Jump to content

Talk:Articles of Confederation/Archive 2

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1Archive 2Archive 3

One Nation or 13

With respect to other changes being made by PhilLiberty, the whole issue when the United States became a nation is being debated at Talk:American Revolution#Who started what, when? and Talk:American Revolutionary War#One nation or 13. Phil's unsourced contention that throughout the war the United States were nothing but a "wartime alliance" has no support in either of these discussions. Tom (North Shoreman) (talk) 19:14, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

Articles and the military during the Revolution

The following sentence is in question:

"As a tool to build a centralized war-making government, they were largely a failure, but since guerrilla warfare was an effective strategy in a war against the British Empire, a centralized government proved unnecessary for winning independence."

The source cited does not make that claim -- in fact it suggests that a plan to concentrate strictly on a guerilla war was not implemented. A more accurate decription of the subject would describe how the Articles effected the American war effort. An example from Bruce Chadwick's "George Washington's War" (page 469) which I have added to the article:

"George Washington had been one of the very first proponents of a strong federal government. The army had nearly disbanded on several occasions duing the winters of the war because of the weaknesses of the Continental Congress. ... The delegates could not draft soldiers and had to send requests for regular troops and militia to the states. Congress had the right to order the production and purchase of provisions for the soldiers, but could not force anyone to actually supply them, and the army nearly starved in several winters of war."

Unless a source is provided that says in so many words that "a centralized government proved unnecessary for winning independence", it should be removed. The more accurate statement would be that the Americans won despite the existence of a centralized government, but that is so obvious that it would really serve no purpose -- just like the existing statement serves no purpose. Tom (North Shoreman) (talk) 19:29, 8 August 2008 (UTC) Tom (North Shoreman) (talk) 19:29, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

No source has been provided -- sentence in question and related text have been reverted and more relevant, sourced text added. Tom (North Shoreman) (talk) 12:57, 14 April 2009 (UTC)


The Articals of Confederation were made in "1781 as an attempt to resolve the issue fo where ultimate political power resided." Episode One: 1861-The Cause —Preceding unsigned comment added by 162.84.227.44 (talk) 00:13, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

Function

I have divided this section into subsections and have started to fill it in with specific actions, problems, and solutions addressed under the Articles of Confederation. Tom (North Shoreman) (talk) 14:08, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

Federalists

a group of reformers,[1] known as "federalists", felt that the Articles lacked the necessary provisions for a sufficiently effective government. Fundamentally, a federation was sought to replace the confederation. The key criticism by those who favored a more powerful central state (i.e. the federalists)[citation needed] was that the government (i.e. the Congress of the Confederation) lacked taxing authority; it had to request funds from the states. Also various federalist factions wanted[citation needed] a government that could impose uniform tariffs, give land grants, and assume responsibility for unpaid state war debts ("assumption".)

This is an incoherent and tendentious confusion between the two meanings of "federalist": those who supported a federal Constitution as opposed to the Confederation, and those who supported a strong government under the Constitution as opposed to a limited one. Madison and Jefferson were the first, but not the second. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 03:20, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

Perhaps it helps to keep the focus on a definition appropriate to the historical time of the Articles, e.g. pre-US constitution. In this case, the latter definition is not relevant. Alternatively, a distinction between the two meanings could be mentioned in the article if accompanied by a citation linking also the latter definition to the Articles. Odin 85th gen (talk) 06:29, 22 April 2009 (UTC)
Another criticism of the Articles was that they did not strike the right balance between large and small states in the legislative decision making process.

Doubtless true, in the sense that somebody made it; but dwarfed by the criticism that each state had a liberum veto. WP:UNDUE. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 03:22, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

This appears to be questionable claim in so far as the Articles of Confederation are concerned. They make no mention of a veto nor is there any reference to the 'Articles' in the Wiki page you mention. As for the type of majority decision making in the Articles, there is the following mention:
"The United States in Congress assembled shall never ...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."[[1]]. Odin 85th gen (talk) 07:31, 22 April 2009 (UTC)
  • The veto provision is in Article XIII (to amendment; but since any effective exercise of the normal powers of government required amendment of the articles, this is equivalent, especially considering how often only nine states were represented in Congress - in which case any one of them could veto ordinary legislation. ). A simple search found this secondary source as first hit. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 15:06, 22 April 2009 (UTC)
PMAnderson’s comments get to a basic problem with the article -- its actual scope. There is an article History of the United States Constitution and while some overlap is both necessary and desirable, there is at present confusion in this A of C article over both Federalists and Antifederalists regarding their pre and post Constitutional Convention positions.
The claim made in the lede that “Those opposed to the Constitution, known as ‘anti-federalists,’ considered these limits on government power to be necessary and good” seems particularly out of place. The anti-federalists were never as organized as the Federalists and had no real existence until after the Constitution was sent to the states for ratification.
The lede should discuss those reasons why there was a consensus that the Articles needed to be amended -- this has been attempted in the present article but I agree with PMAnderson that it needs to be tweaked further. Also relevant for the lede would be any significant arguments against amending the Articles if in fact such arguments were made. I don’t think, however, that even folks like Mason and Henry were making the argument BEFORE the Philadelphia Convention that the Articles of Confederation were “necessary and good”. I think there are also problems with the sentence “Fundamentally, a federation was sought to replace the confederation.” I do not believe that this was a widely recognized goal BEFORE Philadelphia and the final product, as described by Madison was not a federation but a hybrid form of government. I’m also not sure about the phrase “Although serving a crucial role in the victory...” being used to describe the Articles. Did the Revolution succeed in spite of rather than because of the Articles?
The current fourth paragraph of the lede consists of the single sentence, “The Articles were replaced by the US Constitution on June 21, 1788.” This should be expanded by a few sentences to mention the fact that there was a split between Federalists and Anti-Federalists in the ratification debates along with a GENERAL NPOV description of the differences. The place for describing these differences in detail is not this article but in the article History of the United States Constitution where there is certainly room for expanding the ratification process.
As I stated above, the section of the article titled “Function” needs to be expanded and the third paragraph of the lede should probably be a summary of that section. The “veto” issue probably is best discussed in the context of Rhode Island holding out after the other 12 states reached an agreement on a necessary tax. If there were significant arguments showing that the Articles were working just fine, then they should be incorporated into this section before being added to the lede.
I eliminated the bold face phrase from a sentence in this sentence in the first paragraph, “Under the Articles, and the succeeding United States Constitution, the states retained sovereignty over all governmental functions not specifically relinquished to the central government." Even during the operation of the A of C there were those, including Madison and Jefferson, identifying the need for implied powers. Tom (North Shoreman) (talk) 14:10, 22 April 2009 (UTC)
Also the "Background" section needs to be expanded. It is here where the discussion should focus on why the Articles were structured as they were. In particular, the domination of the Radicals in the Continental Congress through at least 1777 shaped the structure of the document and its emphasis on democratization, particularly in the state governments. As the middle of the 1780s approached, even these radicals wanted a somewhat stronger central government (certainly less so than the federalists) and this evolution should be incorporated into the article. Tom (North Shoreman) (talk) 15:42, 22 April 2009 (UTC)
And the description of the radicals needs much work; they were not a party. Describing Patrick Henry as radical after 1775, when he spent much of his time opposing reform in Virginia, and wound up a Federalist, is one mark of tendentiousness here. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 19:02, 23 April 2009 (UTC)
Agree. Regarding the focus of the article, I would think that it should primarily be on the historical time of the Articles. As such, any mention of subsequent developments should be avoided in the description. However, there is an exception. If some subsequent development can be shown to relate clearly to the Articles, such as an enumeration of the reasons why the Articles, as the original constitution of the USA, was supplanted by the US Constitution (while the perpetual Union of the Articles continued), it would likely be helpful for the reader.Odin 85th gen (talk) 20:26, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

Taxation and the printing press

The section on the inflation of the Continental dollar is drastically incomplete. The quotes from 1779 are substantially accurate; but they omit the end of the story. Congress did, in that year, stop printing unsupported money; this substantially ended the inflation, but also reduced Congress from a position of power over the states (they had money, even if it was Continentals) to the weakness of the Confederation Congress. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 03:30, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

