Strengths And Weaknesses Of The Articles Of Confederation

In the late 1780s, prominent political leaders in the United States came to realize that the government created under the Articles of Confederation was ineffective and impractical and could not serve a nation in managing relationships among states nor handle foreign nations. The fear of creating a government that was too powerful was the basis for foundation of the Articles of Confederation. It created a weak national government that allowed for most of the power to be under the control of the state legislatures. Under the Articles, Congress had no means to prevent war or security against foreign invasion. The federal government could not check the quarrels between states or regulate interstate trade, collect taxes, enforce laws. These weaknesses

With the exception of those from New Jersey and Virginia, the delegates intended to revise the
Articles. One of 55 delegates, William Paterson and his colleagues Roger Sherman,
Ellsworth, and Dickinson offered a list of suggestions for revising the Articles of
Confederation in his New Jersey Plan. Paterson was a delegate from New Jersey who favored the weak national government that the Articles created. Patterson asserted the rights of the small states against the large states and wished to expand upon the Articles making a more practical and efficient government. The New Jersey Plan suggested the
Congress maintain its unicameral house system, with states equally represented. They proposed that the Congress would have the power to regulate interstate trade and could have closely limited power to tax. It also called for a “federal Executive” with persons appointed by Congress who could be removed on the request of a majority of the state governors. The New Jersey plan also allowed for a “federal Judiciary” with a single
“supreme tribunal” appointed by an executive. The New Jersey plan offered a series of solutions to the growing concern that the government was too weak under the

The delegates to the Constitutional Convention disputed over the two proposals. After three days of deliberations, the New Jersey Plan was rejected due to the overwhelming demand to create an effective national government. Despite the advantages of both plans, neither posed a solution to the fears of all the delegates consequently the Virginia Plan was also discarded. What they created instead was a bundle of compromises. The new
Delegates compromised to secure the integrity of the smaller states and relinquish the fears of those who believed the central government was too powerful.
If I had been a delegate to the Philadelphia Convention, I would have opposed the idea of a plural executive and favored that of a singular executive. I would support the to have With an appropriate number of advisors, the American people could be assured that an Executive leader could be relied on make quality decisions to ensure the success of the nation. In addition, a single executive is more likely to be responsible for the decisions made and in effect be more prudent in the process. It seems that an executive