DOCSLIB.ORG

The Articles of Confederation William F

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
The Articles of Confederation William F College of William & Mary Law School William & Mary Law School Scholarship Repository Popular Media Faculty and Deans 1981 Our First Constitution: The Articles of Confederation William F. Swindler William & Mary Law School Repository Citation Swindler, William F., "Our First Constitution: The Articles of Confederation" (1981). Popular Media. 262. https://scholarship.law.wm.edu/popular_media/262 Copyright c 1981 by the authors. This article is brought to you by the William & Mary Law School Scholarship Repository. https://scholarship.law.wm.edu/popular_media The "united States in Congress assembled" came into being 200 years ago with ratification of the Articles of Confederation. By William F. Swindler THE period of the nation's bicentennial, right ought to be, free and independent from independence to the final im- States." This resolution was in fact one plementation of the federal government of three related proposals, the second under the Constitution to be observed calling for the seeking of foreign al- in 1987-89, includes several events less liances for the coming war with Great familiar in history but significant in Britain, and the third stating "That a their own place and time. In 1979 was plan of confederation be proposed and the bicentennial of legal education transmitted to the respective Colonies marked by the founding of the chair of for their consideration and approba- law at the College of William and Mary tion." on December 4, 1779 (see 64 A.B.A.J. These resolutions in themselves 1872). In 1981 will come two events- marked a transitional step in American the final ratification of the Articles of constitutional thought. The famous Confederation in March and the final Declaration of Independence, which victory of the Revolution at Yorktown followed in July, was actually the third in October. in a series of declarations by the Conti- Of these' two, it is safe to say that the nental:-ongress, which, as the years Yorktown event will be more widely passed, had moved the 13 colonies recognized. But as a milestone in the slowly and reluctantly toward inde- unique experiment in government that pendence. In 1774 the First Continental became the United States of America, Congress had published its Declaration the quiet happening at Philadelphia on and Resolves, which called on the March 1, 1781, may be more significant mother country to ensure to the col- in constitutional history. For with that onists their rights as Englishmen. event- the final adoption by the 13 When Parliament ignored this repre- states of the Articles of Confederation- sentation, the Second Continental Con- the American people moved toward gress in 1775 issued its Declaration on identity as a nation. This was the vital the Reasons for Taking Up Arms -in transitional step from the ad hoc Conti- defense of the inalienable rights of Eng- nental Congress to "the united States in lishmen. Thus the Declaration of 1776 national government by the final adop- Congress assembled" to the ultimate was the final step in an inexorable proc- tion of the Articles on March 1, 1781. drafting of the Constitution and "the ess: in order to secure their rights as Eng- The use of the title, Continental Con- more perfect union" of a federal form of lishmen, the English colonists now de- gress, actually continued throughout government. clared that they had to be independent of the confederation period until the new The drafting and approval of the "Ar- England itself. Constitution went into effect in April, ticles of Confederation and Perpetual There were, literally speaking, only 1789. Union" did not come easily. A confed- two Continental Congresses. The first The idea of an intercolonial parlia- eration was first formally proposed in met from September 5 to October 26, mentary union had appeared recur- May, 1776, when Richard Henry Lee of 1774. The Second, which opened May rently in American colonial history. Virginia offered his famous resolution, 10, 1775, continued until it was con- The New England Confederation of "That these United Colonies are, and of verted into the permanent organ of a 1643 was a regional version of the con- Our First Constitution: The Articles of Confederation 166 American Bar Association Journal War of Independence. The postwar question obviously was: assuming that there should be some continuing forum for the exchange of information and for co-ordinating activities of the sovereign states, how should it be organized? A central government, whether in London or Philadelphia, was seen as a restraint on the freedom of local legisla- tures and hence to be resisted by radi- cals like Sam and John Adams of Mas- sachusetts, or Thomas Jefferson or Pat- rick Henry of Virginia. Somewhat self- consciously, men like these in these two