Talk:Articles of Confederation
| This article is a candidate to be a
U.S. Collaboration of the Month
Vote or comment on the nomination here!
Articles of Confederation was a good article, but it has been removed from the list. There are suggestions below for improving the article to meet the good article criteria. Once these are addressed, the article can be renominated. Editors may also seek a reassessment of the decision if they believe there was a mistake.
Delisted version: April 9, 2006
|This article is of interest to the following WikiProjects:|
|This article has an assessment summary page.|
|A fact from this article was featured on Wikipedia's Main Page in the On this day... section on March 1, 2009 and March 1, 2013.|
|This talk page is automatically archived by MiszaBot I. Threads with no replies in 90 days may be automatically moved.|
The article states that "the Articles and the Constitution were established by many of the same people." That is demonstrably false. Of the thirty-nine people who signed the Constitution, only five of them had signed the Articles of Confederation. Thus, 87% of the delegates to the 1787 Constitutional Convention had nothing to do with the writing of the Articles of Confederation. See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_signers_of_the_United_States_Constitution
The articles were not a constitution
The Articles of Confederation do not include the word "constitution".
If the Articles are the first constitution then a reliable source needs to be cited that says this. Otherwise edits are necessary.
- The RS are clear that it was the first constitution: Try "The Articles of Confederation: America's First Constitution" (in he American Pageant, Volume I: A History of the American People (2009) p 181; The Articles of Confederation: the first constitution of the United States by Barbara Feinberg (2002); "Americans greeted the news of the completion of the ratification of the Articles of Confederation and Perpetual Union — America's first constitution — with the pealing of church bells, fireworks,...." [Gordon Wood, ed Russian-American dialogue on the American Revolution (1995) p 217; Official government document: The First Constitution—The Articles of Confederation,” The Charters of Freedom, US National Archives and Records Administration, College Park, Maryland, 2004; political science textbook: "This first constitution, the Articles of Confederation" [Susan Welch, Understanding American Government (2009) p. 23] and 3000+ additional citations listed at google.books.com Rjensen (talk) 12:15, 16 September 2011 (UTC)
Article Summaries Edit (Specifically article 6) Major Edit*
In the 6th article it summarizes,"Only the central government is allowed to conduct foreign political or commercial relations...". I think it should read, "Only the central government is allowed to conduct foreign political". I read the Articles of Confederation's entire article 6 and did not come across the power of the central government to regulate foreign commerce. I looked at many sites stating that it was the opposite, that the government under Articles of Confederation had no power to regulate interstate and foreign commerce. The United States Constitution gave the power of interstate and foreign commerce to the federal government not the Articles of Confederation.
This page also contradicts itself, stating, "Congress had also been denied the power to regulate either foreign trade or interstate commerce and, as a result, all of the States maintained control over their own trade policies."
Sparknotes informs,"The failure of a supreme authority to regulate interstate commerce became a problem because, although Congress was endowed with the sole authority to negotiate foreign treaties, it did not have the power to control trade between individual states and foreign countries."
UshistoryScene agrees, "America in the mid-1780’s was plagued by economic chaos that originated from the national government’s inability to manage trade. Under the Articles of Confederation, Congress had limited power to regulate trade. Congress was only able to regulate trade and commerce with Native American tribes and, even then, only if it did not impair an individual state’s ability to monitor its own trade. Congress had no ability to negotiate trade agreements with foreign countries." If foreign commercial relations is directed toward the Native Americans as depicted in this article it should be separately stated along the lines of, "conduct foreign political or Native American commercial relations," or "conduct foreign political relations or Native American commercial relations."
If I am misinformed please tell me, I was just writing a American research paper and became severely confused with the contradictions I [think I] saw within this article, and its contradictions with other sources.
http://avalon.law.yale.edu/18th_century/artconf.asp#art6 http://www.sparknotes.com/history/american/articles/section2.rhtml http://www.ushistoryscene.com/uncategorized/articlesofconfederation/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ichabodvancha (talk • contribs) 17:17, 2 October 2013 (UTC)
Semi-protected edit request on 29 January 2014
|This edit request has been answered. Set the
- Not done: as you have not requested a change.
If you want to suggest a change, please request this in the form "Please replace XXX with YYY" or "Please add ZZZ between PPP and QQQ".
Please also cite reliable sources to back up your request, without which no information should be added to any article. - Arjayay (talk) 17:52, 29 January 2014 (UTC)