There are many arguments proclaiming the ‘evils’ of big government, and it always seems to come back to the same arguments made by the Federalists and the Anti-federalists during the days of our founders, concerning the differences between a strong central government and a weak central government.
It is taken as gospel that our government should be small, and it is argued that it was always meant to be this way, but from what has been said about the dangers of our large government, it appears that some are advocating for a return of the Articles of Confederation, with its weak central powers, instead of the federal government that we have today.
The Second Continental College adopted the Articles of Confederation on November 15th, 1777, and it was in place until 1789, but it was replaced by the Constitution, which advocated for a stronger central government. Why was it replaced?
The Articles of Confederation maintained the principle that the national government would not hold more power than the states, which they saw as sovereign. This satisfied the fears that many of the States had regarding a strong central power, as Britain was before the Declaration of Independence.
In fact, there was no Executive Branch, because they feared giving one man that much power, and it was decided that the Congress would handle all the nation’s affairs.
However, there were many inherent weaknesses with the Articles of Confederation:
- The national government did not have the power to tax.
- Congress did not have the power to force states to obey its laws.
- Congress could not enforce laws.
- Each state could issue its own paper money.
- Any state could put tariffs on trade between other states or countries.
- There was no system of national courts.
- Congress could declare war and raise an army, but it could not force the states to give men or money.
After the Revolutionary War, the country went into a deep post-war depression. The States were threatening war with each other, and there were armed uprisings and riots across the land. Things eventually got so bad that the country was on the verge of a civil war.
This was called the ‘critical period‘. The States were jealous of each other’s sovereignty and squabbled among themselves. They negotiated their own trade deals with Europe, and they protected their own interests at the expense of the other States.
Each State was printing their own money, which depreciated soon after the war. Many returning soldiers were paid in currency they considered to be worthless, and it was told that some soldiers wallpapered their houses with the paper currency.
The Articles of Confederation was too weak to handle all of the problems in this time period, because the country was not able to govern itself or defend itself against attack or rebellion. The national government was dangerously close to bankruptcy, and the nation’s currency was virtually worthless.
In Massachusetts, this weakness was dangerously exposed when discontent for the government took shape in the form of Shays’ Rebellion, which occurred on January 25th, 1787.
Daniel Shays, a former captain in the Revolutionary War, led a large group of dissatisfied veterans and farmers to stop the injustices that they perceived were created by the wealthy elite establishment, and the political elite in the State government that seemed to be allied with these moneyed interests on the East Coast.
Because the demand for food products had gone up during the Revolution, many farmers took out loans during the Revolution to be able to plant much more on their land to produce more food for the market, but when the war ended, the demand dried up.
Many farmers were unable to pay for their land mortgages to the eastern merchants, and they had few options: they could have their land sold at auction, could have their crops, livestock and land seized, and creditors could have them thrown into a debtor’s prison.
Because many of the States in the country were on the verge of bankruptcy, this forced many of them to raise their taxes, and while everyone was experiencing these tough times, they were also expected to pay the extra taxes to the State.
To be able to vote during this time, you had to own land, and for many, the loss of their land and their loss of status, from not being able to vote, was too much for them to take. This made many decide that the form of government they had was not working for them, and that something had to be done.
In 1786, the depression was getting worse. County Conventions began to be held in the rural areas so that the people could air their complaints in public about the fiscal policies of the General Court and the State, and how there was a lack of regard for the desperate plight that everyone in the rural areas were experiencing.
They also sent letters to their elected leaders, only to continue feeling ignored by the state government, and the national government was helpless to do anything because they were not given the power under the Articles of Confederation.
Many communities throughout Massachusetts petitioned the State legislature for fiscal relief, and when none came, thousands marched to shut down the court doors that were taking people’s land away and putting the farmers in debtor’s prisons, because they believed the courts had betrayed the principals of free government.
Eventually, there was bloodshed and Shays’ Rebellion did not succeed, but it was determined that a change was needed to resolve the many problems caused by the Articles of Confederation. On February 21, 1787, the Continental Congress resolved that:
Whereas there is provision in the Articles of Confederation & perpetual Union for making alterations therein by the assent of a Congress of the United States and of the legislatures of the several States; And whereas experience hath evinced that there are defects in the present Confederation, as a mean to remedy which several of the States and particularly the State of New York by express instructions to their delegates in Congress have suggested a convention for the purposes expressed in the following resolution and such convention appearing to be the most probable mean of establishing in these states a firm national government.
