DOCSLIB.ORG

Why the Articles of Confederation Failed…

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Why the Articles of Confederation Failed… Why the Articles of Confederation Failed…. The first attempt for the United States at a Constitution was the Articles of Confederation. The Articles of Confederation first came up for discussion on June 12, 17761. Knowing the inevitability that Independence would soon be a reality, a committee was formed to discuss and draft a Constitution for all the United States. It would not be until November 15, 17772 that they would be approved by the Congress, and not until March 1, 17813 that they were finally ratified by all 13 States. Just a few days over eight years later, the Articles of Confederation would be part of history, being replaced by the Constitution on March 4, 17894. So why did the Articles of Confederation fail? Why did this first attempt at government not succeed? What in the Articles was wrong, or insufficient, or cumbersome that needed to be corrected? There were many reason the Articles of Confederation failed, many things happened in the United States and the government that exposed significant flaws. Perhaps you are one of the many that have heard it was because the Articles were not strong enough, that is part of the reason, but not the only reason. What the Articles of Confederation where is discussed here (The Articles of Confederation explained; What are they?). The major problems of the Articles of confederation that will be addressed here are: Each State had One Vote in Congress. Nine States required to pass most Legislation Congress could not regulate Trade The United States could not raise its own revenue The Congress could not enforce its laws The Government of the United States was a Single body The Congress could not suppress insurrection or rebellion, or protect the Nation from foreign threat. Amendments required a Unanimous Vote Each State had One Vote in Congress. Each State composed of a delegation of between Two-Seven Delegates, but each State had only One vote in Congress. With each State having only vote vote (Article V), this caused significant issue with State that had much larger populations, than those of smaller States, such as Virginia and Pennsylvania. When the largest state in population Virginia is compared to the state with the smallest population Delaware, Virginia has 12.65 times as many people as Delaware, yet each had equal votes in the Congress. This disproportionate representation was an issue with the larger States, since their one vote represented a much larger portion of people. US State Population (1790 census)5 State Population Ratio to Minimum vote (DE) Connecticut 237,655 4.02 Delaware 59,096 1.00 Georgia 82,548 1.40 Maryland 319,728 5.41 Massachusetts 378,556 6.41 New Hampshire 141,899 2.40 New Jersey 184,139 3.12 New York 340,241 5.76 North Carolina 395,005 6.68 Pennsylvania 433,611 7.34 Rhode Island 69,112 1.17 South Carolina 249,073 4.21 Virginia 747,550 12.65 TOTAL UNITED STATES 3,638,213 1 per 279,862 aggregate When this one State one vote concept is combined with requirement of Nine States required to pass most Legislation, and all major Legislation. It would only take Five of the the Thirteen States to prevent a measure from being enacted. The five smallest States composed of 536,757 persons (1790 census), 14.7% of the population, a total which is less than Virginia entirely, and less than the combined population of any Two States from Seven of the most populous States. This method allowed a very small part of the population to prevent bills from be passed, which may be to the benefit of a very large majority. Nine States required to pass most Legislation Article IX of the Articles of Confederation, requires many acts have the vote of Nine States for them to pass. Not all acts required Nine States, but the acts of significant consequence did require Nine States. The following is a list of all acts which required Nine States to vote for a Bill for it to pass. This was not a Nine-Thirteen Ratio, but Nine States to vote Yea of all present. Congress shall never engage in a war, Grant letters of marque or reprisal in time of peace, Enter into any treaties or alliances, Coin money, Regulate the value thereof, Ascertain the sums and expenses necessary for the defense and welfare of the United States, or any of them, Emit bills, Borrow money on the credit of the United States, Appropriate money, Agree upon the number of vessels of war, to be built or purchased, or the number of land or sea forces to be raised, Appoint a commander in chief of the army or navy: Since the Congress was granted limited powers in Article IX, nearly anything Congress desired to do required Nine States to agree. Of the powers granted that did not require Nine votes were: Sending and receiving ambassadors Of establishing rules for deciding in all cases, what captures on land or water shall be legal, and in what manner prizes taken by land or naval forces in the service of the United States shall be divided or appropriated Appointing courts for the trial of piracies and felonies committed on the high seas and establishing courts for receiving and determining finally appeals in all cases of captures, provided that no member of Congress shall be appointed a judge of any of the said courts. Fixing the standards of weights and measures throughout the United States. Regulating the trade and managing all affairs with the Indians, not members of any of the States, provided that the legislative right of any State within its own limits be not infringed or