We Have Not a Government

1. The Confederation's Post-War Collapse

The truth is, we have not a government to Wield and Correct.

A nation in name only. Emerging victorious from the Revolutionary War, the United States under the Articles of Confederation quickly devolved into a "stalemate government." This first continental government, designed as a wartime alliance, lacked fundamental powers essential for national stability and growth. By 1786, it was clear the Confederation was a government in name only, unable to enforce its own laws or command respect.

Crippling limitations. The Articles explicitly preserved the "sovereignty, freedom and independence" of the thirteen states, granting the central government only narrowly limited powers, primarily over war and peace. Crucially, it had no power to tax, relying entirely on voluntary state "requisitions" for funds, which were routinely ignored. This structural flaw meant the Confederation could not pay its massive war debts, support a standing army, or conduct effective foreign policy.

Impending dissolution. The inability to govern effectively led many prominent leaders, including George Washington, to believe the Confederation was on the brink of financial and political collapse. This looming dissolution threatened to fragment the nascent nation into smaller, competing confederations, risking civil war, foreign intervention, or the rise of authoritarian rule. The very existence of the American experiment in republicanism was at stake.

2. Economic Crisis Fueled Discontent

New evidence leads recent historians to think that it may have been the worst in American history before the 1930s Great Depression.

Severe post-war recession. The end of the Revolutionary War plunged America into a deep and prolonged economic recession, possibly the most severe in its history until the Great Depression. This downturn was characterized by sharply falling prices for goods, land, and commodities, skyrocketing interest rates, and an extreme scarcity of specie (hard money). Thousands faced job losses, farm foreclosures, and widespread economic hardship.

Debt and tax burdens. The war left a massive overhang of public and private debt, exacerbating the recession's impact. States, desperate for revenue, dramatically increased taxes, often by three to six times pre-war levels. However, the scarcity of specie made these taxes incredibly difficult for many to pay, leading to widespread delinquencies and popular resistance. This created a vicious cycle where governments couldn't collect taxes, and citizens couldn't afford them.

Liquidity crisis. The economy suffered from extreme illiquidity, meaning assets could only be sold at steep discounts, if at all. This forced many debtors, particularly farmers, into "fire sales" of their property to meet obligations, often losing their livelihoods. The economic maelstrom fueled widespread social unrest and intensified calls for government intervention and relief measures, further straining the fragile political system.

3. States Prioritized Self-Interest Over Union

The states’ repeated failures to comply with requisitions were due to state politics, contemporaries thought, and not in most cases to inability, as today’s historians often argue.

Free-riding and non-compliance. The Confederation's requisition system, which relied on voluntary state contributions, was a complete failure. States paid only about 31% of requested funds, primarily because it was politically unpopular to raise taxes for national purposes. Many state politicians chose to be "free riders," enjoying the benefits of the Union without bearing their share of the costs, to keep their local taxes low and secure re-election.

Sectional economic conflicts. Deep-seated economic disparities and conflicting interests between states and regions consistently undermined national unity.

• Domestic Debt: Northern states held most of the Confederation's domestic debt, making southern states reluctant to contribute to its repayment.
• Import Taxes: Commercial states like New York and Rhode Island imposed their own lucrative import taxes, often at the expense of neighboring states, and refused to cede this power to Congress.
• Western Lands: Landed states initially resisted ceding western claims, while landless states demanded federal control to use land sales for national debt.

Unenforceable federal authority. Under the Articles, Congress had no practical means to compel states to comply with its decisions, whether on requisitions, treaty obligations, or commercial regulations. This lack of coercive power meant that states could unilaterally disregard federal mandates without penalty, effectively paralyzing the national government and preventing any meaningful reform.

4. Western Expansion Ignited Sectional Strife

The Western settlers, (I speak now from my own observation) stand as it were upon a pivot—the touch of a feather, would turn them any way.

Uncontrolled westward migration. The 1783 Treaty of Peace opened vast territories between the Appalachians and the Mississippi, triggering an "astonishing" flood of westward migration. This rapid, often lawless, settlement exacerbated conflicts with Native American tribes, who fiercely resisted encroachment on their lands. The Confederation, lacking funds and military power, was unable to protect settlers or enforce its own treaties with the tribes.

Foreign interference and secession threats. Both Spain and Britain actively sought to contain American expansion, exploiting the Confederation's weakness.

• Spain: Closed the Mississippi River to American navigation in 1784, threatening the economic viability of western settlements and fueling secessionist movements in Kentucky and Tennessee.
• Britain: Refused to evacuate its western forts, providing military and economic support to Native American tribes, further destabilizing the frontier.
  These foreign actions, coupled with the Confederation's impotence, led many westerners to consider abandoning the Union or seeking protection from foreign powers.

