articles of confederation thesis

The Articles of Confederation — America’s First Constitution

March 1, 1781–1789

The Articles of Confederation was America's first constitution. It was in effect from March 1, 1781, to March 4, 1789, when it was replaced by the United States Constitution.

John Dickinson, a delegate from Delaware, was the principal author of the draft of the Articles of Confederation. Image Source: New York Public Library Digital Collections .

Articles of Confederation Summary

As the delegates to the Second Continental Congress were drafting the Declaration of Independence , they were also developing a plan for unifying the 13 Colonies to defeat Great Britain. In the summer of 1776, a committee composed of one delegate from each colony drafted the Articles of Confederation — America’s first constitution. Although the document created a weak central government compared to the federal government established by the current Constitution, the Articles successfully created a “firm league of friendship” that guided the new nation through its early years.

Articles of Confederation Dates

• On June 11, 1776, the Second Continental Congress appointed a committee, composed of one representative from each colony, to draft a document forming a confederation of the 13 colonies.
• The Articles of Confederation were adopted by Congress on November 15, 1777.
• The Articles went into effect when they were ratified by the 13th and final state (Maryland) on March 1, 1781.
• In May 1787, following events such as Shays’ Rebellion, a convention was held in Philadelphia to revise the Articles. However, the convention resulted in the United States Constitution.
• The Articles were replaced by the Constitution on March 4, 1789.

Facts About the Articles of Confederation

• John Dickinson, a delegate from Delaware, was the principal writer of the draft document.
• As adopted, the articles contained a preamble and 13 articles.
• The Articles established a Confederation Congress with each state having one vote.
• Measures passed by Congress had to be approved by 9 of the 13 states.
• It did not establish federal executive or judicial branches of government.
• Each state retained “every Power…which is not by this confederation expressly delegated to the United States.”
• Provided Congress with the powers to conduct foreign affairs, declare war or peace, maintain an army and navy, print money, resolve disputes between states, and a variety of other lesser functions.
• Denied Congress the power to collect taxes, regulate interstate commerce, and enforce laws.
• All 13 states had to agree to any amendment of the federal government’s power.

Articles of Confederation — A Brief History of America’s First Constitution

The Articles of Confederation outlined the functions of the first national government of the United States, after gaining independence from Great Britain. The Articles created a limited central government that, to a certain extent, restricted individual states from conducting their own foreign diplomacy.

Albany Plan of Union

Just before the outbreak of the French and Indian War, the Albany Plan of Union was developed It was the first attempt to unite the colonies from New England to South Carolina. However, the plan was rejected for various reasons, including concerns the individual colonies had about granting authority to a central colonial government. 

However, as the American Revolution progressed and became the American Revolutionary War, many leaders recognized the benefits of a centralized government to coordinate the war effort. 

New York’s Plan of Unification

In June 1775, the First New York Provincial Congress submitted a proposal for a united government to the Continental Congress. Like the Albany Plan, New York’s “Plan of Accommodation between Great Britain and America” acknowledged the authority of the British Crown, which was unpopular with the faction of Congress that leaned toward independence. 

Benjamin Franklin’s Articles of Confederation

Outside of the proceedings of Congress, some delegates explored the idea of a permanent union between the colonies, other than the temporary Continental Congress. 

Benjamin Franklin drafted a plan titled “Articles of Confederation and Perpetual Union.” Although key delegates such as Thomas Jefferson endorsed Franklin’s proposal, it faced opposition. Franklin introduced his plan to Congress on July 21, emphasizing it should be considered a draft, which should be revised at a later date. The delegates agreed and decided to set the plan aside at that time.

Congress Agrees on Independence

Ultimately, Congress adopted Virginia’s “Resolution for Independence,” which was introduced by Richard Henry Lee on June 7, 1775. Also known as the “Lee Resolution,” it proposed three important initiatives:

• Called for Congress to declare independence.
• Form foreign alliances.
• Prepare a plan to unite the colonies.

The Committee of Thirteen

On June 11, Congress set up three committees — one for each of the initiatives. The committee assigned to “prepare a plan to unite the colonies” is known as the “Committee of Thirteen.” It included one delegate from each state:

• John Dickinson, Pennsylvania, Chairman
• Samuel Adams, Massachusetts
• Josiah Bartlett, New Hampshire
• Button Gwinnett, Georgia
• Joseph Hewes, North Carolina
• Stephen Hopkins, Rhode Island
• Robert R. Livingston, New York
• Thomas McKean, Delaware
• Thomas Nelson, Virginia
• Edward Rutledge, South Carolina
• Roger Sherman, Connecticut
• Thomas Stone, Maryland
• Francis Hopkinson, New Jersey

The Committee Introduces the Articles of Confederation

On July 22, the committee presented its report to Congress. The Articles included. 

• A government consisting solely of a unicameral legislature without an executive or judicial branch.
• It would have limited powers to deal with foreign affairs, defense, and treaty-making.
• The government did not have the authority to levy national taxes or regulate interstate trade. 
• Any laws it created were nonbinding unless states chose to enforce them. 

The Articles were intended to balance the political ideas embraced in the American Revolution, such as “No Taxation Without Representation” and the necessity of conducting the war. However, there were significant issues that needed to be addressed, including:

• Representation. The issue was resolved by giving all states equal status and one vote.
• Appropriation. This was settled by having states contribute money to Congress based on the value of privately owned land. 
• Control of western lands. Some states, like Virginia, claimed large territories that stretched across the frontier, to the west. Others, like Maryland, had no claims and insisted that such territories should be ceded to Congress beforehand. This issue was not resolved until much later.

The issues postponed the final debates on the Articles of Confederation until October 1777.

Congress Agrees to the Articles of Confederation

By October 1777, the situation was urgent, as British forces had captured Philadephia in September, forcing the members of Congress to flee to Lancaster, Pennsylvania, and then to York, Pennsylvania. On November 15, 1777, During the sessions in York, the delegates finally agreed to a framework for the Articles of Confederation. 

Congress forwarded the Articles to the states for ratification in late November. While most delegates recognized the Articles as a flawed compromise, they believed it was preferable to having no formal national government at all.

12 States Ratify the Articles of Confederation

Virginia led the way by ratifying the Articles of Confederation on December 16, 1777. Subsequently, other states followed suit during the early months of 1778. However, when Congress reconvened in June 1778, it was revealed that Maryland, Delaware, and New Jersey had not succeeded in ratifying the Articles. 

The Articles required unanimous approval from all states, and the states that were holding out insisted the others needed to abandon their western land claims before they would ratify the document. 

Ultimately, with the war at a crucial point, the “landed” states — those with western land claims, like Virginia — indicated they would cede the lands. New Jersey and Delaware were satisfied and agreed to the terms of the Articles.

• New Jersey ratified the Articles on November 20, 1778.
• Delaware ratified the Articles on February 1, 1779. 

Maryland’s Path to Ratification

Maryland was not convinced the states would follow through on ceding lands and was the last holdout to ratify the Articles of Confederation.

Maryland’s reluctance was frustrating to the other state governments. Some even passed resolutions in favor of establishing a national government without Maryland. 

However, some politicians, like Congressman Thomas Burke of North Carolina, argued against such a measure. Burke and others insisted that without the unanimous approval of all 13 States, the nation would be vulnerable, divided, and susceptible to foreign interference and manipulation.

In 1780, British forces carried out raids on Maryland towns located along the Chesapeake Bay, alarming state officials. Maryland responded by contacting the French Minister, Anne-César De la Luzerne, and requesting French naval support. Luzerne responded by encouraging Maryland to ratify the Articles of Confederation. 

Virginia’s Governor, Thomas Jefferson , also agreed to cede all western land claims to Congress.

Finally, the Maryland legislature ratified the Articles of Confederation on March 1, 1781. On that date, the Articles of Confederation formally transformed the United States from a collection of 13 loosely connected states into a confederation government

Weaknesses of the Articles of Confederation

Unfortunately, the Articles did not grant Congress the necessary authority to force the states to comply with its decisions, including the provisions in the 1783 Treaty of Paris .

The Treaty of Paris allowed British creditors to sue debtors for pre-Revolutionary debts, a clause many state governments simply ignored. In response, British forces continued to occupy forts in the Great Lakes Region. 

Additional issues that were caused by the weakness of the Articles of Confederation included:

• Without the ability to raise funds, the Confederation Congress was financially limited and dependent on the states for revenue, and the States often failed to provide funds.
• States also disregarded laws meant to standardize interstate commerce. 
• Congress did not have the power to regulate foreign trade, allowing nations like Britain to impose trade restrictions without fear of retaliation. 
• Congress had no way to force states to provide military forces during a time when the military was needed to deal with Indian unrest in the Northwest Territory .

Similar issues, along with the Confederation government’s inadequate response to Shays’ Rebellion in Massachusetts, convinced national leaders of the need to make changes to the Articles of Confederation. This ultimately led to the Philadelphia Convention of 1787 , which drafted the Constitution of the United States.

Accomplishments Under the Articles of Confederation

Despite its limited authority, the Confederation Congress was able to accomplish some important feats that led to the growth and development of the nation.

1783 Treaty of Paris

The 1783 Treaty of Paris was one of a series of treaties, collectively known as the Peace of Paris, or the Treaty of Versailles of 1783, that established peace between Great Britain and the allied nations of France, Spain, and the Netherlands. The Treaty of Paris was negotiated as a separate treaty between Great Britain and the United States, the primary provisions of the Treaty of Paris established the independence of the United States and ended hostilities between the two nations. Other provisions dealt with defining borders, restitution for Loyalist property confiscated by Americans during the war, the return of slaves confiscated by the British, and the removal of British troops from American soil. Congress ratified the treaty on January 14, 1784.

Ordinance of 1784

The Ordinance of 1784 was a bill passed by the Congress of the Confederation that served as an initial blueprint for governing the territory Britain ceded to the United States after the American Revolutionary War.

Land Ordinance of 1785

The Land Ordinance of 1785 was a bill passed by the Congress of the Confederation. It made adjustments to the Ordinance of 1784 and introduced squares. If first divided the land into six-mile-square townships. It also required the land to be surveyed and for some of it to be given to veterans of the Continental Army.

Northwest Ordinance of 1787

The Northwest Ordinance of 1787 , also known as the Ordinance of 1787, set up the rules and guidelines for governing the Northwest Territory, including a bill of rights and prohibition of slavery. It also set up the process for a territory to become a state and join the Union, with equal status to the 13 Original States.

Presidents Under the Articles of Confederation

The following men served as President from 1781 to 1789 under the Articles of Confederation. The position was officially called “President of the United States in Congress Assembled.” 

Contrary to some sources, these men did not hold the office of President of the United States. It was an entirely different office. 

• Samuel Huntington served from March 2, 1781, to July 6, 1781, when he retired.
• Thomas McKean served from July 10, 1781, to October 23, 1781. During his term as President, Congress received the news of the British surrender at Yorktown .
• John Hanson was the first President to serve a full term and served from November 5, 1781, to November 3, 1782. Hanson is sometimes referred to as the first President of the Confederation Congress. However, he is recognized as the third President by the Office of the Historian of the United States House of Representatives.
• Elias Boudinot was President from November 4, 1782, to November 3, 1783. During his term, the British evacuated Charleston in January 1783, and the Treaty of Paris of 1783 was signed in September 1783, which officially ended the American Revolutionary War.
• Thomas Mifflin was President from November 3, 1783, to November 30, 1784. During his term, George Washington resigned from the army. On December 23, 1783, in a ceremony in Annapolis, Maryland, Washington handed his commission and resignation speech to Mifflin.
• Richard Henry Lee served from November 30, 1784, to November 4, 1785.
• John Hancock was appointed President and held the title from November 23, 1785, to June 6, 1786. However, Hancock was ill and he could not perform the duties of the office. His duties were carried out by David Ramsay from November 23, 1785, to May 15, 1786, and then by Nathaniel Gorham from May 15 to June 5, 1786. Ramsay and Gorham were Chairman of the Confederation Congress.
• Nathaniel Gorham served as President from June 6, 1786, to November 2, 1786.
• Arthur St. Clair served as President and served from February 2, 1787, to October 5, 1787.
• Cyrus Griffin was the last President of the Congress Assembled and served from January 22, 1788, to March 2, 1789.

Articles of Confederation Significance

The Articles of Confederation are important to United States history because they served as the first Consitution of the United States. Although the Articles had many weaknesses, the Confederation Congress was able to make some key legislative decisions that helped the nation develop. Ultimately, the lessons learned during the time the nation operated under the Articles helped develop its replacement, the United States Constitution.

Articles of Confederation APUSH, Review, Notes, Study Guide

Use the following links and videos to study the Articles of Confederation, the Confederation Congress, and the Confederation Era for the AP US History Exam. Also, be sure to look at our Guide to the AP US History Exam .

Articles of Confederation Definition APUSH

The Articles of Confederation is defined as the first written constitution of the United States, adopted in 1781. The articles established a weak federal government with limited powers, with most decision-making power reserved for the individual states. The articles were in effect until 1789 when they were replaced by the United States Constitution.

Articles of Confederation Video — Explained for APUSH and AP Gov

This video from Heimler’s History discusses the Articles of Confederation, one of the Foundational Documents for APUSH and AP Gov.

• Written by Randal Rust

Milestone Documents

Articles of Confederation (1777)

Citation: Articles of Confederation; 3/1/1781; Miscellaneous Papers of the Continental Congress, 1774 - 1789; Records of the Continental and Confederation Congresses and the Constitutional Convention, Record Group 360; National Archives Building, Washington, DC.

View All Pages in the National Archives Catalog

View Transcript

The Articles of Confederation were adopted by the Continental Congress on November 15, 1777. This document served as the United States' first constitution. It was in force from March 1, 1781, until 1789 when the present-day Constitution went into effect.

After the Lee Resolution proposed independence for the American colonies, the Second Continental Congress appointed three committees on June 11, 1776. One of the committees was tasked with determining what form the confederation of the colonies should take. This committee was composed of one representative from each colony. John Dickinson, a delegate from Delaware, was the principal writer.

The Dickinson Draft of the Articles of Confederation named the confederation "the United States of America." After considerable debate and revision, the Second Continental Congress adopted the Articles of Confederation on November 15, 1777.

The document seen here is the engrossed and corrected version that was adopted on November 15. It consists of six sheets of parchment stitched together. The last sheet bears the signatures of delegates from all 13 states.

This "first constitution of the United States" established a "league of friendship" for the 13 sovereign and independent states. Each state retained "every Power...which is not by this confederation expressly delegated to the United States. The Articles of Confederation also outlined a Congress with representation not based on population – each state would have one vote in Congress.

Ratification by all 13 states was necessary to set the Confederation into motion. Because of disputes over representation, voting, and the western lands claimed by some states, ratification was delayed. When Maryland ratified it on March 1, 1781, the Congress of the Confederation came into being.

Just a few years after the Revolutionary War, however, James Madison and George Washington were among those who feared their young country was on the brink of collapse. With the states retaining considerable power, the central government had insufficient power to regulate commerce. It could not tax and was generally impotent in setting commercial policy. Nor could it effectively support a war effort. Congress was attempting to function with a depleted treasury; and paper money was flooding the country, creating extraordinary inflation.

The states were on the brink of economic disaster; and the central government had little power to settle quarrels between states. Disputes over territory, war pensions, taxation, and trade threatened to tear the country apart.

In May of 1787, the Constitutional Convention assembled in Philadelphia to revise the Articles of Confederation. They shuttered the windows of the State House (Independence Hall) and swore secrecy so they could speak freely. By mid-June the delegates had decided to completely redesign the government. After three hot, summer months of highly charged debate, the new Constitution was signed, which remains in effect today.

Teach with this document.

Previous Document Next Document

To all to whom these Presents shall come, we, the undersigned Delegates of the States affixed to our Names send greeting. Whereas the Delegates of the United States of America in Congress assembled did on the fifteenth day of November in the year of our Lord One Thousand Seven Hundred and Seventy seven, and in the Second Year of the Independence of America agree to certain articles of Confederation and perpetual Union between the States of Newhampshire, Massachusetts-bay, Rhodeisland and Providence Plantations, Connecticut, New York, New Jersey, Pennsylvania, Delaware, Maryland, Virginia, North Carolina, South Carolina, and Georgia in the Words following, viz. “Articles of Confederation and perpetual Union between the States of Newhampshire, Massachusetts-bay, Rhodeisland and Providence Plantations, Connecticut, New York, New Jersey, Pennsylvania, Delaware, Maryland, Virginia, North Carolina, South Carolina, and Georgia.

Article I. The Stile of this confederacy shall be, “The United States of America.”

Article II. Each state retains its sovereignty, freedom and independence, and every Power, Jurisdiction and right, which is not by this confederation expressly delegated to the United States, in Congress assembled.

Article III. The said states hereby severally enter into a firm league of friendship with each other, for their common defence, the security of their Liberties, and their mutual and general welfare, binding themselves to assist each other, against all force offered to, or attacks made upon them, or any of them, on account of religion, sovereignty, trade, or any other pretence whatever.

Article IV. The better to secure and perpetuate mutual friendship and intercourse among the people of the different states in this union, the free inhabitants of each of these states, paupers, vagabonds and fugitives from Justice excepted, shall be entitled to all privileges and immunities of free citizens in the several states; and the people of each state shall have free ingress and regress to and from any other state, and shall enjoy therein all the privileges of trade and commerce, subject to the same duties, impositions and restrictions as the inhabitants thereof respectively, provided that such restrictions shall not extend so far as to prevent the removal of property imported into any state, to any other State of which the Owner is an inhabitant; provided also that no imposition, duties or restriction shall be laid by any state, on the property of the united states, or either of them.

                       If any Person guilty of, or charged with, treason, felony, or other high misdemeanor in any state, shall flee from Justice, and be found in any of the united states, he shall upon demand of the Governor or executive power of the state from which he fled, be delivered up, and removed to the state having jurisdiction of his offence.

                       Full faith and credit shall be given in each of these states to the records, acts and judicial proceedings of the courts and magistrates of every other state.

Article V. For the more convenient management of the general interests of the united states, delegates shall be annually appointed in such manner as the legislature of each state shall direct, to meet in Congress on the first Monday in November, in every year, with a power reserved to each state to recall its delegates, or any of them, at any time within the year, and to send others in their stead, for the remainder of the Year.

