The brief life of the Articles of Confederation occupies a paradoxical place in American history, at once a story of failure and of fulfillment.
By Matthew A. McIntosh
Public Historian
Brewminate
Introduction: A Republic in Experiment
The year was 1786, and delegates gathered in Annapolis to discuss the disarray of a nation barely three years removed from the War of Independence. The war was over, yet the peace had not been won. Trade collapsed under competing state tariffs, soldiers went unpaid, and Congress sat helpless while farmers in Massachusetts took up arms against their own courts. It was not tyranny from a king that threatened the republic this time, but the republic itself, a union so loose that it trembled under its own freedom.
When the Articles of Confederation took effect in 1781, they marked a triumph of republican virtue over imperial authority. After years of resistance to centralized power, the newly independent states embraced a political experiment unlike any in history, a nation built on voluntary cooperation rather than compulsion. The Articles were not merely administrative; they were philosophical. They embodied the Enlightenment’s faith in reason, the revolutionary distrust of hierarchy, and the conviction that liberty could thrive only when sovereignty remained close to the people. Each state, jealous of its independence, retained full control over its laws, commerce, and taxes, while the Continental Congress was reduced to a symbol of unity rather than its engine.
But the very ideals that had secured independence soon became the architects of dysfunction. The Confederation’s government lacked the authority to tax, to regulate commerce, or to compel obedience from the states. It could pass resolutions but not enforce them, raise armies but not pay them, and negotiate treaties without ensuring compliance. The principle of unanimity, a safeguard against tyranny, proved instead to be paralysis disguised as virtue. Every attempt to amend the Articles collapsed under the weight of competing interests, while economic depression and interstate rivalry threatened to dissolve the fragile experiment altogether.
This early crisis revealed an enduring paradox in the American political tradition: that liberty without structure breeds chaos, and unity without shared power cannot endure. The Articles of Confederation were born from the noblest of fears, the fear of domination, yet they exposed the danger of dispersing authority so widely that it ceases to exist. Out of this tension emerged a reckoning that would redefine the meaning of federalism, transform the balance between freedom and order, and lay the foundation for the Constitution of 1787. The story of the Confederation, then, is not one of failure alone, but of political maturation, a necessary passage from idealism to institution, from revolution to governance.
The Ideological Origins: Liberty, Sovereignty, and the Fear of Power
The Articles of Confederation were born from the crucible of revolution and forged in the language of fear, not the fear of foreign enemies, but of power itself. The framers of the Confederation were steeped in a political culture that equated authority with corruption, having seen how imperial government had turned taxation into tyranny and standing armies into tools of subjugation. When the Continental Congress debated the Articles in 1776, the prevailing conviction was that liberty could survive only if government remained weak. The Revolution had not been fought to replace one sovereign with another, but to ensure that sovereignty could never again be concentrated in a single hand.1
This suspicion of centralized authority drew deeply on the republican tradition that had shaped Anglo-American thought for more than a century. Classical models from Greece and Rome, particularly the histories of Plutarch and Livy, provided warnings against the seductions of power, while seventeenth-century English writers like Algernon Sidney and John Trenchard supplied the intellectual vocabulary for what became known as the “Commonwealthman” ideology. These thinkers emphasized civic virtue, self-government, and the moral vigilance of citizens as the bulwark of freedom.2 The colonists, having experienced imperial overreach firsthand, transformed these ideals into constitutional design: a federation of equals bound by consent rather than coercion.
The Enlightenment further reinforced this emphasis on autonomy and rational self-rule. John Locke’s social contract theory endowed individuals, and by extension, states, with natural rights that governments were bound to protect, not command. Montesquieu’s Spirit of the Laws offered a vision of balanced powers and localized authority that resonated with the revolutionary generation.3 Yet these philosophical influences, when translated into the practical realm of nation-building, carried inherent contradictions. By elevating the independence of each state as an absolute good, the Confederation made collective governance nearly impossible. The preservation of liberty became, paradoxically, the source of national fragility.
