The Articles of Confederation

[Carp]

In Civics :: Week 5, Part D, you were introduced to both the advantages and the disadvantages of the Articles of Confederation.  If you need to review them, the link takes you that point in the video.

Do you think that the Articles of Confederation might have been successful if the Continental Congress could have modified the document to "fix" the disadvantages (i.e., the lack of taxation powers or the power to establish a national currency)?

[jessica jacobs]

No, there was to many thiings to fix and it was to hard to get everyone to agree to one thing.

[Thomas Sutter]

No and yes, taxes can cause too much take by the government, but a national currency would allow for better, easier trade and buisness.

[Jenna Huntley]

I don't think it would have worked even with the fixes. I don't think they could have fixed it until they were separated from Britain, so they couldn't fix the taxation and the currency disadvantages. 

[Daryl Wallace]

I dont think everyone would agree on it. At least one person objected

[Haley Mueller]

I don't think it would have worked. Not everyone would agree on it.

[Andrew Jimenez]

No I do not believe it would have been successful because not everyone would agree with it.

[Rontay Welton]

No, I dont believe it would have ever worked because it was just too much to fix with too little apparatus. They bit off more than they could chew. For someone to try and establish something with 3 different positions, little money, and barely any government control is bewildering to me.

[k.yang7210]

I dont feel like it will work out because in individual's mind they
want peace but dont know how to accept peace basically there will be
too much disagreeing flying around.

On Oct 7, 9:39 pm, Carp <carp.drag...@gmail.com> wrote:
> In Civics :: Week 5, Part D<http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0vAdUfbJC9o#t=3m25s>,

[Gregory Robinson]

No, even with the fixes, the Article of Confederation still wouldn't be a good document that everyone could agree on

[mackenzie rodkey]

I think there would be problems because everyone wouldn't agree on the fixes. There would be at least on person that Would've objected.

[Sydney Lee]

No I do not think it would be successful. "Fixing" the disadvantages could be for better or worse because it woud be rare if everybody 100% agreed on everything.

[Dahnye M.]

No, the Articles of Confederation wouldn't have been able o fix any of the issues because people weren't required to abide by those rules. The nations lacked a steady government, therefore there was nobody to say the the laws were fair and just, there was nobody to enforced them, or even somebody official enough to say that these were the laws.

[k.yang7210]

I didnt really understand what you were agreeing on but I guess you are correct about it still being something people just read for no specific reason.

[Autumn Flynn]

I think that we are fine with what we have of the Articles of Confederation. I just think that if we were to try and "fix" something within it, then there would be something else to complain about. In my mind, we could always fix one thing, but then there's always going to be something else wrong. Either way, there are going to be problems with it, so we should just leave it the way it is.

[k.yang7210]

I completely agree. Its never ending, people can never fully agree to one thing of many sources.

[Daryl Wallace]

I agree, slim chances everyone would agree

[mackenzie rodkey]

I agree with you on that, because everyone has there own opinion. So everyone that was on the board wouldn't agree.

[Skye Chapman]

I feel like it still would not have worked because not everyone wouldve agreed with it.

[Skye Chapman]

I agree with autumn becausrme whether we fix something or not people will always complain about something else.

[Rontay Welton]

Autumn Flynn, I agree with the fact that we cant change everything. But when you said we should just leave it be, I disagree with that. I believe we should leave it open for change just in case social morals change or future situations require us to add/tamper things in the Articles of Confederation. I dont believe it should be set in stone. 

[Haley Mueller]

I agree with Autumn, there's always something:/

[jessica jacobs]

I completely agree with autumn and that was a very good way to put how it would turn out.

[Jenna Huntley]

I completely agree. Someone is always going to have a problem when you try to change things and make it better.

[Thomas Sutter]

Not everyone will agree on anything one could think of, but the majority of everyone is what counts.

[Sydney Lee]

I agree with Autumn. There is always going to be times where people do not agree. Things can't be perfect but they're pretty good now.

[tyler finley]

I agree with autumnn, Not everyone will agree with each other, someone will always have a problem.

[Autumn Flynn]

i agree with sydney. We both believe the same thing.

[luwayne harris]

If they were given power i think they could have gotten things fixed. No one wanted to listen to the so nothing good came of it.

[Andrew Jimenez]

I agree with Sydney there is no 100% way of knowing what the advantages and disadvantages are.

[luwayne harris]

I agree with Thomas, not everyone can be satisfied with what is chosen, but it is up to a majority of people to choose.

[Troy Oliver]

No, because people would have too much trouble agreeing on the best ways to fix all of it's problems.

[Troy Oliver]

I agree with Thomas, it could be successful in some ways, but overall it would just continue to pose problems when people try to negotiate it.