Editing Articles of Confederation (section)

==Revision and replacement==
{{broader|Timeline of drafting and ratification of the United States Constitution}}
{{see also|Federalism in the United States|Anti-Federalists}}

In September 1786, delegates from five states met at what became known as the [[Annapolis Convention (1786)|Annapolis Convention]] to discuss the need for reversing the protectionist interstate trade barriers that each state had erected. At its conclusion, delegates voted to invite all states to a larger convention to be held in [[Philadelphia]] in 1787.{{sfn|Ferling|2003|p=276}} The Confederation Congress later endorsed this convention "for the sole and express purpose of revising the Articles of Confederation". Although the states' representatives to the [[Constitutional Convention (United States)|Constitutional Convention]] in Philadelphia were only authorized to amend the Articles, delegates held secret, closed-door sessions and wrote a new constitution. The new frame of government gave much more power to the central government, but characterization of the result is disputed. The general goal of the authors was to get close to a [[republic]] as defined by the philosophers of the [[Age of Enlightenment]], while trying to address the many difficulties of the interstate relationships. Historian [[Forrest McDonald]], using the ideas of James Madison from ''Federalist 39'', described the change this way:

{{Blockquote
|The constitutional reallocation of powers created a new form of government, unprecedented under the sun. Every previous national authority either had been centralized or else had been a confederation of sovereign states. The new American system was neither one nor the other; it was a mixture of both.{{sfn|McDonald|1986|p=276}}
}}

In May 1786, [[Charles Pinckney (governor)|Charles Pinckney]] of [[South Carolina]] proposed that Congress revise the Articles of Confederation. Recommended changes included granting [[United States Congress|Congress]] power over foreign and domestic commerce, and providing means for Congress to collect money from state treasuries. Unanimous approval was necessary to make the alterations, however, and Congress failed to reach a consensus. The weakness of the Articles in establishing an effective unifying government was underscored by the threat of internal conflict both within and between the states, especially after [[Shays's Rebellion]] threatened to topple the state government of Massachusetts.

Historian Ralph Ketcham commented on the opinions of [[Patrick Henry]], [[George Mason]], and other [[Anti-Federalism|Anti-Federalists]] who were not so eager to give up the local autonomy won by the revolution:

{{Blockquote|Antifederalists feared what Patrick Henry termed the "consolidated government" proposed by the new Constitution. They saw in Federalist hopes for commercial growth and international prestige only the lust of ambitious men for a "splendid empire" that, in the time-honored way of empires, would oppress the people with taxes, conscription, and military campaigns. Uncertain that any government over so vast a domain as the United States could be controlled by the people, Antifederalists saw in the enlarged powers of the general government only the familiar threats to the rights and liberties of the people.<ref>{{Cite book |last=Ketcham |first=Ralph |url=https://books.google.com/books?id=QlDPAtJXQu0C&pg=PA381 |title=Roots of the Republic: American Founding Documents Interpreted |date=1990 |publisher=[[Rowman & Littlefield]] |isbn=9780945612193 |page=383 |access-date=February 1, 2021 |archive-date=August 1, 2022 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20220801132709/https://books.google.com/books?id=QlDPAtJXQu0C&pg=PA381 |url-status=live }}</ref>}}

Historians have given many reasons for the perceived need to replace the articles in 1787. Jillson and Wilson (1994) point to the financial weakness as well as the norms, rules and institutional structures of the Congress, and the propensity to divide along sectional lines.

Rakove identifies several factors that explain the collapse of the Confederation.{{sfn|Rakove|1988}} The lack of compulsory direct taxation power was objectionable to those wanting a strong centralized state or expecting to benefit from such power. It could not collect customs after the war because tariffs were vetoed by [[Rhode Island]]. Rakove concludes that their failure to implement national measures "stemmed not from a heady sense of independence but rather from the enormous difficulties that all the states encountered in collecting taxes, mustering men, and gathering supplies from a war-weary populace."{{sfn|Rakove|1988|p=230}} The second group of factors Rakove identified derived from the substantive nature of the problems the Continental Congress confronted after 1783, especially the inability to create a strong foreign policy. Finally, the Confederation's lack of coercive power reduced the likelihood for profit to be made by political means, thus potential rulers were uninspired to seek power.

When the war ended in 1783, certain special interests had incentives to create a new "merchant state", much like the British state people had rebelled against. In particular, holders of war scrip and land speculators wanted a central government to pay off scrip at face value and to legalize western land holdings with disputed claims. Also, manufacturers wanted a high tariff as a barrier to foreign goods, but competition among states made this impossible without a central government.{{sfn|Hendrickson|2003|page=154}}

===Legitimacy of closing down===
Two prominent political leaders in the Confederation, [[John Jay]] of New York and [[Thomas Burke (governor)|Thomas Burke]] of North Carolina believed that "the authority of the congress rested on the prior acts of the several states, to which the states gave their voluntary consent, and until those obligations were fulfilled, neither nullification of the authority of congress, exercising its due powers, nor secession from the compact itself was consistent with the terms of their original pledges."{{sfn|Hendrickson|2003|page=153–154}}

According to Article XIII of the Confederation, any alteration had to be approved unanimously:

<blockquote>[T]he Articles of this Confederation shall be inviolably observed by every State, and the Union shall be perpetual; nor shall any alteration at any time hereafter be made in any of them; unless such alteration be agreed to in a Congress of the United States, and be afterwards confirmed by the legislatures of every State.</blockquote>

On the other hand, Article VII of the proposed Constitution stated that it would become effective after ratification by a mere nine states, without unanimity:

<blockquote>The Ratification of the Conventions of nine States, shall be sufficient for the Establishment of this Constitution between the States so ratifying the Same.</blockquote>

The apparent tension between these two provisions was addressed at the time, and remains a topic of scholarly discussion. In 1788, James Madison remarked (in ''[[Federalist No. 40]]'') that the issue had become moot: "As this objection&nbsp;... has been in a manner waived by those who have criticised the powers of the convention, I dismiss it without further observation." Nevertheless, it is a historical and legal question whether opponents of the Constitution could have plausibly attacked the Constitution on that ground. At the time, there were state legislators who argued that the Constitution was not an alteration of the Articles of Confederation, but rather would be a complete replacement so the unanimity rule did not apply.{{Sfnp|Maier|2010|page=62}} Moreover, the Confederation had proven woefully inadequate and therefore was supposedly no longer binding.{{Sfnp|Maier|2010|page=62}}

Modern scholars such as Francisco Forrest Martin agree that the Articles of Confederation had lost its binding force because many states had violated it, and thus "other states-parties did not have to comply with the Articles' unanimous consent rule".<ref>{{Cite book |last=Martin |first=Francisco |url=https://books.google.com/books?id=xNEjqp2A6ZgC&pg=PA5 |title=The Constitution as Treaty: The International Legal Constructionalist Approach to the U.S. Constitution |date=2007 |publisher=[[Cambridge University Press]] |page=5|isbn=9781139467186 }}</ref> In contrast, law professor [[Akhil Amar]] suggests that there may not have really been any conflict between the Articles of Confederation and the Constitution on this point; Article VI of the Confederation specifically allowed side deals among states, and the Constitution could be viewed as a side deal until all states ratified it.<ref>{{Cite book |last=Amar |first=Akhil |url=https://books.google.com/books?id=xfkJRm6VCQ0C&pg=PA517 |title=America's Constitution: A Biography |date=2012 |publisher=[[Random House]] |page=517 |isbn=9781588364876 |author-link=Akhil Amar}}</ref>

===Final months===
On July 3, 1788, the Congress received [[New Hampshire]]'s all-important ninth ratification of the proposed Constitution, thus, according to its terms, establishing it as the new framework of governance for the ratifying states. The following day delegates considered a bill to admit Kentucky into the Union as a sovereign state. The discussion ended with Congress making the determination that, in light of this development, it would be "unadvisable" to admit Kentucky into the Union, as it could do so "under the Articles of Confederation" only, but not "under the Constitution".<ref>{{Cite journal |last=Kesavan |first=Vasan |date=December 1, 2002 |title=When Did the Articles of Confederation Cease to Be Law |url=http://scholarship.law.nd.edu/ndlr/vol78/iss1/3 |journal=Notre Dame Law Review |volume=78 |issue=1 |pages=70–71 |access-date=October 31, 2015 |archive-date=January 1, 2016 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20160101052616/http://scholarship.law.nd.edu/ndlr/vol78/iss1/3/ |url-status=live }}</ref>

By the end of July 1788, 11 of the 13 states had ratified the new Constitution. Congress continued to convene under the Articles with a quorum until October.<ref>{{Cite web |title=America During the Age of Revolution, 1776–1789 |url=http://memory.loc.gov/ammem/collections/continental/timeline2f.html |url-status=live |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20110315050400/http://memory.loc.gov/ammem/collections/continental/timeline2f.html |archive-date=March 15, 2011 |access-date=April 16, 2011 |publisher=[[Library of Congress]]}}</ref><ref>{{Cite book |last1=Lanman |first1=Charles |url=https://archive.org/details/biographicalann01morrgoog |title=Biographical Annals of the Civil Government of the United States |last2=Morrison |first2=Joseph M. |date=1887 |publisher=[[J.M. Morrison]] |access-date=April 16, 2011}}</ref> On Saturday, September 13, 1788, the Confederation Congress voted the resolve to implement the new Constitution, and on Monday, September 15 published an announcement that the new Constitution had been ratified by the necessary nine states, set the first Wednesday in January 1789 for appointing electors, set the first Wednesday in February 1789 for the presidential electors to meet and vote for a new president, and set the first Wednesday of March 1789 as the day "for commencing proceedings" under the new Constitution.{{Sfnp|Maier|2010|page=429–430}}<ref>{{Cite web |date=September 13, 1788 |title=By the United States in Congress assembled, September 13, 1788 |url=http://hdl.loc.gov/loc.rbc/bdsdcc.2410h |access-date=13 March 2021 |website=Library of Congress |quote=the first Wednesday in March next, be the time, and the present Seat of Congress the place for commencing Proceedings under the said Constitution. |archive-date=September 3, 2006 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20060903075028/http://hdl.loc.gov/loc.rbc/bdsdcc.2410h |url-status=live }}</ref> On that same September 13, it determined that New York would remain the national capital.{{Sfnp|Maier|2010|page=429–430}}