violated. Establishing or regulating post offices from one State to another, throughout all the United States, and exacting such postage on the papers passing through the same as may be requisite to defray the expenses of the said office. Appointing all officers of the land forces, in the service of the United States, excepting regimental officers. Appointing all the officers of the naval forces, and commissioning all officers whatever in the service of the United States. Making rules for the government and regulation of the said land and naval forces, and directing their operations. When the Congress is in recess, a body may be organized to act for the United States, “A Committee of the States”. The Congress shall designate a Committee of the States to consist of one delegate from each State. Appoint other committees and civil officers as necessary, for managing the general affairs of the United States under Congress’ direction. To appoint one of their members to president, provided that no person be allowed to serve in the office of president more than one year in any term of three years. As can be seen, the Congress required only a simple majority of those States present to pass minor acts that had little consequence on the Nation as a whole. Many of the powers they did have that required only a majority, still relied on another act which required Nine Votes. They could meet with Foreign Nationals, but Treaties and Agreements required Nine Votes, States were prohibited from doing this on their own. They Could establish Courts to try piracy, but required Nine votes to build a Navy to catch them, or grant letters of Marque to do the same, and States were forbidden from doing this on their own without Congress’ approval (Nine votes). They could establish post offices and post roads, but could not appropriate funds without Nine Votes They could appoint Officers of the Army and Navy, but it took Nine States to equip an Army or Navy, States could only appoint to Colonel, but could not raise an Army or Navy without Congress’ consent (Nine votes). They could make rules and regulations of the Army and Navy, if it was raised which required Nine Votes. Appoint a Committee of the States to act for Congress while in recess, but they could not do anything that required Nine Votes. Of all the powers Congress had, only a few genuinely required only a simple majority for passage, without relying on a Nine Vote act in some respects, in addition to going into recess. They could chose a President of the Congress The could establish postage rates Very little could actually be accomplished without the consent of Nine States, Two more States than a simple Majority. This required a much stronger consensus among the States, and it also allowed the smaller, or larger population States both be able to stop a bill from passage by being able to gather on Five Nay Votes. This issue was amplified even more if one or more of the States failed to have the minimum number of Delegates (Two) to be able to vote for a bill, since this required even less States to oppose a measure to kill it. Example if only Eleven State were represented, it would only take the Nay vote of Three to prevent a measure from being adopted. Congress could not regulate Trade Congress could only regulate trade with the Indian Nations of North America not part of any State, and even then it was restricted. Congress could only regulate trade if it DID NOT infringe on the Rights of a State to regulate its own trade and commerce, if the Indian Tribe or Nation was within the boundaries of that State. Congress also could not regulate trade with foreign Nations, the closest it could do is a Treaty. But even a treaty could not prohibit the import or export of any good, it at most could only restrain these things.
Load more

Recommended publications
  • War and the Constitutional Text John C
    War and the Constitutional Text John C. Yoo∗ In a series of articles, I have criticized the view that the original under- standing of the Constitution requires that Congress provide its authorization before the United States can engage in military hostilities.1 This “pro- Congress” position ignores the constitutional text and structure, errs in in- terpreting the ratification history of the Constitution, and cannot account for the practice of the three branches of government. Instead of the rigid proc- ess advocated by scholars such as Louis Henkin, John Hart Ely, Louis Fisher, Michael Glennon, and Harold Koh,2 I have argued that the Constitu- tion creates a flexible system of war powers. That system provides the president with significant initiative as commander-in-chief, while reserving to Congress ample authority to check executive policy through its power of the purse. In this scheme, the Declare War Clause confers on Congress a ju- ridical power, one that both defines the state of international legal relations ∗ Professor of Law, University of California at Berkeley School of Law (Boalt Hall) (on leave); Deputy Assistant Attorney General, Office of Legal Counsel, United States Department of Justice. The views expressed here are those of the author alone and do not represent the views of the Department of Justice. I express my deep appreciation for the advice and assistance of James C. Ho in preparing this response. Robert Delahunty, Jack Goldsmith, and Sai Prakash provided helpful comments on the draft. 1 See John C. Yoo, Kosovo, War Powers, and the Multilateral Future, 148 U Pa L Rev 1673, 1686–1704 (2000) (discussing the original understanding of war powers in the context of the Kosovo conflict); John C.