                 No State shall be represented in Congress by less than two, nor by more than seven Members; and no person shall be capable of being delegate for more than three years, in any term of six years; nor shall any person, being a delegate, be capable of holding any office under the united states, for which he, or another for his benefit receives any salary, fees or emolument of any kind.

                 Each State shall maintain its own delegates in a meeting of the states, and while they act as members of the committee of the states.

                 In determining questions in the united states, in Congress assembled, each state shall have one vote.

                 Freedom of speech and debate in Congress shall not be impeached or questioned in any Court, or place out of Congress, and the members of congress shall be protected in their persons from arrests and imprisonments, during the time of their going to and from, and attendance on congress, except for treason, felony, or breach of the peace.

Article VI. No State, without the Consent of the united States, in congress assembled, shall send any embassy to, or receive any embassy from, or enter into any conferrence, agreement, alliance, or treaty, with any King prince or state; nor shall any person holding any office of profit or trust under the united states, or any of them, accept of any present, emolument, office, or title of any kind whatever, from any king, prince, or foreign state; nor shall the united states, in congress assembled, or any of them, grant any title of nobility.

No two or more states shall enter into any treaty, confederation, or alliance whatever between them, without the consent of the united states, in congress assembled, specifying accurately the purposes for which the same is to be entered into, and how long it shall continue.

No State shall lay any imposts or duties, which may interfere with any stipulations in treaties, entered into by the united States in congress assembled, with any king, prince, or State, in pursuance of any treaties already proposed by congress, to the courts of France and Spain.

No vessels of war shall be kept up in time of peace, by any state, except such number only, as shall be deemed necessary by the united states, in congress assembled, for the defence of such state, or its trade; nor shall any body of forces be kept up, by any state, in time of peace, except such number only as, in the judgment of the united states, in congress assembled, shall be deemed requisite to garrison the forts necessary for the defence of such state; but every state shall always keep up a well regulated and disciplined militia, sufficiently armed and accoutred, and shall provide and constantly have ready for use, in public stores, a due number of field pieces and tents, and a proper quantity of arms, ammunition, and camp equipage.

No State shall engage in any war without the consent of the united States in congress assembled, unless such State be actually invaded by enemies, or shall have received certain advice of a resolution being formed by some nation of Indians to invade such State, and the danger is so imminent as not to admit of a delay till the united states in congress assembled, can be consulted: nor shall any state grant commissions to any ships or vessels of war, nor letters of marque or reprisal, except it be after a declaration of war by the united states in congress assembled, and then only against the kingdom or State, and the subjects thereof, against which war has been so declared, and under such regulations as shall be established by the united states in congress assembled, unless such state be infested by pirates, in which case vessels of war may be fitted out for that occasion, and kept so long as the danger shall continue, or until the united states in congress assembled shall determine otherwise.

Article VII. When land forces are raised by any state, for the common defence, all officers of or under the rank of colonel, shall be appointed by the legislature of each state respectively by whom such forces shall be raised, or in such manner as such state shall direct, and all vacancies shall be filled up by the state which first made appointment.

Article VIII. All charges of war, and all other expenses that shall be incurred for the common defence or general welfare, and allowed by the united states in congress assembled, shall be defrayed out of a common treasury, which shall be supplied by the several states, in proportion to the value of all land within each state, granted to or surveyed for any Person, as such land and the buildings  and improvements thereon shall be estimated, according to such mode as the united states, in congress assembled, shall, from time to time, direct and appoint. The taxes for paying that proportion shall be laid and levied by the authority and direction of the legislatures of the several states within the time agreed upon by the united states in congress assembled.

Article IX. The united states, in congress assembled, shall have the sole and exclusive right and power of determining on peace and war, except in the cases mentioned in the sixth article - of sending and receiving ambassadors - entering into treaties and alliances, provided that no treaty of commerce shall be made, whereby the legislative power of the respective states shall be restrained from imposing such imposts and duties on foreigners, as their own people are subjected to, or from prohibiting the exportation or importation of any species of goods or commodities whatsoever -  of establishing rules for deciding, in all cases, what captures on land or water shall be legal, and in what manner prizes taken by land or naval forces in the service of the united States, shall be divided or appropriated - of granting letters of marque and reprisal in times of peace - appointing courts for the trial of piracies and felonies committed on the high seas; and establishing courts; for receiving and determining finally appeals in all cases of captures; provided that no member of congress shall be appointed a judge of any of the said courts.

The united states, in congress assembled, shall also be the last resort on appeal, in all disputes and differences now subsisting, or that hereafter may arise between two or more states concerning boundary, jurisdiction, or any other cause whatever; which authority shall always be exercised in the manner following. Whenever the legislative or executive authority, or lawful agent of any state in controversy with another, shall present a petition to congress, stating the matter in question, and praying for a hearing, notice thereof shall be given, by order of congress, to the legislative or executive authority of the other state in controversy, and a day assigned for the appearance of the parties by their lawful agents, who shall then be directed to appoint, by joint consent, commissioners or judges to constitute a court for hearing and determining the matter in question: but if they cannot agree, congress shall name three persons out of each of the united states, and from the list of such persons each party shall alternately strike out one, the petitioners beginning, until the number shall be reduced to thirteen; and from that number not less than seven, nor more than nine names, as congress shall direct, shall, in the presence of congress, be drawn out by lot, and the persons whose names shall be so drawn, or any five of them, shall be commissioners or judges, to hear and finally determine the controversy, so always as a major part of the judges, who shall hear the cause, shall agree in the determination: and if either party shall neglect to attend at the day appointed, without showing reasons which congress shall judge sufficient, or being present, shall refuse to strike, the congress shall proceed to nominate three persons out of each State, and the secretary of congress shall strike in behalf of such party absent or refusing; and the judgment and sentence of the court, to be appointed in the manner before prescribed, shall be final and conclusive; and if any of the parties shall refuse to submit to the authority of such court, or to appear or defend their claim or cause, the court shall nevertheless proceed to pronounce sentence, or judgment, which shall in like manner be final and decisive; the judgment or sentence and other proceedings being in either case transmitted to congress, and lodged among the acts of congress, for the security of the parties concerned: provided that every commissioner, before he sits in judgment, shall take an oath to be administered by one of the judges of the supreme or superior court of the State where the cause shall be tried, “well and truly to hear and determine the matter in question, according to the best of his judgment, without favour, affection, or hope of reward: “provided, also, that no State shall be deprived of territory for the benefit of the united states.

All controversies concerning the private right of soil claimed under different grants of two or more states, whose jurisdictions as they may respect such lands, and the states which passed such grants are adjusted, the said grants or either of them being at the same time claimed to have originated antecedent to such settlement of jurisdiction, shall, on the petition of either party to the congress of the united states, be finally determined, as near as may be, in the same manner as is before prescribed for deciding disputes respecting territorial jurisdiction between different states.

The united states, in congress assembled, shall also have the sole and exclusive right and power of regulating the alloy and value of coin struck by their own authority, or by that of the respective states - fixing the standard of weights and measures throughout the united states - regulating the trade and managing all affairs with the Indians, not members of any of the states; provided that the legislative right of any state, within its own limits, be not infringed or violated - establishing and regulating post-offices from one state to another, throughout all the united states, and exacting such postage on the papers passing through the same, as may be requisite to defray the expenses of the said office - appointing all officers of the land forces in the service of the united States, excepting regimental officers - appointing all the officers of the naval forces, and commissioning all officers whatever in the service of the united states; making rules for the government and regulation of the said land and naval forces, and directing their operations.

The united States, in congress assembled, shall have authority to appoint a committee, to sit in the recess of congress, to be denominated, “A Committee of the States,” and to consist of one delegate from each State; and to appoint such other committees and civil officers as may be necessary for managing the general affairs of the united states under their direction - to appoint one of their number to preside; provided that no person be allowed to serve in the office of president more than one year in any term of three years; to ascertain the necessary sums of money to be raised for the service of the united states, and to appropriate and apply the same for defraying the public expenses; to borrow money or emit bills on the credit of the united states, transmitting every half year to the respective states an account of the sums of money so borrowed or emitted, - to build and equip a navy - to agree upon the number of land forces, and to make requisitions from each state for its quota, in proportion to the number of white inhabitants in such state, which requisition shall be binding; and thereupon the legislature of each state shall appoint the regimental officers, raise the men, and clothe, arm, and equip them, in a soldier-like manner, at the expense of the united states; and the officers and men so clothed, armed, and equipped, shall march to the place appointed, and within the time agreed on by the united states, in congress assembled; but if the united states, in congress assembled, shall, on consideration of circumstances, judge proper that any state should not raise men, or should raise a smaller number than its quota, and that any other state should raise a greater number of men than the quota thereof, such extra number shall be raised, officered, clothed, armed, and equipped in the same manner as the quota of such state, unless the legislature of such state shall judge that such extra number cannot be safely spared out of the same, in which case they shall raise, officer, clothe, arm, and equip, as many of such extra number as they judge can be safely spared. And the officers and men so clothed, armed, and equipped, shall march to the place appointed, and within the time agreed on by the united states in congress assembled.

The united states, in congress assembled, shall never engage in a war, nor grant letters of marque and reprisal in time of peace, nor enter into any treaties or alliances, nor coin money, nor regulate the value thereof nor ascertain the sums and expenses necessary for the defence and welfare of the united states, or any of them, nor emit bills, nor borrow money on the credit of the united states, nor appropriate money, nor agree upon the number of vessels of war to be built or purchased, or the number of land or sea forces to be raised, nor appoint a commander in chief of the army or navy, unless nine states assent to the same, nor shall a question on any other point, except for adjourning from day to day, be determined, unless by the votes of a majority of the united states in congress assembled.

The congress of the united states shall have power to adjourn to any time within the year, and to any place within the united states, so that no period of adjournment be for a longer duration than the space of six Months, and shall publish the Journal of their proceedings monthly, except such parts thereof relating to treaties, alliances, or military operations, as in their judgment require secrecy; and the yeas and nays of the delegates of each State, on any question, shall be entered on the Journal, when it is desired by any delegate; and the delegates of a State, or any of them, at his or their request, shall be furnished with a transcript of the said Journal, except such parts as are above excepted, to lay before the legislatures of the several states.

Article X. The committee of the states, or any nine of them, shall be authorized to execute, in the recess of congress, such of the powers of congress as the united states, in congress assembled, by the consent of nine states, shall, from time to time, think expedient to vest them with; provided that no power be delegated to the said committee, for the exercise of which, by the articles of confederation, the voice of nine states, in the congress of the united states assembled, is requisite.

Article XI. Canada acceding to this confederation, and joining in the measures of the united states, shall be admitted into, and entitled to all the advantages of this union: but no other colony shall be admitted into the same, unless such admission be agreed to by nine states.

Article XII. All bills of credit emitted, monies borrowed, and debts contracted by or under the authority of congress, before the assembling of the united states, in pursuance of the present confederation, shall be deemed and considered as a charge against the united States, for payment and satisfaction whereof the said united states and the public faith are hereby solemnly pledged.

Article XIII. Every State shall abide by the determinations of the united states, in congress assembled, on all questions which by this confederation are submitted to them. And the Articles of this confederation shall be inviolably observed by every state, and the union shall be perpetual; nor shall any alteration at any time hereafter be made in any of them, unless such alteration be agreed to in a congress of the united states, and be afterwards con-firmed by the legislatures of every state.

And Whereas it hath pleased the Great Governor of the World to incline the hearts of the legislatures we respectively represent in congress, to approve of, and to authorize us to ratify the said articles of confederation and perpetual union, Know Ye, that we, the undersigned delegates, by virtue of the power and authority to us given for that purpose, do, by these presents, in the name and in behalf of our respective constituents, fully and entirely ratify and confirm each and every of the said articles of confederation and perpetual union, and all and singular the matters and things therein contained. And we do further solemnly plight and engage the faith of our respective constituents, that they shall abide by the determinations of the united states in congress assembled, on all questions, which by the said confederation are submitted to them. And that the articles thereof shall be inviolably observed by the states we respectively represent, and that the union shall be perpetual. In Witness whereof, we have hereunto set our hands, in Congress. Done at Philadelphia, in the State of Pennsylvania, the ninth Day of July, in the Year of our Lord one Thousand seven Hundred and Seventy eight, and in the third year of the Independence of America.

Explore the Constitution

The constitution.

• Read the Full Text

Dive Deeper

Constitution 101 course.

• The Drafting Table
• Supreme Court Cases Library
• Founders' Library
• Constitutional Rights: Origins & Travels

Start your constitutional learning journey

• News & Debate Overview
• Constitution Daily Blog
• America's Town Hall Programs
• Special Projects
• Media Library

America’s Town Hall

Watch videos of recent programs.

• Education Overview

Constitution 101 Curriculum

• Classroom Resources by Topic
• Classroom Resources Library
• Live Online Events
• Professional Learning Opportunities
• Constitution Day Resources

Explore our new 15-unit high school curriculum.

• Explore the Museum
• Plan Your Visit
• Exhibits & Programs
• Field Trips & Group Visits
• Host Your Event
• Buy Tickets

New exhibit

The first amendment, historic document, articles of confederation (1781).

Continental Congress | 1781

When the Constitutional Convention met in 1787, the United States already had a framework of national government—the Articles of Confederation.  The Constitutional Convention itself was—in many ways—a response to the weaknesses of this form of government.  Adopted by the Continental Congress on November 15, 1777, and ratified by the states in 1781, the Articles of Confederation created a weak central government—a “league of friendship”—that largely preserved state power (and independence).  The Articles created a national government centered on the legislative branch, which was comprised of a single house.  There was no separate executive branch or judicial branch.  The delegates in Congress voted by state—with each state receiving one vote, regardless of its population.  The national government did not have the power to tax, to regulate commerce between the states, or to force the states to provide troops or send the government money.  And any proposed amendment to the Articles required unanimous approval from all thirteen states.  As a result, no amendment was ever ratified.  The delegates to the Constitutional Convention eventually framed a new Constitution designed to address many of these flaws.

Selected by

The National Constitution Center

Whereas the Delegates of the United States of America in Congress assembled did on the fifteenth day of November in the year of our Lord One Thousand Seven Hundred and Seventy seven, and in the Second Year of the Independence of America agree to certain articles of Confederation and perpetual Union between the States of Newhampshire, Massachusetts-bay, Rhodeisland and Providence Plantations, Connecticut, New York, New Jersey, Pennsylvania, Delaware, Maryland, Virginia, North Carolina, South Carolina, and Georgia . . . .

Article I.  The Stile of this confederacy shall be, “The United States of America.”

Article II.  Each state retains its sovereignty, freedom and independence, and every Power, Jurisdiction and right, which is not by this confederation expressly delegated to the United States, in Congress assembled.

Article III.  The said states hereby severally enter into a firm league of friendship with each other, for their common defence, the security of their Liberties, and their mutual and general welfare, binding themselves to assist each other, against all force offered to, or attacks made upon them, or any of them, on account of religion, sovereignty, trade, or any other pretence whatever. . . .

Article V.  For the more convenient management of the general interests of the united states, delegates shall be annually appointed in such manner as the legislature of each state shall direct, to meet in Congress on the first Monday in November, in every year, with a power reserved to each state to recall its delegates, or any of them, at any time within the year, and to send others in their stead, for the remainder of the Year.

No State shall be represented in Congress by less than two, nor by more than seven Members; and no person shall be capable of being delegate for more than three years, in any term of six years; nor shall any person, being a delegate, be capable of holding any office under the united states, for which he, or another for his benefit receives any salary, fees or emolument of any kind.

Each State shall maintain its own delegates in a meeting of the states, and while they act as members of the committee of the states.

In determining questions in the united states, in Congress assembled, each state shall have one vote. . . .

Article IX. The united states, in congress assembled, shall have the sole and exclusive right and power of determining on peace and war, . . . - of sending and receiving ambassadors - entering into treaties and alliances, provided that no treaty of commerce shall be made, whereby the legislative power of the respective states shall be restrained from imposing such imposts and duties on foreigners, as their own people are subjected to, or from prohibiting the exportation or importation of any species of goods or commodities whatsoever . . . .

The united states, in congress assembled, shall also have the sole and exclusive right and power of regulating the alloy and value of coin struck by their own authority, or by that of the respective states - fixing the standard of weights and measures throughout the united states - regulating the trade and managing all affairs with the Indians, not members of any of the states; provided that the legislative right of any state, within its own limits, be not infringed or violated - establishing and regulating post-offices from one state to another, throughout all the united states, and exacting such postage on the papers passing through the same, as may be requisite to defray the expenses of the said office - appointing all officers of the land forces in the service of the united States, excepting regimental officers - appointing all the officers of the naval forces, and commissioning all officers whatever in the service of the united states; making rules for the government and regulation of the said land and naval forces, and directing their operations.

The united States, in congress assembled, shall have authority to appoint a committee, to sit in the recess of congress, to be denominated, “A Committee of the States,” and to consist of one delegate from each State; and to appoint such other committees and civil officers as may be necessary for managing the general affairs of the united states under their direction - to appoint one of their number to preside; provided that no person be allowed to serve in the office of president more than one year in any term of three years; to ascertain the necessary sums of money to be raised for the service of the united states, and to appropriate and apply the same for defraying the public expenses; to borrow money or emit bills on the credit of the united states, transmitting every half year to the respective states an account of the sums of money so borrowed or emitted, -  to build and equip a navy - to agree upon the number of land forces, and to make requisitions from each state for its quota, in proportion to the number of white inhabitants in such state . . . .

The united states, in congress assembled, shall never engage in a war, nor grant letters of marque and reprisal in time of peace, nor enter into any treaties or alliances, nor coin money, nor regulate the value thereof nor ascertain the sums and expenses necessary for the defence and welfare of the united states, or any of them, nor emit bills, nor borrow money on the credit of the united states, nor appropriate money, nor agree upon the number of vessels of war to be built or purchased, or the number of land or sea forces to be raised, nor appoint a commander in chief of the army or navy, unless nine states assent to the same, nor shall a question on any other point, except for adjourning from day to day, be determined, unless by the votes of a majority of the united states in congress assembled. . . .

