<P> Under the Articles, Congress had the authority to regulate and fund the Continental Army, but it lacked the power to compel the States to comply with requests for either troops or funding . This left the military vulnerable to inadequate funding, supplies, and even food . Further, although the Articles enabled the states to present a unified front when dealing with the European powers, as a tool to build a centralized war - making government, they were largely a failure; Historian Bruce Chadwick wrote: </P> <P> George Washington had been one of the very first proponents of a strong federal government . The army had nearly disbanded on several occasions during the winters of the war because of the weaknesses of the Continental Congress...The delegates could not draft soldiers and had to send requests for regular troops and militia to the states . Congress had the right to order the production and purchase of provisions for the soldiers, but could not force anyone to supply them, and the army nearly starved in several winters of war . </P> <P> The Continental Congress, before the Articles were approved, had promised soldiers a pension of half pay for life . However Congress had no power to compel the states to fund this obligation, and as the war wound down after the victory at Yorktown the sense of urgency to support the military was no longer a factor . No progress was made in Congress during the winter of 1783--84 . General Henry Knox, who would later become the first Secretary of War under the Constitution, blamed the weaknesses of the Articles for the inability of the government to fund the army . The army had long been supportive of a strong union . Knox wrote: </P> <P> The army generally have always reprobated the idea of being thirteen armies . Their ardent desires have been to be one continental body looking up to one sovereign...It is a favorite toast in the army, "A hoop to the barrel" or "Cement to the Union". </P>

Who argued that the articles of confederation were too weak