Dbq - Ac

Did the Articles of Confederation Create an Effective Government?

It has been said, "From 1781 to 1789 the Articles of Confederation provided the United States with an effective government." I, however, have great reason to disagree with this statement. While the Articles of Confederation did make a giant leap in the right direction as far as an effective American government goes, it was no where near what was necessary for that time period. The nation was in an economic slump after the war and instead of helping the situation the Articles skated around the problem. This created frustration, not a solution.

The Articles of Confederation gave Congress the power to request funds but not to tax. This posed a problem for the $160 million the nation had shelled out for the Revolution against Great Britain. Congress needed money but had no way of getting it. In 1782, Robert Morris, the newly appointed superintendent of finance, proposed that Congress put a five-percent duty on all national imports. This duty was to help finance Congress' declining budget and to help aid the need for post-war debt payments. However, because Congress did not have the authority to demand this, all thirteen states had to comply with the bill before it was to be passed as law. It only took one state, Rhode Island to shoot it down. As seen in a letter from the Rhode Island assembly to Congress in late November of 1782, they refused to agree with the proposal because it kill Rhode Island's only source of income, trade. Also, "unknown and unaccountable" officers would be placed within the state to regulate and enforce said duty and this was against the constitution of that state. Rhode Island also argued that this idea, if passed, would give Congress the power to tax "indefinitely as to time and quantity", meaning that the proposal would defy the Articles of Confederation by giving Congress the power to tax, however short of a period it may be.

Congress was chest deep in debt and had no way of paying it. By the late 1780's, the states were about eighty percent behind the requested income totals from Congress and there was nothing that Congress could to about it. In late February of 1783, Joseph Jones, a Virginia delegate, wrote to George Washington about the hardships and growing frustration that the army was facing. He wrote to Washington about the lack of payment the men were receiving. Jones was concerned that because Congress had no mean of getting the money they owed the men, their compensation would never come. Basically, what it boiled down to is that Congress was trying to write the men Ð''I Owe You' notes and these men's families were lacking the necessities because there wasn't any money to send home. For that matter, the army would also be lacking physically due to the need for funds to acquire the supplies necessary to keep the men healthy. How were these men supposed to defend a nation that couldn't' even pay them to keep not only themselves but also their families afloat?

Post-war, Britain refused to abandon seven forts that were set up along the new northwestern territory of the U.S. John Jay sent a delegate to Great Britain with the instructions to demand "in a respectful but firm manner" that Britain leave what territory they had given the United States as a peace agreement and promised to evacuate. Jay was also enraged that Britain had cut off American trade with the West Indies. This had caused British merchants to increase their wealth by being the middleman in all U.S.-West Indy affairs. Congress couldn't regulate commerce under the Articles of Confederation so they had to stand on the sidelines and watch as the nation was screwed out of money, as Britain became wealthier because of their downfall. Jay gave this diplomat instructions to address this situation as well.

Problems intensified when the tensions with Spain arose in the southwest. In 1784, Spain cut off trade in New Orleans. They refused to allow merchants to sail down the Mississippi River to trade in New Orleans. John Jay attempted