The Articles of Confederation vs. The United States Constitution

opinionated Essay
837 words
837 words

The ratification of the Constitution was vital to the continuance of our country because of its advantages over the Articles of Confederation whose limited successes were faulty and less complete than the constitution that we know today. One of the most important documents in our country had a predecessor that was, at the time, fairly effective in governing the new country. However, I believe that the constitution we have today far outweighs the Articles of Confederation and that it was the perfect decision for our country to ratify it when they did. It was the right move for our country at the time and it has not proven to be overly faulty or unjust in the two centuries it has been in effect. But why were the Articles of Confederation not good enough for the newly found US? For a start, The Articles of Confederation were weak and had many gaps in them. George Washington himself once concluded that Daniel Shays perceived the government as not having the will to right the country in its time of need during a post-war depression era. Who was Daniel Shays? Was he a brilliant politician? A lawyer? A strategist? No. Daniel Shays was a farmer who served as a soldier in the revolution. Not a highly educated individual who had the capacity to judge the government. So something must’ve been extremely wrong with them if a mere farmer realized the failings of the Articles of Confederation. The main problem with the Articles of Confederation was the fact that each state was sovereign, leaving very little power to the central government. With the power to make their own laws, each state was, in a way, it’s own little country within a country. They all had different currencies, laws and judiciary systems. Also, the only way to change a nati... ... middle of paper ... ...lution. The new constitution guaranteed rights and personal liberties under the first ten amendments that were also known as The Bill of Rights. The new constitution was approved by every colony other than North Carolina and Rhode Island, which shows how fed up the colonies were with the Articles of Confederation and how desperate they were for a new set of laws governing them and how good the new constitution was for the American people. Both documents were equally important to the foundation and continuance of our country. Without the Articles of Confederation we wouldn’t have been able to write the Constitution we know today. The Constitution and the Articles of Confederation were written by some of the greatest men in the history of our young country. Our laws, liberties and lives today are reflections of the ideals they envisioned for the country and for us.

In this essay, the author

  • Opines that the ratification of the constitution was vital to the continuance of our country because of its advantages over the articles of confederation whose limited successes were faulty and less complete.
  • Explains that the articles of confederation were weak and had many gaps in them. they were passable as legislature at the time, yet they never could’ve carried the united states through the ages as a leading international power.
  • Opines that the articles of confederation had its upsides and addressed many significant problems in the country.
  • Explains that the new constitution was superior to the articles of confederation due to its completeness and flaws. it unified the states giving the national government more power than the individual states while maintaining bicameral legislature
Get Access