Articles Of Confederation Ineffective Research Paper

Kyla Mitchell
Mr. Bos-Lun
US History Honors
October 17, 2014
The Article of Confederation Proven Ineffective

On March 1st, 1781, Maryland became the thirteenth and final state to enter the thirteen colonies and to ratify the Articles of Confederation. The initial fundamental of the Articles of Confederation was to create a new form of government since they were finally released from Great Britain’s control. Although the founding fathers believed that the Articles of Confederation would be successful for generations to come, it eventually collapsed. The three key problems under the Articles of Confederation were the lack of financial organization, no central government was present and law inefficiencies took place. The ultimate problem

The simple fact that the document was called a “confederacy” was the first mistake that the founding fathers made. According to Article 4 of the Articles of Confederation “Full faith and credit shall be given in each of these States to the records, acts, and judicial proceedings of the courts and magistrates of every other State.” Giving states majority of the power is what made the situation go down hill. At this time, America was receiving threats, owed millions of dollars in debt and had no military to defend us from the threats and possible wars. However, if America had a central government to add order to the country, everything would have been secure and in control. The disorganization could have been completely avoided and the country could have been fully coordinated if we had a central government. This is the United States of America, not the Divided States of

The law is that nine out of thirteen states have to approve the legislation for it to become effective. In a grand scheme of things, the laws that were being approved didn’t represent the citizens to its maximum potential and vice versa. In reference to my previous statement that each state receives only one vote, representation is a key weakness because of the disproportion of voting. In a scenario, lets say there is a tie between two states: Virginia, which had 500,000 citizens at the time, and Delaware, which had 20,000 citizens. If Delaware breaks the tie breaker, than that means half of a million people would be upset, assuming that everyone in Virginia was all in agreement with the legislature. Where is justice when you need