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.
In the history of the United States of America, our government has been defined by two very important documents. Reflecting on all governments of the past, they laid forth an impressive jumble of ideas that would lead the way to where we are today. These two documents are the Article of Confederation and the U.S Constitution. These two documents of precedent are both similar and unique, each with its own pros and cons, and neither being perfect. Both these documents addressed the prominent vital in national vs. state sovereignty, legislative selection process, and executive authority.
A few hundred years ago, the United States first Constitution, the Articles of Confederation, was created. This Constitution created a weak central government in order to give the people the rights that they deserve. This plan of government, however, proved to be too weak and it could not control the people or pay the debts that the country had acquired from the Revolutionary War.
It was the mid-late 1700s, and America had finally achieved and received independence from Great Britain. Peace in America on the other hand, not so much. After gaining independence, the Articles of Confederation were made as a system of government for the United States, but gave very imbalanced power between federal and state levels. For example, on the federal level, the national government couldn't force a state to pay taxes. To try to amend the Articles, in 1787, a meeting made up of delegates representing the states was called up, but instead, what would be created is what we now know as the Constitution. But how exactly did this document remedy the flaws of the Articles, and prevent tyranny from unjust amounts and usage of power? The Constitution helped stop tyranny in government with a
The Preamble of the Constitution of the United States of America classifies an effective government as one that "establish[s] justice, insure[s] domestic tranquility, provide[s] for the common defense, promote[s] the general welfare, and secure[s] the blessings of liberty." Based on these standards, the Articles of Confederation were effective to a certain degree at the time, but in the end, were too liberal to be effective. Because its main purpose was to ensure the blessings of liberty, the Articles of Confederation had to sacrifice stability and security, which ultimately led to its downfall.
The Articles of Confederation were created to establish a weak confederacy of states to preserve state sovereignty and independence. As a result of this, this left a weak and ineffective central government that lacked powers that are crucial to the governance of a nation such as the ability to tax to generate revenue, establish a national court system, and have a national currency. It is these inabilities of the national government, which resulted in their incapacity to enact upon political and economic issues leaving an economically weak and quarrelsome nation. This prompted the need to establish a new governing doctrine that preserves the union, adequately divides power, and ensures the security of life and liberty.
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
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.
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.
...nment formed under the Constitution was to be a small representation of a larger population. In order to keep a fair balance between freedom and order, a system of checks and balances were instated so that the government formed by the people would never assume to much control over the people it would protect. By giving too much freedom to in its democratic values, the Articles of Confederation did nothing more but loosely knit together thirteen self-interest groups. By finding a unique balance in between freedom and order, the Constitution was able to create a strong federal government that would propel the nation towards the prosperity without losing its original values of freedom.