Wait a second!
More handpicked essays just for you.
More handpicked essays just for you.
Difference between the articles of confederation and the constitution
Difference between the articles of confederation and the constitution
Difference between the articles of confederation and the constitution
Don’t take our word for it - see why 10 million students trust us with their essay needs.
For our founding fathers creating a new government was a very lengthy and difficult task in which all thirteen colonies had to come together and make compromises. One of the critical moments in which the founding fathers were urgently forced to have a meeting was because of what we historically know as Shay’s Rebellion, an unruly mob led by a revolutionary soldier Daniel Shay (Ginsberg et al. 37). According to the text book We the People, Shay’s Rebellion showed the flaws in the Articles of Confederation, a weak government unable to act promptly in critical emergencies (Ginsberg et al. 38). The founding fathers had to go from the Articles of Confederation to creating a completely new government, the U.S Constitution. As you can image this …show more content…
Congress under the Articles of Confederation was the central government without an executive branch unable to tax or monitor the economy and lacked union among states with only one vote per state. (Ginsberg et al. 35). Therefore, it was practically impossible for all states to agree on any changes to flourish as a nation. This divided government urged our leaders to create a strong government, but before they were able to do so they were proposed by two national government plans that created disagreement among states: the Virginia Plan and New Jersey Plan (Ginsberg et al. 39). The Virginia Plan “…provided for a system of representation in the national legislature based upon the population of each state or the proportion of each state’s revenue contribution to the national government or both” (Ginsberg et al. 39). The Virginia Plan favored larger state and many smaller states became oppose to this plan. However, the smaller states quickly answered back proposing the New Jersey Plan asking for “…equal state representation in the national legislature regardless of population (Ginsberg et al. 39).” This disagreement on representation further divided the states and …show more content…
According to textbook We the People, checks and balances is a rule to limit abuse of power, each division of government is able to take part in and impact other alternative divisions (Ginsberg et al. 42). This rule of checks and balances makes it possible for our branches to check one another and to limit the abuse of power. In the book We the People, explains “each branch is given not only its own powers but also some power to the other branches. (Ginsberg et al. 47).” In the end you will understand how this concept of checks and balance applies throughout the structure of the U.S
Many Americans tried to return to their old lives after the Revolutionary War. It was easy for some, but it was difficult or near impossible for the others. Many farmers had a hard time reverting to their post-revolutionary ways and ordeals, and this proved challenging. Suffering from high debt, farmers in central Massachusetts and western Massachusetts tried to start over and build new lives. The government, on the other hand, did nothing to assist Americans who were trying to return to their lives from the brutality of war. Farmers were put were imprisoned by law enforcement for lack of paying off their debts. All of these issues caused a small rebellion which grew into one of the largest armed rebellions after the Revolutionary War. The leader of the Rebellion, Daniel Shays, later called his band of angry farmers Shays’ Rebellion. Shays’ Rebellion was a poorly planned and unnecessary revolt hurting the cause it meant to help.
The states, in which Shays rebellion has taken place, were becoming unjust/unfair the way in which the state collected taxes. Since the Articles of Confederation was a complete failure, the founding fathers had to draft the active construction and choose a new system of government. According to article 2 “The state government will retain all powers that are not specifically given to the national Congress.. ” (Williamsburg, 2009)
Checks and balances are all important to the legislative branch which means that the part of the united states government that creates laws, and executive branch e=means that our governments is in charge of making sure that the laws of the united states are obeyed, and the judicial branch means that it's made up of court supremes, circuit, the magistrates and municipal courts, This piece of evidence relates to the argument because in the definition of checks and balances it has all these 3 branches in its definition.
Although not widely known, Shays’s Rebellion greatly impacted the debate on sovereignty and led many to conclude that the only possible solution was the centralization of power in a national authority. Historian John Garraty notes, “The lessons became plain: Liberty must not become an excuse for license; and therefore greater authority must be vested in the central government.”[1] While this effect was not the “rebels’” intended goal, Shays’s Rebellion helped shape the construction of the U.S. Constitution and the American political thought that has since followed. An analysis of both the causes and effects of Shays’s Rebellion highlights its contribution to the demise of the Articles of Confederation and the ratification of the Constitution.
The thirteen states formed a Confederation referred to as the “league of friendship” in order to find a solution for common problems such as foreign affairs.The Articles of Confederation was the nation’s first Constitution. The articles created a loose Confederation of independent states that gave limited powers to the central government. Each state would have one vote in the house of Congress, no matter the size of the population. Members of the one-house Congress, such as Pennsylvania, agreed that the new government should be a unicameral legislature, without an executive branch or a separate judiciary. Under the articles, there wasn’t a strong independent executive. There wasn’t any judicial branch but Congress had the authority to arbitrate disputes between states. Congress was responsible for conducting foreign affairs, declaring war or peace, maintaining an army and navy and a variety of other lesser functions. But the articles denied Congress the power to collect taxes, regulate interstate commerce and enforce laws. Because of this, the central government had to request donations from the states to finance its operations and raise armed forces.