Further information on the 'shortcomings' of the institutional arrangements of the Articles is welcome in the main text.
Final point: after making your changes please remove the POV & factual tags which are shown not to be warranted in view of your rather moderate suggestions for changes.Odin 85th gen (talk) 07:41, 22 April 2009 (UTC)
What I have listed (and how much more is there?) is itself sufficient that I would not commend this article for any purpose. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 23:51, 24 April 2009 (UTC)
Again: the minor problems identified by PMAnderson can be fixed. On the issue of POV and factual tags, other editors are requested to weigh in. In general, the article is good and the tags are not merited and should be removed. Odin 85th gen (talk) 18:33, 25 April 2009 (UTC)
Do let me know when they've been fixed. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 18:42, 25 April 2009 (UTC)
By the same token, the finances of 1779 do not belong in this article; what matters here is that the Continental Congress had given up printing money before the Confederation existed, and the Confederate Congress had no source of revenue (aside from French foreign aid, which dried up when the war was won) and significant debts, chiefly the pensions to Continental officers promised at Valley Forge, and expanded thereafter to keep them from resigning their commissions. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 21:36, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

a real nation in 1775

The USA became a real nation in 1775, not 1781. It had all the attributes of a real nation, such as the power to make war and sign treaties in the name of the USA. The 13 states all supported this nation. It was not necessary to have a written constitution to be a real nation-- Britain, France and other major powers did NOT have a written constitution. The article now makes clear the difference between de facto and de jure status, citing in this case a British treatise, Francis D. Cogliano, Revolutionary America, 1763-1815: A Political History. London: 2000. Historian Winton Solberg adds in 1775, "It immediately became the recognized revolutionary government, with its main task to conduct the war and lead the colonies ultimately to independence." [1] Editors who want to make changes need to have sources that support their changes. Rjensen 06:14, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

Standard sources. Wiki has to be based on the best scholarship, and a good example is Cogliano, the author of several in-depth studies (he's based in England). All the reviews in the professional journals have been favorable. See Michael A. McDonnell, Reviewed Work(s): Revolutionary America, 1763-1815: A Political History by Francis D. Cogliano The William and Mary Quarterly > 3rd Ser., Vol. 58, No. 2 (Apr., 2001), pp. 550-553 in JSTOR. Equallyt favorable is the review by J. D. Bowers

The History Teacher > Vol. 33, No. 3 (May, 2000), pp. 404-405 in JSTOR. Rjensen 08:28, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

    • I´m afraid the scholarship of Rjensen is suspect, or a form of original research by selecting non-cannonical research conclusions by others. The Declaration of Independence focuses on the power of independent and sovereign states to wage war, etc. [2]. Any standard review shows that confederation/constitution are the sources of political nationhood (nation-state): "Following the European colonization of the Americas, the United States became the world's first modern democracy after its break with Great Britain, with a Declaration of Independence in 1776. The original political structure was a confederation in 1777, ratified in 1781 as the Articles of Confederation. After long debate, this was supplanted by the Constitution of a more centralized federal government in 1789." [3] Hasta Nakshatra 06:58, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
reliable sources--better to use real scholarship than short, unsigned web pages that have no great credibility. The Declaration clears states a nation called the "United States of America" would "assume, among the powers of the earth, a separate and equal station." Actually, the 4th of July, 1776 is still celebrated in the US as the nation's birthday (not some date in 1781 or whenever). Rjensen 11:01, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
  • The DoI talkes about individual States becoming independent. I wish you would discuss more before going around making sweeping changed to numerous articles. --JW1805 (Talk) 17:13, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

The term nation is contentious in that it has more than one meaning. Britain, for example, can be seen as one nation, or 3 nations. The Welsh nation, for example, cannot make war or make treaties. The US is a nation that itself contains many Native American nations. "Country" is a more precise and unambiguous term. As for 1775 or 1781, I'll leave that up to others to debate Simhedges (talk) 21:11, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

Secession

Jefferson, as often, can be quoted on both sides of the issue; Madison's consistent position (from the "in toto and forever" letter of 1788 to his final warning from the grave) against the legality of secession is omitted. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 03:34, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

Feel free to add mention of Madison's view with a link to the source material.Odin 85th gen (talk) 07:35, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

Canada

Is Canada still preapproved? Whoa...what-if... — 217.199.130.81 08:55, 2005 Jul 7 (UTC)

No. The clause about Canada was part of the Articles only; Canada is not mentioned in the Constitution. (But modern-day Canada is not really the same as the entity called "Canada" in the Articles, anyway.) — Mateo SA | talk 17:00, 7 July 2005 (UTC)

First constitution of USA

I tried to change the statement in the article that says that the Articles of Confederation was the first constitution of the United States of America, but someone changed it back. In fact, the United States of America as we know it today didn't exist until 1789 when the USA Constitution was ratified. So the Articles of Confederation was not the first constitution of the USA, because the USA didn't exist. What did exist was a European-Union like league of independent states (nations).Leonard E. Patterson (talk) 16:18, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

Whether or not the "United States of America as we know it today didn't exist until 1789 when the USA Constitution was ratified", it was still called the "United States of America". It is still considered the same one nation, though it operated under two vastly-different constitutions. It is awfully hard to support the claim that the "United States of America" didn't exist when the Articles themselves give the nation's name as the "United States of America". In order to support this, you've had to add "as we know it today", which is just playing semantic games - the name of the country today is not the "United States of America as We Know It Today", but without that qualification your whole point is meaningless. Even assuming your interpretation is the correct and accepted one, putting contradictory statements like that in the article, especially without verifiable reliable sources, will just confuses readers. - BillCJ (talk) 19:44, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

Leonard E. Patterson (talk) 04:08, 29 February 2008 (UTC) The USA under the Confederation may have had the same name as the modern-day USA, but it was not the modern-day USA. The USA (Confederation) and the USA (Union, or also called "nation"), are different entities. The argument can be made that while the USA (Confederacy) was a "firm league of friendship" among a number of "free and independent states," the USA (Union) was a separate political entity that, although it replaced the USA league, was something completely different. Saying that the Articles was the first constitution of the USA, and then providing a link to the (modern-day) United States, is misleading. My point: The article as it currently stands is incorrect because it asserts that the Articles was the constitution of a union that did not yet exist, although the political body in place did have the superficial similarity of having the same name.

And the verifiable reliable sources which support my interpretation are the Declaration of Independence and the Articles of Confederation and Perpetual Union.

Perhaps I didn't express my interpretations eloquently enough to be understood, since the differences are not easy to distinguish. If I'm not clear in my explanation, point to the unclear parts and ask me to reexplain.

I had no problem understanding your explanation, eloquence or lack of it not withstanding. I'm a plain person, and speak plainly, and usually find that some people use eloquence when they wish to "obfuscate" the plain meaning of something, and to "bully" less-eloquent people into thinking they aren't as smart as the more-eloquent. I totally understand your point, but I disagree with your interpretation, as it doesn't follow the historical evidence of even the AoC itself. You wrote: "Saying that the Articles was the first constitution of the USA, and then providing a link to the (modern-day) United States, is misleading." The problem is, there is only one article on the United States to link to, and it covers the history of both "entities". I'm sorry, but many people disagree with your interpretation of the DoI and AoC. The first line of this article states: ". . . the Articles of Confederation, was the first governing document, or constitution, of the United States of America." It does not state: "the Articles of Confederation, was the first governing document, or constitution, of the Union." If it did, or if it said "federation", you might have a point, but it doesn't. To confuse matters even more, it wasn't until the end of the US Civil War and Reconstruction that AMericans, especially those in the South, stopped thinking of themselves as citizens of their home states first,a nd of the USA second - that didn't change with the adoption of The Constitution, but took over 70 years. Anyway, if you have reliable published (print or internet) sources that back up your "interpretation", you're welcome to cite them as an alternate view in a suitable section in the main text, but I don't think the Lead is the proper place for it. - BillCJ (talk) 07:14, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
  • On a side note, I don't see the comparison of the "League of Nations of America" (what else can I call it, since you are objecting to the name USA, even though its in the AOC) to the EU. Even here on Wikipedia, people can't agree on what the EU actually is - some what to call in a confederation, some want to call it a nation, while other refer to it as supra-national union. The latter is generally accepted as the best definition, but even then, you'll find the "EU-ish" (people who are citizens of EU via their member nations) trying to get the EU listed in charts such in WP article such as English-speaking Nations of the World, but not wanting to remove the member nations, such as the UK or Ireland, from the list. Of course, the UK-ish still want us to accept that England, et al, are "countries" or "nations", and include their flags in biographies, etc, even though their sovereignty is even more subordinated to their national government than the states of the US. My point is that comparing the USA under the AoC to the EU will not help to clarify the situation, since the EU's status is much more contentious than what we are discussing here! THe EU is a big mess anyway, with 25 or more mebers who all have a different idea of what the UN should be. In my opinion, the nations who want a much stronger Union (France, Germany, and some of there neighbeors) would be better off forming their own mini-EU as a tighter federation, and then have that entity be a member within a looser EU if they want to, but the rest of the EU would immediatley cry out about the return of the Napoleonic or Nazi empires, and it would all fall apart again. Of course, Europeans seldom choose simple or obvious solutions, partly why I'm glad my forebearers left Europe in the first place! - BillCJ (talk) 07:14, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