    [Show full text]
  • Prince Edward Island and Confederation 1863-1873
    CCHA, Report, 28 (1961), 25-30 Prince Edward Island and Confederation 1863-1873 Francis William Pius BOLGER, Ph.D. St. Dunstan’s University, Charlottetown The idea of Confederation did not receive serious consideration in Prince Edward Island prior to the year 1863. Ten more years elapsed before the subject of union with the British North American Colonies moved into the non-academic and practical sphere. The position of the Island in the Confederation negotiations illustrated in large measure the characteristics of its politics and its attitude to distant administrations. This attitude might best be described simply as a policy of exclusiveness. The history of the Confederation negotiations in Prince Edward Island consisted of the interplay of British, Canadian, and Maritime influences upon this policy. It is the purpose of this paper to tell the story of Confederation in Prince Edward Island from 1863 to 1873. The policy of exclusiveness, which characterized Prince Erward Island’s attitude to Confederation, was clearly revealed in the political arena. The Islanders had a profound respect for local self-government. They enjoyed their political independence, particularly after the attainment of responsible government in 1851, and did not wish to see a reduction in the significance of their local institutions. They realized, moreover, that they would have an insignificant voice in a centralized legislature, and as a result they feared that their local needs would be disregarded. Finally, previous frustrating experience with the Imperial government with respect to the settlement of the land question on the Island had taught the Islanders that it was extremely hazardous to trust the management of local problems to distant and possibly unsympathetic administrations.
    [Show full text]
  • Safe Haven County.Pdf
    RESOLUTION OF THE GUADALUPE COUNTY COlVIMISSIONERS' COURT WHEREAS, the Constitution of the United States is the supreme law of our nation, and The Second Amendment to the Constitution states "A well-regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed", and WHEREAS, The Texas Constitution, Article 1, Section 23 states "'Every citizen shall have the right to keep and bear arms in the lawful defense of himself or the State", and, WHEREAS, it is the desire of the Guadalupe County Commissioner's to declare its support for the Second Amendment to the United States Constitution. and the Texas Constitution, Article 1, Section 23, protecting citizens' inalienable and individual right to keep and bear arms, and, WHEREAS, the members of the Guadalupe County Commissioners' Court took an oath to support and defend the United States Constitution, the Constitution of the State of Texas, and the laws of the State of Texas (insofar as they are constitutional), NOW THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Commissioners' Court of the County of Guadalupe, by the authority granted to the Commissioners' Court by the laws of the State of Texas and the people of Guadalupe County, Texas, to stand and defend their rights and liberties, which are guaranteed by the United States and Texas constitutions, we hereby declare this Resolution as follows: Second Amendment Preservation Resolution Designating Guadalupe County a Second Amendment Safe- Haven County BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that this
    [Show full text]
  • The Springfield Armory Historic Background
    The Springfield Armory Historic Background Report by Todd Jones, Historic Preservation Specialist Federal Emergency Management Agency October 2011 The Springfield Armory Exceptionally unique among the structures in Springfield, MA, the Springfield Armory has stood on Howard Street for over one hundred years. Yet, with its impressive medieval architecture, the building could easily pass for a centuries-old European castle. It may appear as a much unexpected feature on the skyline of a Connecticut River Valley city, but considering Springfield’s illustrious history as a manufacturer of war goods, a castle is actually quite an appropriate inclusion. The Armory is located today at 29 Howard Street. It is surrounded by a dense urban community characterized by commercial interests, with parking lots, a strip mall, and an apartment block included as its primary neighbors. The area transitioned from an urban working class residential neighborhood to its present commercial character during the mid and late twentieth century. Figure 1: Location of the State Armory in Springfield, 29 Howard Street, Springfield, Hampden County, Massachusetts (42.10144, -72.60216).1 Figure 2: Topographic map of Springfield showing the location of the State Armory.2 1 http://mapper.acme.com, accessed September 22, 2011 2 http://mapper.acme.com, accessed September 22, 2011. ______________________________________________________________________________ Attachment A. Historic Background Page 2 The 1895 Armory The structure was finished in 1895 for the Massachusetts Volunteer Militia (MVM), referred to in modern times as the Massachusetts National Guard. It was designed by the Boston architectural firm of Wait & Cutter, led by Robert Wait and Amos Cutter, who also planned the Fall River Armory at the same time.