This ideological inheritance was not confined to political theory; it was inscribed in the very fabric of early American governance. Between 1776 and 1780, the newly independent states drafted their own constitutions, most of which curtailed executive power and expanded legislative authority. The Pennsylvania Constitution of 1776, for instance, established a unicameral legislature with virtually no checks, a radical experiment in pure democracy that reflected the distrust of governors and judges alike.4 These documents became both prototypes and warnings for the national government that followed. When the Articles of Confederation were finally ratified in 1781, they carried the same imprint: an intentional dispersal of authority, justified by memory and sustained by fear.
In this sense, the Articles were not a failure of imagination but a triumph of revolutionary conviction. They embodied a moral lesson drawn from history, that tyranny grows in the shadow of concentration. But they also revealed a misreading of history’s other lesson: that liberty requires the strength to defend itself. The architects of the Confederation succeeded in preventing despotism, yet in doing so they created a government too feeble to preserve the very freedoms it was meant to protect. The American experiment thus entered its first great paradox, that to remain free, a republic must learn not only how to resist power but how to wield it.5
The Structure of the Confederation: A Union of Sovereign States
The government established by the Articles of Confederation was not a nation in the modern sense but a partnership of independent polities bound together by fragile trust. Each state guarded its sovereignty as jealously as it had once guarded its colonial rights against Britain. The Articles made this explicit in Article II:
“Each state retains its sovereignty, freedom, and independence, and every power, jurisdiction, and right, which is not by this Confederation expressly delegated.”6
This declaration, enshrined in Article II, became both the foundation and the fatal flaw of the new government. The United States existed in name, yet its union rested upon consent rather than law, persuasion rather than enforcement.
At the heart of this design stood the Continental Congress, a single-chamber legislature that embodied the spirit of equality among states but sacrificed proportional representation. Each state, regardless of population or wealth, received one vote.7 Delegates were chosen annually by their respective legislatures and could be recalled at any time, a clear signal that Congress was a creature of the states, not the people. There was no separate executive to enforce congressional resolutions, nor any national judiciary to interpret them. The system’s architects believed that virtue and mutual interest would suffice where coercion had failed under monarchy. In practice, it left the Confederation without the institutional machinery necessary for consistent governance.
The fiscal limitations of this arrangement soon revealed its weaknesses. Congress could request funds from the states but lacked the power to compel payment.8 Wartime debt and interest payments consumed what little revenue could be collected, while the Continental currency collapsed amid inflation and speculation. Without a stable source of income, the government could not maintain an army, service its debts, or even pay its own officials. Robert Morris, appointed Superintendent of Finance in 1781, described the Confederation as “a government without means of execution,” dependent on the goodwill of entities that frequently defied its pleas.9 The economic paralysis that followed would deepen the sense of national vulnerability and call into question the very idea of republican stability.
Compounding these fiscal problems was the absence of any federal control over commerce. States enacted their own tariffs, trade restrictions, and navigation laws, often in direct conflict with one another. Virginia and Maryland clashed over navigation rights on the Potomac River; New York imposed import duties on goods from Connecticut and New Jersey, prompting retaliatory measures.10 Such disputes, unresolvable under the Articles, underscored the Confederation’s impotence. Foreign powers, recognizing the disunity, exploited it to their advantage. Britain maintained military posts along the Great Lakes despite the Treaty of Paris, confident that the fragmented Congress could not mount an effective response.11
Even legislative decision-making proved cumbersome. Major measures required the approval of nine states, while any amendment to the Articles demanded unanimity.12 This structure made consensus nearly impossible. Proposals to establish a national tariff, to regulate commerce, or to grant Congress authority over taxation all failed because a single state’s objection could nullify collective will. The result was legislative stagnation, not from apathy but from structural design. The framers’ desire to prevent tyranny produced paralysis instead, confirming that governance by unanimity was governance by veto.
