Comparing Constitutions

Why the Articles of Confederation failed

This is part of a series I’m writing analyzing the Constitution of the United States. You can find the start of the series here.

---

The Articles of Confederation, the first American constitution, was sent to the 13 states on November 17, 1777. Two days earlier, after a year of debates, the 2nd Continental Congress approved the document, after a year of debates. When the British captured Philadelphia, at the time the capitol of the new country, Congress saw they needed some sort of governance document.

Forming a war-time confederation of states, the Articles created an extremely limited central government, making official some of the procedures used by the Congress to conduct business.

Many delegates realized at the outset the Articles had limitations and those limitations caused problems that led to our current constitution.

The states didn’t act immediately. It took until February 1779 for 12 states to approve the document. Maryland held out until March 1781, after it settled a land argument with Virginia.

The central government was designed to be extremely weak. This was a feature, not a bug. The Articles established “the United States of America” as a perpetual union formed to defend the states as a group, but it provided few central powers beyond that.

The government consisted of Congress. It didn’t have an executive official or judicial branch. Congress had one chamber and each state had one vote. This reinforced the power of the states to operate independently from the central government, even when that wasn’t in the nation’s best interests.

Congress needed 9 of 13 states to pass any laws. Requiring this high supermajority made it very difficult to pass any legislation that would affect all 13 states. It also rendered the document largely unamendable. The Articles required unanimous consent to any amendment, so all 13 states would need to agree on a change. Given the rivalries between the states, the Articles became impossible to adapt to changing conditions after the war ended with Britain in 1783.

The central government couldn’t collect taxes to fund its operations. The Confederation relied on the voluntary efforts of the states to send tax money to the central government. Lacking funds, the central government couldn’t maintain an effective military or back its own paper currency.

That doesn’t sound like such a bad thing to a libertarian like me and I daresay, the Framers of the Constitution would have thought twice about letting the camel’s nose under the tent if they’d realized Americans 250 years later would be paying 15-40% taxes on all of their income.

The federal government being unable to back its currency isn’t as bad as it sounds to modern ears. States had their own money systems. There wasn’t a common currency in the Confederation era. The central government and the states each had separate money, which made trade between the states, and other countries, complicated but not impossible. And it prevented Congress from running the printing presses and inflating the currency like they’re doing today.

The downside was the Confederation government couldn’t settle Revolutionary War-era debts. The central government and the states owed huge debts to European countries and investors, not to mention American veterans. Without the power to tax, the United States was in an economic mess by 1787.

The Shays’ rebellion became the final straw. A tax protest by western Massachusetts farmers in 1786 and 1787 showed the central government couldn’t put down an internal rebellion. It had to rely on a state militia sponsored by private Boston business people. With no money, the central government couldn't act to protect the "perpetual union."

It might seem a little strange to us today, but states then were able to conduct their own foreign policies. Technically, that role fell to the central government, but the Confederation government didn’t have the physical ability to enforce that power, since it lacked domestic and international powers and standing.

These events and shortcomings alarmed Founders like George Washington, James Madison and Alexander Hamilton to the point where delegates from five states met at Annapolis, Maryland in September 1786 to discuss changing the Articles of Confederation.

The group included Madison, Hamilton and John Dickinson, and the consensus recommended a meeting of all 13 states be held the following May in Philadelphia. The Confederation Congress agreed. They were supposed to meet to amend the Articles, not write a whole new constitution, so technically the Philadephia Constitutional Convention became a bloodless coup, ending the era of the Articles of Confederation.

A Comparison

A lot of libertarians believe the Articles of Confederation were better than the Constitution. Libertarians don’t like government, so we cheer when we see the Articles created a significantly weaker, more decentralized government prioritizing state sovereignty and aligning with libertarian ideals of limited government and individual liberty.

Small, limited, local government is far better for individual liberty.

The Constitution established a more powerful federal government with increased taxation and aggressive regulatory authority, moving us closer toward an oppressive central power. It took 200 years, but we’ve arrived where the Constitution has allowed us to arrive.

The Articles placed sovereignty in the states, with the central government having only limited, enumerated powers. This was seen as a crucial protection of individual liberty against a potentially tyrannical national authority.

The Confederation Congress had no power to tax individuals or regulate commerce directly, relying instead on requests to the states for funds. This structure limited the potential for federal overreach and coercion.

Libertarians believe all relationships should be voluntary. Under the Articles, the national government's authority was based on voluntary cooperation among the states. This contrasted with the Constitution's reliance on the federal government's compulsive power to enforce laws and collect taxes.

The Constitution created a much stronger federal government with the ability to tax, regulate commerce, and raise a national army.

For libertarians, the increased power of the federal government under the Constitution posed a threat to individual liberties and state autonomy. And it still does pose a threat. It was that very grant of power that has caused the federal government to grow out of our control.

Coup D’etat

It used to bother me when some libertarians described the shift from the Articles to the Constitution as a "coup d'état by big government Federalists" against the more preferable, limited government of the Articles.

But that is really what it was and it has caused a steady stream of authority to move from the states to the federal government, resulting in a loss of individual freedom.

While the Articles' weaknesses led to its replacement, libertarians focus on its core principle of state sovereignty and a weak central government as a model that best protects individual liberty. Look around you today. Has the Constitution maintained individual liberty? I would argue that we’re on the precipace of losing freedom of individual thought and action.