    [Show full text]
  • What Was the Iroquois Confederacy?
    04 AB6 Ch 4.11 4/2/08 11:22 AM Page 82 What was the 4 Iroquois Confederacy? Chapter Focus Questions •What was the social structure of Iroquois society? •What opportunities did people have to participate in decision making? •What were the ideas behind the government of the Iroquois Confederacy? The last chapter explored the government of ancient Athens. This chapter explores another government with deep roots in history: the Iroquois Confederacy. The Iroquois Confederacy formed hundreds of years ago in North America — long before Europeans first arrived here. The structure and principles of its government influenced the government that the United States eventually established. The Confederacy united five, and later six, separate nations. It had clear rules and procedures for making decisions through representatives and consensus. It reflected respect for diversity and a belief in the equality of people. Pause The image on the side of this page represents the Iroquois Confederacy and its five original member nations. It is a symbol as old as the Confederacy itself. Why do you think this symbol is still honoured in Iroquois society? 82 04 AB6 Ch 4.11 4/2/08 11:22 AM Page 83 What are we learning in this chapter? Iroquois versus Haudenosaunee This chapter explores the social structure of Iroquois There are two names for society, which showed particular respect for women and the Iroquois people today: for people of other cultures. Iroquois (ear-o-kwa) and Haudenosaunee It also explores the structure and processes of Iroquois (how-den-o-show-nee). government. Think back to Chapter 3, where you saw how Iroquois is a name that the social structure of ancient Athens determined the way dates from the fur trade people participated in its government.
    [Show full text]
  • FOURTH SUPERSEDING INDICTMENT the Grand Jury Charges That, at All Times Material to This Indictment, on Or About the Dates
    REGEIVED MAY 2 5 2021 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA Clerk, U.S. District and Bankruplcy Courts Holding a Criminal Term Grand Jury Sworn in on January 8, 2021 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA CRIMINAL NO. 2l-cr-28-APM VIOLATIONS: THOMAS CALDWELL, 18 U.S.C. $ 371 (Conspiracy) (Counts 1,2, 4,9) l8 u.s.C. $$ lsl2(c)(2),2 DONOVAN CROWL, (Obstruction of an Official Proceeding and (Counts 1,2,,3,4,6) Aiding and Abetting) JESSICA WATKINS, : 18 U.s.C. SS 1361,2 (Counts l,2,3, 4, 6) : (Destruction of Government Property and : Aiding and Abetting) SANDRA PARKER, (Counts 1,2,,3,4,6) r8 U.S.C. $ l7s2(a)(r) (Entering and Remaining in a Restricted BENNIE PARKER, Building or Grounds) (Counts l, 2, 4) l8 u.s.C. $$ 231(a)(3),2 GRAYDON YOUNG, (Civil Disorder and Aiding and Abetting) (Counts l,2,3,4,6, l0) 18 U.S.C. $ lll(a)(1),2 LAURA STEELE, (Assaulting, Resisting, or Impeding (Counts 1,2,3,4) Certain Officers and Aiding and Abetting) KELLY MEGGS. l8 U.S.C. $ lsl2(c)(l) (Counts l, 2, 3, 4, I l) (Tampering with Documents or Proceedings) CONNIE MEGGS, (Counts 1,2,3,4) KENNETH HARRELSON, (Counts 1,2,3,, 4,12) ROBERTO MINUTA, (Counts l, 2, 4) : JOSHUA JAMES, : (Counts 1, 2, 4, 7, 8, 13) : : JONATHAN WALDEN, : (Counts 1, 2, 4) : : JOSEPH HACKETT, : (Counts 1, 2, 3, 4) : : JASON DOLAN, and : (Counts 1, 2, 3, 4) : : WILLIAM ISAACS, : (Counts 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6) : : Defendants.