Despite these flaws, it would be a mistake to view the Confederation solely as failure. For all its limitations, it accomplished the unprecedented: coordinating the war effort, negotiating peace, and managing western expansion through the Land Ordinance of 1785 and the Northwest Ordinance of 1787.13 These acts reflected an enduring belief that cooperation could substitute for coercion, that republican virtue might triumph where institutional strength faltered. The Articles of Confederation thus remain an artifact of both optimism and naivety, a testament to the founders’ moral imagination and a warning of its practical limits. The experiment in federal weakness revealed what theory alone could not: that freedom, unanchored by authority, cannot secure itself.
Economic Paralysis: Fiscal and Commercial Weaknesses
The economic disorder that gripped the United States after the Revolution was not simply a byproduct of postwar exhaustion but a direct consequence of structural impotence within the Confederation. Deprived of the power to tax or regulate commerce, Congress faced a crisis of solvency that imperiled the very survival of the republic. Wartime debts to foreign creditors, domestic bondholders, and Continental soldiers mounted while state legislatures, jealous of their autonomy, refused to honor federal requisitions. Between 1781 and 1786, the Confederation received barely a fraction of the funds it requested.14 Without revenue, the government could neither redeem its currency nor stabilize prices, and the paper money that had once financed the Revolution became nearly worthless. The ideal of voluntary contribution gave way to the reality of financial collapse.
The paralysis extended into the realm of interstate trade, where economic rivalry supplanted national cooperation. Each state acted as an independent entity, enacting tariffs, imposts, and navigation laws to advance local interests.15 Merchants in New York taxed imports from Connecticut and New Jersey, while southern states favored policies that benefited plantation economies at the expense of northern manufacturers. This fragmentation not only stifled commerce but also inflamed sectional antagonism. Foreign nations exploited these divisions with ease. Britain restricted American access to West Indian markets, knowing the Confederation lacked the unity to retaliate; Spain closed the Mississippi River to American navigation, threatening western settlement.16 In effect, the United States had exchanged imperial dependence for economic anarchy, a system in which every state was sovereign, and the nation, powerless.
The consequences for ordinary citizens were severe. Farmers and laborers bore the brunt of the Confederation’s financial weakness as taxes increased at the state level to compensate for lost federal revenue. In Massachusetts, economic distress erupted into rebellion when indebted farmers, unable to pay their taxes or retain their land, rose in arms under the leadership of Daniel Shays in 1786.17 The uprising shocked the political elite, revealing that internal instability posed a greater threat to the republic than any foreign power. The Confederation Congress lacked funds to raise a national army, forcing the state militia, and private financiers, to suppress the revolt. The event underscored a grim irony: a government founded to protect liberty could not even protect itself. The fear of despotism had produced a condition perilously close to anarchy.
By 1787, the lesson had become impossible to ignore. The Confederation’s economic failures were not temporary inconveniences but systemic flaws, the result of a government designed to be weak. Financial insolvency, commercial rivalry, and civil unrest demonstrated that sovereignty divided too finely dissolves into impotence.18 The generation that had fought for independence now confronted a sobering truth: that independence alone does not constitute a nation. The promise of republican liberty demanded a framework capable of sustaining economic life and political order alike. The movement toward a stronger federal constitution would arise, not from abstract debate, but from the desperate need to rescue the republic from its own design.
Political Deadlock: The Challenge of Unanimity and State Sovereignty
If the economic weakness of the Confederation exposed its practical limitations, its decision-making structure revealed its constitutional paralysis. The principle of state equality, embedded in the Articles, demanded that all major policies receive the assent of nine states and that any amendment require unanimity.19 In theory, this ensured that no state’s sovereignty would be overridden by a majority coalition. In practice, it meant that one dissenting vote could paralyze the entire government. The framers had sought to secure liberty through consent; instead, they produced a system in which consent became the instrument of stagnation. Congress found itself unable to respond to crises, pass reforms, or even maintain consistent foreign policy. What had been designed as a safeguard against tyranny became a barrier to governance itself.