Article XIII. Every State shall abide by the determinations of the united states, in congress assembled, on all questions which by this confederation are submitted to them. And the Articles of this confederation shall be inviolably observed by every state, and the union shall be perpetual; nor shall any alteration at any time hereafter be made in any of them, unless such alteration be agreed to in a congress of the united states, and be afterwards con-firmed by the legislatures of every state.

Explore the full document

Modal title.

Modal body text goes here.

Share with Students

If you're seeing this message, it means we're having trouble loading external resources on our website.

If you're behind a web filter, please make sure that the domains *.kastatic.org and *.kasandbox.org are unblocked.

To log in and use all the features of Khan Academy, please enable JavaScript in your browser.

US government and civics

Course: us government and civics   >   unit 1.

• The Articles of Confederation and Shays' Rebellion
• What was the Articles of Confederation?
• Challenges of the Articles of Confederation
• The Articles of Confederation

Challenges of the Articles of Confederation: lesson overview

Problems of the articles of confederation, key takeaways from this lesson, review questions, want to join the conversation.

• Upvote Button navigates to signup page
• Downvote Button navigates to signup page
• Flag Button navigates to signup page

404 Not found

Articles of Confederation

• November 15, 1777

Introduction

The Second Continental Congress not only issued a directive to the colonial legislatures to create new state constitutions; they also initiated the adoption of the first governmental system for the United States. On May 15, 1776, the Second Continental Congress, meeting in Independence Hall, Philadelphia, issued a “Resolve” to the thirteen colonies. And the Second Continental Congress created the first continental system of governance: the Articles of Confederation. The Articles created an “assemblage” of pre-existing states, as opposed to a government over, of, and by individuals. The states received equal representation in the confederation regardless of the size of population. The Articles created a single Congress exercising legislative, executive, and judicial powers, and the powers of this Continental Congress were limited to those expressly enumerated in the Articles. To act, Congress required a super majority of the thirteen states. Only amendments could endow the confederation with powers not expressly granted, and amendments required the approval of all thirteen state legislatures. Because of territorial disputes between two states, the Articles did not come into operation until March 1781.

Representatives Samuel Adams of Massachusetts, John Dickinson of Delaware, Richard Henry Lee of Virginia, and Roger Sherman of Connecticut helped draft the Articles of Confederation. Signers of the Articles included Daniel Carroll of Maryland, John Dickinson, Gouverneur Morris and Robert Morris, both of Pennsylvania, and Roger Sherman, all of whom would later sign the Constitution.

Source: Charles Tansill, ed., Documents Illustrative of the Formation of the Union of the United States (Washington, DC: Government Printing Office, 1927), 27-37. The Roman numerals identifying each of the thirteen articles are in the original.

Articles of Confederation and perpetual Union between the states of New Hampshire, Massachusetts-bay, Rhode Island and Providence Plantations, Connecticut, New York, New Jersey, Pennsylvania, Delaware, Maryland, Virginia, North Carolina, South Carolina and Georgia.

Article I. The Stile of this Confederacy shall be “The United States of America”.

Article II. Each state retains its sovereignty, freedom, and independence, and every power, jurisdiction, and right, which is not by this Confederation expressly delegated to the United States, in Congress assembled.

Article III. The said States hereby severally enter into a firm league of friendship with each other, for their common defense, the security of their liberties, and their mutual and general welfare, binding themselves to assist each other, against all force offered to, or attacks made upon them, or any of them, on account of religion, sovereignty, trade, or any other pretense whatever. . . .

Article V. For the most convenient management of the general interests of the United States, delegates shall be annually appointed in such manner as the legislatures of each State shall direct, to meet in Congress on the first Monday in November, in every year, with a power reserved to each State to recall its delegates, or any of them, at any time within the year, and to send others in their stead for the remainder of the year.

No State shall be represented in Congress by less than two, nor more than seven members; and no person shall be capable of being a delegate for more than three years in any term of six years; nor shall any person, being a delegate, be capable of holding any office under the United States, for which he, or another for his benefit, receives any salary, fees or emolument of any kind.

Each State shall maintain its own delegates in a meeting of the States, and while they act as members of the committee of the States.

In determining questions in the United States in Congress assembled, each State shall have one vote. . . .

Article VI. No State, without the consent of the United States in Congress assembled, shall send any embassy to, or receive any embassy from, or enter into any conference, agreement, alliance or treaty with any King, Prince or State; nor shall any person holding any office of profit or trust under the United States, or any of them, accept any present, emolument, office or title of any kind whatever from any King, Prince or foreign State; nor shall the United States in Congress assembled, or any of them, grant any title of nobility.

No two or more States shall enter into any treaty, confederation or alliance whatever between them, without the consent of the United States in Congress assembled, specifying accurately the purposes for which the same is to be entered into, and how long it shall continue. . . .

No vessel of war shall be kept up in time of peace by any State, except such number only, as shall be deemed necessary by the United States in Congress assembled, for the defense of such State, or its trade; nor shall any body of forces be kept up by any State in time of peace, except such number only, as in the judgment of the United States in Congress assembled, shall be deemed requisite to garrison the forts necessary for the defense of such State; but every State shall always keep up a well-regulated and disciplined militia, sufficiently armed and accoutered, [1] and shall provide and constantly have ready for use, in public stores, a due number of field pieces and tents, and a proper quantity of arms, ammunition and camp equipage.

No State shall engage in any war without the consent of the United States in Congress assembled, unless such State be actually invaded by enemies . . . .

Article VIII. All charges of war, and all other expenses that shall be incurred for the common defense or general welfare, and allowed by the United States in Congress assembled, shall be defrayed out of a common treasury, which shall be supplied by the several States in proportion to the value of all land within each State, granted or surveyed for any person, as such land and the buildings and improvements thereon shall be estimated according to such mode as the United States in Congress assembled, shall from time to time direct and appoint.

The taxes for paying that proportion shall be laid and levied by the authority and direction of the legislatures of the several States within the time agreed upon by the United States in Congress assembled.

Article IX. The United States, in Congress assembled, shall have the sole and exclusive right and power of determining on peace and war, except in the cases mentioned in the sixth article—of sending and receiving ambassadors—entering into treaties and alliances . . . .

The United States, in Congress assembled, shall have authority to . . . . ascertain the necessary sums of money to be raised for the service of the United States, and to appropriate and apply the same for defraying the public expenses—to borrow money, or emit bills on the credit of the United States, transmitting every half-year to the respective States an account of the sums of money so borrowed or emitted—to build and equip a navy—to agree upon the number of land forces, and to make requisitions from each State for its quota, in proportion to the number of white inhabitants in such State; which requisition shall be binding, and thereupon the legislature of each State shall appoint the regimental officers, raise the men and cloath, arm and equip them in a solid-like manner, at the expense of the United States . . . .

The United States, in Congress assembled, shall never engage in a war, nor grant letters of marque [2] or reprisal in time of peace, nor enter into any treaties or alliances, nor coin money, nor regulate the value thereof, nor ascertain the sums and expenses necessary for the defense and welfare of the United States, or any of them, nor emit bills, nor borrow money on the credit of the United States, nor appropriate money, nor agree upon the number of vessels of war, to be built or purchased, or the number of land or sea forces to be raised, nor appoint a commander in chief of the army or navy, unless nine States assent to the same: nor shall a question on any other point, except for adjourning from day to day be determined, unless by the votes of the majority of the United States in Congress assembled. . . .

Article XIII. Every State shall abide by the determination of the United States in Congress assembled, on all questions which by this confederation are submitted to them. And the Articles of this Confederation shall be inviolably observed by every State, and the Union shall be perpetual; nor shall any alteration at any time hereafter be made in any of them; unless such alteration be agreed to in a Congress of the United States, and be afterwards confirmed by the legislatures of every State. . . .

• 1. provided with the appropriate attire and equipment
• 2. license to capture the ships of another nation—that is, to commit piracy.

Letter from John Adams to Abigail Adams (1777)

See our list of programs.

Conversation-based seminars for collegial PD, one-day and multi-day seminars, graduate credit seminars (MA degree), online and in-person.

Check out our collection of primary source readers

Our Core Document Collection allows students to read history in the words of those who made it. Available in hard copy and for download.

2.2 The Articles of Confederation

Learning objectives.

By the end of this section, you will be able to:

• Describe the steps taken during and after the American Revolution to create a government
• Identify the main features of the Articles of Confederation
• Describe the crises resulting from key features of the Articles of Confederation

Waging a successful war against Great Britain required that the individual colonies, now sovereign states that often distrusted one another, form a unified nation with a central government capable of directing the country’s defense. Gaining recognition and aid from foreign nations would also be easier if the new United States had a national government able to borrow money and negotiate treaties. Accordingly, the Second Continental Congress called upon its delegates to create a new government strong enough to win the country’s independence but not so powerful that it would deprive people of the very liberties for which they were fighting.

PUTTING A NEW GOVERNMENT IN PLACE

The final draft of the Articles of Confederation , which formed the basis of the new nation’s government, was accepted by Congress in November 1777 and submitted to the states for ratification. It would not become the law of the land until all thirteen states had approved it. Within two years, all except Maryland had done so. Maryland argued that all territory west of the Appalachians, to which some states had laid claim, should instead be held by the national government as public land for the benefit of all the states. When the last of these states, Virginia, relinquished its land claims in early 1781, Maryland approved the Articles. 4 A few months later, the British surrendered.

Americans wished their new government to be a republic , a regime in which the people, not a monarch, held power and elected representatives to govern according to the rule of law. Many, however, feared that a nation as large as the United States could not be ruled effectively as a republic. Many also worried that even a government of representatives elected by the people might become too powerful and overbearing. Thus, a confederation was created—an entity in which independent, self-governing states form a union for the purpose of acting together in areas such as defense. Fearful of replacing one oppressive national government with another, however, the framers of the Articles of Confederation created an alliance of sovereign states held together by a weak central government.

Link to Learning

View the Articles of Confederation at the National Archives. The timeline for drafting and ratifying the Articles of Confederation is available at the Library of Congress.

Following the Declaration of Independence , each of the thirteen states had drafted and ratified a constitution providing for a republican form of government in which political power rested in the hands of the people, although the right to vote was limited to free (White) men, and the property requirements for voting differed among the states. Each state had a governor and an elected legislature. In the new nation, the states remained free to govern their residents as they wished. The central government had authority to act in only a few areas, such as national defense, in which the states were assumed to have a common interest (and would, indeed, have to supply militias). This arrangement was meant to prevent the national government from becoming too powerful or abusing the rights of individual citizens. In the careful balance between power for the national government and liberty for the states, the Articles of Confederation favored the states.

Thus, powers given to the central government were severely limited. The Confederation Congress , formerly the Continental Congress , had the authority to exchange ambassadors and make treaties with foreign governments and Indian tribes, declare war, coin currency and borrow money, and settle disputes between states. Each state legislature appointed delegates to the Congress; these men could be recalled at any time. Regardless of its size or the number of delegates it chose to send, each state would have only one vote. Delegates could serve for no more than three consecutive years, lest a class of elite professional politicians develop. The nation would have no independent chief executive or judiciary. Nine votes were required before the central government could act, and the Articles of Confederation could be changed only by unanimous approval of all thirteen states.

WHAT WENT WRONG WITH THE ARTICLES?

The Articles of Confederation satisfied the desire of those in the new nation who wanted a weak central government with limited power. Ironically, however, their very success led to their undoing. It soon became apparent that, while they protected the sovereignty of the states, the Articles had created a central government too weak to function effectively.

One of the biggest problems was that the national government had no power to impose taxes . To avoid any perception of “taxation without representation,” the Articles of Confederation allowed only state governments to levy taxes. To pay for its expenses, the national government had to request money from the states, which were required to provide funds in proportion to the value of the land within their borders. The states, however, were often negligent in this duty, and the national government was underfunded. Without money, it could not pay debts owed from the Revolution and had trouble conducting foreign affairs. For example, the inability of the U.S. government to raise sufficient funds to compensate colonists who had remained loyal to Great Britain for their property losses during and after the American Revolution was one of the reasons the British refused to evacuate the land west of the Appalachians. The new nation was also unable to protect American ships from attacks by the Barbary pirates. 5 Foreign governments were also, understandably, reluctant to loan money to a nation that might never repay it because it lacked the ability to tax its citizens.

The fiscal problems of the central government meant that the currency it issued, called the Continental, was largely worthless and people were reluctant to use it. Furthermore, while the Articles of Confederation had given the national government the power to coin money, they had not prohibited the states from doing so as well. As a result, numerous state banks issued their own banknotes, which had the same problems as the Continental. People who were unfamiliar with the reputation of the banks that had issued the banknotes often refused to accept them as currency. This reluctance, together with the overwhelming debts of the states, crippled the young nation’s economy.

The country’s economic woes were made worse by the fact that the central government also lacked the power to impose tariffs on foreign imports or regulate interstate commerce. Thus, it was unable to prevent British merchants from flooding the U.S. market with low-priced goods after the Revolution, and American producers suffered from the competition. Compounding the problem, states often imposed tariffs on items produced by other states and otherwise interfered with their neighbors’ trade.

The national government also lacked the power to raise an army or navy. Fears of a standing army in the employ of a tyrannical government had led the writers of the Articles of Confederation to leave defense largely to the states. Although the central government could declare war and agree to peace, it had to depend upon the states to provide soldiers. If state governors chose not to honor the national government’s request, the country would lack an adequate defense. This was quite dangerous at a time when England and Spain still controlled large portions of North America ( Table 2.1 ).

The weaknesses of the Articles of Confederation, already recognized by many, became apparent to all as a result of an uprising of Massachusetts farmers, led by Daniel Shays . Known as Shays’ Rebellion , the incident panicked the governor of Massachusetts, who called upon the national government for assistance. However, with no power to raise an army, the government had no troops at its disposal. After several months, Massachusetts crushed the uprising with the help of local militias and privately funded armies, but wealthy people were frightened by this display of unrest on the part of poor men and by similar incidents taking place in other states. 6 To find a solution and resolve problems related to commerce, members of Congress called for a revision of the Articles of Confederation.

Shays’ Rebellion: Symbol of Disorder and Impetus to Act

In the summer of 1786, farmers in western Massachusetts were heavily in debt, facing imprisonment and the loss of their lands. They owed taxes that had gone unpaid while they were away fighting the British during the Revolution. The Continental Congress had promised to pay them for their service, but the national government did not have sufficient money. Moreover, the farmers were unable to meet the onerous new tax burden Massachusetts imposed in order to pay its own debts from the Revolution.

Led by Daniel Shays ( Figure 2.6 ), the heavily indebted farmers marched to a local courthouse demanding relief. Faced with the refusal of many Massachusetts militiamen to arrest the rebels, with whom they sympathized, Governor James Bowdoin called upon the national government for aid, but none was available. The uprising was finally brought to an end the following year by a privately funded militia after the protestors’ unsuccessful attempt to raid the Springfield Armory.

Were Shays and his followers justified in their attacks on the government of Massachusetts? What rights might they have sought to protect?

As an Amazon Associate we earn from qualifying purchases.

This book may not be used in the training of large language models or otherwise be ingested into large language models or generative AI offerings without OpenStax's permission.

Want to cite, share, or modify this book? This book uses the Creative Commons Attribution License and you must attribute OpenStax.

Access for free at https://openstax.org/books/american-government-3e/pages/1-introduction

• Authors: Glen Krutz, Sylvie Waskiewicz, PhD
• Publisher/website: OpenStax
• Book title: American Government 3e
• Publication date: Jul 28, 2021
• Location: Houston, Texas
• Book URL: https://openstax.org/books/american-government-3e/pages/1-introduction
• Section URL: https://openstax.org/books/american-government-3e/pages/2-2-the-articles-of-confederation

© Jan 5, 2024 OpenStax. Textbook content produced by OpenStax is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution License . The OpenStax name, OpenStax logo, OpenStax book covers, OpenStax CNX name, and OpenStax CNX logo are not subject to the Creative Commons license and may not be reproduced without the prior and express written consent of Rice University.

The Con-Federal Constitution of the United States: A Review of John C. Calhoun and the Confederation Thesis

In contrast to mainstream opinion existing this side of 1865, John C. Calhoun of the antebellum period argued that the Constitution of 1789 did not create a new national political system; rather, it merely founded a different organization of the confederation among the thirteen states, which had originally confederated with one another under the Articles of Confederation. Although this author deems Calhoun’s views on slavery and race to be morally wrong, Calhoun’s profound articulation of constitutional thought is sufficiently important to merit the following detailed analysis of his work in relation to the confederation thesis. [1] Speaking of the states both in the past and during his mid-nineteenth-century present, Calhoun concisely summarizes his view that the United States has remained a confederation: “They, then, are now united, and have been, throughout, simply as confederated States.”” This article will both explicate and evaluate Calhoun’s work and the confederation thesis.

Before proceeding, however, it is important to briefly mention the historical person behind the theory. John Caldwell Calhoun was born to Scotch-Irish parents in 1782. His family settled in the western part of South Carolina. After an excellent undergraduate education at Yale, a legal education in Connecticut, and an early political career as a hawkish nationalist, Calhoun was confronted by the plight of South Carolina (and the other Southern states) under the federal tariff policy. [2] This and his readings of John Taylor of Caroline’s writings helped inspire Calhoun’s advocacy of the constitutional powers of the states. [3] He became a stalwart defender and theorist of states’ rights against the federal government and, in turn, each state’s prerogative to resist usurpations of its “”reserved”” powers. One of his first noted acts in this direction was his assistance in ghostwriting South Carolina’s Exposition and Protest, which further developed the already existing doctrines of interposition and nullification that were articulated via the Virginia and Kentucky Resolutions in 1798. [4] Interestingly, he did this while also serving as vice president under President John Quincy Adams; this, in turn, followed the precedent of Vice President Thomas Jefferson ghostwriting the Kentucky Resolution while serving under John Quincy’s father, President John Adams.

