Talk:Articles of Confederation

Featured on Template:March 1 selected anniversaries (may be in HTML comment)

---

Contents

1 Early talk 2 Military Unrest 3 Constitutional Convention 4 Sinatures and Apology 5 On the term "nation" and the Constitution 6 Suggest 14 possible wiki links and 10 possible backlinks for Articles of Confederation. 7 When did Articles dissolve? 8 Order of Presidents

Early talk

No, John Hanson was not the first President of the United States. See [1] (http://www.snopes.com/history/american/hanson.htm). There was no such office at the time he presided over the congress. -- Someone else 22:05 Dec 9, 2002 (UTC)

John Hanson was also not called "President of the United States in Congress Assembled". He was "President of Congress". We should not encourage the misperception that he was referred to as "President of the United States in Congress Assembled" during his time in office. See [2] (http://lego70.tripod.com/us/contcongress.htm) -- Someone else 00:39 Dec 10, 2002 (UTC)

The Numbers correspond to the article numbers in the original document. The reason that there were some blank numbers is because i am editing the page and will add all the summeries

---

Part 9 "defines the rights of the central government" -- it would seem like this article should list a summary of them. Tempshill 23:31, 17 Nov 2003 (UTC)

---

The military, for instance, was always underpaid; at a time when the nation's borders were still vulnerable, the consequences of this could be disastrous.

I edited this to "...the consequences of this, it was worried, could be disastrous." With the perspective of 220 years, do we know yet if this was indeed disastrous? (this would be an interesting analysis, by the way.) Tempshill 23:31, 17 Nov 2003 (UTC)

Great Britain maintained a series of forts on American land along the Canadian border (the Northwest Posts), in violation of the peace terms, with the intent of creating general disturbance and rallying the Indians against American settlers. The Americans did finally succeed in getting the Posts removed, but IIRC this was not accomplished until the Jay Treaty of 1795. Military campaigns against the tribes of the northern Ohio basin occurred as early as Washington's presidency. The moral basis of land seizure aside, it would have been difficult to keep order in this region with the army in a state of near-collapse. The Spanish likewise held outposts along the Mississippi River, but IIRC these posed less of a concrete threat. (If I had my old textbook notes available, I would be able to offer a considerably better-informed response to all of your queries.) -Smack 08:00, 18 Nov 2003 (UTC)

Military Unrest

Some generals threatened to turn the military against the government if sufficient funds could not be raised.

This nugget of information demands more detail on such a treasonous threat. Did anybody get jailed for this? Was it actually influential on the creation of the Constitution, or just a lone nut? Tempshill 23:31, 17 Nov 2003 (UTC)

It was not a lone nut. I have, unfortunately, forgotten both the name of the scheme and the names of all of the people involved, though I think it was called something like the "Newport Conspiracy." -Smack 08:00, 18 Nov 2003 (UTC)

It was the Newburch Conspiracy whose name you're thinking of, but thats a later event. The trouble mentioned here was rioting troops and veterans in Philadelphia, but I don't think any generals were involved. I'm cecking before update. Lou I 08:13, 25 Jan 2004 (UTC)

Constitutional Convention

After debate, Congress endorsed the plan to revise the Articles of Confederation on February 21, 1787.

Does this mean a revision of the articles of confederation, or was this revision the Constitution? (And, on a copy editing note, did they endorse the plan on this date, or did they endorse the plan to do the revision on this date?) Tempshill 23:31, 17 Nov 2003 (UTC)

The Philadelphia Convention of 1787 certainly had no authority to produce an alternative document to the Articles. I do not know whether the Congress eventually sided with the Federalists or the Antifederalists. (This is purely speculation, but the fact that the Convention acted outside its authority with impunity may be yet another sign of the weakness of the central government at this time.) -Smack 08:00, 18 Nov 2003 (UTC)

The 'plan' was actually a report of the ]. Congress slightly shifted the requested date and wrote a letter to the states endorsing the call for a meeting. Lou I 08:13, 25 Jan 2004 (UTC)

Just my two cents: the "plan" endorsed by the Congress was a major revision of the Articles, to be ratified as such. What emerged was a wholly new Constitution which (technically illegally) superseded the Articles. Since all 13 states did eventually ratify, and if you make the case that the new constitution was a de facto amendment to the Articles, then it turned out legal. But the constitution was to take effect after the ratification of nine states, which means it changed the rules of amendment before it could legally take force under the old rules. Not that any of this matters in the slightest; its just fun.  :-) TimeLord mbw 06:10, 7 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Was this issue (i.e., the improper adoption of a new "Constitution" without either repealing the Articles of Confederation or using its legal amendment process to change it) ever considered by the Supreme Court??