Sectional deadlock. The Spanish-treaty impasse became the most intractable political stalemate of the post-war period, exposing deep sectional divisions. Northern states, particularly New England, favored a treaty with Spain that would close the Mississippi in exchange for commercial benefits, hoping to slow western emigration and protect their own economic interests. Southern states vehemently opposed this, viewing it as a betrayal of western settlers and a threat to their future growth. This conflict nearly shattered the Confederation, with both sides threatening secession.

5. Economic Relief Debates Exposed Majority Tyranny

Vox Populi Vox Dei . . . The ends and purposes of government implicitly give . . . a right to modify and supercede such [debt] contracts when the good of the community requires.

Popular demands for relief. The severe post-war recession spurred widespread popular movements demanding economic relief from state legislatures. Common requests included the issuance of paper money, tax reductions, and various forms of debt relief, such as allowing property or depreciated currency to be tendered for payment. These demands often pitted debtors and farmers against creditors and merchants, raising fundamental questions about economic justice.

Majority rule vs. minority rights. The debates over economic relief highlighted a core tension in republican government: the extent of majority power versus the protection of minority rights. States like South Carolina and Rhode Island, where relief advocates dominated, enacted aggressive measures. South Carolina's "Pine Barren Act" forced creditors to accept property at inflated values, while Rhode Island's legal-tender paper money depreciated rapidly, effectively wiping out debts. These actions, justified by the principle of "Vox Populi Vox Dei" (the voice of the people is the voice of God), were seen by many as "majority tyranny" and a violation of contract sanctity.

Interstate harms and national concern. The relief policies of some states, particularly Rhode Island, caused significant interstate friction. Its depreciated legal-tender paper money allowed residents to discharge debts to out-of-state creditors at a fraction of their value, sparking outrage and retaliatory laws from neighboring states. This demonstrated that state-level economic policies could inflict harm across state lines, creating a "warfare and retaliation among the states" that the Confederation was powerless to prevent. This raised concerns about the need for national oversight to protect interstate commerce and property rights.

6. Shays's Rebellion: A Local Catalyst for National Change

Have we been contending against the tyranny of Britain, to become the sacrifice of a lawless Banditti?

Massachusetts's unique crisis. In late 1786, an armed insurgency known as Shays's Rebellion erupted in western Massachusetts, driven by exceptionally harsh economic conditions and the state's rigid pro-creditor policies. Unlike other states that offered some relief, Massachusetts maintained high taxes, demanded specie payments, and had costly court systems that aggressively pursued debtors. This unique combination of factors fueled widespread discontent among farmers and veterans, who saw their actions as a continuation of the revolutionary tradition of resisting tyranny.

Government impotence. The rebellion, though ultimately suppressed with relative ease by state-funded militia, exposed the profound weakness of both the Massachusetts state government and the Confederation. The state initially struggled to raise funds and troops, relying on loans from wealthy merchants. The Confederation, despite authorizing additional troops, was insolvent and unable to pay them, highlighting its inability to provide military aid or maintain internal order.

Shifting elite opinion. While not the sole cause of the Philadelphia Convention, Shays's Rebellion served as a powerful catalyst for change, particularly among Massachusetts elites. Many federalists, initially wary of a stronger central government, were shocked by the state's vulnerability to armed popular unrest. They realized that a weak government, unable to enforce laws or protect property, threatened the very foundations of republicanism. This experience, more than any other, convinced them of the urgent need for a more "energetic" national government capable of ensuring domestic tranquility.

7. The Reluctant Road to Philadelphia

The truth is, we have not a government to Wield and Correct.

Confederation's terminal decline. By late 1786, the Confederation was in a state of terminal decline, paralyzed by insolvency, sectional disputes, and an inability to address pressing national challenges. Congress was moribund, often unable to achieve a quorum, and its reform proposals were consistently blocked by state self-interest. The Annapolis Convention, convened to discuss commercial issues, failed due to poor attendance, but its delegates recognized the broader systemic failures and called for a general constitutional convention.

Virginia's pivotal shift. Virginia's unanimous decision in December 1786 to call for the Philadelphia Convention, with an unlimited agenda, marked a crucial turning point. This shift was driven less by Shays's Rebellion and more by:

• Western defense: The Confederation's failure to protect western settlers from Indian attacks and Spanish interference.
• Fiscal stability: The urgent need for national tax powers to pay debts and maintain public credit.
• Patrick Henry's strategy: Henry, a powerful opponent of federal power, chose not to block the convention call, preferring to fight its outcomes during ratification.