The tariff fight was the beginning of the South’s long struggle against the growing industrial power of the North, ultimately culminating in the Civil War. Through his long career as a senator from South Carolina, Calhoun became the intellectual leader and a prominent spokesman for the Southern states during the “”cold-war-Americana,”” which existed between the North and South before the actual “”hot war”” started in 1861. Calhoun’s magnum opus was a pair of works, “”A Disquisition on Government”” and “”A Discourse on the Constitution and Government of the United States,”” both of which he wrote near the end of his life. These most explicitly and completely developed his political and constitutional theory, which included his articulation of the confederation thesis. [5]

Aside from such sectional issues, the constitutional brilliance and foresight of Calhoun was well on display when he opposed the Mexican-American War because it would set a precedent for presidents goading Congress into supporting their unilateral decisions to order American troops into armed conflict. [6] True to Calhoun’s prediction, Polk’s prompting of armed hostilities between Mexican and American troops (due largely to Polk positioning U.S. troops on disputed soil) became a paradigmatic ruse that presidents have continually used to pressure Congress’s cooperation in approving their unilateral warmaking (e.g., the Civil War, the Gulf of Tankan, the first Iraq War, etc.).

This review-essay on Calhoun and the confederation thesis is divided into three sections. The first will introduce the confederation thesis by laying out how Calhoun and others have interpreted the relationship between the Declaration of Independence, the Articles of Confederation, and the Constitution. The second section will examine how Calhoun and others have construed the text and theory of the Constitution. Finally, the third will briefly weigh historical evidence that both validates and raises questions about the confederation thesis as well as Calhoun’s own work.

The Relation of the Declaration of Independence, Articles of Confederation, Early Treaties, and the Constitution. In order to truly understand the confederation thesis, one must see how this theory interrelates to the Declaration of Independence, Articles of Confederation, early foreign treaties, and the Constitution. According to this view, the states as “”state-peoples”” maintained their independent sovereignty as political societies with and after the ratification of the Constitution.

The definition of sovereignty is crucial for the confederation thesis. Sir William Blackstone asserted that sovereignty is supreme power. Forrest McDonald quotes Blackstone’s famed Commentaries on the Laws of England on this point: “” ‘There is and must be’ “” in every state “” ‘a supreme, irresistible, absolute, uncontrolled authority, in which the jura summi imperii , or the rights of sovereignty, reside.’ “” [7] Furthermore, John Taylor of Caroline further defines sovereignty to mean “”will to enact, and a power to execute.”” [8] The two views are compatible and can be synthesized; sovereignty as a political term implies having the supreme (or ultimate) authority over a people in a definable geographic territory, and it is expressed by having both the “”will to enact”” and the “”power to execute”” positive law for a definable territory. In accordance with these views, Calhoun also adds the following and, hence, applies it directly to the American context:

But how sovereignty itself—the supreme power—can be divided—how the people of the several States can be partly sovereign, and partly not sovereign—partly supreme, and partly not supreme, it is impossible to conceive. Sovereignty is an entire thing—to divide, is to destroy it. [9]

Here Calhoun is articulating an integral element of the confederation thesis: the states retained their sovereignty even after ratifying the Constitution and, hence, due to the indivisible nature of sovereignty, the federal government cannot have a partial share of sovereignty. This view will be further elaborated in the pages that follow.

The Declaration of Independence was the former colonies’ joint proclamation to the world that they were now sovereign states (or state-peoples). The concluding paragraph of the document formally declares the former colonies’ separation from Great Britain:

We, therefore, the Representatives of the united States of America, in General Congress, Assembled, appealing to the Supreme Judge of the world for the rectitude of our intentions do in the Name, and by Authority of the good People of these Colonies, solemnly publish and declare. That these United Colonies, solemnly publish and declare themselves to be Free and Independent States; they have full Power to levy War, conclude Peace, contract Alliances, establish Commerce, and to do all other Acts and Things which Independent States may of right do. [10]

More will be said about this momentarily, but here, following Calhoun, one should observe how the language implies that each of the new “”Free and Independent States”” has the full powers (i.e., “”Power to levy War, conclude Peace, contract Alliances, establish Commerce, and do all other Acts and Things which Independent States may of right do . . .””) of a sovereign State within the international system. [11]

Furthermore, according to Calhoun, the states maintained their “”‘free, independent, and sovereign'”” status as “”‘States'”” throughout the many stages and organizations of their confederation with one another in the past and present (e.g., their revolutionary collaboration, the Articles of the Confederation, and the Constitution):

The retention of the same style, throughout every stage of their existence, affords strong, if not conclusive evidence that the political relation between these States, under their present constitution and government, is substantially the same as under the confederacy and revolutionary government; and what that relation was, we are left no doubt; as they are declared expressly to be “”free, independent, and sovereign States.”” [12]

Although not well developed in Calhoun’s analysis, readers should see the very informal basis of cooperation among the states after they declared independence (which made them new, separate, independent, and sovereign states) and before the enactment of the Articles of Confederation. During this time, the states’ collaboration in Congress and during the war was utterly voluntary and informal, for there was no positive legal agreement (i.e., no legal compact or treaty) among the colonies that made the enactments and resolutions of the First and Second Continental Congress legally binding for the colonies/states. Before the enactment of the Articles of Confederation, Congress was merely an interstate diplomatic body lacking the formal delegated legal authority that it would receive when the states compacted under the Articles. As a result, each of the states could voluntarily participate in and/or ignore actions of Congress without violating legal obligations owed to the other states. Congress merely facilitated voluntary cooperation among them. So, Congress’s enactment of the Declaration of Independence was not an exercise of such formal delegated authority, for Congress did not yet possess this. Thus, Congress’s enactment of the Declaration cannot be viewed as a positive law imposing legal obligations on the states; the Declaration cannot be interpreted as establishing a legal obligation on the states to be in union with one another.

This, then, helps to illuminate the meaning of the phrase “”united States”” in the Declaration. The new states were only united in the sense of an informal and non-legally binding collaboration meant to achieve various common goals such as fighting for and recognizing their sovereign independence. For the reasons stated above, the Declaration cannot be viewed as establishing a legal bond of union. Although the new sovereign states were united to one another, this “”union”” was purely informal and lacking in legal obligations. Each state clearly retained full independence and sovereignty, regardless of its participation in this “”union.”” [13]

Furthermore, there is compelling evidence from the text of the Declaration that this union is a purely voluntary, informal, and non-legal bond among the States. For the sake of clarity, it is helpful to briefly review this material. Forrest McDonald argues for the above thesis as follows:

The third part is the actual declaration proper, in which the precise language is crucial: “”We, therefore, the Representatives of the united States of America . . . do in the Name, and by Authority of the good People of these Colonies, solemnly publish and declare”” themselves to be “”FREE AND INDEPENDENT STATES,”” and as such “”they have full Power to levy War, conclude Peace, contract Alliances, establish Commerce, and to do all other Acts and Things which Independent States may of right do.”” The plural language is used throughout. In addition, in keeping with an eighteenth-century convention, nouns in the document are capitalized, and what the delegates represent are united States—that being not a name, but “”united”” being merely an adjective describing the stance of the states in opposition to Britain. [14]

In addition to noting the obvious “”plural language”” description of the new sovereign “”STATES,”” McDonald emphasizes the Declaration’s great attention to the “”eighteenth-century convention”” of capitalizing nouns, in contrast to the uncapitalized “”united”” in the term “”united States.”” According to McDonald, then, “”united”” is clearly an adjective, and it renders the phrase “”united States”” to merely be “”describing the stance of the states in opposition to Britain . . .””—i.e., they have Britain as a common enemy and are united to fight against her (although this “”union”” has not yet taken the form of a legal treaty). [15]

Victory in this war of independence corroborated the states’ assertion of themselves as independent and sovereign. Most importantly, it resulted in the new states’ main challenger, Great Britain, formerly recognizing their separate, independent, and sovereign status. In the Treaty of Paris (1783), Great Britain recognized the sovereignty of the new states in plural form:

His Britannic Majesty acknowledges the said United States, viz., New Hampshire, Massachusetts Bay, Rhode Island and Providence Plantations, Connecticut, New York, New Jersey, Pennsylvania, Delaware, Maryland, Virginia, North Carolina, South Carolina, and Georgia to be free, sovereign and independent States; that he treats with them as such. [16]

The plural language, again, implied that each of the states was now regarded as “”free, sovereign, and independent””; each was seen as its own separate sovereignty within the international system. Even before the Treaty of Paris with Britain, other sovereign nations had begun referring to the new states in this plural form. Forrest McDonald also elucidates this fact: “”The 1778 Franco-American treaty of alliance also used the plural: ‘The Most Christian King and the United States of North America, to wit: New Hampshire, Massachusetts Bay, Rhode Island.'”” [17] Hence, France recognized each of the states as being independent and sovereign.

Although the Articles of Confederation, which were drafted in 1777 and formally ratified in 1781, instituted a legal compact of “”union”” among sovereign states that previously had no such legal bond, the nature of this union was that of a confederation constituted by international treaty among sovereign states. The states compacted with one another to enter into “”perpetual Union”” (i.e., the legal bond did not expire after a certain time). As Calhoun recognized, however, when entering into this compact with the other states, each state retained its full “”sovereignty, freedom, and independence in every power, jurisdiction, and right.”” [18] Thus, the states did not transfer any portion of their sovereignty to the new union.

The nature of the Articles of Confederation as a compact among sovereign states was further corroborated by its plural language, which is similar to that found in the Declaration of Independence, the Treaty of Paris, and the Franco-American Treaty. As McDonald observes, this can be seen in the following passage from the Articles stating how the “”Delegates of the United States”” agreed to “”Articles of Confederation and perpetual Union between the States of New Hampshire, Massachusetts-bay, Rhode Island and Providence Plantations, Connecticut, New-York, New-Jersey, Pennsylvania, Delaware, Maryland, Virginia, North-Carolina, South-Carolina, and Georgia.”” [19]

There is an important implication to the listing of the multiple states in the Articles: it further shows how this was a treaty (or compact) among independently sovereign states who were agreeing to confederate with one another (i.e., enter into federal union, which connoted a good faith united relationship among still independently sovereign states). [20] This is similar to the treaty format of the above-mentioned treaties with European states (e.g., France and Great Britain). In those cases, however, each treaty document actually contains multiple treaties between the European state and each of the thirteen sovereign states.

Although the Congress under the Articles had established delegated authority (unlike the Congress after the Declaration and before the enactment of the Articles) according to the terms of the Articles as a treaty among sovereign states, it mostly lacked direct control over individual citizens, and Congress depended on the states to enforce and wield much of its delegated power. This was especially noteworthy in the area of taxes and commerce. Specifically, Congress was dependent upon the states to attain revenue to fund its budget; it also lacked the ability to effectively regulate interstate commerce. This, in turn, resulted in Congress having problems functioning effectively in both areas. [21]

Although congressional powers had been legally established by the Articles, Congress lacked the ability to operationalize and wield these powers independent of the states. In this sense, Congress was analogous to the United Nations: it was a legally instituted treaty organization among sovereign states, but its de facto power was largely dependent upon the states’ cooperation. [22]

Given the various problems that bedeviled the Union under the Articles, a new compact of union was drafted in 1787 by a small convention of delegates from every state but Rhode Island. After concluding its work in framing a proposed constitution, this Philadelphia convention “”recommended that Congress forward the document to states”” for them to ratify. Congress proposed it to the states, and all the states appointed conventions to decide whether to ratify it. [23] The Constitution was ultimately ratified by all thirteen states, rendering it the second legal compact of union among the original thirteen states; hence, it replaced the Articles of Confederation, which had been the original legal compact.

There was a key difference between the Articles and the Constitution. With respect to the Articles, the central organization of federal authority was a Congress that was largely dependent upon the states to realize its powers. In contrast, the Constitution created a federal government that had very limited, but effective, sovereign powers over citizens in each of the states, and this provided the new federal government with some independent ability to enact and enforce its own legislation. In other words, according to Calhoun, the Constitution created a federal government among confederating states that could independently operate and wield its powers. [24] Thus, the new federal government could not be considered a confederation government in structure because it now lacked a confederation government’s “”Congress, or Council, or body representing it, by whatever name it may be called, [which] is much more nearly allied to an assembly of diplomatists, convened to deliberate and determine how a league or treaty between their several sovereigns, for certain defined purposes, shall be carried into execution.”” [25] Whereas, under the Articles, Congress did have these characteristics: it functioned as a treaty organization for facilitating the confederation’s purposes and cooperative endeavors, even though real de facto power was still held by the states (e.g., only the states could directly tax individual citizens).

As Calhoun observed, however, the Constitution as a new constitutional compact did not alter the nature of either the states’ sovereignty or the union being a confederation. [26] This new form of union was still a confederation or compact among sovereign and independent states, and these states maintained their sovereignty after the constitutional compact was enacted and went into effect.

The above commentary on the Declaration of Independence and Articles of Confederation has laid out the rationale for viewing the states as sovereign before the Constitution. The reflection below will show how the States possessed their sovereignty during the framing/ratification period of the Constitution.

Calhoun was very clear that the states were still fully sovereign during the framing and ratification processes, and this can be seen in the relation of the states to both events. [27] His argument for this includes some of the following points. It was the states who authorized and established the framing of the Constitution. The Philadelphia convention was composed of delegations sent by the states. Although the delegates departed from their explicit mandate when they framed a new compact (rather than merely revising the old), their authority to frame and propose recommendations for a new compact was still derived from and remained contingent upon the states. Each state delegation only had one vote during the convention, and the delegates voted as parts of their delegations (not as individual members). If, for example, a delegate voted for a proposition but the majority of the delegation voted against it, the state’s vote would oppose the proposition.

Finally, at its conclusion, the convention handed over its recommendation for a new compact to the Congress, which forwarded it on to the states to determine whether the proposal would be accepted. The convention had no authority of its own to make positive law. [28]

Furthermore, as Calhoun made clear, the states had the authority to both enact the Constitution’s legally binding existence and choose to enter or remain outside of this compact. This can be seen in Article VII, which stipulated that nine states would need to ratify the Constitution in order for it to become enacted, and it would only be a compact “”between”” those states who so ratified it. [29]

Thus, in no way could nine (or more) states make the Constitution effective for the other four (or fewer) states who might not have ratified it, for the sovereignty of each state was recognized and respected. This is no surprise, for the Articles had explicitly recognized the states as being “”sovereign.”” Such facts suggest that the states had both Blackstone’s and Calhoun’s condition of “”supreme”” power, as well as Taylor’s condition of the “”will to enact, and a power to execute”” before and at the time of the Constitution’s ratification. For only the states had the high and final power to choose whether or not to continue and “”perfect”” their union by enacting the Constitution as a new legal compact—hence replacing the Articles as the original compact—among one another.

The Language and Federal Theory of the Constitution The sovereignty of the states is also clearly recognized within the language and theory of the Constitution. As previously discussed, the Preamble phrase “”We the People of the United States”” actually has the same plural implication as the plural language in the Declaration, the Articles, and the early foreign treaties. According to James Madison, “”We the People of the United States”” refers to the “”people as composing thirteen sovereignties.”” By this, Madison claims that the locus of sovereign authority is found in the “”people”” of each state, “”not the people as composing one great body”” (i.e., not all the people in the U.S. viewed as “”one great body”” or nation). [30]

Forrest McDonald also shows the very practical rationale for why all the states were not included after “”We the People of the United States””: the Framers could not have said, “”We the People of the United States, viz. New Hampshire . . .”” for in the summer of 1787, no one could predict which states would ratify and which would not, and it was expected that a few would refuse for a long time and perhaps forever. The course of events bore out that expectation. New Hampshire’s convention refused to ratify when it met in February 1788, though it did approve when it reconvened in June. As it happened, New Hampshire became the ninth state to ratify, activating the Constitution for those nine that had approved it. Virginia and New York followed shortly afterward, creating a union of eleven members. But North Carolina flatly rejected the Constitution and did not vote to join the reconstituted entity until several months after the government had been in operation. The Rhode Island legislature at first refused even to call a ratifying convention, and that state did not ratify until May 1790. [31]

The explicit delineation of all the states in the Preamble could not have been done because no one knew whether all the states would ratify the Constitution. Thus, instead of explicitly listing all of the states by name, “”We the People”” is followed by “”of the United States.”” “”States”” here is a plural noun, and “”United States”” connotes all those states choosing to enter into union with one another. Thus, “”United States”” functions as a place-holder for nine (or more) sovereign states that would elect to ratify the Constitution. Hence, it still implies a multiple listing of states like what is found in the Articles of Confederation.

All of this suggests that the term “”people”” has a plural connotation in the Preamble. For the sake of clarity, it is helpful to restate the term as “”peoples.”” The phrase, then, implies “”We”” the different peoples from the distinct sovereign states entering into a federal union with one another. It does not refer to a “”people”” as a single nation. [32]

The above points are further corroborated when reflecting on the federal character of the concepts implied in the phrase “”United States.”” As John Taylor of Caroline suggests, “”The word state implies a sovereign community.”” [33] If this is true, then the very notion of a “”union”” of states implies a federation of sovereign communities. So the name “”United States”” suggests that the ultimate constitutional union of thirteen states is federal in nature. Daniel Boorstin shows how the concept of “”federal”” union during the framing and ratification period usually meant the “”drawing together of sovereign states.”” [34] The term “”federal”” often meant “”treaty . . . to describe a relationship resting on good faith,”” and this is and was a common way to describe sovereign states entering into agreements with one another. [35] Realizing a federal union, then, implies that the member communities maintain their sovereignty. Thus, the phrase “”United States”” as a name for the federally-natured constitutional union of the states suggests that all these states still retain their sovereignty after entering into this federal union with one another.

