Pros And Cons Of The Articles Of Confederation

With every significant decision, there is always some form of conflict. Especially when it comes to perfecting a newly, formed government.
Contrary to popular belief, the Constitution was not the first form of government, the Articles of Confederation was in fact the first form of governmental structure. The Articles of Confederation encompassed all thirteen states that fought in the American Revolution. They went into effect on March 1, 1781 and lasted until March 4, 1789, when the US constitution replaced them. The Articles of Confederation had many downfalls to its structure. It gave as much independence to the states as an individual as possible, leaving The United States in control of defense, security of liberties, and the general welfare.

Each state had one individualized vote in congress, regardless of their size. There was no national court system. Laws required a 9/13 majority to pass in Congress, making it almost impossible to pass any law. Under the Articles of Confederation, states would break out into disputes amongst themselves. The states were so independent that they refused to obey national laws. Some states began making agreements with foreign governments. Most had their own military. Each state printed its own money, so there was no stable economy. Then In 1786, Shays' Rebellion occurred when colonist rose up against themselves in disagreement to the rising debt, and the state of the economy. However, the national government was unable to gather a combined military force amongst the states to help put down the rebellion.
After Shays’ Rebellion, the states started to come to realizations of the current unstable structure of their government. As result they all decided to come together to alter the Articles of confederation, to somehow make a stronger form of national government. A meeting was set in Philadelphia on May 25, 1787. This became the Constitutional Convention.
Early in the Ratification process it became apparent that there were two sides, as there are to every decision. Those who opposed the Constitution, and wanted a more independent state government system, similar to the Articles of Confederation were more or less forced into taking the name "Anti-Federalists." These men had many reasons to oppose the Constitution. They did not feel that a republican form of government could work on a national scale. They also did not feel that the rights of the individual protected by the new Constitution. Some very outstanding people in United States history considered themselves Anti-Federalists, like Patrick Henry, Thomas Paine, George Mason, George Clinton, and Luther Martin. While the people who supported the Constitution referred to themselves as the “Federalist”. They felt the need for a stronger nation government was necessary. To each side a strong argument was made. Each side wrote numerous letters, speeches, and debates. All of these arguments, letters, and debates were collected and called the “Anti-Federalist” and “Federalist” papers. But the problem was not with the states that ratified quickly, but with the key states in which ratification was not as certain. Massachusetts, New York, and Virginia were key states, both in terms of population and stature. Finally, after months of argument and debate. Massachusetts was assured that there would be a Bill of Rights, securing individual rights. After the Bill of Rights was added, Maryland, South Carolina, and New Hampshire all casted The deciding vote to reach the required nine states. Producing what we now know as the Constitution and the famous Bill of Rights.