144 Chapter 5 The Federalist Era: Nationalism Triumphant
had negotiated the treaty ending the Revolutionary
War, adopted humane and farsighted land policies,
and established a rudimentary bureaucracy to manage
routine affairs. If, as Washington said, that govern-
ment had moved “on crutches... tottering at every
step,” it moved forward nevertheless. Yet the country’s
evolution placed demands on the national government
that its creators had not anticipated. Dissatisfaction
with the Articles mounted; the Founders sought solu-
tions that through a process of conflict and compro-
mise would finally result in the Constitution.■
Inadequacies of the Articles of Confederation
Following the American Revolution and the Peace of
Paris, the United States faced new challenges. The
new nation struggled to achieve control of its own
territory, to define the nature of its trade relationships
with Europe, and to overcome crippling economic
depression and the specter of inflation. If the Articles
had proved adequate in achieving victory in the war,
they proved less so in addressing these new concerns.
Both Great Britain and Spain stood in the way of
the United States winning control of its borders.
Although the British kept their promise to withdraw
their troops from American soil promptly, they
refused to abandon seven military posts beyond the
periphery of the original thirteen states. Pressing
against America’s exposed frontier like hot coals,
these posts seared national pride. The inability to
eject the British seemed a national disgrace. In 1784,
moreover, the Spaniards had closed the lower
Mississippi River to American commerce. This
harmed settlers beyond the Appalachians who
depended on the Mississippi and its network of tribu-
taries to get their corn, tobacco, and other products
to eastern and European markets. Many reasoned
that a stronger central government might have dealt
with Britain and Spain more forcefully and effectively.
Another key problem concerned trade. After hos-
tilities had ended, British merchants, eager to regain
markets closed to them during the Revolution, poured
low-priced manufactured goods of all kinds into the
United States. Americans, long deprived of British
products, rushed to take advantage of the bargains.
Soon imports of British goods were approaching the
levels of the early 1770s, while exports to the empire
reached no more than half their earlier volume.
The influx of British goods aggravated the situa-
tion just when the economy was suffering a disloca-
tion as a result of the ending of the war. From 1784
to 1786 the country went through a period of bad
times. The inability of Congress to find money to pay
the nation’s debts undermined public confidence.
Veterans who had still not been paid, and private indi-
viduals and foreign governments that had lent the
government money during the Revolution, were
clamoring for their due. In some regions crop failures
compounded the difficulties.
An obvious way of dealing with these problems
would have been to place tariffs on British goods in
order to limit British imports, but the Confederation
lacked the authority to do this. When individual states
erected tariff barriers, British merchants easily got
around them by bringing their goods in through states
that did not. That the central government lacked the
power to control commerce disturbed merchants,
other businessmen, and the ever-increasing number of
national-minded citizens in every walk of life.
Thus a movement developed to give the
Confederation the power to tax imports, and in 1781
Congress sought authority to levy a 5 percent tariff
duty. This would enable Congress to pay off some of
its obligations and also put pressure on the British to
relax their restrictions on American trade with the
West Indies. Every state but Rhode Island agreed, but
the measure required the unanimous consent of the
states and therefore failed.
Defeat of the tariff pointed to the need for revis-
ing the Articles of Confederation, for here was a case
where a large percentage of the states were ready to
increase the power of the national government yet
were unable to do so. Although many individuals in
every region were worried about creating a central-
ized monster that might gobble up the sovereignty of
the states, the practical needs of the times convinced
many others that this risk must be taken.Daniel Shays’s “Little Rebellion”
Especially alarming to conservatives was an outbreak
of violence in Massachusetts. The Massachusetts legis-
lature was determined to pay off the state debt and
maintain a sound currency. Taxes amounting to
almost £1.9 million were levied between 1780 and
1786, the burden falling most heavily on those of
moderate income. The average Massachusetts farmer
paid about a third of every year’s income in taxes. Bad
times and deflation led to many foreclosures, and the
prisons were crowded with honest debtors. “Our
Property is torn from us,” one town complained, “our
Gaols filled & still our Debts are not discharged.”
In the summer of 1786 mobs in the western com-
munities began to stop foreclosures by forcibly pre-
venting the courts from holding their sessions. Under
the leadership of Daniel Shays, a veteran of Bunker
Hill, Ticonderoga, and Saratoga, the “rebels” marched