Articles of confederation

The Articles of Confederation The Articles of Confederation was the first constitution of the United States of America. The Articles of Confederation were first drafted by the Continental Congress in Philadelphia Pennsylvania in 1777. This first draft was prepared by a man named John Dickinson in 1776. The Articles were then ratified in 1781.

Looking back in history (1781-1787) at the debate over ratification of the Constitution we can see that the making of the constitution was a long drawn out battle between the federalists and the Anti-Federalists. There were concerns as to the inherent weaknesses of the Articles of Confederation, such as the lack of action during Shay’s Rebellion, the issue over taxation, as well as the problematic consensus required by all states to change any one of the Articles. There was a fear that if given too much power the executive leader would become like the king they had just fought a revolution to free themselves from. This fear of giving too much power to a centralized government was what made the Articles so weak. The purpose of this paper is to examine the two sides of the debate of constitutional ratification, The Federalists (and the Federalist papers) as well as the Anti-Federalists (and the Anti-Federalist Papers) and look at their influence on the Constitution. By comparing the essentials of The Constitution as well as The Articles of Confederation we will be able to see the differences between the two. These differences will show us not only the weaknesses of the Articles but the strength of the new constitution. A second objective, where possible make what “if” statements as to what would have happened if the Articles were not replaced, and the Constitution was not written.

According to the Federalists in the early stages of the American republic, a strong central government was necessary to provide uniform supervision to the states thus aiding in the preservation of the Union. This necessity for a more organized central government was a result of the ineffectiveness of the Article of Confederation’s government that was without a unifying government body. One component of this philosophy was the creation of an executive and other federal branche...

Alexander Hamilton 's Federalist Paper #15 called The Insufficiency of the Present Confederation to Preserve the Union was a primary document that showed the problems with the Articles of Confederation and how it was detrimental to the United States. He is warning the American people that their country could begin to crumble if some issues weren 't addressed. Most of what Hamilton writes about was already popular among the Americans, and he acknowledges this when he writes about how his piece may be "tedious or irksome." Under the Articles, the government did not have enough authority over the states to properly govern. The national government could merely recommend laws, but the states had the final say. The states could advance their own

Soon after the Revolutionary War in America, a new government was started when the Articles of Confederation were adopted by the Continental Congress. The Articles set up a democratic government that gave the States the power to make their own laws and to enforce them. However, the Articles were ineffective and failed to provide a strong government. During this critical period in the history of the United States, pandemonium and anarchy were growing due to: controlled public, nothing in the Articles that gave Congress the power to enforce laws, no solid monetary system, and also the country lacked unity and strength

The making of the Constitution not only developed rules of America, but it also developed a small tear in society’s views and if not mended would begin to rip. There were two different interpretations that were dominant in the viewing of the Constitution: Federalists had a loose interpretation that believed in implied powers, and Anti-Federalists believed that the powers not in the Constitution belong to the states. Even before the development of the Constitution, these two parties were bickering about whether the National government had too much power or too little and it carried through; Federalists still believed in a weak central government with emphasis on individual rights where as the Anti-Federalists saw the national government as too week. These two views were breaking farther apart with each step America took and lead to many controversies in the years to come.

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 Articles of Confederation, the perfect republican government, was not a perfect government. It was faulty and ineffective in providing a central government with tax revenue to pay off debts, which caused the discontent of mobs that the central government would fail to control. The Articles created a weak government that would be easily pushed around by its people and by foreign countries. The reliance on civic virtue was successful in organized land policies that spread republicanism ideals; however, it failed to aid the Congress of the Confederation in tax revenue and controlling mobocracy. The Articles of Confederation was ineffective and faulty with is roots planted solely in republicanism.

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.

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.