With the Declaration of Independence in 1776, 13 American colonies declared themselves to be independent and sovereign states. (Actually, you could say it was 14 states, because the area known as Vermont simultaneously separated from New York.) 

After defeating the British in 1783, the new states setup a confederation designed to ensure equity and equality across all sovereign member states while uniting for common purposes.  

That was the primary goal and core strength documented in the original Articles of Confederation. 

It is also why each of the 13 sovereign states would have one single independent vote in all matters of decision with respect to the new federal level of confederated government.  

If the Confederation document did not overlook a few key gaps affecting commerce among the original 13 states, the Articles of Confederation would likely remain today. 

Imagine the clarity retained by such a system in which the states – albeit now 50 in number – would still directly specify what the federal level of government is permitted to do – or not do.  

Imagine too, that each sovereign state would still decide how, respectively, they would fund their share of any activity that they authorized to the federal level of government. 

And imagine what the oft-heard phrase “limited government” would mean for Americans today? 

To put this into some perspective, let’s take a brief look back at the Articles of Confederation, the gaps that needed attention and the political jockeying back then … all part of the prelude to our Constitution. 

One of the strengths within the original Articles of Confederation was also a weakness. To ensure equity and equality, the founders wisely established that every state had one vote.  

But, in order to revise or amend any part, every state had to unanimously vote to affect a proposed change. That meant any state held veto power.  

Given that the federal government was purposefully kept weak, some – including founder James Madison – said they could not intervene or regulate disagreements among the states. 

What were some examples of the real or perceived problems back then?

For one, Maryland and Virginia argued over control of the Potomac River. For another, Rhode Island was taxing all traffic passing though it on the main roads.  

Such actions provided fodder for the political propensities of some Founders and others who had their reasons for wanting a more dominant federal government. 

Perhaps, the most important weakness under the Articles of Confederation was the federal government’s inability to regulate trade. Others have included the authority to impose federal taxes to the list of weaknesses under the Articles of Confederation. 

In our view, there is some validity in the former instances; barely any in the latter claim. In both, amendments to the Articles of Confederation could have resolved all problems. Unfortunately, egos and the pursuit of power were as present back then as they are today.

Well, maybe, back then they were mere seeds … that have grown larger, and larger, and larger… in sync with the size of federal government.

Richard Olivastro is president of Olivastro Communications and founder of Citizens For Change. He can be reached via e-mail: at RichOlivastro@gmail.com or by phone at 1-877-RichSpeaks.