Alexander Hamilton was a strong supporter of the government set up by the Articles of Confederation.

Alexander Hamilton was a strong supporter of the government set up by the Articles of Confederation.

• A. True
• B. It is widely debated among historians
• C. Not enough information
• D. False

Answer: (D)

The main idea here is understanding Hamilton’s stance on the national government. Hamilton was a Federalist who argued for a strong central government and a new framework to replace the Articles of Confederation. He believed the Articles left the union too weak to handle national needs—like collecting taxes, regulating commerce, and providing national security—and he worked to establish a constitution that concentrated power at the national level, with an empowered executive, a federal judiciary, and stronger financial tools. Because of this, the claim that he was a strong supporter of the government set up by the Articles is not correct. He favored replacing that structure with a more robust constitutional framework. The other options don’t fit because the historical record shows clear opposition to the Articles’ weaknesses and there isn’t a broad debate about his stance. There is enough information to know where he stood.

The main idea here is understanding Hamilton’s stance on the national government. Hamilton was a Federalist who argued for a strong central government and a new framework to replace the Articles of Confederation. He believed the Articles left the union too weak to handle national needs—like collecting taxes, regulating commerce, and providing national security—and he worked to establish a constitution that concentrated power at the national level, with an empowered executive, a federal judiciary, and stronger financial tools. Because of this, the claim that he was a strong supporter of the government set up by the Articles is not correct. He favored replacing that structure with a more robust constitutional framework. The other options don’t fit because the historical record shows clear opposition to the Articles’ weaknesses and there isn’t a broad debate about his stance. There is enough information to know where he stood.