Pros And Cons Of The Articles Of Confederation

The American system of government following the end of the American Revolution was a disaster as far as the nation’s status as a union. Under the Articles of Confederation, there was nothing “unified” about the United States. The states stood in the union as individual bodies, with little to no ties to a seemingly non-existent central governing body or to the other states. This allowed the states to disregard other states’ laws and ultimately created disunion within the states. Because it has been proven that the states cannot stand alone and sufficiently govern themselves without a strong central government, the national government should be the supreme law of the land. The argument against supremacy of the national government is that the states will not be given enough power; that the national government will reserve all power for itself and therefore
The government was set up under the Articles of Confederation, America’s first constitution. The founders were so afraid of a strong central government that they gave all power to the states, rather than set up an over-seeing national government. The Revolution was fought to get away from an overbearing and unfair ruler, so it is understandable why they wouldn’t want another monarchy to take over. The problem was that the Articles of Confederation gave little to no power at all to their national government, causing distress and non-compliance between the states. The Articles of Confederation denied the government the ability to take care of the states and the union. An influential philosopher at the time, Hobbes, believes that it is the sole purpose of the national government to enforce peace and laws; thus making life, liberty, and the pursuit of property possible. Another influential philosopher at the time, Locke, also believes that a central government is necessary to promote public good, to protect property and promote