Call me nostalgic, but I still have a thing for the Articles of Confederation. Maybe it's the enticement of forbidden fruit. In the government schools I attended little if anything was said about the eight years during which the United States of America were governed under the Articles. The curriculum writers must have had a good reason for not devoting class time to that period. What didn't they want us to know?

Sheldon Richman - 10/7/2006

Not if they read the history. According to Jensen, "The destruction of the established church, the abolition of entail and primogeniture, the easing of laws for the manumission of slaves, these are weighty evidence of the profound changes wrought by the rise of radicalism in Virginia [emphasis added]. Such encroachment on the established order alarmed the men who had prevented a drastic change in government during the writing of the [Virginia] constitution of 1776. Hence they too, like the merchants of Pennsylvania, turned to nationalism to protect them against the threats of the dissatisfied democracy of the frontier."

In other words, the slave holders wanted a strong central government.

Stephan Kinsella - 10/6/2006

Uh oh, there are some around who would call you a slavery apologist for saying this. Just be sure you don't say anything nice about Calhoun.

Sheldon Richman - 10/6/2006

Not surprising. It's been put down the memory hole.

David T. Beito - 10/6/2006

I notice that some history textbooks don't even bother to reproduce the Articles in the appendix, as they do the Declaration and Constitution.