Not very effective at all, thats why the founding fathers abandoned them and wrote the constitution instead

They were better than nothing,but not by much.They showed the need for a strong Constitution,due to the weakness of the Articles.There were more like helpful hints than they were law.Nothing could be accomplished under them;nothing was obligated by them,nor was anything guaranteed.

The Articles were worthless at problem solving,they created confusion more than anything.

Within Article II,they are referred to as “a league of frienship”.

That is superficial garbage and has no substance.If they fall out of frienship,do all obligations cease?Yes.

That is like having an “open marriage”.

Canada was free to join as well and was invited.They were literally all over the map.

Article Xl

Canada acceding to this confederation, and adjoining in the measures of the United States, shall be admitted into, and entitled to all the advantages of this Union; but no other colony shall be admitted into the same, unless such admission be agreed to by nine States.

Matt is powerful. It did no longer remedy any complications somewhat. i might call it greater of a bandaid. there replaced into one homestead and each state(13) had one vote. To bypass a regulation it took 9 out of 13 states to agree. To amend the articles of confederation it took all 13 states to agree. there replaced into no government branch and no judicial branch. All it did replaced into create a susceptible critical government. the only somewhat good ingredient replaced into the government replaced into to be a republic, meaning no king. in fact, Shay revolt, i’m won’t bypass into element approximately that, yet replaced into between the main important incidents that suggested the weaknesses interior the congress under the articles of confederation.