As the Founders struggled with the Articles of Confederation’s flaws and were taking cues from the state constitutions, a crisis created a sense of double urgency.

I often think of James Madison’s observation when I contemplate the necessity of government:

“If Men were angels, no government would be necessary. If angels were to govern men, neither external nor internal controls on government would be necessary. In framing a government which is to be administered by men over men, the great difficulty lies in this: you must first enable the government to control the governed; and the next place, oblige it to control itself.”

While I dream of a society where, as my young granddaughter once said, “People should just do the right thing,” I understand that humans — me included — are flawed individuals often motivated by selfish desires. Without a balanced government based on the concept of a social contract, chaos would reign.

As the Founders struggled with the Articles of Confederation’s flaws and were taking cues from the state constitutions, a crisis created a sense of double urgency.

It was 1786 and the glow of revolutionary victory had dimmed as some families struggled financially. As trade lessened, businesses failed and debt plagued even the most hardworking families. Soldiers who had served in the fight for independence had not received the promised compensation. As letters were written and individuals demanded Congress act, farmers in western Massachusetts grew weary of Congress ignoring their plight.

Why? An economic downturn drove farm prices low, and farmers could not pay their debts. Farms and homes were lost. Some farmers faced prison sentences. State-imposed taxes seemed to punish the already struggling families, and the government that had been created to replace the oppressive British system seemed ominously familiar.

Fear lead to action. Farmers protested at local courthouses, often forcing the courts into recess and shutting down the foreclosure process. News of the rebellion spread across the region and into neighboring states. By November 1786, when several hundred farmers gathered in Massachusetts and attempted to storm the armory in Springfield so they could arm, governmental leaders knew they could not put down a widespread rebellion like Shays Rebellion, forcing Congress to face the nation’s shaky foundation. The United States had no troops and the central government was weak. With the inability to mount a response to any major crisis — and no ability to systematically raise funds to mount that response — the members of Congress knew the Articles were inadequate.

But they still struggled with the idea of a replacement system.

On the heels of Shays Rebellion, Virginia invited all the states to send representatives to a meeting in Annapolis, Maryland, to consider trade problems and options for stabilizing the government. Only five states attended.

Now what?

The Annapolis meeting sent a request to the Confederation Congress requesting that all states join together to revise the Articles. The congressional deliberations were intense but, ultimately, they agreed to move forward. Alexander Hamilton visited his mentor and asked George Washington, still the most respected man in the young nation, to issue the invitation. Washington hesitated. He was enjoying a well-deserved “retirement” at Mount Vernon after years in service to his nation, but Hamilton persuasively painted a picture of the possible failure of the republic. Washington acquiesced and the invitations were issued with the sole purpose of “revising the Articles of Confederation.”

As the states prepared to send delegates to Philadelphia, an emotionally charged location designed to remind the representatives of the fight for independence, they had to decide what position they would take. Some delegates were poised to defend the Articles of Confederation as the best possible government and argue that a government strong enough to handle all issues was a government strong enough to disregard individual and states’ rights. Others would be ordered by their states to only vote for changes that would enhance the Articles and not to vote for a new system. Some delegates arrived in Philadelphia committed to scrapping the Articles and starting anew with a list of the best ideas offered by the state constitutions.

All feared that any action would be viewed by other nations as an admission that a republican form of government was impossible to maintain and failure was imminent.

Imagine packing your trunks and preparing for a journey designed to save the young nation. If government was a “necessary evil,” and absolutism and monarchy were the enemies of liberty, equality, and justice, what compromise could save the republic?

We’ll journey to Philadelphia to watch as the assembled delegates struggle with that question — and succeed.

Prepare to celebrate…

Written by Linda Moss Mines for The Patriot Post ~ May 24, 2023

~ the Author ~
Linda Moss Mines is a historian dedicated to reminding the public of the blessings of Liberty and our commitment to work toward the promises of the American Dream. She is not a political commentator, although reflecting on the history of the Republic requires recounting the stories of political figures and the institutions of our political system. Linda relishes telling the stories of our country’s founding and its journey from the earliest settlers as a “noble experiment in self-government.” She believes that recounting history reminds citizens that decisions and actions have consequences and that we as a people are impacted every day by decisions made during the course of that journey.

“It is important that a nation know and understand the pivotal moments of its history,” she says. “Too often, our images of the past are a composite of classroom memories, popular culture images crafted by media productions and a smattering of editorial musings often grounded only in personal opinion and experience. As a historian, I, of course, offer some interpretation of those moments, but I am far more interested in the role of the public figures and the ‘common people’ and what motivated them than in the role of politics for political gain. Revisiting the past offers us a chance to understand today and shape tomorrow.”

As an educator, Mines notes: “I have been privileged to touch hearts and hopefully inspire my former students to become lifelong lovers of learning. Knowledge coupled with a dedication to service can truly change the world and I’m blessed to be a small part of that change.”