The most striking manifestation of this paralysis appeared in Congress’s repeated attempts to secure an independent source of revenue. Twice, in 1781 and again in 1783, proposals were introduced to grant Congress the authority to impose a modest import duty, known as the impost.20 Both measures collapsed under the unanimity rule: Rhode Island rejected the first, and New York blocked the second. These defeats carried profound consequences. Without revenue, Congress could not honor the debts owed to foreign creditors or veterans of the Continental Army.21 The spectacle of unpaid soldiers petitioning for compensation, and in some cases threatening mutiny, underscored the Confederation’s impotence. The government’s authority extended no further than its power to persuade, and persuasion had long since lost its force.
Equally troubling was the fragmentation of authority over foreign and frontier affairs. States negotiated independently with Native nations, issued conflicting land grants, and interfered with national treaties.22 When Congress attempted to resolve boundary disputes, such as those between Pennsylvania and Connecticut over the Wyoming Valley, it found itself constrained by the requirement of supermajority approval and by the refusal of states to submit to arbitration. The result was a patchwork diplomacy that emboldened foreign powers and alienated domestic settlers. Spain’s closure of the Mississippi River provoked widespread outrage in the western territories, yet Congress lacked both unity and means to respond effectively.23 Sovereignty, divided among thirteen legislatures, produced thirteen foreign policies and no coherent national will.
By the mid-1780s, the Confederation had reached an impasse. Every attempt at reform, from the impost amendments to the proposed navigation powers, had been thwarted by the unanimity requirement. The structure of the Articles rendered them effectively self-entrenching: they could not be altered without the consent of every state, yet their flaws made such consent unattainable.24 What began as a constitutional experiment in collective freedom had devolved into political paralysis. The logic of sovereignty that had animated the Revolution now stood in the way of its preservation. As states pursued their separate interests, the union drifted toward dissolution, a confederacy of equals united only by shared frustration. The necessity of structural change had become inescapable, and the search for remedy would soon lead to Philadelphia.
The Constitutional Crisis: From Annapolis to Philadelphia
By the summer of 1786, the American experiment under the Articles of Confederation stood at the brink of collapse. The signs were everywhere: unpaid soldiers, bankrupt treasuries, and citizens taking up arms against their own governments. The year opened with economic despair and closed with rebellion. For many observers, the events of Shays’ Rebellion were not an isolated uprising but a symptom of constitutional decay, proof that the republic’s foundation was crumbling under the weight of its own design.25 As fear spread that the hard-won independence might dissolve into chaos, a new urgency emerged: the structure of the Confederation had to be revised, or the union itself might perish.
The first serious step toward reform came at the Annapolis Convention of 1786, called to address the persistent problem of interstate commerce. Only five states sent delegates, but among them were figures whose vision extended beyond trade. Alexander Hamilton and James Madison used the meeting to issue a broader call for a general convention to “render the constitution of the Federal Government adequate to the exigencies of the Union.”26 Though modest in attendance, the Annapolis Convention marked a turning point; it transformed the conversation from piecemeal amendment to structural overhaul. The delegates recognized that the Confederation’s weaknesses were not flaws to be patched but symptoms of a deeper contradiction between sovereignty and unity.
The following year, representatives from twelve states gathered in Philadelphia. The stated purpose was limited, to revise the Articles, but the delegates soon abandoned that pretense.27 They met behind closed doors, aware that the task before them was nothing less than the reinvention of American government. Madison’s Virginia Plan provided the framework: a national government with separate legislative, executive, and judicial branches, endowed with power to tax, regulate commerce, and enforce its laws directly upon individuals rather than through the intermediary of the states.28 This was a radical departure from the Confederation’s principles. What had begun as a league of friendship would be replaced by a federal union resting on the sovereignty of the people themselves.
The debate that followed divided the delegates, and later the nation, into two camps: Federalists, who favored a stronger central authority, and Anti-Federalists, who feared that consolidation would destroy republican liberty.29 The Anti-Federalists, drawing upon the revolutionary tradition of vigilance against power, warned that the new Constitution would create an aristocracy cloaked in republican form. The Federalists countered that only a vigorous national government could preserve liberty by securing stability and order. Their arguments, later collected in The Federalist Papers, reflected a new understanding of freedom, not as the absence of power, but as power constrained by structure.30 The Revolution’s ideological children now confronted one another across the most profound divide of all: how to balance liberty with necessity.