Through reflecting on both the Preamble and Article VII, John C. Calhoun argued that the states retained their sovereignty after ratification—i.e., they did not divest their sovereignty by ratifying the Constitution. This argument is made through demonstrating “”by whom, it [the Constitution] was ordained and established; for whom, it was ordained and established; for what, it was ordained and established; and over whom, it was ordained and established.”” [36]

According to Calhoun, “”by whom”” the Constitution “”was ordained and established”” is clear from the phrase “”We the People of the United States.”” Here he employs similar considerations as have been discussed above. The Constitution was ordained and established by “”the people who ratified the instrument; for it was the act of ratification that established it.”” Moreover, it was the sovereign peoples of the states who ratified the Constitution: “”It was ratified by the several States, through conventions of delegates, chosen in each State by the people thereof; and acting, each in the name and by the authority of its State: and, as all the States ratified it—’We, the people of the United States’—mean—We, the people of the several States of the Union.”” [37] The state-peoples who ratified were demonstratively sovereign when they ratified, for they were “”members of the confederacy [under the Articles of Confederation]”” and the Articles clearly maintained that “”each State retains its sovereignty, freedom and independence.”” [38]

Furthermore, the Constitution “”was ordained and established . . . for—’The United States of America.’ “” [39] As Calhoun notes, this is made evident by the Preamble. Specifically, it is seen in the last phrase of the Preamble: “”for the United States of America.”” [40] The addition of “”America”” does not alter the meaning or the above implications, for this just follows “”the style of the then confederacy.”” [41] Also, it seems safe to presume that “”‘United States’ bears the same meaning in the conclusion of the preamble, as it does in its commencement.”” [42] Thus, in identifying the “”United States of America”” at the conclusion of the Preamble as being synonymous in meaning to the “”United States”” at the beginning of the Preamble, Calhoun reasons that the “”constitution was ordained and established for the people of the several States, by whom, it was ordained and established.”” [43] Thus, the Constitution was established to benefit the several peoples of the several states (i.e., the state-peoples) entering into union with one another.

In what ways was the Constitution established to benefit the state-peoples? Calhoun shows “”for what”” the Constitution was ordained and established through examining the “”objects”” that the “”preamble enumerates.”” [44] These objects are: “”to form a more perfect union, to establish justice, insure domestic tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general welfare, and secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity.”” To “”effect”” or advance these goals, they ordained and established “”the constitution for the United States of America””—clearly meaning by “”for,”” that it was intended to be their constitution; and that the objects of ordaining and establishing it were to perfect their union, to establish justice among them, to insure their domestic tranquility, to provide for their common defense and general welfare, and to secure the blessing of liberty to them and to their posterity. [45]

Since the Constitution was ordained and established by each of the states as sovereign peoples, for the benefit of such states, and in order to realize the above “”objects”” for such states, it can be viewed as the creature and auxiliary of each of the state-peoples. In accordance with this, the federal government, which was created by the Constitution, should be viewed as a subordinate creature to the state-peoples who created the Constitution.

Calhoun suggests this latter point when arguing that the Constitution was “”ordained and established . . . over the government which it created.”” [46] His first step in establishing this is to reflect upon how Article VII logically implies that the Constitution was “”not over the several States,”” for this “”declares, that the ratification by nine States shall be sufficient to establish the constitution between the States so ratifying.”” [47] Calhoun reflects upon what is implied by Article VII’s language and the meaning of the term “”between””:

“”Between,”” always means more than “”over””—and implies in this case, that the authority which ordained and established the constitution, was the joint and united authority of the States ratifying it; and that, among the effects of their ratification, it became a contract between them; and, as a compact, binding on them—but only as such. In that sense the term, “”between,”” is appropriately applied. In no other, can it be. It was, doubtless, used in that sense in this instance. [48]

Since the sovereign states who established the Constitution in a “”joint and united capacity”” were the authorities that “”ordained and established the constitution,”” the Constitution exists as “”a contract between them.”” As “”a compact”” it is binding only “”as such””—i.e., only as a defined set of contractual obligations owed to the other equal members (other states) of the compact. Hence, the Constitution exists as a compact “”among”” equal partners, and it is not “”over”” them. [49]

This is further manifested by reasoning about authority relationships between creature-and-creator. Calhoun describes this in the following passage:

Reason itself, if the constitution had been silent, would have led, with equal certainty, to the same conclusion. For it was the several States, or, what is the same thing, their people, in their sovereign capacity, who ordained and established the constitution. But the authority which ordains and establishes, is higher than that which is ordained and established; and, of course, the latter must be subordinate to the former—and cannot, therefore, be over it. [50]

Since the “”authority which ordains and establishes, is higher than that which is ordained and established,”” the “”several States . . . in their sovereign capacity who ordained and established the constitution”” have a higher authority than the Constitution. Thus, the authority of the constitution “”must be subordinate”” to the authority of the States and, hence, “”cannot . . . be over it.””

After eliminating the possibility that the Constitution is “”over”” the states, Calhoun reasoned that it must be over the federal government that is created by it. Again, this follows from the above proof showing how an authority that ordains and establishes another authority is superior to that created authority. The states created the Constitution, and the Constitution creates and defines the entire authority of the federal government. The Constitution is over the authority of the federal government “”and all its functionaries in their official character.”” [51] The federal government has no authority beyond what is delineated in the Constitution, and all federal authority is generated by the states delegating this power through their ratification of the Constitution. All this suggests that the authority of the state-peoples is higher than that of the Constitution, and the authority of the Constitution is higher than that of the federal government. By logical implication, then, the authority of the state-peoples is also higher than that of the federal government.

Finally, Calhoun drew all his arguments together to show how (after ratification of the Constitution) the “”several States of the Union”” still retained the “”confederated character”” they had with the Articles:

The several States of the Union, acting in their confederated character, ordained and established the constitution; that they ordained and established it for themselves, in the same character; that they ordained and established it for their welfare and safety, in the like character; that they established it as a compact between them, and not as a constitution over them; and that, as a compact, they are parties to it, in the same character. I have thus established, conclusively, that these States, in ratifying the constitution, did not lose the confederated character which they possessed when they ratified it, as well as in all the preceding stages of their existence; but, on the contrary, still retained it to the full. [52]

Since this portion of Calhoun’s argument is meant to show how each state (after the Constitution was ratified) retains its full sovereignty, the above passage suggests an important implication: since the states retained their “”confederated character”” (which they had with Articles) after enacting the Constitution and since this “”confederated character”” entailed the states being full sovereign entities, the states who entered the constitutional compact would still have their full sovereignty even after this compact was enacted. [53]

Furthermore, the Constitution itself clearly manifests the states’ supreme authority in Article V, where it explicates their final authority to amend the constitutional compact. As Article V makes clear, only “”three-fourths”” of the states (either by their legislatures or by conventions) can “”ratify”” (or enact) “”Amendments to this Constitution.”” [54] Both (through overwhelming majorities) Congress can propose amendments and state legislatures can initiate a new constitutional convention, but (according to Article V) only the states can corporately make such proposals part of the constitutional compact. [55]

Even if the states corporately possess ultimate sovereign power over the compact (i.e., only the states together can authoritatively change or abolish the constitutional compact), what is the power of each individual state in relation to this compact? Since the Constitution is necessarily an agreement among equal authorities, no individual state can unilaterally change the terms of the contract. Thus, no state alone can alter the Constitution (nor can states acting together outside of the Article V parameters). Does this suggest that an individual state within the constitutional compact lacks true sovereignty?

A negative answer can be given to the above question. Each individual state-people retains its true sovereignty because each state-people can dismiss the federal government, which is its creature-agent that has been entrusted with certain delegated powers to govern individual citizens within the state on certain matters. In other words, a state-people can reclaim the powers that it delegated to the federal government through withdrawing from the constitutional compact. Of course, it would then have to rely solely on its own intrastate governing resources (i.e., granting all sovereign powers to its own state government) in order to independently function as a sovereign state. As a sovereign authority that was free to enter (or not enter) the constitutional compact and due to the absence of a higher unit of authority in the constitutional system, a state-people can exercise its sovereign authority through dissolving its membership in the constitutional compact (i.e., union with other states).

Madison recognized this possibility in Federalist 43 when arguing for the legitimacy of the states to dissolve their membership in the Articles of Confederation. He starts by rhetorically asking the question: “”On what principle the confederation, which stands in the solemn form of a compact among the states, can be superseded without the unanimous consent of the parties to it?”” [56] He then answers the question as follows:

The first question is answered at once by recurring to the absolute necessity of the case; to the great principle of self-preservation; to the transcendent law of nature and of nature’s God, which declares that the safety and happiness of society, are the objects at which all political institutions aim, and to which all such institutions must be sacrificed. [57]

This might sound like a high hurdle. However, when reviewing the historical case that Madison applies it to, one can see that it is relevant to most situations in which a sovereign state decides to break a compact with other states for the sake of advancing its self-interest. Acting to abandon the Articles of Confederation was hardly an “”absolute necessity,”” a matter of “”self-preservation,”” or somehow necessary for their “”safety and happiness”” in the strict senses of these phrases. As Forrest McDonald argues, the states actually flourished during their years under the Articles of Confederation, and most were content with the status quo. [58] The real impetus for abandoning the Articles and developing the Constitution seemed to come from those “”who were concerned about the nation’s honor, or were concerned that the nation be great, or were concerned lest the experiment in republicanism should fail.”” [59] With this in mind, one must interpret Madison’s description of urgency in Federalist 43 as hyperbolic. Although it might be possible to say that the states had a net interest in abandoning the Articles and accepting the Constitution, it is difficult to maintain that this choice was compelled by necessity, self-preservation, safety, or happiness. If such a modified interpretation of Madison is correct, then the real argument seems to be that states can legitimately terminate compacts with other states when they judge it to be in their interest. The instability of this, however, would be somewhat maintained by the fact that states will probably only rarely identify such a sufficient interest, for the wiles of the international state of nature would likely be worse than most inconveniences suffered in the compact.

In further examining a state’s right to secession, it is helpful to recognize that there is no higher authority in the system that could justifiably require a state to refrain from this. The federal government does not qualify, for its authority is ultimately found subordinate to that of a state’s sovereign authority—although, as Calhoun observes, the federal government has authority over individual citizens of the states “”as far as they might come within the sphere of the powers delegated”” to it. [60] Moreover, federal powers are limited to those that have been delegated by the states, and the power to prevent states from exiting the union is not among those delegated. It would even be difficult to make a good case for this being an “”implied”” power, especially if one employs sound (strict constructionist) jurisprudence.

The Constitution itself doesn’t have legitimate authority to prevent a state from seceding, for its creature-level authority is also subordinate to a sovereign state-people’s creator-level authority. Even (for the sake of argument) if the Constitution was sufficiently authoritative, the terms of the Constitution do not preclude a state’s secession from the compact. There is no directive within the Constitution that mandates a state to permanently remain in the compact, so presumably the power to secede is retained (as implied by the Tenth Amendment) by each state-people.

According to Calhoun, the Tenth Amendment implies a state-people’s sovereign power to adopt, amend, or eliminate the powers granted to both the federal and state governments. When discussing the meaning of “”‘reserved powers'”” he says the following:

But it may be asked—why was the reservation made both to the States and to the people? The answer is to be found in the fact, that, what are called, “”reserved powers,”” in the constitution of the United States, include all powers not delegated to Congress by it—or prohibited by it to the States. The powers thus designated are divided into two distinct classes—those delegated by the people of the several States to their separate State governments, and those which they still retain—not having delegated them to either government. Among them is included the high sovereign power, by which they ordained and established both; and by which they can modify, change or abolish them at pleasure. This, with others not delegated, are those which are reserved to the people of the several States respectively. [61]

In terms of changing federal powers in a manner different from how they are enumerated in the Constitution, this would obviously have to stem from the constitutional amendment process specified in Article V. Thus, this power of each state-people would have to be exercised in collaboration with a sufficient number of other state-peoples (e.g., three-fourths of the states). However, in terms of wholly abolishing federal powers within a single state, this power is reserved by each state-people, but the seceding state-people would then have to function as an independent state not in union with the United States.

Furthermore, one or more states do not have legitimate authority to prevent one or more other states from seceding from the union. Each state is equal in authority to the other states, so one state cannot justifiably stop another from seceding. There is no provision or implication of the Constitution that enables compacting states to overcome the sovereignty of one another. The fact that a three-fourths (or more) majority of states can pass amendments (against the will of a minority of states) is not an indication that states within the constitutional compact have been divested of their sovereignty, for (in true principle) states can reclaim all their sovereign powers via secession.

Also, the Constitution gives evidence of the limits of itself as a compact. As Article VII suggests, the Constitution recognizes that each state has freedom not to be in the compact. Although all original thirteen states ultimately chose to enter the constitutional compact, Article VII still shows the constitutional conceptualization of the possibility of American states existing outside the federal union.

Finally, there is strong evidence that the original understanding of the Constitution does not affirm the power of either the states or the federal government to coerce a state into compliance. Even Alexander Hamilton, the most ardent of nationalists (during the founding period), recognized that a central government should not forcefully compel a noncomplying state. Hamilton expressed this view during the New York State Ratification Convention in which he and other Federalists sought to persuade the convention to adopt the Constitution:

Suppose Massachusetts, or any large state, should refuse, and Congress should attempt to compel them, would they not have influence to procure assistance, especially from those states which are in the same situation as themselves[.] What picture does this idea present to our view? A complying state at war with a non-complying state; Congress marching the troops of one state into the bosom of another; this state collecting auxiliaries, and forming, perhaps, a majority against its federal head. Here is a nation at war with itself. Can any reasonable man be well disposed towards a government which makes war and carnage the only means of supporting itself—a government that can exist only by the sword? Every such war must involve the innocent with the guilty. This single consideration should be sufficient to dispose every peaceable citizen against such a government.

But can we believe that one state will ever suffer itself to be used as an instrument of coercion? The thing is a dream, and it is impossible. [62]

The fact that Hamilton, who was the advocate (during the Philadelphia convention) for consolidating the states into subsidiary wards of a centralized government, publicly recognizes the intolerableness of a central government employing warfare to compel noncomplying states implies that such nationalists conceded that the proposed federal government under the Constitution would not have this domestic warmaking power. If, by contrast, the federal government were to have such power (i.e., a power that Lincoln would presume it to possess about seventy years later), then it would be within the category of government that Hamilton here condemns. Moreover, Hamilton’s condemnation also seems to extend to the possible case of other states trying to militarily compel a noncomplying state; he also regards such a possibility as intolerable and hence not in accordance with the Constitution that he advocates. This, then, is powerful evidence that neither the states nor the central government were originally understood as being constitutionally authorized to militarily compel noncomplying states (e.g., forcing them to abide by the constitutional compact).

Many readers might sill be resistant to the above claims (especially given the current dominance of what Donald Livingston terms “”Lincolnian historiography”” within American political thought). [63] Nevertheless, the constitutionality of secession was widely accepted in the early history of the United States

In addition to what has already been said above, Livingston presents more evidence suggesting that a state’s right to secession was part of the original understanding of the Constitution. According to Livingston, “”States can secede because they are sovereign political societies. Everyone in 1789 understood this, as a matter of international law.”” [64] Most importantly, the states (as the lawgivers whose understanding during ratification gives the Constitution its original and authoritative meaning) clearly seemed to believe that secession was legitimate, for Virginia, New York, and Rhode Island claimed (in Livingston’s words) “”the right to withdraw powers they had delegated to federation and secede”” within their “”ordinances”” to enact the Constitution. [65]

Moving beyond the founding period, both Boorstin and Livingston show how prominent leaders during the early nineteenth century accepted (if not embraced) secession. According to Boorstin, the early nineteenth century saw examples of the “”imaginative American statesman”” who believed that “”all North America, following the Latin American example, should form itself into several independent and self-governing nations.”” [66] In the 1820s, many “”leading Americans—including Albert Gallatin, James Monroe, William H. Crawford, Henry Clay, Thomas Hart Benton, and probably James Madison”” shared Thomas Jefferson’s “”vision”” for “”an independent Pacific republic (i.e., an Oregon republic).”” [67] Furthermore, as Livingston describes, Jefferson grandly envisioned new and independent western nations spinning off from the United States’ territory across the North American continent:

Jefferson thought that, as Americans went West and formed new states, the same logic of secession and division that had characterized American conduct so far would be carried out on an even larger scale. New Unions of states would be formed which would secede from the mother Union just as the colonies had seceded from the mother empire. Jefferson wrote Joseph Priestly in 1804 that he would welcome a Mississippi Confederacy on the West bank of the Mississippi alongside of the old Atlantic Confederacy. And he imagined that still other Unions of states would form as Americans moved to the Pacific. These would constitute what he called an “”empire of liberty.”” “”Free and independent Americans, unconnected with us but by ties of blood and interest, and employing like us the rights of self-government.”” [68]

Such a view of the legitimacy of secession is no doubt surprising for contemporary Americans, but it was welcomed by the above-mentioned Americans in an earlier period. [69]

Although the right to secession is an important touchstone of the sovereignty of each of the states, readers might still be confused about the distinction between the states delegating some of their sovereign powers to the federal government and yet still retaining their full sovereignty. Thus, it is helpful to examine this conceptual difference. According to Kilpatrick, “”sovereignty”” entails having supreme authority over a given territory and people; whereas “”sovereign power”” merely derives from this authority. Thus, it is possible for an entity with sovereignty to delegate and reclaim sovereign power; such control over “”power”” derives from the entity’s “”sovereignty.”” For, “”sovereignty is the cause; sovereign powers the effect.”” [70]

Furthermore, sovereignty means “”supreme”” authority over a people and territory. When one attempts to evenly divide such authority, the result is two coequal authorities over a people and territory. Neither one could be viewed as being the supreme authority in the system, for neither would have the power to be the final or highest authority for the system as a whole. Supreme authority, however, implies that there is a highest authority, and this necessarily is a single entity. As we have already discussed in the above analysis, one touchstone of each state’s ultimate authority (i.e., sovereignty) to make and unmake fundamental law is that each can choose to enter and withdraw from the federal union and constitutional compact.

Each state-people possesses its sovereignty independent from and outside of the Constitution, and the Constitution is not necessary for them to have sovereign powers. In creating and enacting the Constitution, each state-people delegated certain of its sovereign powers to the federal government which functioned as its agent, but (as a creature-agent) the federal government’s authority is subordinate to the authority of each of the state-peoples as creators. As seen above, Calhoun discussed how each of the state-peoples also granted both certain sovereign powers to their respective state governments and retained many powers for themselves; both cases are connoted in the Tenth Amendment’s concept of “”reserved powers.”” Moreover, as discussed above, only an entity with “”sovereignty”” could so grant and retain powers in this manner.

