were the articles of confederation weak or strong?
930158
They were weak..\n\nThere were many weaknesses under the Articles of Confederation. Congress had trouble passing laws due to the fact that 9 of the 13 states had to agree before any laws could be passed. Since there was no president or an executive branch, there was no way to make sure that laws passed by Congress were carried out. There were no courts to interpret laws or to judge those that broke them because a national court system did not exist. To make matters worse, changing the Articles of Confederation was nearly impossible. A unanimous vote of all 13 states were required before any changes could be made.\n\nThere were some other problems associated with the Articles of Confederation. Congress did not have the power to collect the taxes needed to pay for the expenses of the national government. Congress could ask for money, yet it had no power to force the states into paying them. Without money, Congress could not pay the nation's debt nor could it provide government programs and services.
437255
No, he was an anti-federalist and later a democrat.  As such he was bitterly opposed to many of the actions the federalists wanted to take, which had they been successful would now mean you would have a very strong presidency and a weaker congress.  Now Hamilton was kind of the supreme federalist, advocating a strong central government (opposing the articles of confederation).
891044
Federalism is, of course, the division of sovereignty between two levels of government, viz. state governments and the central government (which is often,somewhat inaccurately, called "the Federal Government"). You should note that Americans basically invented Federalism, and they did so for historical reasons.\n\nYou need to know a bit about the history of the United States up to the points where Federalism was created. Basically, even through the Revolutionary War the United States were a collection of states which were all sovereign, but agreed to work together on a number of things (most importantly, armed opposition to the British) while keeping most powers to themselves. The United States didn't really have a central government, Congress was a committee that helped organize things among the states who could pack up and leave any time they wanted to.\n\nAfter Independence (and during the war), the failures of this weak confederation became very apparent. It was seen that a more powerful central government was needed; one that could tax on its own, raise its own troops, and would have its own bureaucracy (all things that the Continental Congress had to beg the states to provide).\n\nThe loosely organized party called the Federalists, lead by Alexander Hamilton, were heavily in favor of a strong national government that would have pretty much all the authority (see: unitary state). The Anti-Federalists, lead by Thomas Jefferson, wanted only a weak central government. These camps were familiar with history, ancient and modern, and looked at a number of other confederations throughout history, including some of the Greek city states and the Swiss Confederacy. They learned from the problems that other such governments had and beautifully solved many of them by the invention of federalism.\n\nIn this form of government, those matters which states can handle on their own are handled by the individual states. But those things which the individual states can't handle (national defense, diplomacy, interstate commerce, etc) the central government would handle. Thus, instead of handling all problems at the same level of government, you can handle problems at the level best suited for them.\n\nThat is the answer in a nutshell. Very importantly, as for (1) why federalism is important and (2) how it differs from democracy  consider the following analogy and I think that your understanding will be greatly augmented:\n\nNOTE: This great analogy is from commentator JonahGoldberg\nhttp://www.nationalreview.com/goldberg/goldberg200412011600.asp\n\nImagine you've got ten dorms on a campus and a student population divided up into the usual coalitions: stoners, partiers, jocks, and so forth on one side, and study geeks, exchange students and — no offense — nerdy Mennonites on the other. A purely democratic system where all students get to decide dorm policy could result in the tyranny of 51 percent of the students over 49 percent of the students. The party-hardy crowd could pass a policy permitting loud music and keg parties at all hours of the night. Or if the more academically rigorous coalition won, they could ban "fun" of any kind, ever. Similarly, if the administration imposed its own policy from above, you could have a system that makes no one happy.\n\nBut, if you allowed each individual dorm to vote for its own policies, you could have a system where some dorms operate like scholarly monasteries and other dorms are more fun than a pool party at James Caan's house. Theoretically, 100 percent of the students could live the way they want. Maximized human happiness!\n\nThe virtue of a federalist, republican form of government is that the more you push these decisions down to the level where people actually have to live with their consequences, the more likely it is they will be a) involved and interested in the decision-making process, and b) happy with the result. Federalism is also morally superior
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.
792430
The Articles of Confederation didn't create a functioning nation, so the Constitution created a federal system with a unified currency, post, foreign policy etc., while letting the states decide less national matters.
14728
The authority of the Constitution was established after it was ratified by the (I believe it had to be 7 of the 13)Thirteen States. What isn't expressly given to the Federal Government is implied to go to the states.  The 3 branches had their own powers that check and balance each other out
889461
Federalist supported a strong central government...\nThe Bill of Rights limits the power of the federal government.\n\nAnti-federalists feared a strong central government and felt that the Bill of Rights curbed the power of the federal government.
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
980441
It was less that Jefferson's presidency helped bring about Southern dominance, and more that the Federalists never managed to expand outside of New England. \n\nJefferson's party machine did an excellent job of framing the Federalists as being aristocratic and undemocratic, and the Federalists never truly recovered from Hamilton's death. Without a strong party leader, and with little to no support south of Maryland or west of New England the party was doomed as the country grew, and against a party with the strong leadership of Jefferson, Madison, and Monroe.
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).
75234
The Articles of Confederation weren't working, so our Founding Fathers met in Philadelphia to fix it.  They soon decided that it couldn't be fixed, so they started from scratch and wrote the constitution.  The Constitution then had to be ratified by 3/4 of the states, before it went into affect.  The Constitution is full of compromises on controversial issues.
171021
[1] No State shall enter into any treaty, alliance, or confederation; grant letters of marque and reprisal; coin money; emit bills of credit; make anything but gold and silver coin a tender in payment of debts; pass any bill of attainder, ex post facto law or law impairing the obligation of contracts, or grant any title of nobility. \n[2] No State shall, without the consent of the Congress, lay any imposts or duties on imports or exports, except what may be absolutely necessary for executing its inspection laws; and the net produce of all duties and imposts, laid by any State on imports or exports, shall be for the use of the Treasury of the United States; and all such laws shall be subject to the revision and control of the Congress. \n[3] No State shall, without the consent of Congress, lay any duty of tonnage, keep troops and ships of war in time of peace, enter into any agreement or compact with another State or with a foreign power, or engage in war, unless actually invaded or in such imminent danger as will not admit of delay.
703668
While a Constitution seems to be necessary, it is not sufficient by itself.  You need institutions that work too.
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.
132660
Daniel Shays led a group of Massachusetts farmers in a revolt against the state government because they were being taxed and the local militia was not protecting them from the Indians onthe western frontier of Massachusetts.  Under the Articles of Confederation (the U.S. Constitution at the time [1785]) there was no power to tax--therefore no state militias could be provided.  With no military protection Shays and his followers were able to take over the state house unopposed.  When the rebellion was finally quelled several days later it showed massachusetts and other states that they HAD to have a stronger national constitution that allowed for the taxation of states to provide tax dollars to pay for military protection.  Therefore it was Shays's Rebellion that led DIRECTLY to the organization of the Constitutional Convention two years later in Philadelphia.
232331
The main change was the creation of a strong federal government. Parts of that included a federal executive office (which did not exist in the Articles), a bicameral legislature with representation based on population (each state got one vote in the Articles), and federal powers to raise money and armies (in the Articles, states were merely asked for money, not required to give it). And perhaps most importantly, under the Articles, laws had to be passed unanimously, so nothing ever got done.
279604
Here are some good websites to help you:\n\nhttp://www.usconstitution.net/articles.html\n\nhttp://www.law.ou.edu/hist/artconf.html\n\nhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Articles_of_Confederation\n\nThose are full with info to help you!!!