This article helps answer «Why did the articles of confederation fail?» Topics: omissions of the articles of Confederation, articles of confederation for lack of unity, defects of articles of confederation, ineffective articles of confederation, problems with articles of confederation, reasons why articles of confederation failed, defects of articles of Confederation, failure of articles of confederation, restrictions on articles of Confederation, powers or institutions that the national government did not have according to the statutes of the Confederation , articles of confederation and taxes, articles of confederation and currency. Congress did not have the direct power to tax or regulate trade relations between states and foreigners. It could only ask states for money, without the ability to impose payment, and states had the right to impose their own tariffs on imports, which would devastate trade. Congress did not have the power to build an army alone and had to set aside state troops. All important political issues, war and peace, treaties, financial endowments — required the approval of nine states. The articles reflected the nation`s concern for the executive; However, the absence of an executive meant that there was no effective leadership. A unanimous vote of the states that acted through their legislatures was necessary to amend the articles. According to the statutes of the Confederation, the power of the central government has been quite limited. The Federal Congress was able to make decisions, but there were no enforcement powers. The implementation of most decisions, including amendments to the articles, required the unanimous agreement of the thirteen state legislators.

[25] Historians have pointed to many reasons for the perceived need to replace the articles in 1787. Jillson and Wilson (1994) discuss the financial weakness, standards, rules and institutional structures of Congress, and the tendency to divide along section lines. Under Article XIII of Confederation, any amendment had to be approved unanimously: modern scholars such as Francisco Forrest Martin agreed that the statutes had lost their strength of commitment because many states had violated them and therefore «other party states did not have to abide by the unanimous approval of articles.» [47] On the other hand, law professor Akhil Amar suggests that there may not have been a real conflict between the statutes and the Constitution on this point; Article VI of the Confederation expressly authorized ancillary agreements between states and the Constitution could be considered incidental until all states had ratified it. [48] America was tormented in the mid-1780s by an economic chaos that a resulted from the inability of the national government to manage trade.