The Articles of Confederation were salvageable

My opponent ignores my analysis that the founding fathers of this countries opinion have more weight in the matter then both of us. The fact is, they decided to scrap the Articles of Confederation because it was a complete and utter failure. They did not make their decision lightly to scrap the constitution of the country. My opponent initially wanted to argue that the Articles could be changed and fixed. But, once again, history shows this was not possible. They tried and failed. How exactly could any changes be made, say today, when you needed 50 states to reach a co census? My opponent fails to address this fundamental issue. Therefore, their entire case fails simply because our opinions on the matter weigh much less than the founding fathers' opinions. My opponent may state states do not have to stay, but, why would they leave exactly? I mean look they tried to amend it several times and failed. (3) My opponent, throughout his case, brings up only one person who did not completely support the Constitution. But, even Jefferson agreed, " there is no money in the treasury. There never will be money in the treasury till the Confederacy shows its teeth. The states must see the rod. " (1) Jefferson thought the Government should be limited, but, not this limited because the United States could not protect it's own interests. "The articles already established that the congress of the central government could declare war. " Great. But, if they cannot fund a military because they cannot tax this is a useless power. "Jefferson said of Shays rebellion[…] It had been the original intent of Jefferson and others that citizens could and should defend themselves against an oppressive government. " Wasn't the point of the Articles of Confederation to avoid oppressive central government's? The reason Shay's Rebellion began was because there was no central power to assume the individual states' debts in order to pay off debt owed to European Power's after the Revolutionary War. When the Constitution was finally put into the place, the first thing Alexander Hamilton did was assume all state's debts into the United States' debt. Do you know what happened? There was no debt anymore. Furthermore, another reason it began was because "veterans of the war had not received much pay during the war, and were having difficulty collecting back pay owed them from the state or the Congress of the Confederation. " (2, 3) This is because the central government could not tax, thus, they could not pay the soldiers what they were due. It was because of the Articles of Confederation Shay's Rebellion began. "Yes Jefferson did praise certain parts of the Constitution but as a whole he saw it as he thought it was disappointing and wished it could be fixed. Jefferson also asked what country had gone so long with only 1 rebellion. " The Constitution can be fixed, much more easily than the Articles of Confederation. This is also the rise of political parties, the Hamiltonians and Jeffersonian-Democrats. One favored almost broad interpretation of the Constitution the latter favored strict interpretation of the Constitution. As for the one rebellion, it could have been avoided. "Sure speculation on what Jefferson would have done could only be speculation but based on what he said we can have a good idea. " Why would he have started a political party if he hated the Constitution so much? And why would he run for president under the Constitution if he hated it so much? Furthermore, you still only speculate. We are dealing with history so let's stay with the facts. "I bring up Switzerland as an example of how Confederacy works. " It's still a different country. "My opponent wants to know why creating a larger Federal Government is a bad thing. For that let us look at some quotes from some of the founders:" I agree, having a Federal Government with unlimited powers is bad. But, that is why the Bill of Rights was added to the Constitution to limit the Federal Government. Keep in mind, the Constitution was much easier to amend. Look at the Bill of Rights, for example. Having to small a government results in well, Shay's Rebellion, the inability to combat the Barbary Pirates, and New York almost declaring war on New Jersey. Under the Constitution, a later Rebellion, the whiskey rebellion was quickly put down, with limited death and property damage, the Barbary Pirates, ironically, were combated by Jefferson, and New York never declared war on New Jersey. Under the Constitution, the Federal Government does not have unlimited power. They are limited by the Bill of Rights. "The Anti-Federalists wrote their won response to the Federalist papers, criticizing them and the attempt to scrap the articles. " Ultimately, the Federalists won. The Constitution was ratified. If the Articles of Confederation were so great why were they scraped by all the states? In response to my attacks on the problems my opponent writes: "We have this problem today, in fact even worse with the winner take all system in the Electoral College in 48 out of 50 states (Maine and Nebraska being the exceptions). True the Constitution tried to solve the problem my opponent brought up by having the lower house be proportional and as a compromise having every state have 2 Senators. As for the articles though, it would be like saying China should get more Ambassadors to the UN than France proportional to its size. " First, the electoral college is not Congress so it is irrelevant when it comes to Congress. Also, the electoral college is proportionate. Each state gets "X" votes dependent on its population. The Constitution did solve the proportionality problem by having the House of Representatives be proportionate to the population and the Senate having two senators per state. This was solved by the Constitution. Third, the United Nations is not a country. "Congress could not tax but states could. If the Federal Government was needed for something the states would be the source of funding. " Congress had the power to run the military; they needed money to do so. Congress could not pay the veterans of the military which resulted in Shay's Rebellion. As for the states being the source of funding, this means the Federal Government has to ask the states for money. This is how the federal government ran under the Articles of Confederation. The government could not function because they did not have the money to do so. "Yes but why is that a bad thing? " It is a bad thing because each state could have it's own currency, trade tariffs, treaties, etc. with other states and with other nations. I mean New York could raise tariffs on New Jersey if it so pleased to do so. This is bad because it just complicates trade and slows down economic growth. You need one entity with the power to regulate trade, not thirteen all with separate agendas. "Again I point to Switzerland. " The United States also had this, it did not work for the United States. What works in one country may fail in another country. "That is sort of true, however there was a system for dealing with disputes between the states. " What about between individuals? Or between a state and the federal government? Or between an individual and the government? There was nothing for them. "I don't see the problem here; laws shouldn't be super easy to pass. " A simply majority would work just as well. Law's should not be super easy to pass, but, they also should not be super difficult to pass either. 1. . http://en.wikipedia.org... 2. . http://en.wikipedia.org...'s_Rebellion 3. . http://en.wikipedia.org...