Leonard E. Patterson (talk) 14:10, 29 February 2008 (UTC)I'm intensely interested to see the historical evidence that supports your interpretation. I'm talking about official legal documents here. The documents show that the thirteen colonies became thirteen free and independent states with the Declaration of Independence, entered into a "firm league of friendship" with the Articles of Confederation, and created "a more perfect Union" with the USA Constitution. The "firm league of friendship" should not be thought of as synomymous with the "Union." I can't really respond to the argument you set forth because I still don't understand what it is. By the way, you might want to take a look at the Constitutional Congress Article and see if it's accurate to your knowledge after my changes (but we won't get into that much here).

Besides, I think that calling the Articles of Confederation a "constitution" rather than a "charter" or "framework" for a supernational league of nations is misleading. When people see the word "constitution," I am inclined to believe that they will also think of "one nation," while that was not the case at all under the Articles. And even if the Wiki Articles page does not specify "Union" or "federation," it is still grossly misleading.

The USA became a "Perpetual Union" with the Articles of Confederation. Abraham Lincoln was insistent on this fact in his First inauguration speech in 1861. He also cited that the aim of the US Constitution was to make "a more perfect union". It is therefore clear the Union existed before the creation of the US Constitution. The Articles was also a constitution, but based on a confederation form of government. By comparison, the US Constitution was based on a federation (federal) form of government. It is therefore clear that as the Union came into being in 1781 so did its first constitution. The US Constitution was therefore the second constitution of the Union. The historical evidence is quite clear and compelling on this issue. Budfin (talk) 16:55, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

Simhedges (talk) 21:30, 3 July 2009 (UTC) A constitution is a document containing out a framework for government. I am a member of a charity that has a constitution: it doesn't make us a country. So the existence of a constitution doesn't prove that the US was a single country, a federation, a confederation, an association or a sports and social club. As to that claim that the US changed drastically between the Articles and the Constitution, well, France in 2009 is constitutionally unrecognisable compared to the France of 1066. But it's still seen as a continuing country that has evolved over time. As for a "European-Union like league of independent states": in 1776 the US was at war. The EU cannot go to war: ask the Irish and the Swedes who are neutral countries within the EU. As Budfin implies, the EU is simply too confusing to cite, although all of the 27 EU member states agree that it's not a country. Simhedges (talk) 21:30, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

whoinsamhill As a barely made it out of high school cab driver I see the Articles of Confederation phrase "United States of America" as being a perfectly acceptable description to now use to describe how the compilers of the articles saw themselves. I represent those uneducated Wikipedia viewers who want information that is READABLE. When wording is changed to be made acceptable to every dissenting professor its meaning is then fathomable only to professors. Keep it readable! Mike Coughlin (whoinsamhill) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.172.98.63 (talk) 22:59, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

Fact and NPOV

Tagged since April 2009. Is there currently someone disputing the neutrality and factual accuracy? Can someone fill me in? Kaisershatner (talk) 15:02, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

What are we? 9?

Removed Citation Needed on Federalists and their want for a centralized government. Come on, this was taught all Americans who passed high school.

— Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.198.212.243 (talk) 01:06, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

Using that argument I can say that everyone who signed the constitution was named dickbuttkiss because I'm an American who passed high school. 68.39.159.17 (talk) 01:30, 26 October 2009 (UTC)
That's not true. Uncontroversial, general-knowledge statements do not necessarily need citations. -Rrius (talk) 01:41, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

Use of fringe theories

The recently added reference has several issues:

  • possible WP:Fringe
  • not well known (recalling that a topic should reflect a consensus)
  • citing information which is not accessible (without buying the book or paying for a subscription, appears to be no way for a reader to find out about the "court case").

Tedickey (talk) 13:01, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

1. Read the book. That's why it is in the footnote.
2. To find out about the book, without reading it; to see it is not fringe; to see it is well known; to borrow the book for free from one of many libraries, see:
Booklist
ALA list of books for adult readers (John Adams)
Gordon S. Wood, Reading the Founders' Minds, NY Review of Books, June 28, 2007
History News Network (hnn.us/roundup/entries/40338.html)
LIBRARY JOURNAL, March 15, 2005
Logan Library: Black History Month Booklist (Jan 26, 2009)
76.177.35.39 (talk) 01:49, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

I also have problems with the Blumrosen source. In the first place, there are no page numbers included in the footnote. This should be added to the article and I would like to see some specific quotes from the book brought to this discussion page. However the bottom line is that it is definately a small minority opinion, if not a totally fringe opinion. As such, it should not be presented as if it were generally accepted. For the purposes of THIS article, the causes of the Revolution are only covered briefly as background and it does not appear to be appropriate to expand that section in order to include such a minority view.
A more appropriate place for the info MIGHT be the article and section American Revolution#Slaves. However there was material on the Somerset decision there before, but it was eliminated a while ago (see the discussion in Archives 2 at Talk:American Revolution/Archive 2#James Somerset and the slavery issue. To include the info in this article when it was rejected from an article much more directly concerned with the origins of the Revolution constitutes a POV Fork. I believe your addition to this article should be deleted, but will wait until you respond with specific quotes and page numbers. Tom (North Shoreman) (talk) 12:37, 2 October 2009 (UTC)
No response. The claim needs to be removed for reasons cited above. Tom (North Shoreman) (talk) 15:09, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

Merge discussion

Perpetual Union appears to be an unnecessary content fork from Articles of Confederation, and should be merged here. Have I missed anything? - 2/0 (cont.) 17:35, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

The article draws out the uniqueness of the Union of American states. The Perpetual Union has tended to get lost in a discussion of the Articles of Confederation, which were effectively supplanted by the US Constitution. By contrast, the notion of a Perpetual Union has clear historical import beyond the life of the Articles. President Lincoln emphasised its great significance in the run up to the Civil War. The noted historian Kenneth M. Stampp and others have written many books about the debate about the union and its origins, with special emphasis on the Perpetual Union of the Articles. As such, it deserves to be a seperate but linked article. Odin 85th gen (talk) 18:06, 9 October 2009 (UTC)
That's not exactly responsive. There is no reason why "Perpetual Union" is an article, and much of it is original research. It should be made a redirect here without transferring its text.
Ignoring the absurd attention given to Maryland's act to authorize ratification of the Articles, the page has two principal sections. The first, "Historical meaning" provides the only substantive reference and the other references, which cites a quote from Abraham Lincoln. The substantive reference does not even back up the matter asserted. The Wikipedia article says "it was not felt necessary" to use words like "perpetual union" in the Constitution. That carries a strong implication that the drafters of the Constitution believed the perpetual union persisted regardless of the other changes brought about by the new document, and they thought it went without saying. Whether that is true or not (and it is doubtful that they would have been unanimous in such a belief), that is not what the source says. Rather, it poses the question whether the Civil War could have been avoided had the founders included the words in the Constitution.
The section then goes on to say, "While the permanence of the Union had been established and it was only the form of government that needed to be changed, some legal scholars have argued that the nature of the Union changed at the same time." That is virtually meaningless, and lacks any citation whatsoever. If the union's permanence was established, why was its nature being questioned? What about its nature changed? Who are these scholars anyway? Most importantly, where is the proof that "the permanence of the union was established"?
The section then ends by saying that Article XIII of the Articles of Confederation, which was the operative provision stating that the Union was perpetual, was the "chief basis" for Lincoln's denial of the right to secede, and attempts to back it up. For support, the article uses a passage from Lincoln's first inaugural address in which he cites a progression dating from the Articles of Association in 1774 to the Constitution for the proposition that the Union is older than the Constitution. Of course nothing in that asserts that the Articles of Confederation were the "chief basis" for the inviolability of the union. Even if that passage put the Articles front and center, which it does not, that would still only tell us what arguments he used to sway the public, not his true rationale.
We then move on to the other section, "Historical assessment", which has the unmistakable tone of an essay's concluding paragraph. While repeating the claims noted above in general terms and again dwelling on the Maryland ratification, it also claims that in addition to being impelling the 1860s US government to defend the union, the perpetual union construct of the Articles of Confederation also won the Revolution by strengthening American resolve and reducing British resolve. Of course, again, all of these declarations are made without any hint of citation. -Rrius (talk) 10:13, 20 October 2009 (UTC)
The claim of OR is unfair. The reproduction of Lincoln's statement in his First Inaugural Address on Monday March 4, 1861 is in fact itself a citation. In the address he stated:

"The Union is much older than the Constitution. It was formed, in fact, by the Articles of Association in 1774. It was matured and continued by the Declaration of Independence in 1776. It was further matured, and the faith of all the then thirteen States expressly plighted and engaged that it should be perpetual, by the Articles of Confederation in 1778. And finally, in 1787, one of the declared objects for ordain­ing and establishing the Constitution was to form a more perfect Union"

Of course, as Rrius notes, there were different views on this, including the views of the recently deceased historical scholar Kenneth M. Stampp and many other earlier shcolars, but let us not forget that Lincoln's view became the binding one. Many more citations could be added with regard to Lincoln's decisive view on the role of the Perpetual Union in the Union, including "Abraham Lincoln and a New Birth of Freedom: The Union and Slavery in the Diplomacy of the Civil War" by Howard Jones; notably in chapter 2: Lincoln, Slavery, and Perpetual Union [4], or "Team of Rivals: The Political Genius of Abraham Lincoln" by Doris Kearns Goodwin.
The reproduction of the introduction to the law whereby Maryland became the 13th and final state to ratify the Articles of Confederation and Perpetual Union is also in itself a citation to the last point made by Rrius. It reads as follows:

"Whereas it hath been said that the common enemy is encouraged by this State not acceding to the Confederation, to hope that the union of the sister states may be dissolved; and therefore prosecutes the war in expectation of an event so disgraceful to America; and our friends and illustrious ally are impressed with an idea that the common cause would be promoted by our formally acceding to the Confederation: this general assembly, conscious that this State hath, from the commencement of the war, strenuously exerted herself in the common cause, and fully satisfied that if no formal confederation was to take place, it is the fixed determination of this State to continue her exertions to the utmost, agreeable to the faith pledged in the union; from an earnest desire to conciliate the affection of the sister states; to convince all the world of our unalterable resolution to support the independence of the United States, and the alliance with his Most Christian Majesty, and to destroy forever any apprehension of our friends, or hope in our enemies, of this State being again united to Great Britain;..."

While the presentation of this article can undoubtedly be improved, it is my contention that it has value as a 'stand-alone' article due to the seperate historical importance of the Perpetual Union from the Articles of Confederation and Perpetual Union.Odin 85th gen (talk) 04:14, 21 October 2009 (UTC)
1) It is OR because the quote does not say that Article XIII was a chief reason for opposing secession. It is only an argument (and not necessarily the chief one) for why his listeners should oppose it. Thus saying it was the chief reason is OR. Your tangent about Lincoln's view becoming the dominant view is irrelevant. Only people on the political fringes believe states have a right to secede. The question is not whether the US is a permanent union, but whether the Articles are the current legal basis for it. Saying that is a fringe theory that is not supported by the limited citations provided here. As such, it should be deleted. Your point about the Maryland ratification, to the extent it addresses my point that there is no support for the notion that the perpetual union increased resolve here and reduced in in Great Britain, is just wrong. The text you quote (and you could have quoted much less) says in ordering its delegates to ratify the Articles it is telling its the other states and Great Britain that it is resolved to win. That does not mean that ratifying increased the resolve in the US, decreased in GB, or even increased it in Maryland. All it is saying is that the act is proof positive of their determination to see it through.
2) Your contention that this is so important it needs its own article is flawed. A topic can be important but still subsidiary. The idea that states cannot secede is important, and is dealt with extensively at Secession in the United States and at U.S. state#Secession, Secession, and American Civil War. The specific theories espoused here do not need a separate article. What's more, the text here is flawed and would be deleted where it should be.
3) The proper target for this page as a redirect is not "Articles of Confederation"; it should point to "Secession in the United States" which is the most clearly related topic. As a result, I am going to add the appropriate merger template to that article as well. -Rrius (talk) 22:40, 21 October 2009 (UTC)
You are missing the whole point. The Perpetual Union is not some OR idea but a major conceptual part of US history, the founding of the nation no less and its evolution. As such, it transcended the Articles, which were replaced by the US Constitution, as the governing document of the nation. It is fine and proper to reference the Perpetual Union debate in the Secession article. However, the Perpetual Union is more than that. It is an integral part in a historical legal debate about the evolution of Union, during the 1770s, during the formulation of the US Constitution, in the 1830s and leading up to the Civil War and from there to the present day. Odin 85th gen (talk) 22:54, 21 October 2009 (UTC)
Secession in the United States indeed looks like a better target - thanks. - 2/0 (cont.) 06:18, 24 October 2009 (UTC)
Perpetual Union is a valid article about the historical legal concept of the Union (of American States). Rather than merge, it could be referred to by other articles. Odin 85th gen (talk) 10:12, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

(unindent) That there is a perpetual union is, again, not the question. I will say that again because you seem not to understand what the debate is about. There is no debate here about whether there is a perpetual union. There is significant OR in the article, including the material you reinserted. The concept of the perpetual union can be discussed in a few sentences and is at other articles, most especially Secession in the United States. The entirety of the article is OR, an excessive explanation of Maryland's legislative act to instruct its delegates to ratify the Articles of Confederation, or a repetition of information available elsewhere. As such, it is an unnecessary content fork, and not a very good one. As such, per WP:merge, it should be merged into Secession in the United States. -Rrius (talk) 16:11, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

I disagree emphatically with your assessment. The "Union" is a major feature of US history and the Perpetual Union and aspects of its formation, which you don´t seem to understand and thus brush off, are important. The Perpetual Union aspect of the Articles has long tended to be neglected, which can most readily be seen by the frequent shortening of the name of the Articles of Confederation and Perpetual Union, to the Articles of Confederation. The Perpetual Union article brings out the importance of the Union. The attention of scholars to the Perpetual Union is enough indication of its importance and its worth as a separate subject matter. I think you could usefully devote your energy to improve this or some other article than to waste my time and yours by seeking to abolish the worthy article. Odin 85th gen (talk) 19:24, 24 October 2009 (UTC)
The importance of the inviolability of the union is adequately handled where it is discussed in various places on Wikipedia. The article as it stands is atrocious. It reads like an essay, and most of the points it makes are original research. As I have said now repeatedly (and I really hope you pay attention this time), this is not about the importance of the union. It is about whether there is sufficient information to justify a separate article. The valid information in the article can be expressed in a few sentences, and is in other places. There is essentially no chance that the article will ever rise above stub class. Per WP:Merge and other policies, it is clear the article should not exist. Finally, how dare you tell me how to spend my time? It is my prerogative to pay attention to whichever articles I choose. If we are going to tell each other how to spend our time, then you should spend less of your time defending a terrible article out of a sense of ownership, and rather more time reading Wikipedia policies such as WP:RS, WP:OR, and WP:MOS. -Rrius (talk) 21:41, 24 October 2009 (UTC)
The Union itself has importance, while its inviolability was demonstrated in the Civil War. A side note, I'd just like to say that parading accusations of OR, RS and MOS, doesn´t strengthen ones case, imho. How you spend your time is your matter, but when it affects others, that is a different matter. Ownership takes many forms, I believe you are exhibiting a strong case of ownership over an idea. Further just deleting stuff is not in itself proof of good editorship. Why don´t you show your abilities in improving the article rather than trying to destroy it? Odin 85th gen (talk) 08:35, 25 October 2009 (UTC)
I am trying to improve project by eliminating a terrible article. The fact that you have said I accused you of "MOS" shows you don't even know what MOS is: the Manual of Style. The same goes for RS, which is Wikipedia's policy on reliable sources. I recommended you read them because it was clear you weren't familiar with them, something you proved in your last contribution. Now, instead of telling me how horrible I am and what I should be doing, why don't you address the actual points that have been brought up. Explain how Secession in the United States fails to adequately cover the topic and why additions to that article wouldn't correct any such failure. Explain how the text that is unsupported by references isn't original resources. Explain how the "Historical meaning" section isn't just a concluding paragraph, which is not something we use here on Wikipedia. Explain, more broadly, how User:2/0 and I are wrong about this meeting the criteria of WP:Merge. Explain how quoting the entire act regarding Maryland's ratification is necessary to make the point that Maryland was the last state to ratify the Articles. Explain why material that is not referenced shouldn't be deleted despite WP:Cite, WP:verify, and WP:RS. -Rrius (talk) 00:29, 26 October 2009 (UTC)
Rather than allowing this to become a negative contentious discussion based on misrepresentations and ad hominum arguments, I propose we explore the possibility of salvaging this article by bringing it up to acceptable standard based on the central idea that the Perpetual Union warrants seperate coverage. I have made an effort to edit it with an aim to improve and hopefully please. I'll add some additional citations when I find time to dig them up. Odin 85th gen (talk) 08:28, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

