Neither the Annapolis gathering nor its call for a larger convention in Philadelphia, not to mention the bold new agenda it had proclaimed, were exactly legal.  The business of framing national policy and authorizing national conventions and proposing amendments to the existing Articles all were reserved properly to Congress.  But Shays’ Rebellion was very much on the public mind when the Annapolis report went into circulation, and the idea of reviewing the political system gained momentum.  Still, Congress received the Annapolis report with mixed feelings and proceeded cautiously.  In October, 1786, a special committee was appointed to examine the proposal, and there followed four months of delays and discussions and arguments.  The Annapolis report had hinted that not only trade and commerce needed adjusting, but that the entire federal system needed reconsideration.  But throughout the country there was strong opposition to any such proposal.  Sovereign and independent of each other, the states had fought through six years of war.  Why fight such a war and win independence, only to be ruled by a powerful Congress instead of a powerful Parliament?  Let the states govern themselves!  It was the prevailing notion.  In February, 1787 Congress finally announced that a convention of the states was “expedient . . . for the sole purpose of revising the Articles of Confederation.”  Congress had said nothing about a new constitution.  To the thirteen states of the Union the Articles of Confederation were constitution enough.