most militant of the erstwhile col- onies came to call their new govern- ments commonwealths, after the form of government during the English Rev- olution. It was perhaps that equally zealous radical, Benjamin Franklin, who persuaded Pennsylvania to follow the same example. The fourth com- monwealth of the modern Union-Ken- tucky-inherited the tradition from its parent state, Virginia. In the debate over Lee's threefold resolutions of May, 1776, in fact, there was some argument that confederation should precede independence. How, it waTs asked, could 13 separate colonies legally declare their joint or simulta- neous independence and make the dec- laration recognized as valid by the so- ciety of nations? On the other hand, some of the erstwhile colonies, like Virginia, were making their own decla- rations part of their new state constitu- tions. John Dickinson, from the "three lower counties" of Pennsylvania (Del- aware), was the first draftsman of a plan ep. I,, rgel in reiic:tion to lie c:ivil war for confederation, prepared by a com- Ilii rciging in Ice, eolhior country. In mittee made up of a delegate from each 169T \illhun Peeila lod icroposed afed- of the colonies, with the draft being re- (ration for all the Ien exislilig col- ported back to Congress a week after (cciis. and icl 1754 tie .. all iv Con- the formal proclamation of the Declara- gross. CoIXivel\( at tile ecouiragement tion of Independence. When debate on of Ihle iolher colntrN io mobilize colo- the details of the draft began, the di- ial iell'oits for ie Fricrli mcid Indian visions among the states immediately \\'lir. hc dcblcd a forilI "'plan of manifested themselves and became so 11ii1on." :\I ol these assumed the ulti- sharp that Joseph Hewes from North olto stirecct.mc. of Ihic I'itisi govern- Carolina gloomily predicted that "we ciocol. and il Ilc I'irst two sessions of shall never modell it so as to be agreed liceCCcciinciil[ Congrss a similar pro- to by all the Colonies." posal for a col'eccralim ol licciolonies A month later the debate was broken %%cIs oifticci, a n alter'natix e to [he rad- off, primarily because of the overriding ical proiiposil for i:occiiclO' inclepend- concerns of the developing military ac- (011( e. tion of the Revolution. It would be the \Villi tlce)olaritioc il' 177(i. how- following April before the subject was e'\cr'.Ihcc issi' h fil indainentally put back on the calendar, at which time changed. For the immediate and war- it was agreed that two days a week Li- I Charles chomson (courtesy of Nattonai rortrait Gallery, Smithsonian Institution). CENTER- John Hancock time present, the Continental Congress should be spent in debate on the arti- (courtesy of Bettman Archive, Inc.). RIGHT: William Pace existed of necessity to co-ordinate- cles until final agreement on an in- (courtesy of Maryland Historical Society) poor though the co-ordination was - strument could be reached. That came colonial or state efforts to carry on the in November, when the final form was February, 1981 * Volume 67 167 approved and the articles submitted to continuing offices, a secretary and a accident of the fact that he held the of- the states for action. president. The secretary, who was fice in the summer of 1776, was John The major concerns that had to be re- Charles Thomson of Philadelphia, was Hancock of Massachusetts, who signed solved in this quasi-convention of elected at the opening session in 1774 his name first on the final Declaration April-November, 1777, involved the and served until all the affairs of the old of Independence in a hand large preservation of all but complete inde- government were wound up and its pa-, enough, he said, that King George pendence or sovereignty for the indi- pers delivered to the new government could read it without his spectacles. vidual states, equality of representation under the Constitution in 1789. It is to Fourteen men held the office for vary- or voting power among the delegations Thomson that we owe most of our ing lengths of time, including John Jay, of the several states to the Continental knowledge and all of our surviving who was to become the first chief jus- Congress, apportionment of costs of documentation of this first national tice under the Constitution. Jay's presi- supporting the national government, government. Often working without dency was short, since he was needed and - knottiest of all - disposition of any clerical assistance, and never hav- for more important diplomatic assign- the great tracts of land held by some ing but a token staff, Thomson man- ments abroad. In 1784 Jay became sec- states as against the "landlessness" of aged to keep a journal of every session retary of foreign affairs under the con- the others. of Congress, copies of reports of all federation, the only other government The opening article of the 13 finally committees, records of correspondence, office purporting to be permanent.