When the Philadelphia Convention concluded in September 1787, the delegates had exceeded their mandate but achieved something enduring. They had transformed the loose confederation of sovereign states into a nation bound by law and shared authority. The Constitution they produced replaced unanimity with majority rule, substituted consent with enforceable power, and established institutions capable of acting in the name of the people rather than the states.31 The Confederation’s failure thus became the Republic’s foundation, a reminder that even in moments of collapse, political creativity can redeem the promise of liberty. What began as an experiment in voluntary union ended as a nation capable of governing itself, guided by the hard lessons of its first constitution.
Conclusion: The Lessons of Confederation
The brief life of the Articles of Confederation occupies a paradoxical place in American history, at once a story of failure and of fulfillment. The Confederation collapsed under the weight of its own ideals, yet those very ideals gave rise to the Constitution that replaced it. The founders’ attempt to build a republic without power revealed the limits of political virtue in a world of competing interests.32 What the Revolution had won through unity, the Confederation nearly lost through fragmentation. Its weakness exposed the danger of mistaking fear of authority for love of liberty, a confusion that would haunt every generation of American politics to come.
In hindsight, the Articles served as a kind of national apprenticeship. They forced Americans to confront the reality that liberty requires more than independence; it requires order, stability, and the capacity for collective action.33 The failures of the 1780s taught lessons that no abstract theory could impart. They demonstrated that government, to be legitimate, must also be effective; that power, to be safe, must be structured; and that unity, to endure, must be grounded not merely in sentiment but in law. These realizations transformed the political imagination of the Revolution’s heirs. The Constitution of 1787 was not a betrayal of republican ideals but their maturation, a pragmatic recognition that self-government demands more than distrust; it demands design.
The legacy of the Confederation endures less in its institutions than in its cautionary power. It reminds later generations that the balance between liberty and authority is not static but fragile, requiring constant recalibration.34 The framers of the new Constitution understood this lesson well. Their system of checks and balances, separation of powers, and federal supremacy emerged from the wreckage of the Articles, a deliberate attempt to preserve freedom by disciplining it. In this sense, the Confederation was not the failure of the Revolution but its necessary continuation, the phase in which idealism met the demands of governance.
Thus, the story of the Articles of Confederation is less an ending than a beginning. From its dissolution arose a republic capable of surviving its own contradictions, a government strong enough to act yet bound enough to remain free. The American founders learned, through hardship and reflection, that liberty without power is as perilous as power without liberty.35 The Constitution that emerged from their reckoning stands as both monument and warning: that the strength of a republic lies not in the absence of authority, but in the wisdom to wield it justly.
Appendix
Footnotes
- Journals of the Continental Congress, 1776–1781.
- Bernard Bailyn, The Ideological Origins of the American Revolution (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1967).
- John Locke, Two Treatises of Government (London, 1690); Montesquieu, The Spirit of the Laws (Geneva, 1748).
- Merrill Jensen, The New Nation: A History of the United States during the Confederation, 1781–1789 (New York: Knopf, 1950).
- Gordon S. Wood, The Creation of the American Republic, 1776–1787 (Chapel Hill: University of North Carolina Press, 1969).
- Articles of Confederation, art. II (1781).
- Articles of Confederation, art. V (1781).
- Jensen, The New Nation, 112–118.
- Papers of Robert Morris, 1781–1784, ed. E. James Ferguson (Pittsburgh: University of Pittsburgh Press, 1973), 57.
- Richard B. Morris, The Forging of the Union, 1781–1789 (New York: Harper & Row, 1987), 93–97.
- Treaty of Paris (1783); Richard B. Morris, The Peacemakers: The Great Powers and American Independence (New York: Harper & Row, 1965), 456–462.
- Articles of Confederation, art. XIII (1781).
- Journals of the Continental Congress, vols. 28–32; Northwest Ordinance (1787).