Thus, the Constitution implies that each state-people has “”sovereignty”” (and hence, full sovereignty) because the Constitution shows how each state-people demonstrated this through both creating and delegating power to the federal government and reserving powers for its intrastate government. These principles are clearly intrinsic to the nature of the Constitution. All the federal government’s authority is entirely “”delegated”” by each of the state-peoples, nd it does not exceed such enumerated delegations of power that each state-people made through ratifying the Constitution. [71] In his dissenting opinion (which was joined by former Chief Justice Rehnquist, Justice O’Connor, and Justice Scalia) in U.S. Term Limits, Inc. v. Thornton , Justice Thomas clearly articulates this:

Because the people of the several States are the only true source of power, however, the Federal Government enjoys no authority beyond what the Constitution confers: The Federal Government’s powers are limited and enumerated. In the words of Justice Black: “”The United States is entirely a creature of the Constitution. Its power and authority have no other source.”” Reid v. Convert . . . [72]

The Tenth Amendment further upholds this: “”The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.”” [73] As suggested above, such “”reserved powers”” are all those that each of the sovereign state-peoples grants to its respective “”state”” government or that a state-“”people”” retains for itself (e.g., “”the high sovereign power, by which they ordained and established both [the federal and state governments]; and by which they can modify, change or abolish them at pleasure.””). [74] Before the Tenth Amendment (and as it happens, an impetus for adding it), seven of the original thirteen states demanded that the Constitution be amended so as to stipulate that states (and/or state-peoples) retain all powers not delegated to the federal government. [75]

This helps to further clarify the notion of entrusting sovereign powers. With respect to the Tenth Amendment, this concept is connoted in both the notions of “”delegated”” powers and the part of “”reserved”” powers entrusted to state governments. As discussed above, delegated federal powers are those that sovereign state-peoples entrust to the federal government and realize through compacting with one another in the Constitution. The facet of “”reserved”” powers entrusted to the states implies those powers that a state-people entrusts to its state government. In both cases, the federal and state governments are mere agents of each of the sovereign state-peoples, and each of the sovereign state-peoples maintains its full sovereignty (supreme authority), and hence, the power to reclaim the sovereign powers entrusted to its federal or state governing agents. The power entrusted to federal and state governments is only power over individual citizens within a state. It is not power over a state-people, which is fully sovereign and hence is the highest level of political power over itself.

Finally, it is helpful to show how both Madison and Hamilton, as Framers, were mistaken in asserting that the new constitution created a system of dual-sovereignty in which both the states and the federal government were sovereign within their separate spheres. Madison frequently suggested this in references to the new system being partly federal and partly national/consolidated. Indeed, this is a major thesis of his writing in Federalist 39: “”The proposed constitution, therefore, even when tested by the rules laid down by its antagonists, is, in strictness, neither a national nor a federal constitution; but a composition of both.”” [76] Madison seems to make the same point at the Virginia ratifying convention: “”In some respects it is a government of a federal nature; in others, it is of a consolidated nature.”” [77] Hamilton also suggests, in Federalist 9:

The proposed constitution, so far from implying an abolition of the state governments, makes them constituent parts of the national sovereignty, by allowing them a direct representation in the senate, and leaves in their possession certain exclusive, and very important, portions of the sovereign power. This fully corresponds, in every rational import of the terms, with the idea of a federal government. [78]

Here Hamilton does not seek to distinguish between “”sovereign power”” and “”sovereignty,”” so the reference to the states having “”sovereign power”” implies that they are one part of a system of dual-sovereignty. [79]

The problem with such notions has already been discussed above. The concept of “”sovereignty”” is only intelligible as an indivisible entity. Sovereignty means supreme authority, and logically there can only be one supreme authority, for if there are multiple coequal authorities, then none of them are supreme. Moreover, there is a hazard in positing two separate authorities (with different spheres of jurisdiction) over a given group of people in a definable territory, and then pretending that they are both “”supreme”” authorities. For it is impossible to maintain such an arrangement without recognizing (at least) a true, de facto supreme authority for resolving inevitable conflicts between the two. Thus, a single sovereign authority becomes both logically and practically necessary.

If Framers such as Madison and Hamilton really believed that the new Constitution created a system of dual sovereignty in which both states and the federal government existed as sovereign entities within separate spheres, then they were interpreting it to entail an unworkable contradiction. [80] Such an unworkable construction could only be fixed via recognizing sovereignty—which implies “”supremacy””—in one body. Given that the state-peoples are the recognized sovereigns who enacted the Constitution as positive law, their understanding of the locus of sovereignty would seem to govern. Based on the careful guardedness with which the majority of the thirteen states proceeded in ratifying the Constitution (only doing so after stating reservations and calling for strict limits on federal powers), it is quite reasonable to presume that such state-peoples viewed themselves as the locus of sovereignty, not the federal government. For the sake of argument, even if only a few (a minority of) states viewed themselves as retaining their sovereignty when entering the compact, these few would still be sovereign because they would be the rightful arbiters of their status in the compact, which was made among equal sovereign states with no higher authority standing above them. In addition to these considerations, it is reasonable to presume that already constituted sovereignties would remain sovereign authorities over a system that they created.

The states, as supreme authorities in the system, have the ability to make final judgments about the compact. Each state has the right to terminate its participation in the compact; however, the state must then face the wiles of the state of nature. Thus, each state has the supreme authority over its involvement with the compact. When any state decides to reclaim the powers it has delegated to the federal government to govern over the individual citizens in its territory, the state can do so. For example, such reclaiming of powers and termination of the compact might arise due to the state’s dislike for how the federal government exercises its delegated powers (e.g., frequently conflicting with the state government).

Evaluation of the Confederation Thesis and Calhoun In evaluating Calhoun and the confederation thesis, it is important to consider both their confirmable merits and the various questions to which they give rise. With respect to merits, they are legion. First, as discussed above, Calhoun’s argument clearly accounts for sovereignty as requiring vestment in a single entity much better than the more muddled conception of dual-sovereignty found in TheFederalist Papers (e.g., numbers 9 and 39). In this respect, it has the virtue of being more internally consistent than Hamilton and Madison were in their essays.

Second, there is historical evidence that the ratifying states understood themselves as retaining sovereignty, which is a tenet of the confederation thesis. This can be found in the debates at the state ratification conventions, the states’ ratification statements, and the states’ responses to Chisolm v. Georgia . Examples of this include South Carolina’s claim, in its ratification statement, that the states have “”sovereignty””; [81] the secession qualification of Virginia, New York, and Rhode Island in their ratification statements, which (as discussed above) implies the retaining of sovereignty; [82] the significant concessions made by Federalists to the Anti-Federalists during the ratification debates, suggesting that the Constitution was actually in conformity with the confederation characteristics that the Anti-Federalists desired (e.g., concessions made by Madison in Virginia, Hamilton in New York, Judge Iredell in North Carolina, and various Federalists in Massachusetts); [83] most of the states (especially Massachusetts and Connecticut) supporting—via their ratification of the Eleventh Amendment—Georgia’s defense of its retained sovereignty in response the Supreme Court’s actions in Chisolm . [84]

In viewing themselves as retaining sovereignty, the states (each as a state-people) logically understood that they still possessed supreme authority over their domain (i.e., their borders and those residing within them). Since it seems most reasonable to regard a view held by a majority of the ratifying states as part of the true original understanding of the Constitution, the proposition that the states retained their sovereignty should be incorporated into the originalist interpretation and application of the Constitution. The federal government was merely the entrusted agent of each state.

Furthermore, with respect to historical evidence for the confederation thesis, one should note the fairly widespread understandings that the United States was still a confederation and that the states had the right to secede after ratifying the Constitution. As discussed above, Boorstin elucidates some secession evidence through mentioning examples of the nineteenth century’s “”imaginative American statesman,”” who believed that “”all North America . . . should form itself into several independent and self-governing nations.”” [85]

There is also evidence from American school texts suggesting that the confederation thesis was actually a widespread originalist view; whereas acceptance of Publius’s notion of dual sovereignty was a development. Ruth Miller Elson shows this in her book, Guardians of Tradition: American Schoolbooks of the Nineteenth Cent

Get the Collegiate Experience You Hunger For

Your time at college is too important to get a shallow education in which viewpoints are shut out and rigorous discussion is shut down.

Explore intellectual conservatism Join a vibrant community of students and scholars Defend your principles

Join the ISI community. Membership is free.

J.D. Vance on our Civilizational Crisis

J.D. Vance, venture capitalist and author of Hillbilly Elegy, speaks on the American Dream and our Civilizational Crisis....

In Memoriam: Gerald J. Russello (1971-2021)

Remembering a prominent ISI alumnus

In Memoriam: Angelo Codevilla (1943–2021)

Donate to the linda l. bean conference center.

Donate to renew America’s Roots

Articles of Confederation

By Michael DiCamillo

The Articles of Confederation established the Confederation Congress that governed the United States from 1781 to 1789. Meeting in Philadelphia, the Second Continental Congress appointed a committee that began drafting the Articles in 1776. However, the final draft was not complete until 1777 while the Continental Congress was ensconced in York, Pennsylvania, during the British occupation of Philadelphia. The states formally ratified the Articles in 1781, and this compact between the states remained in effect until 1789 when the United States Constitution became the nation’s governing document.

The Continental Congress , meeting in the Pennsylvania State House (later known as Independence Hall ), appointed a committee to draft the Articles on June 12, 1776. Philadelphia’s John Dickinson (1732-1808) led the committee that expanded and retooled the ideas for colonial unification that Philadelphian Benjamin Franklin (1706-90) originally proposed to the Congress on July 21, 1775.

Congress, after sixteen months of revisions, finally adopted the committee’s work on November 15, 1777, and two days later submitted the document to the states for ratification. During the years before complete ratification, Congress worked within the framework of the Articles to advance the Revolutionary War effort.

Several small states including New Jersey, Delaware, and Maryland initially refused to ratify the document. New Jersey, echoing the sentiments of other holdouts, wanted Congress to control foreign trade and to take possession of any lands that the United States might acquire from Great Britain. New Jersey representatives argued that such powers would give the Congress a means to generate revenue and pay its war debts. These powers would also prevent larger states—particularly those with large port cities and access to western lands—from dominating smaller, coastal states that lacked a major port. The pressing need for unity ultimately led the holdout states to capitulate with the hope that in time Congress would address their concerns.

Complete state ratification of the Articles of Confederation occurred on March 1, 1781, when Maryland, the last holdout state, ratified the document. After ratification, the Congress continued to meet in Philadelphia, but after mid-1783 moved successively to Princeton, New Jersey; Annapolis, Maryland; and Trenton, New Jersey, before settling in New York City from 1785 to 1789.

The confederation that the Articles established was a loose compact between the states. It allowed each state to retain its sovereignty, including the power to tax its citizens, rather than share this legislative power with a national government as the United States Constitution later required. Because of the problems experienced under British rule and Americans’ allegiances to their states, few Americans in the late 1770s and early 1780s wanted a strong national government. Instead, the Articles of Confederation created a single-branch, unicameral institution possessing the power to declare war, to establish foreign and Native American alliances, and to negotiate and approve treaties. The individual state legislatures held all other significant governing authority.

Among the many powers that the states retained under the Articles of Confederation was the authority to control tariffs on foreign and interstate trade. Pennsylvania’s state government profited from this state advantage since tariffs on goods moving through Philadelphia created a sizable revenue stream, but the situation posed a problem for New Jersey residents who paid more for essential goods imported from Philadelphia and New York because of state-imposed tariffs. Tariff wars frequently erupted between states as each attempted to create its own optimal trade markets, and the Articles of Confederation provided Congress no power to resolve these conflicts.

The Articles of Confederation also denied the Confederation Congress the ability to levy direct taxes. While Congress could raise revenue through requisitions sent to the states, no state paid its share in full, and Georgia did not pay any of its required assessment. The United States faced staggering debts after it borrowed large sums to fund the American Revolutionary War. Without revenue from the states, the nation struggled to pay the interest on its loans. Robert Morris (1734-1806), a respected Philadelphia merchant and superintendent of finance for the Confederation Congress, proposed numerous measures to help the United States gain solvency, but Congress and the state legislatures staunchly opposed his proposals.

Congress further struggled to enforce the powers it did have. Although the Articles granted Congress exclusive authority over foreign and Native American diplomacy, New York established its own treaty with the Iroquois, and many states ignored guidelines in the 1783 Treaty of Paris regarding loyalists and British creditors. Lacking the authority to compel compliance, the destitute Confederation Congress quickly lost international credibility and faced a slew of foreign dilemmas. Britain refused to vacate forts and trading posts in the Northwest Territory, Spain limited American access to the Mississippi, and the Barbary States of North Africa seized American ships in the Mediterranean. As the nation teetered on ruin, George Washington (1732-99) remarked that the Confederation was “little more than an empty sound, and Congress a nugatory body.”

On February 21, 1787, the Confederation Congress recognized its deficiencies and called for delegates to meet in Philadelphia to revise the Articles of Confederation. However, the Philadelphia Convention soon embarked on the creation of an entirely new document, the United States Constitution. The framers of the Constitution believed that the Articles of Confederation’s constraint on national power was the primary cause of the nation’s problems. The framers designed a new government that could efficiently raise revenue, settle the nation’s debts, and resolve the domestic and foreign problems plaguing the nation.

While a significant number of Americans harbored deep fears about the powers granted to the new government, the United States constitutional government officially replaced the Confederation Congress on March 4, 1789. This bloodless transition of power helped maintain the fledgling nation’s fragile stability, but the debate over the role and powers of the national government would continue long after the Articles of Confederation became defunct.

Michael DiCamillo is the vice-president of the Historical Society of Moorestown, where he leads educational programs and processes collections for the society’s archives. He also teaches U.S. history courses at LaSalle University and has written for the Journal of Film and History. (Author information current at time of publication.)

Copyright 2015, Rutgers University

John Dickinson Draft of the Articles of Confederation

Historical Society of Pennsylvania

After his failed opposition to separation from Great Britain, John Dickinson was placed at the head of the committee to draft the new constitution for the nation. This image is a photograph of John Dickinson’s draft of the Articles of Confederation from 1776. As can be seen, he revised the document numerous times, foreshadowing the sixteen revisions that the Continental Congress would put it through before sending it to the states for ratification in November 1777.

Library of Congress

Based on the ideas of Benjamin Franklin’s initial proposal for colonial union, John Dickinson and his committee began drafting the document that would become known as the Articles of Confederation in June 1776. The document went through sixteen revisions by Congress. It was completed in November 1777 and sent to the states for ratification a few days after its completion. The document would not be ratified until March 1, 1781.

The ConJohn Dickinson by Charles Willson Peale

John Dickinson was a major political voice during from the years leading up to the Revolutionary War and continuing into the Constitutional Convention. His most famous work was a collection of essays entitled Letters from a Farmer in Pennsylvania that was published in 1768. In these essays Dickinson argued that while the power of Parliament was supreme in affairs concerning the Empire (such as making war or regulating international commerce), the colonies were sovereign in their own internal affairs. Thus any tax levied on the colonies would be unconstitutional because taxation is a power that remains within a particular unit of the empire, whether that be Great Britain or Pennsylvania. His essays gained him popularity and he attended both Continental Congresses, where he ultimately opposed independence from Britain. After independence had been decided on, Dickinson was placed at the head of the committee that would draft the new constitution for the colonies.

Related Topics

• Philadelphia and the Nation
• Cradle of Liberty

Time Periods

• American Revolution Era
• Center City Philadelphia
• Continental Congresses
• Constitutional Convention of 1787
• Independence Hall
• Native American-Pennsylvania Relations, 1754-89
• Declaration of Independence
• Bank of North America

Related Reading

Catanzariti, John. The Papers of Robert Morris, 1781-1784. Pittsburgh: University of Pittsburgh Press, 1984.

Ellis, Joseph J. The Quartet: Orchestrating the Second American Revolution, 1783-1789 . New York: Alfred A. Knopf, 2015.

Hoffert, Robert W. A Politics of Tensions: The Articles of Confederation and American Political Ideas . Boulder: University Press of Colorado, 1992.

Jensen, Merrill. The Articles of Confederation: An Interpretation of the Social-Constitutional History of the American Revolution, 1774–1781 . Madison: University of Wisconsin Press, 1959.

Maier, Pauline. Ratification: The People Debate the Constitution, 1787-1788 . New York: Simon and Schuster, 2010.

Wood, Gordon S. The Creation of the American Republic, 1776-1787 . Chapel Hill: University of North Carolina Press, 1969.

Related Collections

• R.R. Logan Collection of John Dickinson’s Papers Historical Society of Pennsylvania 1300 Locust Street, Philadelphia.
• Journals of the Continental Congress Library of Congress Washington D.C.

Related Places

• Independence National Historical Park
• York Colonial Complex
• National Constitution Center
• Murals of York: The Articles of Confederation (YouTube)
• A More Perfect Union: The Creation of the U.S. Constitution

National History Day Resources

• Draft of the Articles of Confederation by John Dickinson, 1776 (Historical Society of Pennsylvania)
• Primary Documents in American History: The Articles of Confederation (Library of Congress)
• Articles of Confederation, 1777 (National Archives)
• Transcription of the Articles of Confederation (The Avalon Project, Yale Law School)
• New Jersey in the American Revolution, 1763-1783: A Documentary History - see Section XII (New Jersey State Library)

Connecting the Past with the Present, Building Community, Creating a Legacy

• History Classics
• Your Profile
• Find History on Facebook (Opens in a new window)
• Find History on Twitter (Opens in a new window)
• Find History on YouTube (Opens in a new window)
• Find History on Instagram (Opens in a new window)
• Find History on TikTok (Opens in a new window)
• This Day In History
• History Podcasts
• History Vault

Constitution

By: History.com Editors

Updated: March 28, 2023 | Original: October 27, 2009

The Constitution of the United States established America’s national government and fundamental laws, and guaranteed certain basic rights for its citizens. 

It was signed on September 17, 1787, by delegates to the Constitutional Convention in Philadelphia. Under America’s first governing document, the Articles of Confederation, the national government was weak and states operated like independent countries. At the 1787 convention, delegates devised a plan for a stronger federal government with three branches—executive, legislative and judicial—along with a system of checks and balances to ensure no single branch would have too much power. 