Jefferson Quote

I propose we remove the following:

If any state in the Union will declare that it prefers separation . . . to a continuance in union . . . I have no hesitation in saying, let us separate.
— Jefferson letter to William H. Crawford, Monroe's Secretary of the Treasury, 1816

It is unsourced and misleading. I've found the full letter to place the piece in context, and this is the full quote:

In your letter to Fisk, you have fairly stated the alternatives between which we are to choose : 1, licentious commerce and gambling speculations for a few, with eternal war for the many; or, 2, restricted commerce, peace, and steady occupations for all. If any State in the Union will declare that it prefers separation with the first alternative, to a continuance in union without it, I have no hesitation in saying, "let us separate." I would rather the States should withdraw, which are for unlimited commerce and war, and confederate with those alone which are for peace and agriculture.

http://www.yamaguchy.netfirms.com/7897401/jefferson/1816b.html

It's clearly a rhetorical device. He sets up a proposition that is so unimaginably favorable, and essentially says, "if you want something that insane, then I'd prefer not to be in a union with you." It is philosophic, not legal commentary. The stipulation removed and replaced by elipses is absoutely central to the point being made, and it cannot be removed without drastically mischaracterizing and bastardizing the point being made. Dolewhite (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 18:50, 13 January 2010 (UTC).

European Union

It would be intriguing to offer a reference to the confederal structure of the European Union as a comparison. The Committee of the States alone sounds very much like the European Commission. G. Csikos, 25 February 2010 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.245.238.133 (talk) 01:28, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

European Union and NATO combined. Except without the fiat currency and standing armies. Jive Dadson (talk) 07:11, 25 November 2010 (UTC)


The funny thing about this article is that it does not even have the full text of "the articles". all it has is a bunch of political bs discourse on the articles. Why not let the original document stand on it's own without the stupid biased commentary and quotes that try to show one depiction of the document or another? why not have a seperate "about page " where you lamers can argue about that bs seperately? I thought this was an encyclopedia, not a pulpit? Why do you have a seperate link to it entirely? Don't bother arguing with me, I'm never coming back here. Thx! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.170.243.96 (talk) 12:04, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

Where are they now? .

Where are the actual Articles of Confederation now? Are they on display somewhere? Perhaps some mention of that should be made here?Ttenchantr (talk) 05:16, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

The Library of Congress has some remarkable images of truly historic documents. Steveozone (talk) 06:16, 28 September 2010 (UTC)
The Articles of Confederation are in the National Archives. During World War II, they, along with other historical documents, were stored at the Depository in Fort Knox, Kentucky. Tiyang (talk) 07:14, 26 February 2011 (UTC)

Mangled edits

I was trying to clean up a few things, and someone else started editing at the same time. The result is a bigger mess than when I started. The lead sentence is now rather ridiculous, for example.

What I was trying to do was to clarify the use of the terms "United States," "United States of America," and "the United States, in congress assembled." I also reworded some sections that implied that the confederation was a federal government akin to how that term is understood today.

I came here initially to find the text of the Articles of Confederation. I did not find a link to the actual text of the Articles. I guess it was there, but not obvious. So I put a link to it, (from a .gov domain), in the lead sentence. That did not go over with the other editor. Somehow, it should be right up front.

I defer now to whomever was editing along with me. Perhaps I will try again later.

Jive Dadson (talk) 07:04, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

Replacement?

I do not think that the Constitution replaced the Articles.

I have never seen any document to that effect.

The Constitution changed the law, yet where it does not directly change the Articles, the Articles remain in effect.

Article I: The Stile of this Confederacy shall be "The United States of America".

Preamble: We the People of the United States... do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.

Voiding the Articles would dissolve the nation, which did not happen.

The Articles formed the nation: Articles of Confederation and perpetual Union between the states...

The Constitution assumes that a nation is already in effect, & makes no mention of revoking the Articles, nor iterates that the nation is being formed.b

Therefore, the section, 'Revision and replacement', is incorrect, & Article XIII does not cause the Articles to lose their power in 1790.

Nantucketnoon (talk) 12:20, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

The Constitution didn't need to recreated the country; it was already created. Interestingly, you left out one of the most important phrases of the Preamble with respect to this: "in order to form a perfect Union". By the time the US Constitution was adopted, the idea of replacing an existing constitution was already something that had been done in the states. It is frankly absurd to argue that the Articles remain in effect because the Constitution didn't repeat a part of the Articles that was merely parroting what was said in the Declaration of Independence and the practice of the states before their adoption. It is just as absurd that the many states whose original constitutions recited their state's borders still operate under those constitutions because later ones did not restate the borders. -Rrius (talk) 04:59, 21 August 2010 (UTC)
You'll find that each state that ratified carefully passed resolutions that adopted the Constitution as a replacement for membership in the Confederation, each assuming that the Confederation would be no more. Steveozone (talk) 06:12, 28 September 2010 (UTC)
The point is that a reliable source is required to say that the Articles were a constitution. Without this, the claim requires deletion. 03:05, 17 September 2011 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.202.48.48 (talk)
thousands of RS say the Articles were a constitution: Try "The Articles of Confederation: America's First Constitution" (in he American Pageant, Volume I: A History of the American People (2009) p 181; The Articles of Confederation: the first constitution of the United States by Barbara Feinberg (2002); "Americans greeted the news of the completion of the ratification of the Articles of Confederation and Perpetual Union — America's first constitution — with the pealing of church bells, fireworks,...." [Gordon Wood, ed Russian-American dialogue on the American Revolution (1995) p 217; Official government document: The First Constitution—The Articles of Confederation,” The Charters of Freedom, US National Archives and Records Administration, College Park, Maryland, 2004; political science textbook: "This first constitution, the Articles of Confederation" [Susan Welch, Understanding American Government (2009) p. 23] and 3000+ additional citations listed at google.books.com Rjensen (talk) 17:18, 19 September 2011 (UTC)
Read the comments above. To that, it can be added that before the Articles, the United States of America did not exist as a nation. The Declaration of Independence did not legally create it. It was simply a declaration by 13 "sovereign and independent" states renouncing their ties with the British king. It was by a printers mistake that the stile United States of America appeared on the broadsheet, when in fact it was to read the united States of America. Importantly, the printers mistake did not alter the essential fact. The Articles of Confederacy was the constitution part of the agreement. The Articles of Perpetual Union, however, legally bound the states as new nation. Plankto (talk) 17:40, 19 September 2011 (UTC)
Plankto made all that up--he has no RS for these fringe claims. No major country had a written constitution in 1776 so it's silly to say the USA must have one to legally exist. Rjensen (talk) 17:43, 19 September 2011 (UTC)
There were 13 countries, not one, in 1776 - each with their constitution! The legally binding nature of the Articles has been established in Supreme Court rulings. See Texas vs White in Secession in the United States.Plankto (talk) 17:50, 19 September 2011 (UTC)
Actually, that's quite wrong. At least 13 countries along the east coast of North America had written or were writing constitutions. If you don't understand that from the Declaration of Independence to ratification of the Articles of Confederation the states were merely 13 independent countries in an alliance aimed at securing independence, then you need to study early American history. If you don't know that "united States of America" was the correct, or at least most common, form before the Articles, then you need to look at more primary sources of that error. It is most certainly not a "fringe theory". -Rrius (talk) 18:03, 19 September 2011 (UTC)

First section, summing paragraph three.