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Occasionem Cognosce — Francis Cabot Lowell
    From AFIO's The Intelligencer Association of Former Intelligence Officers 7700 Leesburg Pike, Suite 324 Journal of U.S. Intelligence Studies Falls Church, Virginia 22043 Web: www.afio.com * E-mail: [email protected] Volume 26 • Number 2 • Winter-Spring 2021 $15 single copy price The idea to look abroad for both individuals When Intelligence Made a Difference who had specialized knowledge of new technologies and obtaining this knowledge by other means was — 19th Century — explored by Alexander Hamilton. In 1791, he wrote on the topic at length in a section of his Report on Manu- factures, titled “The encouragement of New Inventions and Discoveries at Home and of the Introduction Into the United States of Such as May have Been Made in Other Countries, Particularly Those Which Relate to Machinery.”2 Occasionem Cognosce The Embargo of 1807 Economic conditions worsened for the US during Francis Cabot Lowell the Napoleonic Wars (1803-15) when hostilities between Britain and France restricted the US’s access to trade routes across the Atlantic. In 1804, an author by Joel Wickwire of the Federalist Papers, James Madison, wrote of this to James Monroe claiming Great Britain is searching t the end of the 18th century, the British colo- and seizing all manners of cargo and persons.3 Ten- nies in North America were largely an agrarian sions culminated in the “Chesapeake Affair” when economy. Most critical manufactured goods the USS Chesapeake was shot upon and surrendered to A the British, in clear violation of American sovereignty. were imported from Europe, traded for agricultural products.
    [Show full text]
  • Calculated for the Use of the State Of
    3i'R 317.3M31 H41 A Digitized by the Internet Archive in 2009 with funding from University of IVIassachusetts, Boston http://www.archive.org/details/pocketalmanackfo1839amer MASSACHUSETTS REGISTER, AND mmwo states ©alrntiar, 1839. ALSO CITY OFFICERS IN BOSTON, AND OTHER USEFUL INFORMATION. BOSTON: PUBLISHED BY JAMES LORING, 13 2 Washington Street. ECLIPSES IN 1839. 1. The first will be a great and total eclipse, on Friday March 15th, at 9h. 28m. morning, but by reason of the moon's south latitude, her shadow will not touch any part of North America. The course of the general eclipse will be from southwest to north- east, from the Pacific Ocean a little west of Chili to the Arabian Gulf and southeastern part of the Mediterranean Sea. The termination of this grand and sublime phenomenon will probably be witnessed from the summit of some of those stupendous monuments of ancient industry and folly, the vast and lofty pyramids on the banks of the Nile in lower Egypt. The principal cities and places that will be to- tally shadowed in this eclipse, are Valparaiso, Mendoza, Cordova, Assumption, St. Salvador and Pernambuco, in South America, and Sierra Leone, Teemboo, Tombucto and Fezzan, in Africa. At each of these places the duration of total darkness will be from one to six minutes, and several of the planets and fixed stars will probably be visible. 2. The other will also be a grand and beautiful eclipse, on Satur- day, September 7th, at 5h. 35m. evening, but on account of the Mnon's low latitude, and happening so late in the afternoon, no part of it will be visible in North America.
