The Critique of the Articles of Confederation Reconsidered

Abstract

Generations of scholars have declared the Articles of Confederation to be inadequate to the needs of the nation of necessity replaced by the Constitution of 1787. This interpretation rests on three methodological flaws. First, it is anachronistic by which I mean that scholars use as a standard of judgement answers to questions of constitutional policy embedded in the Constitution. They then judge the alternative answers of the Articles to be wrong. Secondly, they compare the Articles in practice to the words of the Constitution incorrectly assuming the “promises” of the latter became effective public policy during the Early National period. Thirdly, they interpret comparable events in accordance with their preconceived judgement. Events like Shays’ Rebellion during the Confederation era are interpreted as signs of weakness. Comparable events in the Constitution era, like the Whiskey Rebellion and its aftermath, are judged signs of strength.