The Preamble to the U.S. Constitution

The Preamble outlines the Constitution's purpose and guiding principles. It reads:

The Bill of Rights were 10 amendments guaranteeing basic individual protections, such as freedom of speech and religion, that became part of the Constitution in 1791. To date, there are 27 constitutional amendments.

Articles of Confederation

America’s first constitution, the Articles of Confederation , was ratified in 1781, a time when the nation was a loose confederation of states, each operating like independent countries. The national government was comprised of a single legislature, the Congress of the Confederation; there was no president or judicial branch.

The Articles of Confederation gave Congress the power to govern foreign affairs, conduct war and regulate currency; however, in reality these powers were sharply limited because Congress had no authority to enforce its requests to the states for money or troops.

Did you know? George Washington was initially reluctant to attend the Constitutional Convention. Although he saw the need for a stronger national government, he was busy managing his estate at Mount Vernon, suffering from rheumatism and worried that the convention wouldn't be successful in achieving its goals.

Soon after America won its independence from Great Britain with its 1783 victory in the American Revolution , it became increasingly evident that the young republic needed a stronger central government in order to remain stable.

In 1786, Alexander Hamilton , a lawyer and politician from New York , called for a constitutional convention to discuss the matter. The Confederation Congress, which in February 1787 endorsed the idea, invited all 13 states to send delegates to a meeting in Philadelphia.

Forming a More Perfect Union

On May 25, 1787, the Constitutional Convention opened in Philadelphia at the Pennsylvania State House, now known as Independence Hall, where the Declaration of Independence had been adopted 11 years earlier. There were 55 delegates in attendance, representing all 13 states except Rhode Island , which refused to send representatives because it did not want a powerful central government interfering in its economic business. George Washington , who’d become a national hero after leading the Continental Army to victory during the American Revolution, was selected as president of the convention by unanimous vote.

The delegates (who also became known as the “framers” of the Constitution) were a well-educated group that included merchants, farmers, bankers and lawyers. Many had served in the Continental Army, colonial legislatures or the Continental Congress (known as the Congress of the Confederation as of 1781). In terms of religious affiliation, most were Protestants. Eight delegates were signers of the Declaration of Independence, while six had signed the Articles of Confederation.

At age 81, Pennsylvania’s Benjamin Franklin (1706-90) was the oldest delegate, while the majority of the delegates were in their 30s and 40s. Political leaders not in attendance at the convention included Thomas Jefferson (1743-1826) and John Adams (1735-1826), who were serving as U.S. ambassadors in Europe. John Jay (1745-1829), Samuel Adams (1722-1803) and John Hancock (1737-93) were also absent from the convention. Virginia’s Patrick Henry (1736-99) was chosen to be a delegate but refused to attend the convention because he didn’t want to give the central government more power, fearing it would endanger the rights of states and individuals.

Reporters and other visitors were barred from the convention sessions, which were held in secret to avoid outside pressures. However, Virginia’s James Madison (1751-1836) kept a detailed account of what transpired behind closed doors. (In 1837, Madison’s widow Dolley sold some of his papers, including his notes from the convention debates, to the federal government for $30,000.)

Debating the Constitution

The delegates had been tasked by Congress with amending the Articles of Confederation; however, they soon began deliberating proposals for an entirely new form of government. After intensive debate, which continued throughout the summer of 1787 and at times threatened to derail the proceedings, they developed a plan that established three branches of national government–executive, legislative and judicial. A system of checks and balances was put into place so that no single branch would have too much authority. The specific powers and responsibilities of each branch were also laid out.

Among the more contentious issues was the question of state representation in the national legislature. Delegates from larger states wanted population to determine how many representatives a state could send to Congress, while small states called for equal representation. The issue was resolved by the Connecticut Compromise, which proposed a bicameral legislature with proportional representation of the states in the lower house ( House of Representatives ) and equal representation in the upper house (Senate).

Another controversial topic was slavery. Although some northern states had already started to outlaw the practice, they went along with the southern states’ insistence that slavery was an issue for individual states to decide and should be kept out of the Constitution. Many northern delegates believed that without agreeing to this, the South wouldn’t join the Union. For the purposes of taxation and determining how many representatives a state could send to Congress, it was decided that enslaved people would be counted as three-fifths of a person. Additionally, it was agreed that Congress wouldn’t be allowed to prohibit the slave trade before 1808, and states were required to return fugitive enslaved people to their owners.

Ratifying the Constitution

By September 1787, the convention’s five-member Committee of Style (Hamilton, Madison, William Samuel Johnson of Connecticut, Gouverneur Morris of New York, Rufus King of Massachusetts ) had drafted the final text of the Constitution, which consisted of some 4,200 words. On September 17, George Washington was the first to sign the document. Of the 55 delegates, a total of 39 signed; some had already left Philadelphia, and three–George Mason (1725-92) and Edmund Randolph (1753-1813) of Virginia , and Elbridge Gerry (1744-1813) of Massachusetts–refused to approve the document. In order for the Constitution to become law, it then had to be ratified by nine of the 13 states.

James Madison and Alexander Hamilton, with assistance from John Jay, wrote a series of essays to persuade people to ratify the Constitution. The 85 essays, known collectively as “The Federalist” (or “The Federalist Papers”), detailed how the new government would work, and were published under the pseudonym Publius (Latin for “public”) in newspapers across the states starting in the fall of 1787. (People who supported the Constitution became known as Federalists, while those opposed it because they thought it gave too much power to the national government were called Anti-Federalists.)

Beginning on December 7, 1787, five states– Delaware , Pennsylvania, New Jersey , Georgia and Connecticut–ratified the Constitution in quick succession. However, other states, especially Massachusetts, opposed the document, as it failed to reserve un-delegated powers to the states and lacked constitutional protection of basic political rights, such as freedom of speech, religion and the press. 

In February 1788, a compromise was reached under which Massachusetts and other states would agree to ratify the document with the assurance that amendments would be immediately proposed. The Constitution was thus narrowly ratified in Massachusetts, followed by Maryland and South Carolina . On June 21, 1788, New Hampshire became the ninth state to ratify the document, and it was subsequently agreed that government under the U.S. Constitution would begin on March 4, 1789. George Washington was inaugurated as America’s first president on April 30, 1789. In June of that same year, Virginia ratified the Constitution, and New York followed in July. On February 2, 1790, the U.S. Supreme Court held its first session, marking the date when the government was fully operative.

Rhode Island, the last holdout of the original 13 states, finally ratified the Constitution on May 29, 1790.

The Bill of Rights

In 1789, Madison, then a member of the newly established U.S. House of Representatives , introduced 19 amendments to the Constitution. On September 25, 1789, Congress adopted 12 of the amendments and sent them to the states for ratification. Ten of these amendments, known collectively as the Bill of Rights , were ratified and became part of the Constitution on December 10, 1791. The Bill of Rights guarantees individuals certain basic protections as citizens, including freedom of speech, religion and the press; the right to bear and keep arms; the right to peaceably assemble; protection from unreasonable search and seizure; and the right to a speedy and public trial by an impartial jury. For his contributions to the drafting of the Constitution, as well as its ratification, Madison became known as “Father of the Constitution.”

To date, there have been thousands of proposed amendments to the Constitution. However, only 17 amendments have been ratified in addition to the Bill of Rights because the process isn’t easy–after a proposed amendment makes it through Congress, it must be ratified by three-fourths of the states. The most recent amendment to the Constitution, Article XXVII, which deals with congressional pay raises, was proposed in 1789 and ratified in 1992.

The Constitution Today

In the more than 200 years since the Constitution was created, America has stretched across an entire continent and its population and economy have expanded more than the document’s framers likely ever could have envisioned. Through all the changes, the Constitution has endured and adapted.

The framers knew it wasn’t a perfect document. However, as Benjamin Franklin said on the closing day of the convention in 1787: “I agree to this Constitution with all its faults, if they are such, because I think a central government is necessary for us… I doubt too whether any other Convention we can obtain may be able to make a better Constitution.” Today, the original Constitution is on display at the National Archives in Washington, D.C. Constitution Day is observed on September 17, to commemorate the date the document was signed.

HISTORY Vault

Stream thousands of hours of acclaimed series, probing documentaries and captivating specials commercial-free in HISTORY Vault

Sign up for Inside History

Get HISTORY’s most fascinating stories delivered to your inbox three times a week.

By submitting your information, you agree to receive emails from HISTORY and A+E Networks. You can opt out at any time. You must be 16 years or older and a resident of the United States.

More details : Privacy Notice | Terms of Use | Contact Us

Home — Essay Samples — History — Articles of Confederation — Strengths And Weaknesses Of The Articles Of Confederation

Strengths and Weaknesses of The Articles of Confederation

• Categories: Articles of Confederation

About this sample

Words: 764 |

Published: Mar 5, 2024

Words: 764 | Pages: 2 | 4 min read

The Articles of Confederation

Cite this Essay

Let us write you an essay from scratch

• 450+ experts on 30 subjects ready to help
• Custom essay delivered in as few as 3 hours

Get high-quality help

Dr. Heisenberg

Verified writer

• Expert in: History

+ 120 experts online

By clicking “Check Writers’ Offers”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy policy . We’ll occasionally send you promo and account related email

No need to pay just yet!

Related Essays

3 pages / 1308 words

2 pages / 746 words

2 pages / 792 words

2 pages / 821 words

Remember! This is just a sample.

You can get your custom paper by one of our expert writers.

121 writers online

Still can’t find what you need?

Browse our vast selection of original essay samples, each expertly formatted and styled

Related Essays on Articles of Confederation

The Articles of Confederation and the United States Constitution are two significant documents in American history that outlined the structure and principles of the government. While both documents aimed to establish a strong [...]

The Articles of Confederation, ratified in 1781, served as the first constitution of the United States. This document emerged in the aftermath of the American Revolution, when the newly formed nation sought to establish a system [...]

The Articles of Confederation, the first constitution of the United States, was created at a time when the nation was still in its infancy and struggling to find its footing. The document aimed to unite the thirteen newly [...]

The Articles of Confederation established the first government structure that united the thirteen colonies that fought in the American Revolution. In fact, this document has created a structure for the newly created coalitions [...]

The Articles of Confederation were created in 1777 to bring order and a strong government to the states. The Articles gave the government very little powers. However, some of the powers passed national policies. Others settled [...]

One of the more impactful means by which the experience of war is recreated for a civilian audience is through the illustration of the human body, with lived experience and relevant literature illustrating war as an entity so [...]

Related Topics

By clicking “Send”, you agree to our Terms of service and Privacy statement . We will occasionally send you account related emails.

Where do you want us to send this sample?

By clicking “Continue”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy policy.

Be careful. This essay is not unique

This essay was donated by a student and is likely to have been used and submitted before

Download this Sample

Free samples may contain mistakes and not unique parts

Sorry, we could not paraphrase this essay. Our professional writers can rewrite it and get you a unique paper.

Please check your inbox.

We can write you a custom essay that will follow your exact instructions and meet the deadlines. Let's fix your grades together!

Get Your Personalized Essay in 3 Hours or Less!

We use cookies to personalyze your web-site experience. By continuing we’ll assume you board with our cookie policy .

• Instructions Followed To The Letter
• Deadlines Met At Every Stage
• Unique And Plagiarism Free

U.S. Constitution.net

The articles of confederation – the u.s. constitution online – usconstitution.net.

Also see the Constitutional Topics Page for this document, a comparison of the Articles and the Constitution , and a table with demographic data for the signers of the Articles . Images of the Articles are available .

The Articles of Confederation

Agreed to by Congress November 15, 1777; ratified and in force, March 1, 1781.

To all to whom these Presents shall come, we the undersigned Delegates of the States affixed to our Names send greeting.

Whereas the Delegates of the United States of America in Congress assembled did on the fifteenth day of November in the Year of our Lord One Thousand Seven Hundred and Seventy seven, and in the Second Year of the Independence of America, agree to certain articles of Confederation and perpetual Union between the States of New Hampshire, Massachusetts-bay, Rhode Island and Providence Plantations, Connecticut, New York, New Jersey, Pennsylvania, Delaware, Maryland, Virginia, North Carolina, South Carolina and Georgia, in the words following, viz:

Articles of Confederation and perpetual Union between the States of New Hampshire, Massachusetts-bay, Rhode Island and Providence Plantations, Connecticut, New York, New Jersey, Pennsylvania, Delaware, Maryland, Virginia, North Carolina, South Carolina and Georgia.

Article I. The Stile of this Confederacy shall be “The United States of America.”

Article II. Each state retains its sovereignty, freedom, and independence, and every Power, Jurisdiction, and right, which is not by this confederation expressly delegated to the United States, in Congress assembled.

Article III. The said States hereby severally enter into a firm league of friendship with each other, for their common defense, the security of their liberties, and their mutual and general welfare, binding themselves to assist each other, against all force offered to, or attacks made upon them, or any of them, on account of religion, sovereignty, trade, or any other pretense whatever.

Article IV. The better to secure and perpetuate mutual friendship and intercourse among the people of the different States in this union, the free inhabitants of each of these States, paupers, vagabonds, and fugitives from justice excepted, shall be entitled to all privileges and immunities of free citizens in the several States; and the people of each State shall have free ingress and regress to and from any other State, and shall enjoy therein all the privileges of trade and commerce, subject to the same duties, impositions, and restrictions as the inhabitants thereof respectively, provided that such restrictions shall not extend so far as to prevent the removal of property imported into any State, to any other State, of which the owner is an inhabitant; provided also that no imposition, duties or restriction shall be laid by any State, on the property of the united States, or either of them.

If any person guilty of, or charged with, treason, felony, or other high misdemeanor in any State, shall flee from justice, and be found in any of the united States, he shall, upon demand of the Governor or executive power of the State from which he fled, be delivered up and removed to the State having jurisdiction of his offense.

Full faith and credit shall be given in each of these States to the records, acts, and judicial proceedings of the courts and magistrates of every other State.

Article V. For the most convenient management of the general interests of the united States, delegates shall be annually appointed in such manner as the legislatures of each State shall direct, to meet in Congress on the first Monday in November, in every year, with a power reserved to each State to recall its delegates, or any of them, at any time within the year, and to send others in their stead for the remainder of the year.

No State shall be represented in Congress by less than two, nor more than seven members; and no person shall be capable of being a delegate for more than three years in any term of six years; nor shall any person, being a delegate, be capable of holding any office under the united States, for which he, or another for his benefit, receives any salary, fees or emolument of any kind.

Each State shall maintain its own delegates in a meeting of the States, and while they act as members of the committee of the States.

In determining questions in the united States, in Congress assembled, each State shall have one vote.

Freedom of speech and debate in Congress shall not be impeached or questioned in any court or place out of Congress, and the members of Congress shall be protected in their persons from arrests or imprisonments, during the time of their going to and from, and attendance on Congress, except for treason, felony, or breach of the peace.

Article VI. No State, without the consent of the united States in Congress assembled, shall send any embassy to, or receive any embassy from, or enter into any conference, agreement, alliance or treaty with any King, Prince or State; nor shall any person holding any office of profit or trust under the united States, or any of them, accept any present, emolument, office or title of any kind whatever from any King, Prince or foreign State; nor shall the United States in congress assembled, or any of them, grant any title of nobility.

No two or more States shall enter into any treaty, confederation or alliance whatever between them, without the consent of the united States in congress assembled, specifying accurately the purposes for which the same is to be entered into, and how long it shall continue.

No State shall lay any imposts or duties, which may interfere with any stipulations in treaties, entered into by the united States in congress assembled, with any King, Prince or State, in pursuance of any treaties already proposed by congress, to the courts of France and Spain.

No vessel of war shall be kept up in time of peace by any State, except such number only, as shall be deemed necessary by the united States in congress assembled, for the defense of such State, or its trade; nor shall any body of forces be kept up by any State in time of peace, except such number only, as in the judgement of the united States, in congress assembled, shall be deemed requisite to garrison the forts necessary for the defense of such State; but every State shall always keep up a well-regulated and disciplined militia, sufficiently armed and accoutered, and shall provide and constantly have ready for use, in public stores, a due number of field pieces and tents, and a proper quantity of arms, ammunition and camp equipage.

No State shall engage in any war without the consent of the united States in congress assembled, unless such State be actually invaded by enemies, or shall have received certain advice of a resolution being formed by some nation of Indians to invade such State, and the danger is so imminent as not to admit of a delay till the united States in congress assembled can be consulted; nor shall any State grant commissions to any ships or vessels of war, nor letters of marque or reprisal, except it be after a declaration of war by the united States in congress assembled, and then only against the kingdom or State and the subjects thereof, against which war has been so declared, and under such regulations as shall be established by the united States in congress assembled, unless such State be infested by pirates, in which case vessels of war may be fitted out for that occasion, and kept so long as the danger shall continue, or until the united States in congress assembled shall determine otherwise.

Article VII. When land forces are raised by any State for the common defense, all officers of or under the rank of colonel, shall be appointed by the legislature of each State respectively, by whom such forces shall be raised, or in such manner as such State shall direct, and all vacancies shall be filled up by the State which first made the appointment.

Article VIII. All charges of war, and all other expenses that shall be incurred for the common defense or general welfare, and allowed by the united States in congress assembled, shall be defrayed out of a common treasury, which shall be supplied by the several States in proportion to the value of all land within each State, granted or surveyed for any person, as such land and the buildings and improvements thereon shall be estimated according to such mode as the united States in congress assembled, shall from time to time direct and appoint.

The taxes for paying that proportion shall be laid and levied by the authority and direction of the legislatures of the several States within the time agreed upon by the united States in congress assembled.

Article IX. The united States in congress assembled, shall have the sole and exclusive right and power of determining on peace and war, except in the cases mentioned in the sixth article — of sending and receiving ambassadors — entering into treaties and alliances, provided that no treaty of commerce shall be made whereby the legislative power of the respective States shall be restrained from imposing such imposts and duties on foreigners, as their own people are subjected to, or from prohibiting the exportation or importation of any species of goods or commodities whatsoever — of establishing rules for deciding in all cases, what captures on land or water shall be legal, and in what manner prizes taken by land or naval forces in the service of the United States shall be divided or appropriated — of granting letters of marque and reprisal in times of peace — appointing courts for the trial of piracies and felonies committed on the high seas and establishing courts for receiving and determining finally appeals in all cases of captures, provided that no member of Congress shall be appointed a judge of any of the said courts.