    [Show full text]
  • Richatd Henry Lee 0Az-1Ts4l Although He Is Not Considered the Father of Our Country, Richard Henry Lee in Many Respects Was a Chief Architect of It
    rl Name Class Date , BTocRAPHY Acrtvrry 2 Richatd Henry Lee 0az-1ts4l Although he is not considered the father of our country, Richard Henry Lee in many respects was a chief architect of it. As a member of the Continental Congress, Lee introduced a resolution stating that "These United Colonies are, and of right ought to be, free and independent States." Lee's resolution led the Congress to commission the Declaration of Independence and forever shaped U.S. history. Lee was born to a wealthy family in Virginia and educated at one of the finest schools in England. Following his return to America, Lee served as a justice of the peace for Westmoreland County, Virginia, in 1757. The following year, he entered Virginia's House of Burgesses. Richard Henry Lee For much of that time, however, Lee was a quiet and almost indifferent member of political connections with Britain be Virginia's state legislature. That changed "totaIIy dissolved." The second called in 1765, when Lee joined Patrick Henry for creating ties with foreign countries. in a spirited debate opposing the Stamp The third resolution called for forming a c Act. Lee also spoke out against the confederation of American colonies. John .o c Townshend Acts and worked establish o to Adams, a deiegate from Massachusetts, o- E committees of correspondence that seconded Lee's resolution. A Declaration o U supported cooperation between American of Independence was quickly drafted. =3 colonies. 6 Loyalty to Uirginia An Active Patriot Despite his support for the o colonies' F When tensions with Britain increased, separation from Britain, Lee cautioned ! o the colonies organized the Continental against a strong national government.
    [Show full text]
  • American Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples
    Approved in Santo Domingo, Dominican Republic June 14, 2016 During the Forty-sixth Ordinary Period of Sessions of the OAS General Assembly AMERICAN DECLARATION ON THE RIGHTS OF INDIGENOUS PEOPLES Organization of American States General Secretariat Secretariat of Access to Rights and Equity Department of Social Inclusion 1889 F Street, NW | Washington, DC 20006 | USA 1 (202) 370 5000 www.oas.org ISBN 978-0-8270-6710-3 More rights for more people OAS Cataloging-in-Publication Data Organization of American States. General Assembly. Regular Session. (46th : 2016 : Santo Domingo, Dominican Republic) American Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples : AG/RES.2888 (XLVI-O/16) : (Adopted at the thirds plenary session, held on June 15, 2016). p. ; cm. (OAS. Official records ; OEA/Ser.P) ; (OAS. Official records ; OEA/ Ser.D) ISBN 978-0-8270-6710-3 1. American Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples (2016). 2. Indigenous peoples--Civil rights--America. 3. Indigenous peoples--Legal status, laws, etc.--America. I. Organization of American States. Secretariat for Access to Rights and Equity. Department of Social Inclusion. II. Title. III. Series. OEA/Ser.P AG/RES.2888 (XLVI-O/16) OEA/Ser.D/XXVI.19 AG/RES. 2888 (XLVI-O/16) AMERICAN DECLARATION ON THE RIGHTS OF INDIGENOUS PEOPLES (Adopted at the third plenary session, held on June 15, 2016) THE GENERAL ASSEMBLY, RECALLING the contents of resolution AG/RES. 2867 (XLIV-O/14), “Draft American Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples,” as well as all previous resolutions on this issue; RECALLING ALSO the declaration “Rights of the Indigenous Peoples of the Americas” [AG/DEC.
    [Show full text]
  • Tribal-State Relations
    ISSUE BRIEF August 2012 Tribal-State Relations What’s Inside: • Key factors affecting The United States Congress and Tribal governments Tribal-State relations in have articulated the importance of protecting the safety, child welfare permanency, and well-being of American Indian and Alaska • Components of Native children. Through the Indian Child Welfare Act (ICWA) successful Tribal-State of 1978, Congress stated that there is “no resource that is relations more vital to the continued existence and integrity of Indian tribes than their children” (25 U.S.C. Sec. 1901). • Promising practices in Tribal-State relations This brief is intended to help States, Tribes, and related from across the country jurisdictions find ways to work together more effectively to • Conclusion meet the goals of ICWA. • Resources Child Welfare Information Gateway Children’s Bureau/ACYF 1250 Maryland Avenue, SW Eighth Floor Washington, DC 20024 800.394.3366 Email: [email protected] Use your smartphone to http://www.childwelfare.gov access this issue brief online. Tribal-State Relations http://www.childwelfare.gov • State jurisdiction over Tribal affairs, for Key Factors Affecting Tribal- instance, through Public Law 280 (P.L. 280), initially enacted in 1953 in six “mandatory” State Relations in Child Welfare States and other “optional” States in 1968 that elected to assume full or partial State jurisdiction on Indian reservations, and Tribal child welfare has had a particularly eliminating Federal jurisdiction for Indian poignant history in the past century. Country (Gardner & Melton, n.d.) Thousands of Indian children were forcibly removed from their homes, families, and • Tribal-State disagreements, especially those Tribes and placed in boarding schools where that end up in court and result in a “winner” a policy of assimilation left them unable to and a “loser” speak their Native language or participate • Availability of funding for child welfare in their Native culture.
