Federalists like Alexander Hamilton argued that a strong national government was necessary to protect the liberty of the people.

Weaknesses of the Articles of Confederation

Under the Articles, the national government was very limited. This made it weak, even impotent, in times of crisis. Among other things, the Articles

• Did not provide for an executive branch (the branch of government that enforced laws). The Congress had to act as both the legislature (the branch that made the laws) and the executive.
• Did not empower the Congress to tax the states to raise money for the nation's army or navy or to pay its war debts. Funds could only be "requested" from the states, and they were under no obligation to pay.
• Provided no authority for regulating commerce and trade in the states. States issued their own currencies, taxed each other's goods and, entered into competing trade agreements with other nations. There were isolated incidents of violence at state borders when merchants tried to take products from one state to another. The Congress could do nothing in response.
• Failed to establish a national judiciary that could resolve disputes between states and the national government. State courts had the ability to overturn national laws.

On the home front, a large number of Revolutionary War veterans, many of whom had returned to their farms after the war, were falling behind in their payments on their homes and land. Sporadic conflicts arose between bankers and land owners as homes were foreclosed and debtors were sent to jail for failure to pay their debts. Violence over such actions erupted in at least six states with armed bands of farmers breaking up bankruptcy proceedings and letting people out of debtors prisons. This was a troubling turn of events for the young nation, all the more so because many of the people behind the violence were the same people who had fought the Revolutionary War!

As growing numbers of farmers faced the possibility of losing their homes and land, they urged their state governments to issue new paper currency with which the farmers could pay their debts. The devalued currency would obviously be meaningless to creditors who strongly opposed such measures. In Rhode Island, the state government gave in to the demands of the farmers after the Commerce Party defeated the Country Party in statewide elections. Paper money was printed, and creditors, not debtors, were threatened with imprisonment. Thereafter, residents of other states often referred to Rhode Island as "Rogue Island."

While all of these events were troubling, the episode which most directly contributed to the growing perception that the national government was too weak was Shays' Rebellion. In 1786, Daniel Shays, a former Revolutionary War officer, led a band of farmers intent on overthrowing the state government of Massachusetts. They began throwing judges out of courtrooms and freeing debtors from jail. In response, the Confederal Congress immediately called for $530,000 from the states to put down the rebellion. However, because they lacked the authority to compel the states to pay taxes, all but Virginia refused to pay. With very limited funds, only sixty-five of the "most raggedly rascals you ever beheld" could be assembled to face the rebels. In the face of impending disaster, the merchants and bankers, at the call of the governor of Massachusetts, assembled their own militia and crushed the rebellion.

While Shays' Rebellion did not seriously threaten the stability or government of the nation, it sent a clear message that the national government established by the Articles of Confederation did not provide enough order for the states and the people who lived therein to fully enjoy their liberties. The Confederal Congress, responding to the sentiments generated by the incident, authorized a convention for the "sole and express purpose of revising the Articles of Confederation." Each state was to appoint delegates to attend the convention in May of 1787 to continue in America's search for a system of government that could balance liberty and order in an acceptable manner.