The United States in Congress assembled shall also be the last resort on appeal in all disputes and differences now subsisting or that hereafter may arise between two or more States concerning boundary, jurisdiction or any other causes whatever; which authority shall always be exercised in the manner following. Whenever the legislative or executive authority or lawful agent of any State in controversy with another shall present a petition to Congress stating the matter in question and praying for a hearing, notice thereof shall be given by order of Congress to the legislative or executive authority of the other State in controversy, and a day assigned for the appearance of the parties by their lawful agents, who shall then be directed to appoint by joint consent, commissioners or judges to constitute a court for hearing and determining the matter in question: but if they cannot agree, Congress shall name three persons out of each of the United States, and from the list of such persons each party shall alternately strike out one, the petitioners beginning, until the number shall be reduced to thirteen; and from that number not less than seven, nor more than nine names as Congress shall direct, shall in the presence of Congress be drawn out by lot, and the persons whose names shall be so drawn or any five of them, shall be commissioners or judges, to hear and finally determine the controversy, so always as a major part of the judges who shall hear the cause shall agree in the determination: and if either party shall neglect to attend at the day appointed, without showing reasons, which Congress shall judge sufficient, or being present shall refuse to strike, the Congress shall proceed to nominate three persons out of each State, and the secretary of Congress shall strike in behalf of such party absent or refusing; and the judgement and sentence of the court to be appointed, in the manner before prescribed, shall be final and conclusive; and if any of the parties shall refuse to submit to the authority of such court, or to appear or defend their claim or cause, the court shall nevertheless proceed to pronounce sentence, or judgement, which shall in like manner be final and decisive, the judgement or sentence and other proceedings being in either case transmitted to Congress, and lodged among the acts of Congress for the security of the parties concerned: provided that every commissioner, before he sits in judgement, shall take an oath to be administered by one of the judges of the supreme or superior court of the State, where the cause shall be tried, ‘well and truly to hear and determine the matter in question, according to the best of his judgement, without favor, affection or hope of reward’: provided also, that no State shall be deprived of territory for the benefit of the United States.

All controversies concerning the private right of soil claimed under different grants of two or more States, whose jurisdictions as they may respect such lands, and the States which passed such grants are adjusted, the said grants or either of them being at the same time claimed to have originated antecedent to such settlement of jurisdiction, shall on the petition of either party to the Congress of the United States, be finally determined as near as may be in the same manner as is before prescribed for deciding disputes respecting territorial jurisdiction between different States.

The United States in Congress assembled shall also have the sole and exclusive right and power of regulating the alloy and value of coin struck by their own authority, or by that of the respective States — fixing the standards of weights and measures throughout the United States — regulating the trade and managing all affairs with the Indians, not members of any of the States, provided that the legislative right of any State within its own limits be not infringed or violated — establishing or regulating post offices from one State to another, throughout all the United States, and exacting such postage on the papers passing through the same as may be requisite to defray the expenses of the said office — appointing all officers of the land forces, in the service of the United States, excepting regimental officers — appointing all the officers of the naval forces, and commissioning all officers whatever in the service of the United States — making rules for the government and regulation of the said land and naval forces, and directing their operations.

The United States in Congress assembled shall have authority to appoint a committee, to sit in the recess of Congress, to be denominated ‘A Committee of the States’, and to consist of one delegate from each State; and to appoint such other committees and civil officers as may be necessary for managing the general affairs of the United States under their direction — to appoint one of their members to preside, provided that no person be allowed to serve in the office of president more than one year in any term of three years; to ascertain the necessary sums of money to be raised for the service of the United States, and to appropriate and apply the same for defraying the public expenses — to borrow money, or emit bills on the credit of the United States, transmitting every half-year to the respective States an account of the sums of money so borrowed or emitted — to build and equip a navy — to agree upon the number of land forces, and to make requisitions from each State for its quota, in proportion to the number of white inhabitants in such State; which requisition shall be binding, and thereupon the legislature of each State shall appoint the regimental officers, raise the men and cloath, arm and equip them in a solid- like manner, at the expense of the United States; and the officers and men so cloathed, armed and equipped shall march to the place appointed, and within the time agreed on by the United States in Congress assembled. But if the United States in Congress assembled shall, on consideration of circumstances judge proper that any State should not raise men, or should raise a smaller number of men than the quota thereof, such extra number shall be raised, officered, cloathed, armed and equipped in the same manner as the quota of each State, unless the legislature of such State shall judge that such extra number cannot be safely spread out in the same, in which case they shall raise, officer, cloath, arm and equip as many of such extra number as they judge can be safely spared. And the officers and men so cloathed, armed, and equipped, shall march to the place appointed, and within the time agreed on by the united States in congress assembled.

The united States in congress assembled shall never engage in a war, nor grant letters of marque or reprisal in time of peace, nor enter into any treaties or alliances, nor coin money, nor regulate the value thereof, nor ascertain the sums and expenses necessary for the defense and welfare of the United States, or any of them, nor emit bills, nor borrow money on the credit of the united States, nor appropriate money, nor agree upon the number of vessels of war, to be built or purchased, or the number of land or sea forces to be raised, nor appoint a commander in chief of the army or navy, unless nine States assent to the same: nor shall a question on any other point, except for adjourning from day to day be determined, unless by the votes of the majority of the united States in congress assembled.

The congress of the united States shall have power to adjourn to any time within the year, and to any place within the united States, so that no period of adjournment be for a longer duration than the space of six months, and shall publish the journal of their proceedings monthly, except such parts thereof relating to treaties, alliances or military operations, as in their judgement require secrecy; and the yeas and nays of the delegates of each State on any question shall be entered on the journal, when it is desired by any delegates of a State, or any of them, at his or their request shall be furnished with a transcript of the said journal, except such parts as are above excepted, to lay before the legislatures of the several States.

Article X. The committee of the States, or any nine of them, shall be authorized to execute, in the recess of congress, such of the powers of congress as the united States in congress assembled, by the consent of the nine States, shall from time to time think expedient to vest them with; provided that no power be delegated to the said Committee, for the exercise of which, by the articles of confederation, the voice of nine States in the Congress of the United States assembled be requisite.

Article XI. Canada acceding to this confederation, and adjoining in the measures of the united States, shall be admitted into, and entitled to all the advantages of this union; but no other colony shall be admitted into the same, unless such admission be agreed to by nine States.

Article XII. All bills of credit emitted, monies borrowed, and debts contracted by, or under the authority of congress, before the assembling of the united States, in pursuance of the present confederation, shall be deemed and considered as a charge against the United States, for payment and satisfaction whereof the said united States, and the public faith are hereby solemnly pledged.

Article XIII. Every State shall abide by the determination of the united States in congress assembled, on all questions which by this confederation are submitted to them. And the Articles of this confederation shall be inviolably observed by every State, and the union shall be perpetual; nor shall any alteration at any time hereafter be made in any of them; unless such alteration be agreed to in a congress of the united States, and be afterwards confirmed by the legislatures of every State.

And Whereas it hath pleased the Great Governor of the World to incline the hearts of the legislatures we respectively represent in Congress, to approve of, and to authorize us to ratify the said articles of confederation and perpetual union. Know Ye that we the undersigned delegates, by virtue of the power and authority to us given for that purpose, do by these presents, in the name and in behalf of our respective constituents, fully and entirely ratify and confirm each and every of the said articles of confederation and perpetual union, and all and singular the matters and things therein contained: And we do further solemnly plight and engage the faith of our respective constituents, that they shall abide by the determinations of the united States in congress assembled, on all questions, which by the said confederation are submitted to them. And that the articles thereof shall be inviolably observed by the States we respectively represent, and that the union shall be perpetual.

In Witness whereof we have hereunto set our hands in Congress. Done at Philadelphia in the State of Pennsylvania the ninth Day of July in the Year of our Lord one thousand seven Hundred and Seventy-eight, and in the Third Year of the independence of America.

On the part and behalf of the State of New Hampshire: Josiah Bartlett John Wentworth Junr. August 8th 1778

On the part and behalf of The State of Massachusetts Bay: John Hancock Samuel Adams Elbridge Gerry Francis Dana James Lovell Samuel Holten

On the part and behalf of the State of Rhode Island and Providence Plantations: William Ellery Henry Marchant John Collins

On the part and behalf of the State of Connecticut: Roger Sherman Samuel Huntington Oliver Wolcott Titus Hosmer Andrew Adams

On the Part and Behalf of the State of New York: James Duane Francis Lewis Wm Duer Gouv Morris

On the Part and in Behalf of the State of New Jersey, November 26, 1778. Jno Witherspoon Nath. Scudder

On the part and behalf of the State of Pennsylvania: Robt Morris Daniel Roberdeau John Bayard Smith William Clingan Joseph Reed 22nd July 1778

On the part and behalf of the State of Delaware: Tho Mckean February 12, 1779 John Dickinson May 5th 1779 Nicholas Van Dyke

On the part and behalf of the State of Maryland: John Hanson March 1 1781 Daniel Carroll

On the Part and Behalf of the State of Virginia: Richard Henry Lee John Banister Thomas Adams Jno Harvie Francis Lightfoot Lee

On the part and Behalf of the State of No Carolina: John Penn July 21st 1778 Corns Harnett Jno Williams

On the part and behalf of the State of South Carolina: Henry Laurens William Henry Drayton Jno Mathews Richd Hutson Thos Heyward Junr

On the part and behalf of the State of Georgia: Jno Walton 24th July 1778 Edwd Telfair Edwd Langworthy

Advertisement

Supported by

Universities Struggle as Pro-Palestinian Demonstrations Grow

Dozens were arrested Monday at N.Y.U. and Yale, but officials there and at campuses across the country are running out of options to corral protests that are expected to last the rest of the school year.

• Share full article

By Alan Blinder

At New York University, the police swept in to arrest protesting students on Monday night, ending a standoff with the school’s administration.

At Yale, the police placed protesters’ wrists into zip ties on Monday morning and escorted them onto campus shuttles to receive summonses for trespassing.

Columbia kept its classroom doors closed on Monday, moving lectures online and urging students to stay home.

Harvard Yard was shut to the public. Nearby, at campuses like Tufts and Emerson, administrators weighed how to handle encampments that looked much like the one that the police dismantled at Columbia last week — which protesters quickly resurrected. And on the West Coast, a new encampment bubbled at the University of California, Berkeley.

Less than a week after the arrests of more than 100 protesters at Columbia, administrators at some of the country’s most influential universities were struggling, and largely failing, to calm campuses torn by the conflict in Gaza and Israel.

During the turmoil on Monday, which coincided with the start of Passover, protesters called on their universities to become less financially tied to Israel and its arms suppliers. Many Jewish students agonized anew over some protests and chants that veered into antisemitism, and feared again for their safety. Some faculty members denounced clampdowns on peaceful protests and warned that academia’s mission to promote open debate felt imperiled. Alumni and donors raged.

And from Congress, there were calls for the resignation of Columbia’s president, Nemat Shafik, from some of the same lawmakers Dr. Shafik tried to pacify last week with words and tactics that inflamed her own campus.

The menu of options for administrators handling protests seems to be quickly dwindling. It is all but certain that the demonstrations, in some form or another, will last on some campuses until the end of the academic year, and even then, graduation ceremonies may be bitterly contested gatherings.

For now, with the most significant protests confined to a handful of campuses, the administrators’ approaches sometimes seem to shift from hour to hour.

“I know that there is much debate about whether or not we should use the police on campus, and I am happy to engage in those discussions,” Dr. Shafik said in a message to students and employees early Monday, four days after officers dressed in riot gear helped clear part of Columbia’s campus.

“But I do know that better adherence to our rules and effective enforcement mechanisms would obviate the need for relying on anyone else to keep our community safe,” she added. “We should be able to do this ourselves.”

Protesters have demonstrated with varying intensity since the Oct. 7 Hamas attack on Israel. But this particular round of unrest began to gather greater force last Wednesday, after Columbia students erected an encampment, just as Dr. Shafik was preparing to testify before Congress.

At that hearing in Washington, before a Republican-led House committee, she vowed to punish unauthorized protests on the private university’s campus more aggressively, and the next day, she asked the New York Police Department to clear the encampment. In addition to the more than 100 people arrested, Columbia suspended many students. Many Columbia professors, students and alumni voiced fears that the university was stamping out free debate, a cornerstone of the American college experience.

The harsher approach helped lead to more protests outside Columbia’s gates, where Jewish students reported being targeted with antisemitic jeers and described feeling unsafe as they traveled to and from their campus.

The spiraling uproar in Upper Manhattan helped fuel protests on some other campuses.

“We’re all a united front,” said Malak Afaneh, a law student protesting at University of California, Berkeley. “This was inspired by the students at Columbia who, in my opinion, are the heart of the student movement whose bravery and solidarity with Palestine really inspired us all.”

The events at Columbia also rippled to Yale, where students gathered at Beinecke Plaza in New Haven, Conn., for days to demand that the university divest from arms manufacturers.

Yale’s president, Peter Salovey, said Monday that university leaders had spent “many hours” in talks with the protesters, with an offer that included an audience with the trustee who oversees Yale’s Corporation Committee on Investor Responsibility. But university officials had decided late Sunday that the talks were proving unsuccessful, and Dr. Salovey said, they were troubled by reports “that the campus environment had become increasingly difficult.”

The authorities arrested 60 people on Monday morning, including 47 students, Dr. Salovey said. The university said the decision to make arrests was made with “the safety and security of the entire Yale community in mind and to allow access to university facilities by all members of our community.”

In the hours after the arrests, though, hundreds of protesters blocked a crucial intersection in New Haven.

“We demand that Yale divests!” went one chant.

“Free Palestine!” went another.

Far from being cowed by the police, protesters suggested that the response at Beinecke Plaza had emboldened them.

“It’s pretty appalling that the reaction to students exercising their freedom of speech and engaging in peaceful protest on campus grounds — which is supposed to be our community, our campus — the way that Yale responds is by sending in the cops and having 50 students arrested,” said Chisato Kimura, a law student at Yale.

The scene was less contentious in Massachusetts, where Harvard officials had moved to limit the possibility of protests by closing Harvard Yard, the 25-acre core of the campus in Cambridge, through Friday. Students were warned that they could face university discipline if they, for instance, erected unauthorized tents or blocked building entrances.

On Monday, Harvard’s Palestine Solidarity Committee said on social media that the university had suspended it. National Students for Justice in Palestine, a loose confederation of campus groups, said it believed the decision was “clearly intended to prevent students from replicating the solidarity encampments” emerging across the United States. Harvard said in a statement that it was “committed to applying all policies in a content-neutral manner.”

Elsewhere in the Boston area, protesters had set up encampments at Emerson College, the Massachusetts Institute of Technology and Tufts University. But those protests, for now, appeared more modest than the ones at Yale and in New York, where demonstrators constructed an encampment outside N.Y.U.’s Stern School of Business.

N.Y.U. officials tolerated the demonstration for hours but signaled Monday night that their patience was wearing thin. Police officers gathered near the protest site as demonstrators ignored a 4 p.m. deadline to vacate it. As nightfall approached, sirens blared and officers, donning helmets and bearing zip ties, mustered. Prisoner transport vans waited nearby.

“Students, students, hold your ground!” protesters roared. “N.Y.U., back down!”

Soon enough, police officers marched on the demonstration.

“Today’s events did not need to lead to this outcome,” said John Beckman, a university spokesman, in a statement . But, he said, some protesters, who may not have been from N.Y.U., breached barriers and refused to leave. Because of safety concerns, the university said it asked for assistance from the police.

At Columbia, Dr. Shafik ordered Monday’s classes moved online “to de-escalate the rancor.”

She did not immediately detail how the university would proceed in the coming days, beyond saying that Columbia officials would be “continuing discussions with the student protesters and identifying actions we can take as a community to enable us to peacefully complete the term.”

Some students and faculty members said support for Dr. Shafik was eroding, with the university senate preparing for the possibility of a vote this week to censure the president. Supporters of the censure complained that Dr. Shafik was sacrificing academic freedom to appease critics.

But Dr. Shafik was castigated on Monday by the very people she was accused of appeasing when at least 10 members of the U.S. House of Representatives demanded her resignation.

“Over the past few days, anarchy has engulfed Columbia University,” Representative Elise Stefanik, Republican of New York and one of Dr. Shafik’s chief interrogators last week, wrote with other lawmakers. “As the leader of this institution, one of your chief objectives, morally and under law, is to ensure students have a safe learning environment. By every measure, you have failed this obligation.”

A university spokesperson said that Dr. Shafik was focused on easing the strife and that she was “working across campus with members of the faculty, administration, and board of trustees, and with state, city, and community leaders, and appreciates their support.”

Amid the acrimony, and with scores of green, blue and yellow tents filling the Columbia encampment, parts of the campus sometimes took on an eerie, surreal quiet on a splendid spring day.

The unease was never all that far away, though, even with many Jewish students away from campus for Passover.

“When Jewish students are forced to watch others burning Israeli flags, calling for bombing of Tel Aviv, calling for Oct. 7 to happen over and over again, it creates an unacceptable degree of fear that cannot be tolerated,” Representative Daniel Goldman, Democrat of New York, said outside Columbia’s Robert K. Kraft Center for Jewish Student Life.

By then, in another symbol of the crisis enveloping Columbia, Mr. Kraft, an alumnus and owner of the New England Patriots, had launched his own broadside and suggested he would pause his giving.

“I am no longer confident that Columbia can protect its students and staff,” he wrote in a statement, “and I am not comfortable supporting the university until corrective action is taken.”

Reporting was contributed by Kaja Andric , Olivia Bensimon , Troy Closson , Maria Cramer , Liset Cruz , Jacey Fortin , Amanda Holpuch , Eliza Fawcett , Sarah Maslin Nir , Sarah Mervosh , Coral Murphy Marcos , Sharon Otterman , Wesley Parnell , Jeremy W. Peters , Karla Marie Sanford , Stephanie Saul and Derrick Bryson Taylor .

Alan Blinder is a national correspondent for The Times, covering education. More about Alan Blinder