    [Show full text]
  • Columbia Law Review
    COLUMBIA LAW REVIEW VOL. 99 DECEMBER 1999 NO. 8 GLOBALISM AND THE CONSTITUTION: TREATIES, NON-SELF-EXECUTION, AND THE ORIGINAL UNDERSTANDING John C. Yoo* As the globalization of society and the economy accelerates, treaties will come to assume a significant role in the regulation of domestic affairs. This Article considers whether the Constitution, as originally understood, permits treaties to directly regulate the conduct of private parties without legislative implementation. It examines the relationship between the treaty power and the legislative power during the colonial, revolutionary, Framing, and early nationalperiods to reconstruct the Framers' understandings. It concludes that the Framers believed that treaties could not exercise domestic legislative power without the consent of Congress, because of the Constitution'screation of a nationallegislature that could independently execute treaty obligations. The Framers also anticipatedthat Congress's control over treaty implementa- tion through legislation would constitute an importantcheck on the executive branch'spower in foreign affairs. TABLE OF CONTENTS Introduction .................................................... 1956 I. Treaties, Non-Self-Execution, and the Internationalist View ..................................................... 1962 A. The Constitutional Text ................................ 1962 B. Globalization and the PoliticalBranches: Non-Self- Execution ............................................. 1967 C. Self-Execution: The InternationalistView ................
    [Show full text]
  • 1776, the Musical
    For Immediate Release Date: August 31, 2016 Contact: Susan Davenport Director of Communications Virginia Repertory Theatre [email protected] 804­783­1688 ext 1133 804­513­8211 Mobile Virginia Repertory Theatre Opens the Signature Season with 1776, the Musical Starring Scott Wichmann as John Adams Richmond, VA ­­ Virginia Repertory Theatre announces the opening of 1776, The ​ ​ Musical, at the Sara Belle and Neil November Theatre, 114 West Broad Street on ​ Friday, September 30, 2016 with two previews on September 28 and 29. The show runs through October 23, 2016. Often referred to as “America’s Musical,” 1776 is a ​ ​ lively, funny, and momentous story of the second Continental Congress and the writing of the Declaration of Independence. Peter Stone and Sherman Edwards wrote the musical in the years leading up to America’s bicentennial. It debuted on Broadway in 1969 and won the Tony Award for Best Musical. Virginia Rep will partner with the Virginia Historical Society to provide related talkbacks and discussions throughout the run of the show. Visit http://va­rep.org/_1776­november­theatre­richmond.html for details. ​ Director Debra Clinton is thrilled to work with such an outstanding cast. “I see 1776 as ​ ​ ​ ​ an opportunity for people to revisit the history of our country and to reflect on what brings us together as Americans. It is a very uplifting story even in the context of hard compromise.” Clinton’s recent credits for Virginia Rep include The Whipping Man and ​ ​ the family smash­hit Croaker: The Frog Prince Musical, which she co­wrote with Jason ​ ​ Marks. Sandy Dacus will serve as music director.
