Skip to main content

From 1781 to 1789, did the Articles of Confederation provide the United States with an effective government?

I would say the Articles of Confederation provided the United States with a government that was effective enough to keep the country functioning in the short term, but not one that was effective enough to last in the long term.


In the time from 1781 to 1789, it was not clear that the United States would be able to stay together.  The country was made up of thirteen different states that did not necessarily feel as if they were connected to one another.  The Articles of Confederation created a government that the various states could accept.  This kept the country together, which was very important.


In addition, the government was effective enough to take care of at least one important issue.  It was able to bring about a consensus on the issue of the Northwest Territory.  The various states were in conflict with one another as to who should control this area.  The government was effective enough to create the Northwest Ordinance, which settled the issue of the territory and allowed the states to stay together.


However, the government that the Articles created was not effective in the long term.  The Articles created a national government that was too weak to keep the country united.  The Articles allowed the various states to do things like engaging in trade wars against one another.  The Articles did not give the national government enough power to require the states to do anything, including basic things like funding a military.  Because the Articles did not do these things, they created a country that was not strong enough to last in the long term.  The Articles created a government that was effective enough in the short term, but not effective for the long term.

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Is there a word/phrase for "unperformant"?

As a software engineer, I need to sometimes describe a piece of code as something that lacks performance or was not written with performance in mind. Example: This kind of coding style leads to unmaintainable and unperformant code. Based on my Google searches, this isn't a real word. What is the correct way to describe this? EDIT My usage of "performance" here is in regard to speed and efficiency. For example, the better the performance of code the faster the application runs. My question and example target the negative definition, which is in reference to preventing inefficient coding practices. Answer This kind of coding style leads to unmaintainable and unperformant code. In my opinion, reads more easily as: This coding style leads to unmaintainable and poorly performing code. The key to well-written documentation and reports lies in ease of understanding. Adding poorly understood words such as performant decreases that ease. In addressing the use of such a poorly ...
Post a Comment
Read more

Is 'efficate' a word in English?

I routinely hear the word "efficate" being used. For example, "The most powerful way to efficate a change in the system is to participate." I do not find entries for this word in common English dictionaries, but I do not have an unabridged dictionary. I have checked the OED (I'm not sure if it is considered unabridged), and it has no entry for "efficate". It does have an entry for "efficiate", which is used in the same way. Wordnik has an entry for "efficate" with over 1800 hits, thus providing some evidence for the frequency of use. I personally like the word and find the meaning very clear and obvious when others use it. If it's not currently an "officially documented" word, perhaps its continued use will result in it being better documented.
Post a Comment
Read more