More handpicked essays just for you.
Contrast the U.S. government under the Articles of Confederation and the Constitution
Articles of CONFEDERATION
Strengths and weaknesses of articles of confederation government
Don’t take our word for it - see why 10 million students trust us with their essay needs.
After the Revolution against Britain, many of the American people favored, and needed a Republic to achieve law and order among the nation. While they were thinking they just ended a revolution, the American’s were actually facing a new one against its own people. The lack of interest among the states for looking forward the common well of the nation was the principal weakness of the government of the united states. Deficiency in team work and lack of communication where present in the first years of the new government in power. At the beginning each state was ruled by the interest of its own good without even consider the other states. This way was not prosperous, nor efficient. Maybe in a certain point the results could have been good at first, but they were not last long. The process of creating a new government is not a minor thing; and so in many other issues. America’s first constitution lacked of national unity. The government established by the Articles of Confederation was not strong enough to govern this new nation. As it created a very weak central government. After acknowledge the …show more content…
Delegates of the largest and most populated states disagreed with those from smaller states in terms of representation in the national legislature. The larger states were in favor the Virginia Plan, in which the number of representatives each state had, would be based on the population of each state. The smaller states supported the New Jersey Plan, in which proposed that all states have the same number of representatives. Connecticut delegates suggested a compromise and so the problem was solved. Today each state have two representatives. The plan provided the equal representation in the Senate and also proportional representation of the population in the House of Representatives. satisfying both, big and small states, by the New Jersey ideas and preferences, as it resulted to be the most righteous for the good of the
At the time, larger states like Virginia were creating an unfair amount of power for themselves that the small states didn’t have. In the new government, Congress was created to make laws, and was made up of the House of Representatives and the Senate. The House of Representatives would give states a number of Representatives they could have based on their population. This would give fair power deserved to the larger states. The Senate however would be two and only two Senators for each state, no matter how large or small, bringing some equality to Congress.
Several delegates submitted plans for consideration that would strengthen the national government two such plans were the Virginia and the New Jersey Plan. Despite much of Virginia’s plan being accepted, if a compromise had not been reached the New Jerseys plan would have been more workable because it offered: equal representation of the states, provided operational means to congress, and was not a radical departure from the Articles of the Confederation. To begin with the unequal representation of the states in the Virginia Plan was of great concern and controversy while the New Jersey Plan retained equal representation of the states. Virginia proposed a bicameral legislature that included elections by the people and appointments by those elected.
The Americans after obtaining independence from England needed to establish a form of government. Before the war had ended, the Second Congress of the Confederation called for the drafting of a new government in order to govern this new country, which the Articles of Confederation established. The Articles of Confederation built a government solely based off republican ideals, such as civic virtue, the idea that the states and the people will make sacrifices to the common good in order to benefit everybody. Relying on civic virtue did not pull through as successful for the young country. The Articles of Confederation shone through as successful in organizing and establishing states in the Old Northwest, spreading republican ideals; however, the success of the Articles of Confederation was trumped by its failures. The Articles of Confederation failed to provide a new and young United States with an effective government in its inability to collect tax revenue to pay debts, controlling the mobocratic uprising of upset factions, and dealing with foreign policies; additionally, the failure of the Articles of Confederation revealed the inefficiency and failure of republicanism.
The New Jersey Plan was proposed during the Constitutional Convention in 1787, where the delegates from each state were creating their new government. One of the plans that were proposed at the Conventional Convention was the Virginia Plan. This plan was written by James Madison who grew up on a wealthy plantation in Virginia. The plan said that the government should be split into three branches to keep equal power throughout the government. Though it did say seem flawless, there was one factor that displeased the smaller state. It said that the government should use the proportional representation, which is when voting would be based off of how many delegates there were. This was a problem for smaller states because then those states would not have as much of the vote as the larger states.
As I stated earlier each state wanted to be represented according to different factors. The states with bigger populations wanted representation to be based solely off of population. The states with smaller populations wanted there to be a fixed number of representatives per state, regardless of size or population. The Connecticut Compromise resolved this issue by forming the two houses that we have today.
In 1789, the Confederation of the United States, faced with the very real threat of dissolution, found a renewed future with the ratification of the Constitution of the United States. This document created a structure upon which the citizens could build a future free of the unwanted pitfalls and hazards of tyrannies, dictatorship, or monarchies, while securing the best possible prospects for a good life. However, before the establishment of the new United States government, there was a period of dissent over the need for a strong centralized government. Furthermore, there was some belief that the new constitution failed to provide adequate protection for small businessmen and farmers and even less clear protection for fundamental human rights.
During and after the turmoil of the American Revolution, the people of America, both the rich and the poor, the powerful and the meek, strove to create a new system of government that would guide them during their unsure beginning. This first structure was called the Articles of Confederation, but it was ineffective, restricted, and weak. It was decided to create a new structure to guide the country. However, before a new constitution could be agreed upon, many aspects of life in America would have to be considered. The foremost apprehensions many Americans had concerning this new federal system included fear of the government limiting or endangering their inalienable rights, concern that the government’s power would be unbalanced, both within its branches and in comparison to the public, and trepidation that the voice of the people would not be heard within the government.
The Articles of Confederation were incapable of providing the United States with an effective form of government. The Articles of Confederation presided weakly over the government as it allowed little or no power to tax, control trade, and branches of government were missing. In addition to this, the thirteen states acted as separate nations and the national government had little control over them.
