the founders of the united states made the articles of confederation weak on purpose why did they do this?
610145
so there are alot loopholes
1092100
No. The founders were concerned about divided loyalty between their nation of origin and the US.
576032
Mayflower Compact in U.S. colonial history, an agreement providing for the temporary government of Plymouth colony. The compact was signed (1620) on board the Mayflower; it created the first American settlement based upon a social contract. In it, the colonists combined together in a "civil Body Politick" whose purpose was to frame just and equal laws for the general good of the colony. The compact remained the basis of government in Plymouth for ten years, and all later governments in the colony developed out of the compact.\n\nThe Library of Congress >> Especially for Researchers >> Virtual Programs & Services \nHome >> Primary Documents >> American Revolution & New Nation >> Articles of Confederation Find in Virtual Services Web Pages Researchers Web Pages All Library of Congress Pages    \nPrimary Documents in American History\nThe Articles of Confederation\nArticles of Confederation and \nPerpetual Union...\nWilliamsburg: Va. \nPrinted by Alexander Purdie [1777].\nRare Book and Special Collections Division.\nThe Continental Congress adopted the Articles of Confederation, the first constitution of the United States, on November 15, 1777. However, ratification of the Articles of Confederation by all thirteen states did not occur until March 1, 1781. The Articles created a loose confederation of sovereign states and a weak central government, leaving most of the power with the state governments. The need for a stronger Federal government soon became apparent and eventually led to the Constitutional Convention in 1787. The present United States Constitution replaced the Articles of Confederation on March 4, 1789.\nAmerican Memory Historical Collections\nA Century of Lawmaking for a New Nation\nThe Journals of the Continental Congress contain the first draft of the Articles of Confederation as presented to the Continental Congress on July 12, 1776. It would take more than a year of debate before Congress adopted the Articles of Confederation on November 15, 1777. Two days later the Articles were submitted to the states with a request for immediate action. However, it was not until Maryland's approval on March 1, 1781 that the Articles of Confederation were finally ratified by all the states. On February 21, 1787, Congress approved a plan to hold a convention in Philadelphia to revise the Articles of Confederation. \nThe Letters of Delegates to Congress contains drafts of the Articles of Confederation by Josiah Bartlett and John Dickinson from late June 1776. Both Bartlett and Dickinson were members of the committee responsible for writing the draft of the Articles of Confederation. This publication also includes a few notes on the plan of Confederation written by Bartlett.\nElliot's Debates provides a summary of the ratification process for the Articles of Confederation, a transcript of Thomas Jefferson's notes of debate on confederation, and another copy of the Articles.\nSearch this collection during the years 1776 to 1789 using the word "confederation" or phrase "Articles of Confederation" to locate additional information on this topic.\nDocuments from the Continental Congress and the Constitutional Convention, 1774-1789\nIncludes the special presentation To Form a More Perfect Union: The Work of the Continental Congress and the Constitutional Convention, which provides background information on the weaknesses in the Articles of Confederation and the call for a new Constitution. Also contains an incomplete copy of the Articles of Confederation printed in 1777.\nThe James Madison Papers\nJames Madison's "Vices of the Political System of the U. States" outlined the weaknesses of the Articles of Confederation. \nSearch Madison's papers using the word "confederation" to locate additional documents related to the Articles of Confederation and the Confederation Government. \nThe Nineteenth Century in Print: Periodicals \nIncludes a
74509
The main reason is because the Articles of Confederation worked so dismally. Without a relatively strong federal government, the states were not able to get anything done together. The framers believed that a central government, which could actually make decisions that were binding on the states was necessary in certain areas, such as printing currency, making war, etc.
866146
Here are some facts: \n\nThe Constitution is the document that creates the federal government.  \n\nThe people that wrote it did so in their capacity as representatives of the states, not as representatives of the people. \n\nThe Constitution as written places no obligations or limits on individuals other than minimum age to serve in elected federal offices. \n\nThe two houses of the Congress were created to give the people control of one, the House of Representatives, and the other was for the states, the Senators. \n\nInference: \n\nThe 17th Amendment took away the representation of the states in the federal government they created. \n\nObservation: \n\nThis is why the federal government has gotten totally out of control. \n\nConclusion:\n\nIt needs to be repealed.
271576
The main weaknesses of the articles of confederation was:\n1. There was no executive, just the continental congress there was no one person at the helm.\n2. Every state had the right to establish foreighn policy.\n3. Every state had the right to produce and regulate currency.\n4. There was no body to solve disputes between states.
