How Did The Articles Of Confederation Flawed Form Of Government

THE CONSTITUTION: A NECESSITY AND AN IMPROVEMENT

Jaideep Singh
History 7: Research Paper 2
October 25, 2017

THE CONSTITUTION Americans, as a whole, like to pride over our government. The United States possesses one of the most complex and efficient form of government in the world. However, it was not always like that. After the American Revolution, the Continental Congress adopted the Articles of Confederation as the binding laws of the United States. The Articles promoted a confederate type of government, and on a closer inspection, seemed to be an overcorrection on how the colonies were governed by the British. In the coming years, the Articles would prove to be a terrible form of government with several flaws. As

for the United States. The Articles of Constitution were a form of government established shortly after the American Revolution and provided a flawed and weak structure of government for the United States. As described by Brackemyre, “The Articles of Confederation were first proposed at the Second Continental Congress in 1777 in Philadelphia. They were fully ratified and put into effect in 1781. The reign of the Articles of Confederation was brief.” The colonists at the time were angry at the British and their form of government that gave the central structure significant power. As the Articles called for a confederacy, it was an immensely favorable idea to the colonists as it would provide them with strong local, state governments and not another strong national government. Thus, the Articles were, in short, an overcorrection on how the British had formerly

As the Article 4 states, “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.” The responsibility of the entire branch of jurisdiction was given to the states and no system of courts existed on the national level. The states could ignore any national law they disagreed with and the Congress could no nothing because it possessed no means of enforcing the law. The Articles also failed to appoint a single person as the head of the executive branch, which, consequently, meant that there was no single person that would be suitable to act as the chief diplomat of the nation. This put America at a disadvantage as they had little to no means for conducting any foreign affairs. Brackemyre illustrates another weakness by stating, “According to the Articles of Confederation, Congress had the sole power to make peace and war, but did not have the authority to raise an army of its own.” This meant that the Congress had no way of dealing with conflicts that rose to threaten the country. Without a national army, the Congress was dependent on the state troops which could not be amassed for a quick and effective enough response. Under the Articles, the Congress would fail to defend American sovereignty from the various dangers that would threaten