Opinion ID: 513936
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: The Context, Structure, and Text of the Articles of Confederation

Text: 16 We turn then to the merits of appellants' claim under the Articles, initially bearing in mind the relevant historical context. 17 The framing and ratification of the Articles of Confederation occurred against a background dominated by two overriding circumstances pertinent to the issues in this litigation. First, treaties of peace with both Great Britain and with the Six Nations of the Iroquois Confederacy had not yet been concluded. The Articles were submitted to the states in 1777 and ratified by Maryland, the last state to do so, in 1781. The Treaty of Paris, formally ending hostilities with Great Britain, was not signed until September 3, 1783, 8 Stat. 80 (1848), and the Treaty of Fort Stanwix, ending hostilities with the four Iroquois nations that had sided with the British--the Senecas, Mohawks, Onondagas, and Cayugas--and assuring protection to the two Iroquois nations that had sided with the United States--the Oneidas and the Tuscaroras--was not signed until October 22, 1784. Second, there existed a major controversy between the so-called landed states--those claiming Western lands--and the so-called landless states--those without such claims. The landed states, New York, Connecticut, Massachusetts, Virginia, North Carolina, South Carolina, and Georgia, asserted their claims primarily on the basis of their colonial charters, except for New York, which based its claim on its one hundred year history of special relationship with the Six Nations. The landless states were New Hampshire, Rhode Island, New Jersey, Pennsylvania, Delaware, and Maryland. A dominant concern of the new national government was to limit the territory of the landed states to their traditional borders near the East Coast and secure for the United States the vast domain of land these states claimed westward to the Mississippi River, or even to the South Sea, as stated in the colonial charters of Connecticut, Massachusetts, Virginia, North Carolina, South Carolina, and Georgia. Ultimately the new government was successful, as the landed states ceded their Western lands to the United States, often in exchange for recognition of favorable boundaries for their traditional areas of state jurisdiction. 18 It is in the context of these great issues of war and land that the fledgling national government undertook to determine the allocation of authority between the nation and the states on diverse matters, of which none was more contentious than Indian affairs. The close relationship between the evolution of the Articles of Confederation and resolution of the Western lands issue is vividly illustrated by the instructions of Maryland to her delegates not to agree to the Articles until matters concerning the Western lands had been settled. See U.S.C.A. Art. of Confed., Historical Notes 15 (1987). 19 The fundamental structure of the Articles is one of limited delegation of powers to the national government with reservation to the states of all powers not delegated. Article II provides: 20 Each State retains its sovereignty, freedom and independence, and every power, jurisdiction and right, which is not by this confederation expressly delegated to the United States, in Congress assembled. 21 The Necessary and Proper Clause, which played such a significant part in the shaping of federal powers under the Constitution, see McCulloch v. Maryland, 4 Wheat. (17 U.S.) 316, 4 L.Ed. 579 (1819), was absent from the Articles of Confederation. 22 Two clauses of Article IX set forth the delegated powers pertinent to the pending litigation. Article IX(1) provides: 23 The United States in Congress assembled, shall have the sole and exclusive right and power of determining on peace and war, except in the cases mentioned in the sixth article.... Article IX(4) provides: 24 The United States in Congress assembled shall also have the sole and exclusive right and power of ... regulating the trade and managing all affairs with the Indians, not members of any of the States, provided that the legislative right of any State within its own limits be not infringed or violated.... 25 The extent to which the authority of Congress was limited by the phrase not members of any of the States and by the Legislative Rights Proviso are major issues of dispute in this litigation. 26 Two clauses limiting the authority of the states are relevant to the pending issues. Article VI(1) provides: 27 No State without the consent of the United States in Congress assembled, shall ... enter into any conference, agreement, alliance or treaty with any king, prince or foreign state.... Article VI(5) provides: 28 No State shall engage in any war without the consent of the United States in Congress assembled, unless such State be actually invaded by enemies, or shall have received certain advice of a resolution being formed by some nation of Indians to invade such State, and the danger is so imminent as not to admit of a delay, till the United States Congress assembled can be consulted.... 29