In three pages this paper examines why the Articles of Confederation ultimately failed. One source is cited in the bibliography.
Name of Research Paper File: D0_GSArtcon.rtf
Unformatted Sample Text from the Research Paper:
(The Failure of the Articles of Confederation, 2003). Basically, the Articles of Confederation were very state-centered and gave little power to the federal government (The Failure of the Articles
of Confederation, 2003). The Articles basically served to establish a loose union of states and in terms of the federal government they created a weak national congress that consisted
of one representative from each state. The result was a federal government that was so weak that representatives often didnt even show up for the meetings (The Failure of
the Articles of Confederation, 2003). Clearly then, the Articles of Confederation were a failure, because they didnt allow the national government
to have the power necessary to run this country effectively (The Failure of the Articles of Confederation, 2003). As a result, many very influential men of that era got
together and formed what was known as the Second Continental Congress, and they used he theories of John Locke to abolish the Articles of Confederation and create another social contract,
which is the Constitution which is still in effect today (The Failure of the Articles of Confederation, 2003). Specifically, the
problems with The Articles of Confederation were that they caused public disorder within the states, inadequate defense, and a problematic economic system (The Failure of the Articles of Confederation, 2003).
In terms of the public disorder, this was a reality from even before the Articles of Confederation went into effect (The Failure of the Articles of Confederation, 2003).
Its important to understand that it took three years for them to ratify, and it was from the moment they were sent to the states to be ratified that the