How do I answer this question in my Government class?

The original confederacy worked for part of the society but commercial interests found it too restrictive for them. Your teacher has a distorted view of it and my "sources" explains why. The structure and principles of government here in the US are all wrapped around the very fierce battle between Federalist Party bankers and merchants and anti-Federalist farmers and tradesmen. The latter soon formed the Democratic-Republican Party ultimately known as the Democratic Party, but with true liberal policies not the socialist and progressives ones of today (today's Republican Party wasn't formed until the latter 1840s). The anti-Federalists strongly opposed many Federalist policies and did not trust the new constitution the Federalists wanted, so they demanded our Bill of Rights to protect themselves (and us) against domination from the Federalists. The primary reason the Federalist bankers and merchants called for a convention to alter the existing (then) constitution (the Articles of Confederation) was because that constitution allowed states to shut out businesses from other states. Those articles formed a "confederation" of independent states. Those were like independent countries aligned together without the overriding federal authority we have today. The Federalists wanted changes that allowed them to move their businesses freely between states. The Federalists also wanted to form "well regulated [meaning fully trained and equipped] select corps of the young and ardent" (see Federalist Paper No. 29) formal militia units drawn from within the already existing (since the beginning of the colonies' formations) militia of all able-bodied male citizens. The new formal militia of disciplined (and indoctrinated) young men (good for dominating states and citizens) was wanted by them to put down rebellions like Shays' Rebellion a year before had been against Massachusetts banks. That rebellion was made from (of course) many members of the normal citizens' militia. The arguments between Federalists and anti-Federalists, under many compromises hopefully students are still taught, resulted in the new Constitution we have today. Fallout from the conflict between the two factions eventually cost Federalist leader Alexander Hamilton's life from a dueling wound, and culminated in our Civil War decades later. That war did not result from the hot issue of slavery, as both of us were taught. Secession was inspired by oppressive tariffs on southeastern Democratic state's lucrative foreign trade. Northern Republican Party (they had succeeded the defunct Federalist Party) controlled states were thrown into deep economic depression by huge hordes of my starving Irish relatives undercutting wages, just as today's on-coming depression is caused by horrendously huge hordes of overpopulating Asian excess labor undercutting wages. The tariffs were needed to bail out the suffering north, as well as a whip for the English descendant merchant controlled north to beat the Scots-Irish descendant farmer controlled south for perpetually resisting their domination here like they did in Great Britain. I know this makes me seem like the neo-Marxist liars I so hate (I am a free-market true liberal "libertarian"), but the truth is the truth even if it disparages my own valued principles.

In those days, the right-wing preferred a strong central authority, a standing army, subsidies (bounties) for industry, and a social hierarchy. "The Men who oppose a strong & energetic government are, in my opinion, narrow minded politicians" -- George Washington; from letter to Alexander Hamilton (July 10, 1787) The left-wing of that day supported a Bill of Rights, equal protection of all classes, and a gradual leveling of society. "The great object should be to combat the evil: 1. By establishing a political equality among all; 2. By witholding unnecessary opportunities from a few to increase the inequality of property by an immoderate, and especially an unmerited, accumulation of riches; 3. By the silent operation of laws which, without violating the rights of property, reduce extreme wealth towards a state of mediocrity and raise extreme indigence towards a state of comfort; 4. By abstaining from measures which operate differently on different interests, and particularly such as favor one interest at the expense of another; 5. By making one party a check on the other so far as the existence of parties cannot be prevented nor their views accommodated. If this is not the language of reason, it is that of republicanism." -- James Madison; from 'Parties' (1792)