Did the Articles of Confederation Fail? Probably Not

 The conventional narrative suggests that the Articles of Confederation were a failure, leading to the drafting of the U. S. Constitution. However, this view argues that the Articles functioned as intended, serving the purpose of maintaining a decentralized government. This summary explores key points from the argument that the Articles succeeded in their design despite criticism.

1. Misunderstanding of Failure: Critics claim the Articles could not manage national policies due to a lack of central authority. However, the Articles were intentionally designed to allow states to pursue their own priorities and interests. This decentralization was not a failure but rather an intentional structure.

2. Successes Under the Articles: Despite being labeled weak, the Articles effectively facilitated several important early actions:

• The United States won the War for Independence.

• The favorable treaty boundaries were established.

• The Northwest Ordinance was enacted, creating a system for adding new states and rejecting European-style imperialism.

3. Shays’s Rebellion Argument: Typically cited as a failure of the Articles, Shays’s Rebellion actually highlighted issues of local government corruption, rather than a need for a stronger central government. The rebellion showed that it was local power abuse, not an absence of central authority, that needed addressing.

4. Critique of the Constitutional Delegates: Proponents of a stronger government, such as Madison and Hamilton, manipulated the conventions to promote their objectives for more centralized power. While Madison later supported a more decentralized approach, he was involved in the conventions that favored a stronger federal government, dismissing amendments to the Articles.

5. Flaws in the Constitutional Convention: The convention was meant to revise the Articles, but it resulted in a completely new Constitution that broadened governmental power. The ratification process faced criticism for sidelining state congresses to prevent opposition and mislabeling dissenters as “Anti-Federalists”.

6. Issues with Government Power: Alexander Hamilton, who initially protected the idea of limited government under the Constitution, later advocated for a loose interpretation that expanded federal powers. This has led to questions about whether the Constitution truly limits government authority. Those advocating for decentralization believe true checks on power come from disperse governance.

7. Constitutional Changes Over Time: The current interpretation and application of the Constitution have evolved significantly due to Supreme Court rulings, executive actions, and amendments, particularly the Fourteenth Amendment, indicating that the Constitution has transformed from its original framework.

The argument presented claims the Articles of Confederation worked as intended rather than failing, emphasizing the importance of decentralization and local governance. The challenges faced during this period were often due to local corruption rather than a lack of central authority. The eventual transition to the Constitution reflects a shift toward stronger governmental control, raising ongoing concerns about the balance of power in the United States. 

https://mises.org/mises-wire/did-articles-confederation-fail-probably-not