Articles Of Confederation Argumentative Essay

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

and strong army (C). Furthermore, some British soldiers still occupied America because many still held their posts in America due to poor loyalist policies (D). A very strong advocate who opposed the Articles was John Jay, the ambassador of France. He gave a speech to Congress on negotiations with Spain’s Minister Diego de Gardoqui, speaking that the weak government would soon be ‘revived’ and improved, so there was no need for the Articles (F). In his letter addressed to George Washington, Jay further expressed his beliefs that the Articles were poor and not achieving the desired outcome. They did not make America a solid country and clearly lacked public faith because Americans did not trust their own government (G). Americans did not embrace the Articles at all.

An example of the Articles’ mistakes is that of Shay’s Rebellion. The newly independent country was increasing in population, but they had the same amount of money, a poor government, and an identical market value (B). The rebellion occurred because angry Massachusetts farmers were losing their farms since they could not pay off their debts. Desperate farmers ordered the state legislature to lower taxes, stop farm foreclosures, and issue more paper money. Led by Daniel Shay, armed farmers, many who fought alongside each other in the Revolution, shut down the courthouse where the suing of foreclosed farm mortgages occurred. Shay’s Rebellion showed the tensions between poor farmers and the rich merchants who controlled the Massachusetts legislature.

Even though the Articles of Confederation seemed like a completely bad idea, they did bring along a few benefits. Almost all of the best known Founding Fathers, such as Thomas Jefferson, George Washington, Benjamin Franklin, Henry Knox, and Abigail Adams, hoped that they could increase their wealth by pushing their borders westward. The Articles did just that; the Northwest Ordinance established a procedure for land in the west to become new states (E). Due to the Articles, the Confederate government successfully planned out the Treaty of Paris near the end of the Revolutionary War. A more important step was that they banned slavery from the Northwest Territory; this was the first national legislation that blocked the expansion of slavery. In the midst of the ratification debate, Rawlin Lowndes believed that the Articles could be fixed to be better and no new constitution had to be written to replace them (H). The Articles proved to help settlers move westward and banned the growth of slavery.

****************************************************************************** (I stopped here after 45 minutes. Giving myself a time limit made it much harder to focus on my writing and more on how much time I had left.)

The Albany Plan of Union, adopted in 1754, was very similar to the Articles of Confederation, mainly because both were supposed to create a unified country under a strong government; it was a plan to place the British North American colonies under a more unified government.

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

government.

The Articles of Confederation did not help America in building a strong government. But they were a necessary step to make the young country mature. They certainly helped America become more widespread.