I don't understand why the lead section on the Articles of Confederation is summed up with the statements that "There was no president, executive agencies or judiciary. There was no tax base. There was no way to pay off state and national debts from the war years." None of this is true! Articles 8 and 9 detail the construction of a high court (a judiciary); the federal government ran on a national real estate tax, and a nation head tax for defense; established a president (one year term) and such agencies as necessary. And the government could raise taxes for the welfare of the nation, which I take would logically include war debts. RoySheehan —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.240.204.195 (talk) 01:33, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

I think I'm starting to get it. The American origin myth stories (Texas Book Board styled history) on Wikipedia are all closely monitored by a group of conservative minders. The fact that historical inquiry has progressed to include modern computer data analysis (of elections, financial records, census data, etc.) over the past 50 years makes 'no never mind' to these chaps, fact based history be damned, what these guys believe in is a good moral tale for a good moral citizenry. I don't disagree that the prescription works in the short run. RoySheehan —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.240.215.84 (talk) 05:53, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

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.

—Preceding unsigned comment added by 168.216.95.34 (talk) 15:40, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

Didn't know where else to post. It states that the federal government was allowed to issue currency but that is incorrect. According to www.ourdocuments.gov/doc.php?flash=true&doc=3 and AM GOV 2011 published by McGraw-Hill which states "...each state issued its own currency..." page 22. The page of course is talking about the U.S. under the Articles of Confederation. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Crazyhistorydude (talk • contribs) 02:18, 7 November 2011 (UTC)

The New Nation

In the lead it has been questioned that the Articles "legally established the United States of America as a nation", with the text "legally established a confederation of sovereign states" replacing it. This latter interpretation focuses on the Confederation part of the Articles while ignoring the Perpetual Union part of it - which established the nation. The scholar Merrill Jensen wrote "The New Nation" in 1950 as a History of the United States during the Confederation (1781-89).[5]. The title identifies the nation with the confederation and the year 1781, and not 1776 (DOI) or 1789 (US Constitution). Jensen also wrote "Founding of a Nation: A History of the American Revolution, 1763-1776", suggesting the revolution laid the foundation for the nation, which took legal form with the final ratification of the Articles in 1781. In the authorative account, The Forging of the Union 1781-1789, Richard Morris states "Merrill Jensen, who in his magisterial study The New Nation finds the period of the Confederation "one of extraordinary growth." p. 135. Recognised historical scholars thus considere the new nation to have come into being in 1781. I therefore propose the earlier formulation be re-adopted "legally established the United States of America as a nation". Plankto (talk) 17:58, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

No, Merrill Jensen (no relation to me) says the nation was founded in 1776. So do the other scholars. So did Abe Lincoln ("four score and seven years ago-1776--brought forth a NEW NATION"). The birth s celebrated on July 4 in honor of 1776 (not 1781). The USA did not need to finalize its written constitution to be legally established (no other nation of any size had a written constitution in those days). M.Jensen writes, "carried over into the new nation after 1776" [The making of the American constitution]] His Articles book (pre 1781) speaks of the "the new nation they founded" in 1776] Rjensen (talk) 19:51, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

Edit request from , 14 November 2011

I have finished the Chinese entry of "the Articles of the Confederation" named "邦联条例".But I found that I haven't have the ability to add "zh:邦联条例" to link this English page to Chinese page. So, if anyone have the ability, please help me add it. Thank you very much!


Henryzyt (talk) 06:29, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

 Done Not by me, by the bot that adds interlanguage links! Zidanie5 (talk) 11:35, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

Virginia ratification date

Looks like there is a conflict of a year on the date? --JWB (talk) 03:08, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

Yes first it says "The first state to ratify was Virginia on December 16, 1777." and then gives the date as "Virginia December 15 1778"Historian932 (talk) 03:06, 27 January 2012 (UTC)
This source states the date as December 16, 1777 and adds the following in a footnote:

The published Journals of Congress print this enabling act of the Virginia assembly under date of Dec. 15, 1778. This error has come from the MS. vol. 9 (History of Confederation), p. 123, Papers of the Continental Congress, Library of Congress.

If the above is correct and American Constitutions, the other cited source, has copied the error, then technically the section does not contradict itself; it states both the correct date and the date as "given ... in American Constitutions". This, however, may prove confusing to the reader. --Several Pending (talk) 18:07, 21 February 2012 (UTC)
My initial inclination was toward 1778, as Dec 1777 would be a fast turnaround, as First Ownership of Ohio Lands highlights. However, I have found two references that also point to a Dec 1777 ratification. Jonathan Elliot's The debates in the Several State Conventions on the Adoption of the Federal Constitution (98) and John Mallory's United States Compiled Statutes (13044-5) indicate the delegates of several states, including Virginia, signed the Articles on 9 July 1778. Neither make any mention of when the states ratified the Articles, but I doubt Virginia allowed their delegates to sign before offical approval. Additionally, the Stated Department Office of the Historian also gives December 16, 1777 as the date for Virginia. Cheers. Encycloshave (talk) 19:27, 21 February 2012 (UTC)
I went ahead and made the appropriate corrections. Along with that, I added citations for the above publications. Encycloshave (talk) 20:12, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

Chaotic flow

All disputes over details aside, the article reads badly in terms of chronology, jumping back and forth, with one entire section totally out of order.

Without changing any content, I'm going to try to make it read in better order, so it isn't confusing.

Related to that, there's a huge amount about the Articles in the Constitution article that actually belongs here. If I don't wear myself out, I'll tackle that next.Dismalscholar (talk) 19:40, 15 March 2012 (UTC)

Okay, I redid the section on Drafting. I broke my intent about content by introducing the name of the head of the committee, John Dickinson, because it helped with flow. IMO the section on ratification should be attached to Drafting to create "Drafting and Ratification". Comments, anyone? Dismalscholar (talk) 22:12, 15 March 2012 (UTC)

nothing is stated in he article about the turmoil of the congress during it's ratification. I recommend at least some mention of congress leaving Philadelphia and then spending a large portion of the time of ratification in York, PA. It is historically significant fact that they were in York. From September 1777 through late June of 1778. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.234.14.45 (talk) 23:43, 25 September 2012 (UTC)

The articles were not a constitution

The Articles of Confederation do not include the word "constitution".[2]

If the Articles are the first constitution then a reliable source needs to be cited that says this. Otherwise edits are necessary.

What goes into the lead must meet the policy for this wp:lead — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.202.48.48 (talk) 01:12, 16 September 2011 (UTC)

How about the Library of Congress? [6] Steveozone (talk) 01:46, 16 September 2011 (UTC)
What about the library of Congress? 71.202.48.48 (talk) 02:54, 16 September 2011 (UTC)
The RS are clear that it was the first constitution: Try "The Articles of Confederation: America's First Constitution" (in he American Pageant, Volume I: A History of the American People (2009) p 181; The Articles of Confederation: the first constitution of the United States by Barbara Feinberg (2002); "Americans greeted the news of the completion of the ratification of the Articles of Confederation and Perpetual Union — America's first constitution — with the pealing of church bells, fireworks,...." [Gordon Wood, ed Russian-American dialogue on the American Revolution (1995) p 217; Official government document: The First Constitution—The Articles of Confederation,” The Charters of Freedom, US National Archives and Records Administration, College Park, Maryland, 2004; political science textbook: "This first constitution, the Articles of Confederation" [Susan Welch, Understanding American Government (2009) p. 23] and 3000+ additional citations listed at google.books.com Rjensen (talk) 12:15, 16 September 2011 (UTC)

A constitution doesn't need to have the word constitution in it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ichabodvancha (talk • contribs) 16:50, 2 October 2013 (UTC)

Article Summaries Edit (Specifically article 6) Major Edit*

In the 6th article it summarizes,"Only the central government is allowed to conduct foreign political or commercial relations...". I think it should read, "Only the central government is allowed to conduct foreign political". I read the Articles of Confederation's entire article 6 and did not come across the power of the central government to regulate foreign commerce. I looked at many sites stating that it was the opposite, that the government under Articles of Confederation had no power to regulate interstate and foreign commerce. The United States Constitution gave the power of interstate and foreign commerce to the federal government not the Articles of Confederation.

