Strengths of the Articles of Confederation
Overlooked Strengths of the Articles After the United States had declared independence from the most powerful nation on earth, they now had the task to put into place a government that could defend the freedom they had just won. The
Articles of Confederation were the first attempt at political order for the New World. Although many believe that the Articles were a failure, I take the standpoint that some(not all) of the weaknesses could be turned around to strengths depending on the situation. For example, one of the “weaknesses” in the Articles was that there was not a strong enough central government. The belief system is that without a strong central government, the states would become too independent. Some would be stronger than others and there would eventually be no manner of equality or uniformity within the states. Although in my opinion, not all states are created equal. Some have greater resources than others. Some have a greater population than others. Some have a greater labor force; others have a more stable economy. So why shouldn’t the more powerful states lead the country? Another “weakness” of the Articles that I feel could be strength is that the federal government could not change or amend the constitution unless a unanimous vote was cast by the majority of the states.
To pass a law, 9 out of 13 states had to vote for it, which makes it hard for the federal government to pass or amend any laws. I feel this would actually be a good thing in today’s society because our current government as it stands today has WAY too much power. Our current government changes laws at a moment’s whim to suit whatever agenda they have without the consent of the congress or the people.
The decision to attack Iraq is a perfect example of this (1). If our current government had to get the approval of the majority of our current states it would put controls on how they chose to abuse their
power.
Articles of Confederation were the first attempt at political order for the New World. Although many believe that the Articles were a failure, I take the standpoint that some(not all) of the weaknesses could be turned around to strengths depending on the situation. For example, one of the “weaknesses” in the Articles was that there was not a strong enough central government. The belief system is that without a strong central government, the states would become too independent. Some would be stronger than others and there would eventually be no manner of equality or uniformity within the states. Although in my opinion, not all states are created equal. Some have greater resources than others. Some have a greater population than others. Some have a greater labor force; others have a more stable economy. So why shouldn’t the more powerful states lead the country? Another “weakness” of the Articles that I feel could be strength is that the federal government could not change or amend the constitution unless a unanimous vote was cast by the majority of the states.
To pass a law, 9 out of 13 states had to vote for it, which makes it hard for the federal government to pass or amend any laws. I feel this would actually be a good thing in today’s society because our current government as it stands today has WAY too much power. Our current government changes laws at a moment’s whim to suit whatever agenda they have without the consent of the congress or the people.
The decision to attack Iraq is a perfect example of this (1). If our current government had to get the approval of the majority of our current states it would put controls on how they chose to abuse their
power.