Citizens thought their property rights were threatened 24.) Did people believe the states were protecting their property rights? 25.) What did members of the factions do? 26.) How did people want to change the government?
Citizens thought their property rights were threatened 24.) Did people believe the states were protecting their property rights? 25.) What did members of the factions do? 26.) How did people want to change the government?
Related questions
Question
- Citizens thought their property rights were threatened
24.) Did people believe the states were protecting their property rights?
25.) What did members of the factions do?
26.) How did people want to change the government?
Transcribed Image Text:**What were weaknesses in the Articles of Confederation?**
On March 1, 1781, Maryland became the last state to ratify the Articles. Maryland had wanted western lands to be under the control of Congress, not of individual states. Not until New York, Connecticut, and Virginia surrendered their western claims did Maryland ratify the Articles.
You have seen how the people of the states attempted to act with their fear of a strong national government. They created a national government that had very limited power. It reflected their belief that power that is not given is power that cannot be misused.
The limitations of the Articles of Confederation and the difficulties that arose under them led to the decision to adopt our present Constitution. These limitations are explained below.
**1. No money and no power to get it.**
Congress had no power to tax. All it could do was request that state governments pay certain amounts to support the costs of the national government.
This system did not work. Congress had borrowed most of the money needed to pay for the Revolutionary War to both Americans and foreigners, but had no way to pay its creditors. The state governments and many of the people living in the states were also deeply in debt after the war. When Congress requested $10 million from the states to pay for the costs of fighting the war, the states paid only $1.5 million.
*Cartoon Explanation:*
The cartoon depicts two characters, labeled "Congress" and "States," illustrating the financial struggles under the Articles of Confederation. The "Congress" figure looks desperate, holding a sign "Please Give," while the "States" figure appears reluctant to contribute, with empty pockets symbolizing the lack of funds.
**2. No power over the state governments and their citizens.**
Congress did not have the power to make laws regulating the behavior of citizens in the states. Laws on state governments or their citizens to carry out the articles were followed only if they wished. The government was meant to act by their own agreement or citizens would resist obeying. The national government, if a state disobeyed a national recommendation or request made by the national government, could do nothing. Thus, the national government had no way to make sure the states and national officials properly carried out Congress's lawful powers.
The Articles called independence, "state kept its ‘sovereignty, freedom, and independence.’”
The national governments’ inability to make state governments and their citizens live up to treaties it
Transcribed Image Text:**Transcription:**
Such activities prevented efficient and productive trade across state lines. It also worsened the economy, which was still recovering from the devastation of the war.
5. **Threats to citizens' right to property.** Many people believed that one of the most serious problems in the United States during the 1780s was the failure of the state governments to protect their citizens' property rights. In most states, the government was controlled by the legislative branch, composed of representatives elected by a majority of the people.
People with common interests formed *factions*. These factions sometimes formed majorities in the state legislatures. James Madison defined a faction as a group of people that seeks to promote its own interests above the interests of other individuals or groups. These groups were accused of making laws that benefited themselves at the expense of the minority and the common good. For example, they passed laws that canceled debts and that confiscated the property of loyalists. They created paper money legislation that benefited debtors at the expense of their creditors.
People hurt by such laws argued that their property was being threatened by the state governments. They claimed that the state governments were being used by one class of people to deny the rights of others.
Some people argued that these problems were the result of too much democracy in the state governments. They claimed that representative government with *majority rule* did not adequately protect the natural rights of individual citizens or the common good. They argued that majorities in the majority pursued their own selfish interests at the expense of the rights of others, was just another form of tyranny, every bit as dangerous as that of an uncontrolled king.
**What do you think?**
1. The Articles of Confederation demonstrated a distrust of a strong national government. What were the historical and philosophical reasons for this distrust?
2. What were the positive and negative consequences of a weak national government?
3. Why do you think the smaller states were dissatisfied with the government under the Articles of Confederation?
4. Many people today continue to distrust the federal government. Does this distrust today have similar roots? Explain your position, is such distrust…
*Image Explanation:*
There is an illustration of an armed individual, identified as Shays, which serves to visually represent issues of civil unrest and dissent during the period. There are no graphs or diagrams in the image.
Expert Solution
Step 1
No. People in the United States believed that the State governments failed to protect their property rights.
Step by step
Solved in 2 steps