Sinatures and Apology

The version of this page from Jan 14 to Jan 18 was wrong. I added material to the section on thee people who signed the articles that was inaccurate. I found it on the Web and it sounded good, so I paraphrased it and inserted it here. Further research showed me it was just plain wrong. I've emailed the site, and if they fix it, I won't name them. But I haven't yet gotten a reply. In the meantime a adjusted our description to match history. My sincere apology to anyone who was bothered by the changes. Thanks, Lou I 08:13, 25 Jan 2004 (UTC)

I finally got around to fully sorting out the confusion about the signatures by spending some days reading the Journals of the Congress. I hope the article now does a much better job of explaining both the ratification and signing process, as well as WHY there was confusion. Tanks for your patience Lou I 20:05, 29 May 2004 (UTC)

On the term "nation" and the Constitution

I don't want to get into a 'wiki war' here (or whatever the term may be), but I'm not going to accept the interpretation that the Constitution created a single nation. The word nation appears NOWHERE in the Constitution in reference to the United States.

The simple fact is that when the Constitution was written, the terms "state" and "nation" were nearly coterminous. There is absolutely nothing in the Constitution that expresses or implies that a nation was being created. The term union is accurate, nation is not. That's why it reads "to form a more perfect union," not "to form a nation."

I'm compromising by not explicitly mentioning the fact that the states were originally, and LEGALLY are still today, INDEPENDENT SOVEREIGN nations. I'm compromising by just removing the offending passages.

I'll disagree with this. First of all, your argument that the absence of the word 'nation' in the Preamble means that the Constitution was not intended to establish one has no weight. First of all, the original meaning of the word 'nation', and AFAIK the one current at the end of the 18th century, was a culturally cohesive group of people, not a political unit. Second, it seems reasonable to me that the authors of the document would hesitate to peg down in a single word the sort of "more perfect Union" they were creating, leaving that interpretation instead to the reader. I could go on about this, but I don't want to further belabor this peripheral point.

As for your point itself, the states are not entirely independent, and hardly sovereign. Article VI says clearly that the Constitution itself, as well as all federal laws, are "the supreme Law of the Land", thus undermining the sovereignty of the states that existed under the Articles. Long before the creeping expansion of the powers of the federal government during the 20th century, a series of decisions of the Marshall Court put a stop to any insistence on state sovereignty. --Smack 00:01, 1 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Suggest 14 possible wiki links and 10 possible backlinks for Articles of Confederation.

An automated Wikipedia link suggester has some possible wiki link suggestions for the Articles_of_Confederation article:

• Can link state legislatures: ...o and seven members. Members of Congress were appointed by state legislatures; individuals could not serve more than three out of any six... (link to section)
• Can link national government: ... the colonists were reluctant to establish another powerful national government. Jealously guarding their new independence, the Continental... (link to section) — links to an article on coalition governments. Mateo SA | talk 06:23, Jan 16, 2005 (UTC)
• Can link new independence: ...ther powerful national government. Jealously guarding their new independence, the Continental Congress created a loosely structured unic... (link to section) — links to New Independence Township, Minnesota (not what this sentence is talking about). Mateo SA 18:33, Dec 1, 2004 (UTC)
• Can link unicameral legislature: ...ence, the Continental Congress created a loosely structured unicameral legislature that protected the liberty of the individual states at the ... (link to section)
• Can link Great Britain: ...== The [[Treaty of Paris (1783)]], ending hostilities with Great Britain, languished in Congress for months because state representa... (link to section)
• Can link instrument of government: ...fied front when dealing with the European powers. But as an instrument of government, they were largely a failure. Congress could make decisions... (link to section) — about the Instrument of Government, a British constitution. Mateo SA | talk 06:23, Jan 16, 2005 (UTC)
• Can link national congress: ...onfederation chronically short of funds. The states and the national congress had both incurred debts during the war, and paying congress... (link to section)<del> — not relevant; links to modern-day institutions called "National Congress." Mateo SA 18:33, Dec 1, 2004 (UTC)
• Can link land survey: ...act. The [[Land Ordinance of 1785]] established the general land survey and ownership provisions used throughout later American exp... (link to section)
• Can link western land claims: ...787]] noted the agreement of the original states to give up western land claims and cleared the way for the entry of new states.... (link to section)
• Can link federal government: ... convene in [[Philadelphia]] to discuss improvements to the federal government. After debate, Congress endorsed the plan to revise the Art... (link to section)
• Can link self-governance: ...ng under this initial document provided valuable lessons in self-governance and somewhat tempered fears about a powerful central govern... (link to section)
• Can link National Archives: ...4]]. ==Signatories== The copy of the Articles in the U.S. National Archives has a series of signatures on page six. A list of them is p... (link to section)
• <del>Can link York, Pennsylvania: ...ew Hampshire, Massachusetts, Rhode Island, Connecticut, New York, Pennsylvania, Virginia, and South Carolina signed the articles to indica... (link to section) — This one is obvious (and a bit funny). Mateo SA 18:33, Dec 1, 2004 (UTC)
• Can link John Wentworth: ...gates signed at the next meeting they attended. For example John Wentworth of New Hampshire added his name on August 8th. John Penn wa... (link to section)

