Congress had no power to regulate trade among the states 22.) What did states do for goods that were going from one state to another? 23.) What effect did this have on the economy?
Congress had no power to regulate trade among the states 22.) What did states do for goods that were going from one state to another? 23.) What effect did this have on the economy?
Related questions
Question
- Congress had no power to regulate trade among the states
22.) What did states do for goods that were going from one state to another?
23.) What effect did this have on the economy?
Transcribed Image Text:**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 of 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 taken by the state governments. They claimed that 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 government 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 because it is strong and distant. Explain your position, is such distrust justified?
*(Image Description: The image contains an illustrative drawing, partly visible, accompanying the text on historical government and citizens' rights. The picture appears to depict a historical scene, likely related to topics discussed in the accompanying educational material.)*
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 join their fear of a strong national government with a newly created national government that had very limited powers. This increased their belief that power that is limited 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 replace our present Constitution. These limitations are as follows:
1. **No money and no power to get it.** Congress had no power to tax. All it could do was request that state governments provide 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 from Americans and foreigners, but it had no way to pay its debts. The state governments and many of the people who lent the money also were deeply in debt after the war. For example, Congress requested $10 million from the states to pay for the costs of fighting the war, the states paid only $1.5 million.
*Cartoon: A person labeled "CONGRESS" is holding a sign that says "PLEASE GIVE." Another person labeled "STATES" holds out empty pockets. Caption reads: "How was Congress's ability to govern hurt by not being able to collect taxes from the states?"*
2. **No power over the state governments and their citizens.** Congress did not have the power to make laws regulating the behavior of citizens of the states or the state governments or their citizens or to force state governments to meet monetary obligations to other nations.
The national government’s inability to make state governments and their citizens live up to treaties it had been in serious situations set a bad precedent, especially in favor of the loyalty of people, landlords, and others to Great Britain. Thousands of soldiers who had land obligations voted for the counties and, on the day refugees were awarded land in the form of obligations issued by their governments, some agreements were made to pay more.
Some state governments refused to respect the southern border treaty. There were instances where state borders were not honored in court cases. Where $due has violated
Expert Solution
This question has been solved!
Explore an expertly crafted, step-by-step solution for a thorough understanding of key concepts.
This is a popular solution!
Trending now
This is a popular solution!
Step by step
Solved in 2 steps