1) Shays' Rebellion, the post-Revolutionary clash between New England farmers and merchants that tested the precarious institutions of the new republic, threatened to plunge the "disunited states" into a civil war. The rebellion arose in Massachusetts in 1786, spread to other states, and culminated in an abortive attack on a federal arsenal.
The separation of powers keeps any one branch from gaining too much power by creating 3 separate, distinct branches power can be shared equally among. According to Madison, “Liberty requires that the three great departments of power should be separate and distinct.”(Document B) In other words, to avoid tyranny and achieve liberty, the three branches of government (executive, legislative, and judicial) must be separate and diverse. The purpose of a separation of powers is to divide the powers of the government so there is not only one central source of power. The three branches must be as distinct as possible to avoid falling into the hands of one individual leader. There are also checks and balances between these three branches. Checks and balances are a system of each branch monitoring an...
“In the first years of peacetime, following the Revolutionary War, the future of both the agrarian and commercial society appeared threatened by a strangling chain of debt which aggravated the depressed economy of the postwar years”.1 This poor economy affected almost everyone in New England especially the farmers. For years these farmers, or yeomen as they were commonly called, had been used to growing just enough for what they needed and grew little in surplus. As one farmer explained “ My farm provides me and my family with a good living. Nothing we wear, eat, or drink was purchased, because my farm provides it all.”2 The only problem with this way of life is that with no surplus there was no way to make enough money to pay excessive debts. For example, since farmer possessed little money the merchants offered the articles they needed on short-term credit and accepted any surplus farm goods on a seasonal basis for payment. However if the farmer experienced a poor crop, shopkeepers usually extended credit and thereby tied the farmer to their businesses on a yearly basis.3 During a credit crisis, the gradual disintegration of the traditional culture became more apparent. During hard times, merchants in need of ready cash withdrew credit from their yeomen customers and called for the repayment of loans in hard cash. Such demands showed the growing power of the commercial elite.4 As one could imagine this brought much social and economic unrest to the farmers of New England. Many of the farmers in debt were dragged into court and in many cases they were put into debtors prison. Many decided to take action: The farmers waited for the legal due process as long as them could. The Legislature, also know as the General Court, took little action to address the farmers complaints. 5 “So without waiting for General Court to come back into session to work on grievances as requested, the People took matters into their own hands.”6 This is when the idea for the Rebellion is decided upon and the need for a leader was eminent.
In the Summer of 1787, fifty-five delegates representing 12 out of the 13 states in Philadelphia to fix the Articles of Confederation. They met in philadelphia because the Articles of Confederation was too weak. Shay’s rebellion was the end of the Articles of Confederation bringing down the whole network calling for a change of government. They did this to prevent a tyrant or tyranny. A tyrant/tyranny is when someone or a group abuses their power. The Constitution guarded against tyranny through Federalism, Separation of powers, Checks and Balances, and The Great Compromise.
Following the failure of the Articles of Confederation, a debate arose discussing how a centralized government ought to be organized. The prevailing opinion ultimately belonged to the Federalists, whose philosophy was famously outlined in The Federalist Papers. Recognizing that in a free nation, man would naturally divide himself into factions, they chose not to remedy this problem by stopping it at its source; instead, they would limit its effects by placing strict structural safeguards within the government's framework. The Federalists defined a facti...
The principle of separation of powers is laid out in Articles I, II, and III, in effort to avoid tyranny. It is a part of a system called check and balances. The check and balances play the roles of the three branches of government. This system was made so that no one branch will over power the other. The three branches come together and help one another by being independent of the other. The legislative branch consists of the Congress, the judicial branch consists of the courts, and the executive branch consists of the president. For an example, when a bill is in progress and the chief executive (president or governor) does not approve of it, he can reject legislation and return it to the legislature with reasons for the rejection. This is a process called veto power.
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.
In the Articles of Confederation, the legislature was formed as a unicameral legislature while in the new constitution, the legislature was bicameral consisting of an Upper House, Lower House, the Senate, and the House of Representatives (Haworth, 2010). The change in structure of the legislature happened because the states wanted the representatives to be selected in different ways. In addition, all the states were represented equally under the Articles of Confederation (Haworth, 2010). As a result, the bigger states felt that they were entitled to more decision-making power on some of the decisions made by the country which angered the smaller states this led to the development of the Virginia
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.