We just won the war with Great Britain! YEA! No more marching and fighting. No more families divided by political ideologies. No more uncertainties. We won!

So, what’s next?

Well, it’s going to be a BIG STEP governing the 13 colonies — uh, states — as an independent and united nation. Did you ever wonder about how the Second Continental Congress created a government that managed the war, solved differences between the colonial delegates, and secured the funding for all the challenges facing the rebellious colonies?

Our first system of government, the Articles of Confederation and Perpetual Union, was written in 1777, but because the war was the primary focus of the delegates and they were troubled by the concept of exchanging one strong, centralized government for another form of the same “tyranny,” the Articles were not ratified until March 1, 1781. (There was also the issue of the western lands, but we’ll address that issue later.)

How did the congressional delegates envision the new government’s functions and then finalize the document by ratification?

First, they named the new nation “The United States of America” and agreed that, while a centralized government was necessary so that the states could be unified in international affairs, the states would remain sovereign and independent. The balance-of-power issue has always been a delicate topic, whether for the new nation or the now more established nation approaching its 250th birthday. The line in The American’s Creed — “a sovereign nation of many sovereign states” — highlights that ongoing struggle with balanced authority.

The big question hovered over the meetings. While the delegates envisioned a republic, would it really work? After all, the Roman Republic had given way to an imperial government. Was there any evidence in the historical record that affirmed the idea that legislative delegates could balance the needs of their individual states with the overall good of the new nation?

The strict division of power created difficulties that became even more apparent once the “distraction” of the war had disappeared. While Congress had been given the authority to make treaties, maintain the armed forces, and coin money, it had not been authorized to raise taxes to support governmental agencies or the military, nor was there a unified system designed to regulate trade. Even the name “Articles of CONFEDERATION” signaled that the new government was little more than a league of friends. Now that the war had ended, would the new nation fail before it had become a reality?

Once the Peace of Paris had been signed and the focus became governing for peace and prosperity, the weaknesses of the confederation loomed over the new nation.

Congress could not enforce its acts, nor could it “raise” taxes to repay the war debts. There was only one branch of government, the legislature. The delegates had not created an executive or judicial branch, so there was neither the power to execute the will of Congress nor to determine the constitutionality of their legislation. With no division of power, there was no system of checks and balances.

One of the first major disagreements arose over the issue of taxation and foreshadowed the nation’s ongoing issues regarding slavery. How would the assignment of war debt obligations to each state be decided?

John Dickinson proposed that states be assessed a portion of the total war debt based on the total number of inhabitants, black and white. Native peoples would be excluded from the census of residents. The southern states joined together to argue that all assessments should be based only on white inhabitants. While that proposal was rejected, Congress ultimately decided that each state’s financial obligation would be based on the value of its lands and improvement. The issue of slavery and slave trade was too volatile and threatened to disrupt the new government, so Congress sidestepped it.

The language in Article III confirmed that “a firm league of friendship” united the states “for their common defense, the security of their liberties and their mutual and general welfare.” But how would they fund the national programs necessary for the defense and welfare of the people? While the states contributed funds according to their privately owned land values, how would that collection occur? What was the penalty if a state chose not to “contribute” its funds?

These were questions that the new government would have to answer.