Resolved that in the opinion of Congress it is expedient that on the second Monday in May next a Convention of delegates who shall have been appointed by the several states be held at Philadelphia for the sole and express purpose of revising the Articles of Confederation and reporting to Congress and the several legislatures such alterations and provisions therein as shall when agreed to in Congress and confirmed by the states render the federal constitution adequate to the exigencies of Government & the preservation of the Union.
On May 25th, 1787, the Continental Congress convened in Philadelphia to decide the fate of the Articles of Confederation, and on September 17th, 1787, a new Constitution was approved, which had the much needed stronger central powers.
To help get all of the States to accept and ratify the Constitution, the Bill of Rights were added on September 25, 1789.
Shays’ Rebellion did not occur because the people felt that the national government was too large. It was literally non-existent for them. They felt like the courts favored only the wealthy elite and they believed they were being excluded from the American experiment by not being given a chance to succeed.
A similar form of confederacy was created for the Confederate States of America during the civil war, and it experienced many of the same problems that they had early in our country’s history. If a weak central government is an example of what our government should be like, then history shows that it was thoroughly tested and found wanting.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=r5xUro2z2tI&t=456s
Related articles
- Rhetoric of our fathers: the election of 1800 (johncashon.wordpress.com)
- Federalists and Anti-Federalists – What is the Difference? (hankeringforhistory.com)
- A third constiution that briefly controlled part of America (constitutioncenter.org)
- The Confederation Faces Challenges (AP U.S. History)
- The Confederacy: America’s Worst Idea (Historynet.com)
Reflecting on History with John Cashon 
sometimes I wonder if we should re-think or update the second amendment….our forefathers could have never predicted the kind of rampant gun violence we have today…
If enough people can agree, then the amendment could be reformed, but it may take a while to have enough consensus for that to happen.
Rampant gun violence? You say this like making guns illegal is a smart idea. Not everyone who owns a gun is using them to kill, and not everyone who does got a gun legally.
It’s not the 2nd amendment protection from tyranny in government that you should fear, but the lack of proper working justice system. 5/17/15 the media led us to believe that a group of violent bikers shot each other in a brawl in Texas,investigation is now showing the police/swat teams are responsible for all deaths and may have even started the fight.. Question everything until the truth comes and always hold true your rights afforded through your given rights.
All this is true, but the Declaration of Independence and the Revolutionary War were in response to the “repeated Injuries and Usurpations, all having in direct Object the Establishment of an absolute Tyranny over these States”. At that time, the Tyranny emanated from London, but there is no doubt the Founders feared the same from what came to be known as Washington DC.
I agree. My goal was to show those that say that the government is the only problem, by highlighting that there are others as well. I do believe that a balance is needed between the Federalists and Anti-federalists arguments, and the Constitution did a good job with maintaining that balance.
I wrote this to highlight the fact, to those that believe that our government is the only problem, that making the government too weak could have negative consequences. As an example, I point to when Grover Norquist stated, “I don’t want to abolish government. I simply want to reduce it to the size where I can drag it into the bathroom and drown it in the bathtub.”
Sorry for any grammatical errors in my reply.
What do you think the likelihood of shays rebelion being fabricated by federalist to exploit the weakness of the articles of confederation to inspire a reform?
I don’t know. If you are saying the federalists riled up the population to rebellion to show the weaknesses of the Articles of Confederation, there was probably a contingent of people that were thinking this, but I question if it would have been the federalists alone behind it. Many farmers were alarmed at the moneyed elite on the east coast, and with the losing farms and debt prisons, it would have been more personal than political, if they were willing to die for this cause.
Secondly do you know if it was just the elite that wanted a change to the current constitution, or do you know if it was the majority of Americans.
Now that is a good question. I would need to do research to understand the mood of the majority of Americans. I would think the best course of action would be to look for primary sources, during that time period, for actual thoughts on the new Constitution. Personally, I would think that it was the elite that called for the Constitutional Convention initially, and the regular folk learned more about it as the newspapers talked about the results of the convention. Still, during the time of getting it ratified, many would have learned what it was all about and declared that they liked or disliked the idea.
