Why did the Articles of Confederation fail?
It didn't really fail at anything. George Washington wanted a stronger central government, and he had a lot of support; mainly from corporatists and mercantalists.
A major reason for failure of the Articles of Confederation was the war debt the states had accumulated, and the inability of many of them to pay them.
Abstract liberty, like other mere abstractions, is not to be found.
- Edmund Burke
I think if you really want to understand why there was a desire for a new document with a stronger central government, you must simply read the two documents side by side and see what's different.
Articles-http://www.ourdocuments.gov/doc.php?flash=old&doc=3&page=transcript
Constitution-http://www.ourdocuments.gov/doc.php?flash=true&doc=9&page=transcrip
I don't really know the exact history but I would assume Lam has a point because:
"All charges of war, and all other expenses that shall be incurred for the common defence or general welfare, and allowed by the united States, in congress assembled, shall be defrayed out of a common treasury, which shall be supplied by the several States, in proportion to the value of all land within each State....
The united States, in congress assembled, shall never engage in a war, nor grant letters of marque and reprisal in time of peace, nor enter into any treaties or alliances, nor coin money, nor regulate the value thereof nor ascertain the sums and expenses necessary for the defence and welfare of the united States, or any of them, nor emit bills, nor borrow money on the credit of the united States, nor appropriate money, nor agree upon the number of vessels of war to be built or purchased, or the number of land or sea forces to be raised, nor appoint a commander in chief of the army or navy, unless nine States assent to the same, nor shall a question on any other point, except for adjourning from day to day, be determined, unless by the votes of a majority of the united States in congress assembled."
Became:
"The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States; but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;
To borrow Money on the credit of the United States;
No State shall enter into any Treaty, Alliance, or Confederation; grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal; coin Money; emit Bills of Credit; make any Thing but gold and silver Coin a Tender in Payment of Debts; pass any Bill of Attainder, ex post facto Law, or Law impairing the Obligation of Contracts, or grant any Title of Nobility."
There are other key differences, including the central government's power to regulate commerce and limitations placed on individual states in relation to commerce:
"No State shall, without the Consent of the Congress, lay any Imposts or Duties on Imports or Exports, except what may be absolutely necessary for executing it's inspection Laws: and the net Produce of all Duties and Imposts, laid by any State on Imports or Exports, shall be for the Use of the Treasury of the United States; and all such Laws shall be subject to the Revision and Controul of the Congress.
No State shall, without the Consent of Congress, lay any Duty of Tonnage, keep Troops, or Ships of War in time of Peace, enter into any Agreement or Compact with another State, or with a foreign Power, or engage in War, unless actually invaded, or in such imminent Danger as will not admit of delay."
Also, there's no executive or judicial branch in the AoC. It just says that disputes between states will be settled by a Superior Court but it doesn't talk about any other disputes. There are many other differences obviously.
I agree that it is a good idea to compare the two documents to view the differences, and you will make the obvious connections as to the interests involved and who would likely gain from such additions.
I would also add that it is interesting to note that most of our "Founding Fathers" were essentially absent during the governance of the Articles, since there wasn't much power there. Jefferson and Adams were abroad enjoying a vacation in Paris on public expense; Washington not doing much, etc. It seems most of the others like Hamilton and Madison were too busy trying to push a new system. But then a more powerful central government comes into place and all of these geniuses, of course, come back seeking power. I always thought that was a significant development.
Basically, to answer your question, the powers that wanted a strong central government, and who for the most part lost that battle during the framing of the Confederation, came back in force to demand a stronger central government. Over time, the revolutionaries went back to the farms and the conservatives seeking greater power took on a greater voice and through newspapers (you know, the unbiased press owned or influenced by these conservatives...), etc.
It was not that the Articles failed - for what they were allowed to do, it worked - but that opponents were successful in delivering their message. Part of that message was that since tax collection was voluntary, they were not receiving everything the central government needed. That should have been a warning sign instead.
If you are more interested in learning more about this period, I cannot recommend more the following books:
"The Articles of Confederation" by Merrill Jensen
"The New Nation: A History of the United States during the Confederation - 1781-1789" by Merrill Jensen
"Collective Action Under the Articles of Confederation" by Keith L. Dougherty
"Conceived in Liberty, Vol. 4" by Murray Rothbard (also available for free in PDF on Mises site)
It is amazing looking back at how many serious conflicts of interest there were in framing both documents.
I agree with the others: there was no time for them to fail (in time they would have), the Confederation was just les expedient than a federation. If mountain ridges would not have stopped the, Switzerland’s cantons too would have bullied each other into a federation, instead of a confederation.
While the Articles were defective, the concept behind them was certainly superior to the concept behind the Constitution. But I agree with other posters in that the Mercantilist/Corporatist interests, personified by Washington/Hamilton, were the major cause of their overthrow and replacement by the Constitution.
I believe with some minor corrections, the Articles of Confederation could have succeeded, without the potential for usurpation which was inherent in the Constitution.
cdid the articles of cofederation offer any miore freedom to individuals?? could individyua states becom mini-US-s and do just as bad a things. if the withc trials were true...(th9ught that may heve predated the articels couldnt (and did) bad things happen from the states?
A contract only works insofar people believe that contracts should be upheld (and that private property is true, obviously).