    [Show full text]
  • Originalism and the Ratification of the Fourteenth Amendment
    Copyright 2013 by Northwestern University School of Law Printed in U.S.A. Northwestern University Law Review Vol. 107, No. 4 ORIGINALISM AND THE RATIFICATION OF THE FOURTEENTH AMENDMENT Thomas B. Colby ABSTRACT—Originalists have traditionally based the normative case for originalism primarily on principles of popular sovereignty: the Constitution owes its legitimacy as higher law to the fact that it was ratified by the American people through a supermajoritarian process. As such, it must be interpreted according to the original meaning that it had at the time of ratification. To give it another meaning today is to allow judges to enforce a legal rule that was never actually embraced and enacted by the people. Whatever the merits of this argument in general, it faces particular hurdles when applied to the Fourteenth Amendment. The Fourteenth Amendment was a purely partisan measure, drafted and enacted entirely by Republicans in a rump Reconstruction Congress in which the Southern states were denied representation; it would never have made it through Congress had all of the elected Senators and Representatives been permitted to vote. And it was ratified not by the collective assent of the American people, but rather at gunpoint. The Southern states had been placed under military rule, and were forced to ratify the Amendment—which they despised—as a condition of ending military occupation and rejoining the Union. The Amendment can therefore claim no warrant to democratic legitimacy through original popular sovereignty. It was added to the Constitution despite its open failure to obtain the support of the necessary supermajority of the American people.
    [Show full text]
  • CONFEDERATION CONGRESS CALLS the CONSTITUTIONAL CONVENTION, 21 February 17871
    C. CONFEDERATION CONGRESS CALLS THE CONSTITUTIONAL CONVENTION, 21 February 17871 Congress assembled as before. The report of a grand committee2 consisting of Mr. [Nathan] Dane, Mr. [James M.] Varnum, Mr. S[tephen] M[ix] Mitchell, Mr. [Melancton] Smith, Mr. [Lambert] Cadwallader, Mr. [William] Irwine, Mr. N[athaniel] Mitchell, Mr. [Uriah] Forrest, Mr. [William] Grayson, Mr. [William] Blount, Mr. [John] Bull, and Mr. [William] Few to whom was referred a letter of 14 September 1786 from J[ohn] Dickinson written at the request of commissioners from the states of Virginia, Delaware, Pennsylvania, New Jersey, and New York assembled at the city of Annapolis together with a copy of the report of the said commissioners to the legislatures of the states by whom they were appointed, being an order of the day was called up and which is contained in the following resolution, viz: “Congress having had under consideration the letter of John Dickinson, Esquire, chairman of the commissioners who assembled at Annapolis during the last year, also the proceedings of the said commissioners and entirely coinciding with them as to the inefficiency of the federal government and the necessity of devising such farther provisions as shall render the same adequate to the exigencies of the Union do strongly recommend to the different legislatures to send forward delegates to meet the proposed convention on the second Monday in May next at the city of Philadelphia.” The delegates for the state of New York thereupon laid before Congress instructions3 which they had
    [Show full text]
  • Amending the U.S. Constitution by State-Led Convention
    AMENDING THE U.S. CONstItutION BY StatE -LED CONVENTION INDIANA’S MODEL LEGIslatION DIstRIbutED BY: INDIANA SENatE PRESIDENT PRO TEMPORE DAVID LONG AMENDING THE CONSTITUTION BY STATE‐LED CONVENTION: BACKGROUND INFORMATION U.S. CONSTITUTION, ARTICLE V: The Congress, whenever two thirds of both houses shall deem it necessary, shall propose amendments to this Constitution, or, on the application of the legislatures of two thirds of the several states, shall call a convention for proposing amendments, which, in either case, shall be valid to all intents and purposes, as part of this Constitution, when ratified by the legislatures of three fourths of the several states, or by conventions in three fourths thereof, as the one or the other mode of ratification may be proposed by the Congress; provided that no amendment which may be made prior to the year one thousand eight hundred and eight shall in any manner affect the first and fourth clauses in the ninth section of the first article; and that no state, without its consent, shall be deprived of its equal suffrage in the Senate. AMENDING THE U.S. CONSTITUTION: Article V of the U.S. Constitution provides two paths for amending the Constitution: Path 1: o Step 1: Two-thirds of both houses of Congress pass a proposed constitutional amendment. This sends the proposed amendment to the states for ratification. o Step 2: Three-fourths of the states (38 states) ratify the proposed amendment, either by their legislatures or special ratifying conventions. Path 2: o Step 1: Two-thirds of state legislatures (34 states) ask for Congress to call “a convention for proposing amendments.” o Step 2: States send delegates to this convention, where they can propose amendments to the Constitution.
