Also keep in mind that the reason the AoC was junked was because the central government was too weak. The founders didn't believe America would be perpetual under it. So they created a new system for America to operate with that made the federal government stronger "the supreme law of the land."
Of course not all the founders agreed with this. Patrick Henry was very much against the adoption of the constitution because of this. During the Virginia ratification convention he said this in an effort to get Virginia not to ratify the consition;
I rose yesterday to ask a question which arose in my own mind. When I asked that question, I thought the meaning of my interrogation was obvious. The fate of this question and of America may depend on this. Have they said, We, the states? Have they made a proposal of a compact between states? If they had, this would be a confederation. It is otherwise most clearly a consolidated government. The question turns, sir, on that poor little thing — the expression, We, the people, instead of the states, of America. I need not take much pains to show that the principles of this system are extremely pernicious, impolitic, and dangerous. Is this a monarchy, like England — a compact between prince and people, with checks on the former to secure the liberty of the latter? Is this a confederacy, like Holland — an association of a number of independent states, each of which retains its individual sovereignty? It is not a democracy, wherein the people retain all their rights securely. Had these principles been adhered to, we should not have been brought to this alarming transition, from a confederacy to a consolidated government.