If you want to put someone in charge, then they need to be able to do their job unhindered. Saying "you can do whatever you like as much as you want, no limits. Except you need permission from this person and only after these other people have agreed to let you first" is slighty absurd.
The main successes of the Articles of Confederation was the steps it took toward the constitution and national unity. It was the first document binding the colonies together. It was a necissary step between complete state independence to a written constituion. It helped create unity because it showed what needed to be changed when the constitution was written.
Oh, dude, how about "From Hot Mess to Success: Articles of Confederation vs. Constitution"? It's like going from a chaotic group project where no one knows what's happening to a well-oiled machine that actually gets stuff done. Like, the Articles were the awkward teenage years, and the Constitution is the adulting phase where things start to make sense.
The currency printed by the Articles of Confederation government was largely a failure. It was characterized by rampant inflation and a lack of backing, leading to a loss of public confidence and widespread depreciation. The inability of the federal government to regulate currency or impose taxes exacerbated economic instability, ultimately contributing to the need for a stronger federal framework established by the Constitution.
The U.S. government under the Articles of Confederation can be considered a success because it established a framework for unity among the states and facilitated the negotiation of the Treaty of Paris, which ended the Revolutionary War. It also laid the groundwork for future governance by highlighting the need for a stronger central authority, leading to the Constitutional Convention. Additionally, it allowed for the passage of the Northwest Ordinance, which organized western territories and set a precedent for future statehood.
i think: 1675-1676
They managed the Northwest Territory.
They managed the Northwest Territory.
They mangaged the north west territory
If you want to put someone in charge, then they need to be able to do their job unhindered. Saying "you can do whatever you like as much as you want, no limits. Except you need permission from this person and only after these other people have agreed to let you first" is slighty absurd.
Add me on Black Ops for PS3 Gamertag: biglilc
Because, the laws were not ethical, and would have hindered the united States success at becoming a nation.
If you want to put someone in charge, then they need to be able to do their job unhindered. Saying "you can do whatever you like as much as you want, no limits. Except you need permission from this person and only after these other people have agreed to let you first" is slighty absurd.
If nine and not all of the states had not ratified the Articles of Confederation, the new nation would not be guaranteed success.
The main successes of the Articles of Confederation was the steps it took toward the constitution and national unity. It was the first document binding the colonies together. It was a necissary step between complete state independence to a written constituion. It helped create unity because it showed what needed to be changed when the constitution was written.
A failure
I'd have to guess the fact only the states had power, and central congress didn't really have any. (The states argued about it as well)
Oh, dude, how about "From Hot Mess to Success: Articles of Confederation vs. Constitution"? It's like going from a chaotic group project where no one knows what's happening to a well-oiled machine that actually gets stuff done. Like, the Articles were the awkward teenage years, and the Constitution is the adulting phase where things start to make sense.