How about the U.S constitution, what factors were held to point out? What went on with the Articles of Confederation? Both classes had disagreements with the Articles of Confederation. Federalists say that the articles were weak and ineffective because the state governments was too weak to apply laws and ordered for a national government instead. We Anti-federalists however believed that the Articles of Confederation was a good plan and that there should not be a government more powerful than the state governments.
They were far from perfect leaving many people unhappy with them. To resolve the issues brought about by the Articles the Constitution was produced to mend the flaws of its antecedent. Many people felt the changes brought to the government by the Constitution proved to be an extremely radical departure from the old government that had been established by the Articles and proved too weak for the new country.
Since the government could not set up a national currency, and states were allowed to make their own, this caused trade between states to be very difficult. In Joseph Jones letter to George Washington (DOC C), he wrote how war veterans felt mistreated when they were not paid and the pay that was earned did not have much value. Jones wrote “One ground of discontent in the army is the delay in complying with their requests.” By never giving congress the power to establish a set currency for the nation, money traded between each state had
The validity of the Articles of Confederation Tom Masters 11/5/11 DBQ From 1781 to 1789, the Articles of Confederation was set up as a weak federal government, that gave power to the states, but had its weaknesses. Among its many weaknesses was the single branch government, and the inability of Congress to tax the states. The Articles did solve the land boundaries in north west by creating the ordinances. During the 1780's, the United States witnessed several individual states trying to expand their borders. According to a map of western lands ceded by the states, each state claimed new lands on their own.
As a result, no counterbalance of executive or judicial power existed at the national level, and the Articles of Confederation, drafted with the intent of limiting the power of central government, created one without adequate power to govern effectively. Though the government did have certain powers, such as declaring war, entering into treaties, and obtaining and controlling the development of western territories, its weaknesses outweighed its strengths. The most notable shortcomings of the federal government during this period were its inefficient decision-making process and its inability to regulate trade or levy taxes. The Articles of Confederation began the trend of discordant colonies hampering forward movement in government with the ratification process itself. Requiring unanimous acceptance, ratification could be foiled by one state’s refusal.
In a way we could see the Articles of Confederation as a stepping stone to something greater, the United States Constitution. The United States Constitution addressed many of the issues the Articles did not such as regulating currency, collecting taxes, controlling trade, effective voting laws, and a strong executive branch. The failures of the Articles of Confederation led to the Constitution which eventually led to the ultimate success of our nation. The Articles of Confederation was not designed to be the perfect document to lead a nation. Despite its imperfections, the Articles were able to provide the Colonies ability to conduct diplomacy and a sense of colonial unity.
How successful was Edward VI in restoring royal authority in the period to 1470? Edward IV enjoyed successes and also failures in restoring royal authority in the period to 1470. Edward had some successes in dealing with over mighty subjects, for example, his marriage to Elisabeth Woodville shows that he was not controlled by an over powering Warwick. This was important as it showed both Warwick and the rest of the country that he was not controlled by Warwick and could make his own decisions. Another way that Edward IV proved that he was not a ‘puppet king’ as Henry VI was seen as was by removing Warwick’s brother, George Neville, as chancellor.
Therefore, people no longer had to worry about changing the currency when crossing into other states. Another problem with the Articles of Confederation was that it allowed each individual state to have its own militia. This was a problem because each army was small and run by different people, and the states did not have sufficient funds to arm their men adequately. The Constitution corrected this failure by raising and supporting armies, providing and maintaining a navy, and designating the President of the United States as the commander in Chief of the Armed Forces. The Federal Government now has the right to organize, arm, and discipline the militia.
With the foundation of a federal government, that government can regulate and maintain both domestic and international trade without individual state interference, therefore making the United States one of the most important trading countries in the western world. This is only one possible explanation, another might be that they honestly did purely want to build a government for the people of the United States and by the people, which is supported by Paul Johnson’s writings. Other debates between intentions lie behind the injection of United States into the Vietnam conflict. Some historians say that the reason for our entrance into the conflict was to protect democracy and stop the spread of communism. Others say that the U.S. involvement wasn’t to protect democracy but to protect our economic interests in the nearby South Pacific and Middle East.
When written, the United States Constitution did not provide for the development of a two-party system. Yet we, as the rebellious Americans that we are, managed to find a way around the Constitution. The two parties that emerged during the 1790s were the Federalists and the Democratic-Republicans. The Federalists, so aptly named, favored a strong centralized government as outlined in the Constitution. The Democratic-Republicans sought to limit federal control and preferred local power as the dominant force.