This page also contradicts itself, stating, "Congress had also been denied the power to regulate either foreign trade or interstate commerce and, as a result, all of the States maintained control over their own trade policies."

Sparknotes informs,"The failure of a supreme authority to regulate interstate commerce became a problem because, although Congress was endowed with the sole authority to negotiate foreign treaties, it did not have the power to control trade between individual states and foreign countries."

UshistoryScene agrees, "America in the mid-1780’s was plagued by economic chaos that originated from the national government’s inability to manage trade. Under the Articles of Confederation, Congress had limited power to regulate trade. Congress was only able to regulate trade and commerce with Native American tribes and, even then, only if it did not impair an individual state’s ability to monitor its own trade. Congress had no ability to negotiate trade agreements with foreign countries." If foreign commercial relations is directed toward the Native Americans as depicted in this article it should be separately stated along the lines of, "conduct foreign political or Native American commercial relations," or "conduct foreign political relations or Native American commercial relations."

If I am misinformed please tell me, I was just writing a American research paper and became severely confused with the contradictions I [think I] saw within this article, and its contradictions with other sources.

http://avalon.law.yale.edu/18th_century/artconf.asp#art6 http://www.sparknotes.com/history/american/articles/section2.rhtml http://www.ushistoryscene.com/uncategorized/articlesofconfederation/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ichabodvancha (talk • contribs) 17:17, 2 October 2013 (UTC)

Merger proposal

The following discussion is an archived discussion of a

Merge Proposal and / or Redirect. Please do not modify it.
The result of the request for the Proposed Merger of {see requested article(s) below} into this talk page's article was:

Part 1: Merger of two "Redundant" Lists—Done
Part 2: Not Done—No Consensus as to the form of any merger.
— — — — —
See also: Talk:List of Presidents of the Congress under the Articles of Confederation § Proposed merger from List of Presidents under the articles of confederation

==> The articles List of Presidents of the Congress under the Articles of Confederation and List of Presidents under the articles of confederation should be merged here, to the Articles of Confederation#Presidents of the Congress section. --JC1008 (talk) 15:00, 13 August 2013 (UTC)

Um... Surely this is a controversial proposal, but it may be the most technically correct: The Articles of Confederation and Perpetual Union founded "The United States of America". Despite "Perpetual", the Articles provided conditions under which they could be replaced. Those conditions were met when the current Constitution was unanimously ratified (see Articles of Confederation). Thus, Presidents under the Articles were Presidents of the United States and should arguably be in that list, though certainly distinguished from GW etc. After all, Americans count the age of the country from July 4, 1776, five years before even the Articles were ratified. Laguna CA (talk) 18:51, 16 August 2013 (UTC)
The list of Presidents of the United States is not involved in this merger proposal. The merger proposal is for duplicative lists for the Articles of Confederation. The executive office of President of the United States did not exist until the Constitution. The (unicameral) Congress had a president, and the modern-day Congress (Senate) STILL has a president who is not the President of the United States. --JC1008 (talk) 19:08, 16 August 2013 (UTC)
Just wanted to point out that the (post-Articles) Constitution of the United States and List of Presidents of the United States (under the post-Articles Constitution) are separate articles, and the good reasons for that are on point for this merger proposal. The Articles of Confederation and the list of Presidents of the United States under the Articles of Confederation should be separate for the same reasons that the Constitution of the United States and the List of Presidents of the United States articles are different. Just my two cents. 192.138.214.120 (talk) 00:08, 10 September 2013 (UTC)
There is nothing in the separate article for the men who served as presiding officer of the Articles of Confederation Congress that is not already in this article, so there is no obvious reason for its existence. The fact is however that the list doesn't belong here either. It belongs in the suite of articles in which Congress of the Confederation lies because the officer in question was nothing more or less than the presiding officer of that legislative body. Currently, the presidents under the Confederation are included in the list at President of the Continental Congress because the membership of the latter automatically became the membership of the other. There is some question whether those officers should be included there or split off into a sublist at Congress of the Confederation, but the standalone article and the list at this article make no sense.
That article should be redirected, for the moment, to President of the Continental Congress and the section at this article should be deleted with a link to that article also put somewhere in the remaining text of this article. Then a discussion should ensue at either President of the Continental Congress or Congress of the Confederation, with notice at the other and at the relevant WikiProject pages, as to whether the existing list should be split between the two articles or retained in its current form. -Rrius (talk) 00:57, 10 September 2013 (UTC)
Articles of Confederation#Presidents of the Congress begins with Samuel Huntington, while List of Presidents under the articles of confederation and List of Presidents of the Congress under the Articles of Confederation begin with John Hanson. This is because Hanson was the first President of Congress under the Articles of Confederation as opposed to the Congress that existed before the Articles were ratified.
That said, I believe List of Presidents under the articles of confederation and List of Presidents of the Congress under the Articles of Confederation should be redirected to Articles of Confederation#Presidents of the Congress, but then to remove the two Presidents listed before John Hanson here. Holdek (talk) 06:46, 23 September 2013 (UTC)

Agreed List of Presidents under the articles of confederation and List of Presidents of the Congress under the Articles of Confederation are redundant and so short they would be better merged into a larger article. I am personally in favor of incorporating them into the Congress of the Confederation article, as it concerns the government of the United States under the Articles and thus would seem to include the president of the congress. Nathaniel Greene (talk) 03:13, 29 September 2013 (UTC)

— — — — —
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a WP:PM.

Please do not modify it.

Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section. GenQuest "Talk to Me" 15:37, 24 October 2013 (UTC)

A copy of this template can be found here.

Factual Error

The article states that "the Articles and the Constitution were established by many of the same people." That is demonstrably false. Of the thirty-nine people who signed the Constitution, only five of them had signed the Articles of Confederation. Thus, 87% of the delegates to the 1787 Constitutional Convention had nothing to do with the writing of the Articles of Confederation. See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_signers_of_the_United_States_Constitution

John Paul Parks (talk) 17:00, 30 November 2013 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 29 January 2014

Fatman22222 (talk) 15:40, 29 January 2014 (UTC) i like booty

Not done: as you have not requested a change.
If you want to suggest a change, please request this in the form "Please replace XXX with YYY" or "Please add ZZZ between PPP and QQQ".
Please also cite reliable sources to back up your request, without which no information should be added to any article. - Arjayay (talk) 17:52, 29 January 2014 (UTC)

Name change of the page to 'Articles of Confederation and Perpetual Union'

Looking at the history of the talk page and the article page itself I don't think anyone has offered the option of renaming the page to 'Articles of Confederation and Perpetual Union', the title of the Articles when they were written, passed, and signed by the founding delegates. The page was started as 'Articles of Confederation' - maybe one of those mistakes which took hold immediately. Thoughts from regular editors of this page and others? (I personally am in favor of historical accuracy, but to be totally accurate the 'P' in perpetual would be lower-case). Thanks. Randy Kryn 13:44 21 September, 2014 (UTC)

Oppose I have never seen that used as a name by a scholar or history textbook or popular publication. Rjensen (talk) 16:21, 21 September 2014 (UTC)
Yes, the proposed change is quite a mouthful and is far from common usage. Even the Continental Congress seemed to vary on the documents name (see Library of Congress collection online http://memory.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query ). So this may be a non-starter. The intent of the proposed name change was that, if the use of 'perpetual union' in the name was the full and formal title that the delegates and drafters used at the time of the creation of the Articles, then Wikipedia could get it right. Common names are fine in sports and other areas - a (Pete) Rose by any other name is "Pee Wee" Reese - but since this is a major founding document then I thought a name change was at least worth a discussion. A couple of days ago I put up a similar request on the talk page of 'Federalist Papers', which I believe should be renamed The Federalist Papers (a bit more logical of a rename than this one), and just carried that over to this page. Randy Kryn 10:48 22 September, 2014 (UTC)

physical history

Can someone add a brief discussion of the physical history of the document itself? At least mention the document's current location? Elsquared (talk) 13:05, 25 January 2015 (UTC)

Sorry, my mistake. I just noticed in the window that it's at the National Archives. Is it on display with the Declaration of Independence and Constitution? Or somewhere else? In storage maybe? Elsquared (talk) 13:14, 25 January 2015 (UTC)

Excessively long opening sentence

Currently the opening sentence of this article says:

The Articles of Confederation, formally the Articles of Confederation and Perpetual Union, was an agreement among all thirteen original states in the United States of America that served as its first constitution.