    [Show full text]
  • Splitting Sovereignty: the Legislative Power and the Constitution's Federation of Independent States
    Splitting Sovereignty: The Legislative Power and the Constitution's Federation of Independent States JAMES T. KNIGHT II* ABSTRACT From the moment the Constitutional Convention of 1787 ended and the Framers presented their plan to ªform a more perfect Union,º people have debated what form of government that union established. Had the thirteen sepa- rate states surrendered their independence to form a new state stretching from New England to Georgia, or was their individual sovereignty preserved as in the Articles of Confederation? If the states remained sovereign in some respect, what did that mean for the new national government? I propose that the original Constitution would have been viewed as establish- ing a federation of independent, sovereign states. The new federation possessed certain limited powers delegated to it by the states, but it lacked a broad power to legislate for the general welfare and the protection of individual rights. This power, termed ªthe legislative powerº by Enlightenment thinkers, was viewed as the essential, identifying power of a sovereign state under the theoretical framework of eighteenth-century political philosophy. The state constitutions adopted prior to the national Constitutional Convention universally gave their governments this broad legislative power rather than enumerate speci®c areas where the government could legislate. Of the constitutional documents adopted prior to the federal Constitution, only the Articles of Confederation provides such an enumeration. In this note, I argue that, against the background of political theory and con- stitutional precedent, a government lacking the full legislative power would not have been viewed as sovereign in its own right.
    [Show full text]
  • The 2017 ITUC Global Rights Index the WORLD's WORST
    THE WORLD'S WORST COUNTRIES FOR WORKERS The 2017 ITUC Global Rights Index | 4 The International Trade Union Confederation (ITUC) is a confederation of national trade union centres, each of which links trade unions of that particular country. It was established on 1 November 2006, bringing together the organisations which were formerly affiliated to the ICFTU and WCL (both now dissolved) as well as a number of national trade union centres which had no international affiliation at the time. The new Confederation has 340 affiliated organisations in 163 countries and territories on all five continents, with a membership of 181 million, 40 per cent of whom are women. It is also a partner in “Global Unions” together with the Trade Union Advisory Committee to the OECD and the Global Union Federations (GUFs) which link together national unions from a particular trade or industry at international level. The ITUC has specialised offices in a number of countries around the world, and has General Consultative Status with the Economic and Social Council of the United Nations. The 2017 ITUC Global Rights Index | 6 Foreword .............................................9 ASIA .................................................. 70 Bangladesh ....................................... 71 Part I ..................................................13 Cambodia .......................................... 71 The 2017 Results ...............................14 China ................................................ 72 The ITUC Global Rights Index ...............19 Fiji
    [Show full text]
  • The Delegation of Federal Power to International Organizations: New Problems with Old Solutions, 85 Minn
    Maurice A. Deane School of Law at Hofstra University Scholarly Commons at Hofstra Law Hofstra Law Faculty Scholarship 2000 The elegD ation of Federal Power to International Organizations: New Problems with Old Solutions Julian G. Ku Maurice A. Deane School of Law at Hofstra University Follow this and additional works at: https://scholarlycommons.law.hofstra.edu/faculty_scholarship Recommended Citation Julian G. Ku, The Delegation of Federal Power to International Organizations: New Problems with Old Solutions, 85 Minn. L. Rev. 71 (2000) Available at: https://scholarlycommons.law.hofstra.edu/faculty_scholarship/591 This Article is brought to you for free and open access by Scholarly Commons at Hofstra Law. It has been accepted for inclusion in Hofstra Law Faculty Scholarship by an authorized administrator of Scholarly Commons at Hofstra Law. For more information, please contact [email protected]. The Delegation of Federal Power to International Organizations: New Problems with Old Solutions Julian G. Kut ITihe World Trade Organization exercises a supranational authority in conflict with our forefathers' vision of an America forever sovereign and independent. -Patrick J. Buchanan' [The American people] see the UN aspiring to establish itself as the central authority of a new international order of global laws and global governance. This is an international order the American people will not countenance. 2 -Senator Jesse Helms It is tempting to brush off such concerns about the growing power of international organizations like the World Trade Organization (WTO) and United Nations (UN) as demagogic and paranoid. At the core of their concerns is a conviction that some large measure of power and authority held by the United States government has been impermissibly transferred to remote and unaccountable international organizations in violation of basic constitutional principles or American "sovereignty." Messrs.