    [Show full text]
  • The United States and the Articles of Confederation: Drifting Toward Anarchy Or Inching Toward Commonwealth?*
    The United States and the Articles of Confederation: Drifting Toward Anarchy or Inching Toward Commonwealth?* On June 7, 1776, Richard Henry Lee proposed to the Second Con- tinental Congress "[t]hat these United Colonies are, and of right ought to be, free and independent States," and "[t]hat a plan of confederation be prepared and transmitted to the respective Colonies for their con- sideration and approbation."' Lee's resolution reflected the linkage between independence and confederation in the public mind.2 The result was the Articles of Confederation, drafted in 1776-1777 and fi- nally ratified on March 1, 1781, which remained in effect until 1789 and represented the first American experiment with a written na- tional charter.3 The conventional view of this period is that it was dominated by deep factional conflict concerning the amount of power that should be vested in the national government. 4 The text of the Articles, ac- cording to this view, represented a victory for the group favoring minimal national authority, 5 and as a result the Articles government * The author acknowledges with gratitude the assistancc of Professor William E. Nelson of the Yale Law School in providing critical guidance and granting permission to make use of unpublished research materials. 1. 5 JOURNALS OF THE CONTINENTAL CONGRESS 425 (W. Ford ed. 1906) [hereinafter cited without cross-reference as JOURNALS]. 2. See NEw JERSEY IN THE AMERICAN REVOLUTION, 1763-1783: A DOCUMENT.ARY HISTORY 402 (L. Gerlach ed. 1975) (issues of independence and confederation were inseparable) [hereinafter cited as DOCUIENTARY HISTORY]; cf. Jensen, The Articles of Confederation, in FUNDAMENTAL TESTAMENTS OF TilE AMERICAN RLvoI.UTIoN 62 (Library of Congress Sym- posium on the American Revolution 1973) (politicians who opposed confederation did so because they saw it as step toward independence) [hereinafter cited as Jensen, TESTA ENTS].
    [Show full text]
  • The Articles of Confederation Creating A
    THE ARTICLES OF CONFEDERATION During the American Revolution, Americans drafted the Articles of Confederation to set up a new government independent of Britain. The Articles served as the constitution of the United States until 1789, when a new constitution was adopted. In the years leading up to the American Revolution, tension grew between the colonists and Britain. In 1765, 27 delegates from nine colonies met to oppose legislation passed by Parliament imposing a stamp tax on trade items. The delegates to the Stamp Act Congress drew up a statement of rights and grievances and agreed to stop importing goods from Britain. Parliament repealed the Stamp Tax Act. But it continued to impose new taxes on the colonies, and hostility to Britain kept growing. In 1773, some colonists protested a tax on tea by dressing up as Indians, boarding three British ships, and dumping their cargo of tea into the harbor. In response to the Boston Tea Party, Britain closed the Port of Boston. In turn, colonists convened the First Continental Congress in Philadelphia in September 1774. There was significant disagreement among the delegates. Many had supported efforts to repeal the offensive laws, but had no desire for independence. Even after battles broke out at Lexington and Concord in 1775 and the colonies began assembling troops to fight the British, many delegates remained loyal to the king. John Hewes, a delegate from North Carolina wrote in July 1775: “We do not want to be independent; we want no revolution . we are loyal subjects to our present most gracious Sovereign.” Many delegates felt a strong sense of loyalty to the Empire.
    [Show full text]