To say that the Articles of Confederation provided the United States of America with an effective government would be quite an over exaggeration. For most people in modern day, an effective government would be one that can govern mass numbers of people and still be politically correct in overruling decisions on matters while keeping the law in mind, yet keeping the benefit of common good front and center. But, the Articles of Confederation were not written in the present day, so these ideals of a competent government were not quite applicable. For most people, an effective government was one that could govern mass numbers of people, still giving the states and the people many rights, while still being able to keep all under control. This would have eliminated any possibility that a federal government could become too strong or resemble a monarchy. However, the Articles of Confederation did few of these things. The Articles of Confederation were ineffective because they provided a weak central government, did not give the authority to settle boundary disputes, and eventually led to civil unrest which included incidences such as Shays’ Rebellion.
By the late eighteenth century, America found itself independent from England; which was a welcomed change, but also brought with it, its own set of challenges. The newly formed National Government was acting under the Articles of Confederation, which established a “firm league of friendship” between the states, but did not give adequate power to run the country. To ensure the young nation could continue independently, Congress called for a Federal Convention to convene in Philadelphia to address the deficiencies in the Articles of Confederation. While the Congress only authorized the convention to revise and amend the Articles the delegates quickly set out to develop a whole new Constitution for the country. Unlike the Articles of Confederation, the new Constitution called for a national Executive, which was strongly debated by the delegates. There were forces on both sides of the issue trying to shape the office to meet their ideology. The Federalists, who sought a strong central government, favored a strong National Executive which they believed would ensure the country’s safety from both internal and external threats. The Anti Federalists preferred to have more power in the hands of the states, and therefore tried to weaken the national Executive. Throughout the convention and even after, during the ratification debates, there was a fear, by some, that the newly created office of the president would be too powerful and lean too much toward monarchy.
During the construction of the new Constitution, many of the most prominent and experienced political members of America’s society provided a framework on the future of the new country; they had in mind, because of the failures of the Articles of Confederation, a new kind of government where the national or Federal government would be the sovereign power, not the states. Because of the increased power of the national government over the individual states, many Americans feared it would hinder their ability to exercise their individual freedoms. Assuring the people, both Alexander Hamilton and James Madison insisted the new government under the constitution was “an expression of freedom, not its enemy,” declaring “the Constitution made political tyranny almost impossible.” (Foner, pg. 227) The checks and balances introduced under the new and more powerful national government would not allow the tyranny caused by a king under the Parliament system in Britain. They insisted that in order achieve a greater amount of freedom, a national government was needed to avoid the civil unrest during the system under the Articles of Confederation. Claiming that the new national government would be a “perfect balance between liberty and power,” it would avoid the disruption that liberty [civil unrest] and power [king’s abuse of power in England] caused. The “lackluster leadership” of the critics of the new constitution claimed that a large land area such as America could not work for such a diverse nation.
The first proposals to this new plan were the Virginia Plan and the New Jersey Plan. The Virginia Plan called for a separation of powers among the government’s three branches: executive, legislative, and judicial. Some states proposed this idea and came up with the New Jersey Plan, which called for all of the states to have equal representation from Congress. In order to move forward from the deadlock of the two proposals, the Connecticut Compromise was enacted. This decided that legislature would be bicameral, which meant that there would be two houses: one would have equal representation and one would be based on state population. This unified the states under a federal system. To this day, there are three types of Fe...
The American Revolution stirred political unity and motivated the need for change in the nation. Because many Americans fought for a more balanced government in the Revolutionary War, they initially created a weak national government that hampered the country's growth and expansion. In the Letter from Abigail Adams to Thomas Jefferson, Mrs. Adams complained about the inadequacy of power that the American government had to regulate domestic affairs. The Articles of Confederation was created to be weak because many had feared a similar governing experience that they had just eliminated with Britain. The alliance of states united the 13 local governments but lacked power to deal with important issues or to regulate diplomatic affairs. Congress did not have the power to tax, regulate trade, or draft people for war. This put the American citizens at stake because States had the power to refuse requests for taxes and troops (Document G). The weakened national government could not do anything about uprisings or small-scale protests because it did not have the power to put together an army. The deficiencies of the confederation government inspired the drafting of the American Constitution. The document itself embodied the principle of a national government prepared to deal with the nation's problems. In James Madison's Federalist Paper, he persuades the American public to adopt the Constitution so that the government can protect humans from their nature and keep them out of conflicts.
After winning the Revolutionary War and sovereign control of their home country from the British, Americans now had to deal with a new authoritative issue: who was to rule at home? In the wake of this massive authoritative usurpation, there were two primary views of how the new American government should function. Whereas part of the nation believed that a strong, central government would be the most beneficial for the preservation of the Union, others saw a Confederation of sovereign state governments as an option more supportive of the liberties American’s fought so hard for in the Revolution. Those in favor of a central government, the Federalists, thought this form of government was necessary to ensure national stability, unity and influence concerning foreign perception. Contrastingly, Anti-Federalists saw this stronger form of government as potentially oppressive and eerily similar to the authority’s tendencies of the British government they had just fought to remove. However, through the final ratification of the Constitution, new laws favoring state’s rights and the election at the turn of the century, one can say that the Anti-Federalist view of America prevails despite making some concessions in an effort to preserve the Union.
The Articles of Confederation was the first government of the United States. The Articles had created a very weak national government. At the time the Articles were approved, they had served the will of the people. Americans had just fought a war to get freedom from a great national authority--King George III (Patterson 34). But after this government was put to use, it was evident that it was not going to keep peace between the states. The conflicts got so frequent and malicious that George Washington wondered if the “United” States should be called a Union (Patterson 35). Shays’ Rebellion finally made it evident to the public that the government needed a change.