315608
When the framers decided to declare independence the only government that they had known was the oppressive monarchy of England.  When they set up the first government they wanted to get as far away from that structure as they could, which is why they created a very very weak central government, with most of the power vested in the states.  There was no central executive or judicial branches, and only a unicameral legislature, with essentially no power.  After they saw what a mess this created, with no regulation of commerce among the states; different currencies for different states; states discriminating against citizens of other states; and having nothing 'united' about the states at all; they realized that a change was necessary.  Experiencing these two extremes of the government, along with help from philosophers like Locke and Hobbes, showed them what a federal government had to have the power to do, but at the same time showed them what the federal government could not have the power to do.  It was the perfect 'happy medium' from the two far extreme possibilities.  There is no other way that the government could have remained essentially unchanged for the past 200+ years.
338723
To accomodate the needs of the South. They needed to agree to a solid form of government and after the Revolution Hamilton wanted a national banking system. To do this, Hamilton wanted the national gov't take ownership of the individual states' debts, but that wouldn't benefit the South because they paid most of them off while the Northern states were still indebted to their citizenry. In the 18th century, North and South states' economies and ways of life were quite different and they didn't have much in common. The US also moved the capital further south to keep the Southern states in the Union and created a separate "District of Columbia" from Virginian and Maryland lands so that the capital wouldn't be located in any one state.
1152586
I actually thought it was more Federalist/Republican, cause it gave much more big government rights than the Articles of Confederation, but I suppose it preserved and made lasting many democratic traditions (like House of Reps depending on population, voting for those in office--even though electoral college was made to protect the rich from the masses), and even though the men were very elite, they made every effort to give everybody equal rights, as long as they did not fear the danger (ie French Rev. memories) and gave the poor a chance to ascend to the top.
946098
because it gave Congress limited power so the country didn't have a strong central government. for example, congress could not impose tax, draft soldiers, regulate trade, and it did not have a chief executive (president basically), and it had to depend on the state legislature for money, and soldiers so...\nhope that helps!
747459
Well, that question is a very broad question, but I can give the general overview.  The newly created government in the 1780's is most likely reffering to the United States Constitution.  This Constitution was created due to the lack of federal rights in the Articles of Confederation.  The Articles did not allow Congress to tax or recieve soldiers from the independent states but rather ask for them.  The Articles were considered weak and they were essentially thrown out.  Whether this was legal or not is debatable.  The British also had a great impact on the Constitution because they "abused" the Americans during the revolution and before the revolution.  The Americans therefore, created the Bill of Rights were granted rights to the common man and the states.  Arguably, most of the Bill of Rights have some sort of connection to what the British had done before and during the revolution such as the Second Amendment.  The Second Amendment states, "No Soldier shall, in time of peace be quartered in any house, without the consent of the Owner, nor in time of war, but in a manner to be prescribed by law."  Many believe this was a response to the Quartering Act Britain established before the revolution.  Many Enlightenment ideas from Britain (like philsophers from John Locke) and other European countries greatly influenced the American government.  Ideas such as freedom of speech, religion, assembly, and others sparked from Europea.  The ideas of the individual "Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness" in the Declaration of Independence were derived from John Locke's "Life, Liberty, and Property."  Of course, the framers (of the Constitution) were very intelligent and substituted "property" with "Pursuit of Happiness" because they did not want to debate over owning slaves yet (for that would occur later in the Civil War).
218246
Oh, definately the states had power. They were just working out that national stuff at the time of the articles of confederation.
298637
read the Jefferson papers. He wrote the Articals of confederation before he wrote the Constitution. He also was a avaid sponser of the secant amendent. He was a active member of the first contintal congress. and amny other things. He was one of the greatest men in the begining of our nation.
1006263
No.  The whole Constitution was a compromise between the large states, like Virginia, and New York, and the small states like Rhode Island.  \nWe probably should have stuck with the Articles of Confederation.
1027457
Domestic Tranquility\nOne of the concerns of the Framers was that the government prior to that under the Constitution was unable, by force or persuasion, to quell rebellion or quarrels amongst the states. The government watched in horror as Shay's Rebellion transpired just before the Convention, and some states had very nearly gone to war with each other over territory (such as between Pennsylvania and Connecticut over Wilkes-Barre). One of the main goals of the Convention, then, was to ensure the federal government had powers to squash rebellion and to smooth tensions between states.
502003
The Founders did not want factions (political parties) because they fear what has occurred.  They would rather have had States work for their own best interests and workout their differences and compromise at the federal level. \n\nOf course, the factions evolved early on, with each developing its supportive base across State boundaries.  This approach took local issues and spread them across multiple States which is exactly what the Founders didn’t want to happen.
984408
Articles of Confederation