The Articles of Confederation: An Interpretation of the Socio-Constitutional History of
the American Revolution, 1774-1781. By Merrill Jensen. (Madison: The University of
Wisconsin Press, 1940)
Merrill Jensen seems to take the obscurity of the Articles of Confederation vis-àvis the Constitution of 1787 personally. This book is, in the author’s words, “an attempt
to describe the Articles of Confederation in terms of the concrete issues that Americans
faced in 1776, rather than in terms of the unwarranted assumption that they are important
only because their weaknesses made necessary the Constitution of 1787. The latter
approach is hallowed by a hundred and fifty years of history-making and history-writing,
but it is valueless in making a realistic appraisal of this significant but little-known
portion of the history of the United States.” Jensen shows conclusively that the Articles
can most usefully be understood as a reflection of the social, constitutional, and economic
environment in which they were produced, rather than as a bungled dress rehearsal for
the system that succeeded it. He makes a convincing case that the first constitution of the
United States as well as the political debate it engendered deserve their due.
Jensen uses the struggle between “conservative” and “radical” elements in
colonial legislatures and the Continental Congresses as the framework for his analysis.
He traces the course of this “internal revolution” as it progressed before and during the
Revolutionary War. More than a third of the book serves as preamble, describing the
ways in which these two class-based interest groups faced off in the debate over
independence. In Jensen’s schema, conservatives were elite planters and merchants who
opposed independence for fear that it would result in a chaotic, hyper-democratic society,
hostile to their hegemony. Radicals, the early advocates of independence, were generally
less wealthy than the conservatives and more genuinely committed to political change.
When independence seemed a fait accompli, conservatives, somewhat disingenuously,
chose to join the radical fray, abandoning their opposition in order to position themselves
favorably in the new government. In the end, Jensen’s account of the “internal
revolution” period makes clear the extent to which both conservatives and radicals were
committed principally to self-interest rather than grandiose notions of democratic
government.
By virtue of its emphasis on the economic and geographic interests of the groups
who formulated and eventually ratified the Articles of Confederation, Jensen’s book can
be viewed as a product of the Progressive tradition in American historiagraphy. The
debate over the Articles, as presented here, hinged on questions of economic and
geographic significance, and on the ownership of Western lands in particular. “Landless”
colonies such as Pennsylvania, Delaware, New Jersey, and Maryland did not possess, as
Virginia and other colonies did, any charter claims for land west of the Appalachian
Mountains. Their western boundaries had already been determined, and this deeply
colored their reactions to the Articles of Confederation throughout the Revolution.
Landless states wanted assurance that Congress would have the power “to limit the
dimensions of each colony, to prevent those, which claim by charter, or proclamation, or
commission, to the south sea, from growing too great and powerful, so as to be dangerous
to the rest.” As patriotic as this concern may seem, it was based largely on the economic
self-interest of elite speculators who had purchased lands from American Indians that
Virginia claimed the rights to. (The Virginia legislature, it should be noted, refused to
recognize any land transactions made with the Indians). Interest in land speculation
loomed large in Congress. Several prominent members of the body, Franklin included,
had a personal financial stake in the Western lands claimed by Virginia and the other
“landed” colonies. Needless to say, conflicts of interest abounded. Ultimately, the cause
of the landless colonies was destined to defeat, antithetical as it was to prevailing
concepts of state sovereignty. It is exemplary, however, of the self-interest “cloaked in
‘patriotism’” that marked the long conflict over the Articles (which, lest we forget, was
fought simultaneously with the American Revolution); it also forestalled ratification in
Maryland until 1781, delaying consummation of the Confederacy for three years.
Jensen’s case that the Articles of Confederation are best understood apart from
their connection to the Constitution of 1787 is well taken. The debate over their
formation and ratification reflects as well as anything in the revolutionary past the rifts
between elite and middling individuals and large and small states. Individuals and states
vied for control of the nascent federal government in interesting and revealing ways.
Most importantly, of course, we come to see that self-interest, rather than the common
good of the nation, governed conservatives and radicals alike from 1774 to 1781.
Jensen’s passion for the subject betrays him, however, when he contends in his
conclusion that “[a]n analysis of the disputes over the Articles of Confederation makes it
plain that they were not the result of either ignorance or inexperience. On the contrary,
they were a natural outcome of the revolutionary movement within the American
colonies.” This study goes a long way toward proving that the Articles were indeed a
“natural outcome” of their time and place. This does not, however, preclude them from
being the “results of ignorance or inexperience.” A comprehensive study of the
Confederation—one that shows us the Articles in action—is needed (as Max Ferrand
suggests in his review in The American Historical Review) before any such value
judgments can be made.
Jim David