    [Show full text]
  • The Modern Concept of Confederation Santorini, 22
    Santorini 22 – 25 September 1994 CDL-STD(1994)011 Or. Engl. Science and technique of democracy No. 11 EUROPEAN COMMISSION FOR DEMOCRACY THROUGH LAW (VENICE COMMISSION) The modern concept of confederation Santorini, 22-25 September 1994 TABLE OF CONTENTS Opening session ..................................................Error! Bookmark not defined. Introductory statement by Mr Constantin ECONOMIDES ..................................................... 3 Historical Aspects ...........................................................................................5 Conceptual Aspects .......................................................................................39 a. The classical notions of a confederation and of a federal state - Report by Professor Giorgio MALINVERNI ................................................... 39 b. The modern concept of confederation - Report by Gérald- A. BEAUDOIN .......................................................................................................... 56 c. Towards a new concept of confederation - Report by Professor Murray FORSYTH ..................................................................................... 64 d. A new concept of confederation - Intervention by Mr Maarten Theo JANS ................................................................................................... 76 Examples of present and possible applications ................................................77 a. International and constitutional law aspects of the preliminary agreement concerning the establishment
    [Show full text]
  • A Well Regulated Militia Being Necessary to the Security of a Free State, the Right of the People to Keep and Bear Arms Shall Not Be Infringed."
    Portland State University PDXScholar Dissertations and Theses Dissertations and Theses 1977 Background to the Second amendment, : "A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed." John Thomas Nichols Portland State University Follow this and additional works at: https://pdxscholar.library.pdx.edu/open_access_etds Part of the Constitutional Law Commons, and the United States History Commons Let us know how access to this document benefits ou.y Recommended Citation Nichols, John Thomas, "Background to the Second amendment, : "A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed."" (1977). Dissertations and Theses. Paper 2866. https://doi.org/10.15760/etd.2861 This Thesis is brought to you for free and open access. It has been accepted for inclusion in Dissertations and Theses by an authorized administrator of PDXScholar. Please contact us if we can make this document more accessible: [email protected]. AN ABSTRACT OF THE THESIS OF John Thomas Nichols for the Master of Arts in History presented December 19, 1977. Title: Background to the Second Amendment. APPROVED BY MEMBERS OF THE THESIS COMMITTEEs Thomas D. Morris, Chairman Research into ·the background of the Second Amendment is hampered by its ·relationship to the current _highly emo­ tional debate over gun control·. Many otherwise useful secondary sources either ignore the issue completely or give ac~ounts which reflect the controversies of the twen- tieth century rather than those of the eighteenth.
    [Show full text]
  • The Historical Experience of Federalism in East Central Europe
    The Historical Experience of Federalism in East Central Europe Vojtech Mastny The prospect of the admission of the formerly communist countries of East Central Europe into the European Union has cast the historical experience of the peoples of the area with federalism into a new and potentially disturbing light. How well has that experience prepared them for membership in the 20th century’s most successful confederation and likely the centerpiece of the emerging post-Cold War international order on the Continent? In particular, how has the fate and impact of federalist ideas and institutions in the region influenced the candidates’ readiness to enter an interstate structure which requires from its members a substantial surrender of sovereignty? And how has their historical experience shaped their aptitude at the kind of international cooperation that is indispensable to keep the EU functioning? In assessing the record of federalism in East Central Europe, too narrow a definition of the term ought to be resisted. The primary subject of this inquiry is interstate federalism, which is distinguished from the intrastate variety by both its motives and its thrust; rather than to curb the excesses of centralism and state power, it aims to contain nationalism and prevent international anarchy. Yet the overwhelming majority of the historical antecedents have been federations as vehicles for the assertion of group rights within states rather than for the preservation of peace between states. Downgrading the importance of the former in favor of the latter would result in a badly distorted picture. Rightly or wrongly, the distinction between the two types of union - federation (Bundesstaat) and confederation (Staatenbund) - has often been blurred in peoples’ minds.
    [Show full text]