Generations of scholars have declared the Articles of Confederation to be inadequate to the needs of the nation of necessity replaced by the Constitution of 1787. This interpretation rests on three methodological flaws. First, it is anachronistic by which I mean that scholars use as a standard of judgement answers to questions of constitutional policy embedded in the Constitution. They then judge the alternative answers of the Articles to be wrong. Secondly, they compare the Articles in practice to the words of the Constitution incorrectly assuming the “promises” of the latter became effective public policy during the Early National period. Thirdly, they interpret comparable events in accordance with their preconceived judgement. Events like Shays’ Rebellion during the Confederation era are interpreted as signs of weakness. Comparable events in the Constitution era, like the Whiskey Rebellion and its aftermath, are judged signs of strength.

世世代代的学者宣称，《联邦条文》不足以取代《 1787年宪法》所取代的必要性国家的需要。这种解释基于三个方法上的缺陷。首先，它是不合时宜的，我的意思是学者们用其作为判断标准来回答《宪法》中所包含的宪法政策问题。然后，他们认为这些条款的替代答案是错误的。第二，他们假设宪法的“承诺”在国民党初期成为有效的公共政策，因此将宪法中的条款与实践中的条款进行了错误的比较。第三，他们根据先入为主的判断来解释可比事件。邦联时代的谢斯叛乱等事件被解释为软弱的迹象。