The United States Constitution was a revolutionary deviation from the older Articles of Confederation, and, in fact, any other previous system of government in the entire world. Many people in the developing nation opposed the Constitution for various well-founded reasons. Anti-federalist was the name given to the people who disagreed with the Constitution and generally wanted a weaker central government. On the other hand, Federalists thought a stronger central government like the one proposed by the Constitution was needed for the new country. These parties each had convincing reasons to justify their beliefs; however, I tend to lean towards the beliefs of the Federalist Party. Looking at these ideas from both a historical perspective and …show more content…
Although the United States had accomplished this significant achievement, troubles for the new country were by no means at an end. The Articles of Confederation described a unicameral system of government in which there was a Continental Congress. Each state had one vote in Congress, and a unanimous decision was required to amend the Articles. In addition, powers granted to the Continental Congress were limited. For example, under the articles, the Congress could declare war, but not make the states provide troops. This is just one example of the many downfalls of the Articles that quickly became evident. The confederation was more like a group of states working together instead of a central power ruling over them. In fact, the Articles stated that the confederation was “…a firm league of friendship…” For many of these reasons, a new constitution called the Constitution replaced the Articles of Confederation, not without a fight, however. Anti-federalist, or …show more content…
For example, Anti-federalists wanted a weaker central government so that the states would have more power; however, this obviously did not work under the Articles of Confederation. Like Albert Einstein said, the definition of insanity is “doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results.” History shows that giving the states too much power causes greater issues for a country as a whole. For example, under the Articles of Confederation, interstate commerce was happening and this ruined state economies. However, because of the limitations of the Continental Congress, the government could do very little about the issue. In addition, states did not really have to abide by laws that the government set. Obviously, issues like this could be problematic and the specific design of the Constitution was to stop these
The Anti-Federalist Party, led by Patrick Henry, objected to the constitution. They objected to it for a few basic reasons. Mostly the Anti-Federalists thought that the Constitution created too strong a central government. They felt that the Constitution did not create a Federal government, but a single national government. They were afraid that the power of the states would be lost and that the people would lose their individual rights because a few individuals would take over. They proposed a “Bill of Rights”, to make sure the citizens were protected by the law. They believed that no Bill of Rights would be equal to no check on our government for the people.
From five states arose delegates who would soon propose an idea that would impact the United States greatly. The idea was to hold a meeting in Philadelphia called the Constitutional Convention in 1787 meant to discuss the improvements for the Articles of Confederation and would later be called the United States Constitution. The United States Constitution was greatly influenced by Ancient Rome, the Enlightenment, and Colonial Grievances.
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 states attempted to limit the power of the national government because they feared that it would become a monarchy. In an effort to limit the power of the national government, Congress created one without enough power to govern effectively, which led to serious national and international problems. One of the main weaknesses under the Articles of Confederation was its incapability to regulate trade and levy taxes. The states controlled all of their “cash flows.” Sometimes, the states were in debt because of tariff wars that they would engage in with one another.
The year of 1776 was a time of revolution, independence, and patriotism. American colonists had severed their umbilical cord to the Mother Country and declared themselves “Free and Independent States”.1 The chains of monarchy had been thrown off and a new government was formed. Shying away from a totalitarian government, the Second Continental Congress drafted a document called the Articles of Confederation which established a loose union of the states. It was an attempt at self-government that ended in failure. The Articles of Confederation had many defects which included a weak central government that lacked the power to tax, regulate trade, required equal representation and a unanimous vote to amend the Articles, and had only a legislative branch. As a result the United States lacked respect from foreign countries. These flaws were so severe that a new government had to be drafted and as a result the Constitution was born. This document remedied the weak points of the federal government and created one that was strong and fair, yet still governed by the people.
Throughout the American Revolution, the colonists were completely resentful towards their British 'king'. They yearned for their own government, and to finally set themselves apart from George III's rule and his legislation. When the Articles of Confederation were mandated, the expectation was to provide the colonies with a stable government. The Articles were then replaced by the Constitution, which had corresponding values. Essentially the document was written to salvage and improve the new government. The Constitution did many positive things for the nation, and was the perfect remedy for the failures of of the Articles. However, it is manifest that the authors of the document were not as honorable as they may have been assumed to be. How they drafted the document and the bias they have put into it is still greatly effects us. The Constitution is a counter-revolution because it contradicts the fails of the Articles, and is evident that some authors had more self-beneficial and narrow mindsets.
