I am curious about something I have seen argued concerning the Articles of Confederation. The argument is to whether the Articles were actually an effective structure of governance for the early republic. There seem to be atleast 2 ideas on this that I am interested in.
On the one hand, some argue that the Articles were simply ineffectual such that even basic state actions could not be performed and this was having negative effects on not only the national government but the states and the Constitution was written correct these defects.
On the otherhand, the argument is that the Articles were effective but the Constitution written and instituted primarily as a counter-revolution by parties who were more interested in instituting powers more reminiscent of the English monarchy.
So which one is the more correct? And who has written/spoken about this line of argument. I became aware of “The True History of the American Revolution” by Sydney George Fisher by way of Curtis Yarvin for the first argument. The second argument I believe Sheldon Richman has written a book “The Constitution as a Counter-revolution”. But has anyone else written about this?
.
