Argued from both sides, the Articles of Confederation could have been either effective or non effective for the United States government. Many aspects are looked at to determine which is true about the Articles of Confederation and one is land. After the American Revolution, Americans were granted all land up to the Mississippi River. Some of the larger States (Va. mainly) and Conn. and Mass. decided to extend their area all the way to the Mississippi. This ticked off Rhode Island resulting in the creation of the Land Ordinance of 1785 and the Northwest Ordinance of 1787 by the Articles of Confederation. These set up laws selling land for no less than one dollar and 5,000 male adults equaled a state. This was effective because several states ceded the regions they had taken over .

Confidence of the United States was also increased due to the Articles of Confederation. Now that there was freedom of the seas, the Americans were quite mad that Britain continued seizing American ships. Britain also had control of land in America and the Americans wanted Britain to give it up. John Jay was quite an out spoken man and made his point clear when he said ," You will in a respectful but firm manner insist that the United States be put, without further delay, into possession of all posts and territories within their limits, which are now held by British garrisons." After being granted land up to the Mississippi River, Americans didn't know if that meant control of the Mississippi or not. John Jay states that something should be put in the Articles allowing the use of the river for those other than the Spanish. The Americans told Spain that the population was growing to the East of the river and it was a means of transportation. Both of these examples display the solidity of the Americans with international affairs.

Even though it can be supported that the Articles of Confederation had a positive influence for a strong government, there are a lot of factors that shy away from this. For starters, the Articles did not set up a national army. It was important that there was no way to pay for a national government, because if there were no funds then there was no army. This weakens the government because they were unable to handle certain situations (i.e. Shay's Rebellion). Although the government could coin money, each state could coin their money. The government tried to levy taxes but it is shown that, several states rejected this idea.

Under the Articles there was no judicial branch or enforcer of laws. If laws could not have been enforced, then how did people abide by them? Without a leader or an enforcer, who would lead the country? The same year the Articles were changed,1789, George Washington became the first president. There was a lot of concern for whether or not the Articles were working and it was suggested that they be revised . After these suggestions, the Constitution was written. If the Articles provided an effective government, then I don't think it would have been changed.