- Journals of the Continental Congress, vols. 28–30; Jensen, The New Nation, 183–189.
- Morris, The Forging of the Union, 93–101.
- Treaty of Paris (1783); Samuel Flagg Bemis, Jay’s Treaty: A Study in Commerce and Diplomacy (New Haven: Yale University Press, 1962), 14–20.
- Leonard L. Richards, Shays’s Rebellion: The American Revolution’s Final Battle (Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press, 2002), 33–47.
- Wood, The Creation of the American Republic, 361–365.
- Articles of Confederation, arts. IX–XIII (1781).
- Morris, The Forging of the Union, 138–142.
- Journals of the Continental Congress, vol. 24; E. James Ferguson, Power of the Purse: A History of American Public Finance, 1776–1790 (Chapel Hill: University of North Carolina Press, 1961), 79–83.
- Jensen, The New Nation, 201–209.
- Samuel Flagg Bemis, Diplomatic History of the United States (New York: Henry Holt, 1936), 45–50.
- Wood, The Creation of the American Republic, 371–374.
- Richards, Shays’s Rebellion, 97–104.
- Proceedings of the Annapolis Convention (1786); Jensen, The New Nation, 246–251.
- Journals of the Continental Congress, vol. 32; Richard B. Morris, The Forging of the Union, 1781–1789 (New York: Harper & Row, 1987), 161–165.
- James Madison, Notes of Debates in the Federal Convention of 1787 (New York: W. W. Norton, 1987), 33–39.
- Herbert J. Storing, The Anti-Federalist: Writings by the Opponents of the Constitution (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1985), 19–26.
- Alexander Hamilton, James Madison, and John Jay, The Federalist Papers (New York: Modern Library, 1937), Nos. 9–10, 51.
- Wood, The Creation of the American Republic, 404–410.
- Wood, The Creation of the American Republic, 411–415.
- Morris, The Forging of the Union, 192–198.
- Bailyn, The Ideological Origins of the American Revolution, 322–325.
- Jensen, The New Nation, 253–256.
Bibliography
- Articles of Confederation. 1781.
- Bailyn, Bernard. The Ideological Origins of the American Revolution. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1967.
- Bemis, Samuel Flagg. Diplomatic History of the United States. New York: Henry Holt, 1936.
- ———. Jay’s Treaty: A Study in Commerce and Diplomacy. New Haven: Yale University Press, 1923.
- Ferguson, E. James. Power of the Purse: A History of American Public Finance, 1776–1790. Chapel Hill: University of North Carolina Press, 1961.
- Jensen, Merrill. The New Nation: A History of the United States during the Confederation, 1781–1789. New York: Knopf, 1950.
- Journals of the Continental Congress. Vols. 24, 28–32. Washington, DC: Government Printing Office, 1904–1937.
- Locke, John. Two Treatises of Government. London, 1690.
- Madison, James. Notes of Debates in the Federal Convention of 1787. New York: W. W. Norton, 1987.
- Montesquieu. The Spirit of the Laws. Geneva, 1748.
- Morris, Richard B. The Forging of the Union, 1781–1789. New York: Harper & Row, 1987.
- ———. The Peacemakers: The Great Powers and American Independence. New York: Harper & Row, 1965.
- Morris, Robert.Papers of Robert Morris, 1781–1784. Edited by E. James Ferguson. Pittsburgh: University of Pittsburgh Press, 1973.
- Northwest Ordinance. 1787.
- Proceedings of the Annapolis Convention. 1786.
- Richards, Leonard L. Shays’s Rebellion: The American Revolution’s Final Battle. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press, 2002.
- Storing, Herbert J. The Anti-Federalist: Writings by the Opponents of the Constitution. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1985.
- The Federalist Papers. By Alexander Hamilton, James Madison, and John Jay. New York: Modern Library, 1937.
- Treaty of Paris. 1783.
- Wood, Gordon S. The Creation of the American Republic, 1776–1787. Chapel Hill: University of North Carolina Press, 1969.
Originally published by Brewminate, 11.05.2025, under the terms of a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International license.
About the Author
