did not fulfill their duty and were creating problems. Others argued that they were helpful and brought along numerous benefits. So which side was correct? It is said that if there is a strong government, it can only be kept efficient if its citizens give up some of their rights. The Articles of Confederation, while ineffective as a basis for a strong government, were a vital stepping stone from a country marred by an abusive empire to a country willing to embrace the necessary evil of government. The Articles of Confederation were not the best laws Congress passed, nor were they the worst. The Articles, which was supposed to be the constitution of the United States, brought along terrible changes and numerous problems. In the Rhode Island Assembly’s letter to Congress, it stated that the Articles created a weak and unhelpful government, one that could not levy taxes, lacked the power to regulate interstate and foreign trading, could not enforce national policies; the list goes on and on (A). Because Congress could not control taxing, this eventually led to a poor army that lacked a leader to start an effective …show more content…

Another similarity was that both acts were not passed into law because of the lack of public support. The Articles and the Plan also caused colonial governments to worry about losing power, land, and commerce. The Albany Plan interpreted the Bill of Rights, specifically the Fourteenth Amendment. Although it was never passed, the Albany Plan was the first plan whose purpose was to unite all the colonies under one centralized

Open Document