I’m currently writhing a paper on this subject and I could really uses some good first hand accounts on this subject, I can’t seem to find any, so if you come across any, or know any, I would greatly apprshate it. My email is jluntta@kildonan.org I hope to hear from you soon, thanks- jack
No problem Jack. I will let you know if I come across anything.
There’s noticeably a bundle to comprehend this. I assume you have made precise good factors in characteristics also.
How did the articles of confederation affect the rich?
With the Federal Government having no power over the sovereign states and their state governments, the moneyed interests lobbied those state governments to give them incentives for business, and many of the poor farmers, especially to the west of the east coast, where many of the rich lived, believed this to be the case. The western farmers believed the east coast moneyed interests were the only thing that the state governments thought were important. To give an example of this, Samuel Adams, after the revolutionary war, was doing well with his business interests, and when he heard the farmers were in rebellion, he wanted to make sure the leaders were all executed for treason. From shaysrebellion.stcc.edu:
One could argue that the farmers in Shay’s rebellion believed the east coast moneyed interest and the state government became a substitute for a monarchical power, so the point of view is in the eye of the beholder.
How did the articles of confederation affect the northern rich people?
Samuel Adams is an example of the northern rich people. The northeast of the United States had the advantage of many ports, and many of these business leaders, the northern rich, made their money from receiving imports from around the world, increasing their profits, as well as exporting their goods around the world, that also increased their wealth.
Why did the news of Shay’s Rebellion make states decide to participate in the Philadelphia Convention?
With the Critical Period of the riots and economic problems occurring across the United States, it was decided that something had to be done to repair the problems. They had the convention to try to repair the Articles of Confederation but they eventually replaced it with the stronger central powers of the Constitution.
Your style is unique compared to other people I have read
stuff from. I appreciate you for posting when you have the opportunity, Guess I’ll just bookmark this web site.
Thank you!
I know this is an old blog post and am a new visitor to this site. I teach history for a four year university and I enjoyed this article (and the subsequent comments) and I have a few comments I would like to add. First, I do think there is a wealth of insight in relation to modern politics we can glean from the federalist versus antifederalist debate. Yet, I do find the comparison between the big government vs. small government debates of those times and our times to be misleading. The thought that keeps standing out in my mind as I reflect upon this article is of the immense disparity between the “big government” of those days and the “big government” of today. In other words, if our government had stayed true to the original intent of the U.S. Constitution (according to those who ratified it) then the massive federal apparatus we see today would not exist.
To be fair, I am not saying that I believe you are fine with the way it is now, but I am trying to say that insinuating those who want a radically smaller government “want a return to the Articles of Confederation” is a straw man argument. I believe much of the predictions made by many of the antifederalist, such as Brutus and Cato, have turned out to be virtually prophetic.
Thank you for your comment. I appreciate having professors giving me different views which heightens the discussions. When I wrote this, many in congress and around the country were saying things like they wanted to ‘drown it in the bathtub’. It is amazing now that some of the same ones discussing making the government smaller are not out there now since having a new president that is within their own party take over as the majority. Priorities such as state’s rights and less government spending seem to only occur when some are in the minority. As to the difference of big government then compared to now, you are correct in my opinion, but when arguments are made, not many recall the Articles of Confederation and its role with shaping our constitution. In other words, government can be too small to handle the many difficult decisions that are needed in today’s world, and it seems this is only remembered when the minority gains the majority power.
Thanks for leaving a comment and looking for to more comments from you,
John
Very good read! I especially appreciate the fact that you are able to tell the story without pushing an agenda. Very refreshing these days for sure. I would like to see something from you about the origins of political parties in this country. Also historical arguments for and against them.
Thanks Terry. Actually, I do have articles on the origins of political parties and the arguments for and against them. Here are the links:
Rhetoric of our Fathers: https://johncashon.wordpress.com/2012/11/15/rhetoric-of-our-fathers-the-election-of-1800/
George Washington’s Prophetic warning against Political Parties: https://johncashon.wordpress.com/2014/07/04/george-washingtons-warning-against-political-parties/