After the Constitution was written, the new born nation was immediately split into two political sides, the federalists and the anti-federalists, over the ratification. Federalists, southern planters or people that tended to hold interest in trade, advocated a strong executive. On the other hand, anti-federalists, back country people or people involved in business but not in the mercantile economy, opposed the ratification of the constitution. The two sides, after much debate, were able to come to a compromise after the Bill of Rights was included into the Constitution.
The Federalist wanted to ratify the Constitution while the Antifederalist despised the idea entirely. Alexander Hamilton, James Madison, and John Jay eventually compiled 85 essays as the Federalist Papers. These supporters of the Constitution believed that the checks and balances system (a system in which the different parts of an organization (such as a government) have powers that affect and control the other parts so that no part can become too powerful )would allow a strong central government to preserve states' rights. They felt that the Articles of Confederation was too weak and that they were in need for a change. The Articles of Confederation had “errors” that needed to be corrected argued the Federalist. Ratifying the Constitution lead to an improved more advanced country.
The constitution was a document that embodies the fundamental laws and principles by which the U.S is governed. The constitution states basic rights for its citizens. Delegates signed the constitution on September 17, 1787. There is a total of 27 constitutional amendments. The reasoning for writing it was for a stronger federal government - legislative, executive and judicial. The constitution was a break with a past of ‘unfair’ taxes, wars and ‘unfair’ treatment.
During the late 18th century the Antifederalists argued against the constitution on the grounds that it did not contain a bill of rights. They believed that without a list of personal freedoms, the new national government might abuse its powers and that the states would be immersed in an all too dominant and influential national government. The Antifederalists worried that the limits on direct voting and the long terms of the president and senators, supplied by the constitution, would create a population of elites and aristocrats, which in turn would eventually take away power from the people. They also feared that the president might become another monarch. In other words, the Antifederalists ultimately felt that the new Constitution was undemocratic.
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.
The Articles of Confederation set up a government that consisted of a one house body of delegates, with each state having a single vote, acting collectively, could make decisions on certain issues that affected all states. There was no president or judiciary so any decision required nine of the thirteen states’ votes. At this point in time the United States of America ... ... middle of paper ... ... o consider the charms of liberty as imaginary and delusive.”
While the Federalists believe in a strong, central government, the Anti-Federalists believe in the shared power of state and national governments to maintain the rights of all Americans .The Anti-Federalist favored a confederated government were the state and national governments could share power ,protect citizen’s freedom ,and independence. The Anti-Federalists found many problems in the Constitution. Many were concerned the central government take was all individual rights. Anti-Federalist primarily consisted of farmers and tradesmen and was less likely to be a part of the wealthy elite than were members of their rival the Federalist. Many Anti-federalists were local politicians who feared losing power should the Constitution be ratified and argued that senators that served for too long and represented excessively large territories would cause senators to forget what their responsibilities were for that state. They argued that the Constitution would give the country an entirely new and unknown form of government and saw no reason in throwing out the current government. Instead, they believed that the Federalists had over-stated the current problems of the country and wanted improved characterization of power allowable to the states. They also maintained that the Framers of the Constitution had met as a discriminatory group under an order of secrecy and had violated the stipulations of the Articles of Confederation in the hopes for the for ratification of the Constitution. The Anti-Federalist were sure that the Constitution would take away the rights of the American citizens and fought hard to stop the ratification on the
What delegates thought the Articles of Confederation was lacking was a strong national government which it was finally entailed into the U.S. Constitution. It provided a legislative, executive and judicial branch, which were in charge of assembling policies within the states, imposing laws, and inferring laws, respectively. These branches made certain that authority was being distributed equally among the states and that no one would have more of an influence than one another. Another vital attribute that the U.S. constitution has is called the Supremacy Clause, which states that federal is superior over state law and has priority over any law in the U.S. (Greenberg & Page, pg. 44). These key features are what undeniably separated the Articles of Confederations from the U.S. constitution. The Articles of Confederations had a very weak central government since the states were the ones making vital decisions about what was best themselves and not the nation. The U.S. constitution definitely diminished the powers of the state by increasing the power of the federal government and by enabling them to regulate more things than they did
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.