Additionally, there are some other articles which may be able to linked to this one (also known as "backlinks"):

• In Albany Congress, can backlink Articles of Confederation: ...ected, some features of this plan were later adopted in the Articles of Confederation and the Constitution....
• In Terry Jordan, can backlink Articles of Confederation: ... surprising and intriguing facts about the US Constitution, Articles of Confederation, The Supreme Court, Founding Fathers, and even America's Fi...
• In Founding Fathers of the United States, can backlink Articles of Confederation: ... Morris]], and Sherman) had affixed their signatures to the Articles of Confederation. But only two, Sherman and Robert Morris, underwrote all th...
• In Nicholas Gilman, can backlink Articles of Confederation: ...86 further strengthened Gilman's commitment to changing the Articles of Confederation. He was pleased to serve his state as a representative at ...
• In Gunning Bedford, Jr., can backlink Articles of Confederation: ...ith the political and economic problems associated with the Articles of Confederation, a concern that led the Annapolis delegates to call for wha...
• In Daniel Carroll, can backlink Articles of Confederation: ...ntinental Congress (1781-84), where, in 1781, he signed the Articles of Confederation. His involvement in the Revolution, like that of other Patr...
• In Daniel of St. Thomas Jenifer, can backlink Articles of Confederation: ...nomic and political problems that had arisen under the weak Articles of Confederation. Consequently, he attended the Mount Vernon Conference, a m...
• In Preamble to the United States Constitution, can backlink Articles of Confederation: ...he United States." This clause was added because under the Articles of Confederation, the national government could only "bill" the states for t...
• In Benedict Arnold's letter To the Inhabitants of America, can backlink articles of confederation: ...o this very hour have they authorized its ratification. The articles of confederation remain still unsigned....
• In United States v. Printz, can backlink Articles of Confederation: ...LEdHR11A] [11A]LEdHR(11A)The Framers' experience under the Articles of Confederation had persuaded them that using the States as the instruments... — A source article that should be moved to Wikisource. Mateo SA 18:33, Dec 1, 2004 (UTC)

Notes: The article text has not been changed in any way; Some of these suggestions may be wrong, some may be right.
Feedback: I like it, I hate it, Please don't link to — LinkBot 11:32, 1 Dec 2004 (UTC)

When did Articles dissolve?

Since the Articles were in name & resolution, perpetual, were they not in effect until all 13 states adopted the new Constitution? So for a while perhaps both documents were in effect. Didn't amendment require more than 9 votes? Anyway, can it be clearly said it expired when 9 states ratified the Constitution?--JimWae 21:39, 2005 Jan 15 (UTC)

Yes, because every state in the Union approved the new process for ratifying the Constitution, though they didn't all approve the Constitution itself right away. WikiAce 17:28, 28 May 2005 (UTC)

Order of Presidents

I reverted an edit that placed Hanson first. After the Articles were aproved, the list is now in the order in which these men sat in the chair. Lou I 11:39, 3 Jun 2005 (UTC)