I think this is needlessly complicated. The article titled Winston Churchill does not begin as follows:

Sir Winston Churchill, formally Sir Winston Leonard Spencer-Churchill, KG, OM, CH, TD, DL, FRS, RA (30 November 1874 – 24 January 1965) was a British statesman who was the Prime Minister of the United Kingdom from 1940 to 1945 and again from 1951 to 1955.

Instead it says:

Sir Winston Leonard Spencer-Churchill, KG, OM, CH, TD, DL, FRS, RA (30 November 1874 – 24 January 1965) was a British statesman who was the Prime Minister of the United Kingdom from 1940 to 1945 and again from 1951 to 1955.

Everybody can see from the title of the article that he is usually called "Winston Churchill". Similarly this article could begin as follows:

The Articles of Confederation and Perpetual Union was an agreement among all thirteen original states in the United States of America that served as its first constitution.

The title of the article is still Articles of Confederation, and that conspicuously sits right above the opening sentence, making it clear that that is the name usually used. Michael Hardy (talk) 22:16, 18 July 2015 (UTC)

Evidently it's too clear, as users keep removing the "and Perpetual Union" part. I've thus restored the previous wording. - BilCat (talk) 17:27, 28 September 2015 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Articles of Confederation. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

checkY An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 00:19, 10 July 2017 (UTC)

Shay's vs. Shays's

Gmanfive: I will leave this page alone and hope that a relevant discussion will emerge on the appropriate page. Many, many external sources use "Shays's" and NOT "Shay's." It is a style choice. It is incorrect to say, "It's 'Shays' Rebellion' not 'Shays's.'" Reversions should be discussed per Wikipedia policy unless they are obvious vandalism or errors. Cheers! Holy (talk) 19:59, 7 December 2015 (UTC)

Our article is titled Shays' Rebellion, so if that's not the proper name according to sources, that article is where to originate the change of WP terminology, via a page rename discussion on its talkpage. Here, I think we are best calling it whatever WP's article is called unless there's a strong reason that we shouldn't even be consistent among our own articles. DMacks (talk) 21:43, 7 December 2015 (UTC)
I concur with DMacks. Furthermore, debate on the grammar, proper spelling, or "style choice" of a Wikipedia article title should take place in the talk page of the article in question - there is currently a debate on the matter on the Shays' Rebellion Talk page and that debate should stay there. It can be changed here if there is a consensus on that page to change the title of that article. It can also be changed if it is obviously more appropriate to use the suggested change, but I do not believe the standard has been. Gmanfive (talk) 22:45, 7 December 2015 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Articles of Confederation. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

checkY An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 13:43, 1 December 2017 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 3 April 2018

Misspelling of 'Maryland'. In the section 'Ratification' there is an instance of Maryloand. Correct it should read Maryland. Only one instance found in the whole article. Currentspeed (talk) 11:26, 3 April 2018 (UTC)

 Done thanks for pointing that out - Arjayay (talk) 11:54, 3 April 2018 (UTC)

Bad Date

Within the first paragraph is the sentence “its drafting by a committee appointed by the Second Continental Congress began on July 12, 1776.” The correct date should be June 12, 1776, according to the book [3], the committee that drafted the Articles of Confederation formed prior to independence being formally declared on July 2, 1776. Also, [4] states the committee was appointed June 12, 1776. CParton02 (talk) 01:32, 25 November 2017 (UTC)Callie Killinger

References

  1. ^ Solberg The Federal Convention and the Formation of the Union of the American States. p. 15.
  2. ^ http://www.law.ou.edu/ushistory/artconf.shtml
  3. ^ CLEP American Government 2nd Edition, by Preston Jones, Ph.D.
  4. ^ https://www.loc.gov/rr/program/bib/ourdocs/articles.html
Take a look at the Drafting section. According to it, the results of discussion were presented to Congress on July 12, following by much debate until a final draft was established.--☾Loriendrew☽ ☏(ring-ring) 02:36, 25 November 2017 (UTC)
I have modified the cited sentence. I believe that the wording is clearer now. Cheers. Drdpw (talk) 03:21, 25 November 2017 (UTC)
CParton02, shouldn’t it be they VOTED for independence on July 2 but it was declared until July 4? Solri89 (talk) 13:02, 16 April 2018 (UTC)

The Sep 13 1788 date under "Purpose"

Under “purpose” it states the Articles were replaced by the Constitution on Sep. 13 1788. Where did this date come from? These are the dates I am familiar with, Sep. 17,1787 (date Constitution signed); June 21, 1788 (ratified); March 4, 1789 (first Congress convenes); April 30, 1789 (first president inaugurated). If anything, the proper date to use should be June 21, 1788, or at least March 4, 1789. Or am I missing something big? Solri89 (talk) 13:18, 16 April 2018 (UTC)

Just researched it. I still believe though that the proper date to use as “the last day the government under the Articles were in effect” should be Mar 4, 1789 and not sep 13 1788. What’s everyone think? Should this date be changed in the article? Solri89 (talk) 13:52, 16 April 2018 (UTC)

 Resolved I have corrected the date to March 4, 1789. Thanks for pointing that out, not good to have the sidebar date out of sync with the article. September 13, 1788 was the date on which the Confederation Congress confirmed that the new constitution had been duly and voted to implement it. Cheers. Drdpw (talk) 15:40, 16 April 2018 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 20 April 2018

Citation 23 is wrong. It's listed as "Ellis 92", but there are no previous citations written by Ellis. I don't know what book by Ellis was originally cited, but it either needs to be found or the Jefferson quote needs to be cited from elsewhere. EDIT: I think it might be this, Joseph J. Ellis. 2015. The Quartet: Orchestrating the Second American Revolution, 1783-1789. New York: Knopf, 92. Montivernello (talk) 22:00, 20 April 2018 (UTC)

Ellis American Sphinx p 93 Rjensen (talk) 22:06, 20 April 2018 (UTC)
 Done Reference added.  Spintendo          06:20, 21 April 2018 (UTC)

Poor references --a 'Puls' and a 'Stahr'

There are references in the footnotes to Stahr and to Puls. But there are no other details. What books? What publication years? There is a clue in the Further Reading at the end for Puls, with a text and publication info there. But what text is Stahr referring to? A book? An article? Is it to Walter Stahr's 'John Jay: Founding Father', indicated on Amazon as available, August 22, 2017?Dogru144 (talk) 17:23, 23 September 2018 (UTC)

@Dogru144: Thanks for drawing attention to this situation. Regarding the Stahr citations, they do appear to be from Walter Stahr's 2005 book, "John Jay: Founding Father". Regarding the Puls references, you've shed light upon a formatting deficiency - articles and books cited as references belong in a "Works cited" subsection of "References", not as entries in "Further reading." Might you have the time and inclination to remedy this? Drdpw (talk) 20:44, 23 September 2018 (UTC)

Not "British-Held" -- Ridiculous!

The Province of Quebec is described in the article as "British-held." It was not "British-held" - it was just plain BRITISH! The "-held" bit should be removed.

It was created by Act of the British Parliament in 1774 (The Quebec Act); split into Upper and Lower Canada in 1791; reunited as United Canada in 1840; and re-split into Ontario and Quebec at creation of the Dominion of Canada in 1867. Canada was still part of the British Empire, however; and Canadians remained British Subjects until 1 January 1947, when the 1946 Act of the Canadian Parliament took effect and created Canadian citizenship. Canada ceased to be a dominion of the Empire in April 1982, when the British and Canadian Parliaments passed the parallel Canada Act, 1982 (UK) and Constitution Act, 1982 (Canada); under which the last colonial ties to the United Kingdom were finally severed.

It took that long to happen because the federal and provincial governments took 50 years (1931-1981) to agree on an amending formula for the Canadian Constitution; to which all provinces agreed, except Quebec.

2601:645:C300:1648:10C:A4A0:CCE6:B705 (talk) 10:55, 9 February 2019 (UTC)

Reference to "Moris"

Reference 2 refers to "Moris", as if the reference had been previously cited, but there are no other details.Big Red (talk) 01:40, 19 October 2019 (UTC)

Repeal?

Was there ever a formal repeal of the Articles of Confederation, or did they simply lapse? -- 194.39.218.10 (talk) 13:34, 11 December 2019 (UTC)

They were superseded by the Constitution drafted in 1787. ||||
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Articles_of_Confederation/Archive_2&oldid=1085902757"