Reluctant participation. Other key states, like Massachusetts and New York, were dragged to the table, often after intense internal debates. Massachusetts, initially resistant to a broad reform convention, reversed course after Shays's Rebellion exposed its governmental weakness. New York, dominated by anti-federalist forces, narrowly agreed to send delegates, but only after attempts to severely restrict their powers failed. Congress's grudging "no confidence" vote in February 1787, acceding to the convention, signaled the official collapse of the Confederation's ability to reform itself.

8. Washington's Vision for a Sovereign Nation

I do not conceive we can exist long as a nation, without having lodged somewhere a power which will pervade the whole Union in as energetic a manner, as the authority of the different state governments extends over the several states.

The indispensable man's return. George Washington, initially reluctant to re-enter politics after the war, ultimately agreed to attend the Philadelphia Convention, convinced that the nation faced an "awful crisis." His decision was not solely due to Shays's Rebellion, but a culmination of years of observing the Confederation's systemic failures and the growing centrifugal forces threatening the Union. He believed the country needed a truly sovereign national government.

Core principles for national survival. Washington's vision for the new government centered on:

• Coercive power: The ability to enforce its laws directly on citizens, rather than relying on states, to prevent "thirteen sovereignties pulling against each other."
• Taxation authority: Independent power to tax to pay debts, maintain public credit, and fund a national army for defense and western expansion.
• National unity: A government capable of transcending sectional interests and acting as "one head" for "Foederal purposes," even if it meant some states or sections had to make concessions.

Pragmatic leadership. Washington approached the convention as a pragmatist, not an ideologue. He sought "radical cures" for the Confederation's defects, but was open to "any tolerable compromise" to achieve national survival. His willingness to negotiate a "grand bargain" that accommodated diverse interests, combined with his immense moral authority, made him the ideal leader to guide the convention towards a new constitutional framework.

9. Madison's Radical Blueprint for Federal Power

The establishment of permanent & adequate funds to operate generally throughout the U. States is indispensibly necessary for doing complete justice to the Creditors of the U.S., for restoring public credit, & for providing for the future exigencies of the war.

Critique of state failures. James Madison, a meticulous student of political systems, arrived at the convention with a comprehensive critique of the Confederation's "mortal diseases," detailed in his "Vices of the Political System of the United States." He blamed states for most of the national government's failures, citing their non-compliance with requisitions, encroachments on federal authority, and harmful interstate actions.

Protecting minorities from majorities. Madison's analysis went further, identifying "majority tyranny" within states as a fundamental flaw of republicanism. He sought to protect political minorities, particularly property holders, from unrestrained popular will, as exemplified by state paper money and debt relief laws. His proposed solutions aimed to curb state power to prevent both interstate harms and internal injustices.

A consolidated national republic. Madison's most radical proposals aimed to fundamentally reconfigure the relationship between the national government and the states:

• Proportional representation: Abandoning equal state voting in Congress for representation based on population, to reflect national majority will.
• Congressional veto: Granting Congress a veto over all state laws, similar to the "Kingly prerogative," to ensure national supremacy and prevent state abuses.
  These proposals, far exceeding what most delegates were prepared to accept, revealed Madison's deep conviction that only a powerful, consolidated national government could truly secure liberty and justice in an expanding republic.

10. The Constitution: A Grand Bargain for Survival

There must be reciprocity or no Union.

Jettisoning the Confederation. The Philadelphia Convention, driven by the objective necessity of national survival, boldly abandoned the Articles of Confederation and proposed a radically different central government. This new government was designed as an effective national sovereign, capable of enforcing its decisions and possessing independent powers over taxation, national defense, and commerce. This represented a profound shift from decentralized state sovereignty to a more unified national authority.

The intersectional grand bargain. The Constitution's success lay in its ability to forge a complex political compromise that accommodated the diverse and often conflicting interests of different states and sections:

• Power Sharing: Established a bicameral legislature with proportional representation in the House and equal state representation in the Senate, balancing large and small state interests.
• New Federal Powers: Granted broad, majority-exercisable powers over taxation, military, and commerce, addressing the core failures of the Confederation.
• Limits on State Powers: Prohibited states from issuing paper money, impairing contracts, or levying import/export duties without federal consent, curbing interstate harms and protecting property rights.

A flawed but necessary foundation. While creating a powerful national government, the Constitution also included concessions to sectional jealousies, such as the three-fifths clause (counting slaves for representation) and supermajority requirements for treaties and amendments. These compromises, though later criticized for distorting democratic principles and perpetuating slavery, were politically necessary to secure ratification. The Constitution, as Washington recognized, was a pragmatic framework for national "existence," enabling the country to become a continental empire and providing the "sinews of war" essential for its future expansion and defense.

Last updated: March 4, 2026