The United States of America, part 1 (1783-1830) | Page 4

remembered, in the midst of a war. The nascent nation had never
experienced the duties which peace places on a government; it was
familiar only with the requirements of war. The main idea running
through the Articles as reported by the committee was a "union for the
common defence." The general welfare found no place. The activities
of government were confined almost exclusively to conducting a
foreign war. The Central Government was authorised to declare war,
make peace, and send ambassadors. It had charge of appointing high
officers of the State armies, of judging prizes in war, of trials for piracy,
and of granting letters of marque. Its few peace functions embraced the
postal service between the States, regulating Indian trade, issuing bills
of credit, determining the national and State standard of coins, and
assessing quotas of expense on the States. Conversely, the States were

forbidden to perform these national acts.
Remembering that the Articles were framed to meet the exigencies of
war, and considering the condition of public sentiment at the time, one
finds it difficult to conceive how any other form of union could have
been secured. Individualism was in the saddle. Engaging in war to
resist the encroachments of a centralised government and smarting
under the actions of a body in which they were not represented, the
people would naturally resolve to retain the control which the rebellion
had thrown into their hands. Distributed power must never be
centralised again. Liberty was closely associated with individualism. A
majority was no safeguard. Reaction from a centralised monarchy had
evidently swung public sentiment to the other extreme, resulting in a
decentralised confederacy.
As implied in the name, this Continental Congress had been called
together originally as a consulting body for the thirteen distinct
colonies. When the war forced the second session into making laws, the
name should have been changed to "Parliament"; but, in the chaotic
condition of affairs and the very gradual assumption of sovereignty, a
change in name went by default. Although the Congress became a
parliament in form, its members never so regarded it. They still served
their sovereign States in a national body, consulting and providing for
the common defence. They had no desire to make a modern union at
the time they formed the Confederation. This is evidenced by the
preliminary statement of the Articles that each State retained its
sovereignty, freedom, and independence. In this view, "a firm league of
friendship," the phrase used to describe the nature of the Confederation,
is exact and appropriate. It formed a league of individual units, such as
the separate colonies had been, "binding themselves to assist each other
against all force offered to, or attacks made upon them, or any of them,
on account of religion, sovereignty, trade, or any other pretence
whatever."
This individualistic tendency was manifest in the workings of the
Articles. Franklin's plan provided for an executive council of twelve,
appointed by Congress from its own numbers. Instead of this
arrangement, the Articles allowed the consulting Congress to retain all
the executive powers which it had gradually assumed. Fear of
delegating authority to any kind of executive, lest the action might lead

eventually to another king, was responsible for this mistake. Retaining
also the legislative powers, which it had assumed, and such judicial
powers as had arisen from the adjudication of prizes appeals, the
Congress would monopolise all the functions of the National
Government. It would probably continue to consult and recommend,
and do nothing more. It had a president, chosen by itself from its own
number; but he was simply an officer to preside over the sessions.
In voting in Congress, each State was given one vote, being considered
a unit. In declaring assessments, Congress dealt with the individual
States and not the people. Congress was authorised to make an estimate
of the value of land and improvements in each State for proportioning
expenses; but the matter was left to the States and never done. In an
elaborate plan for adjudication between States in the numerous
boundary disputes, Congress again dealt with the States as units. The
central authority would nowhere come into contact with citizens of the
States. It had no way of gaining their respect, their gratitude, or their
allegiance. It apparently dealt with them in the provision guaranteeing
citizens of each State all their rights in the several States; but if a State
transgressed on the rights of citizens of another State, the
Confederation could only complain and protest. It had no power of
punishment or coercion.
One of the chief disagreements over the Articles, as they were
considered by Congress, arose from the conflicting claims to the land
lying between the Alleghany Mountains and the Mississippi. The
claims put forth by Massachusetts, Connecticut, Virginia, the Carolinas,
and Georgia, that their