In this essay I will be discussing the Confederation and the Constitution. The articles of Confederation were diminished in comparison to the Constitution we all know today. Under the Articles, the federal government was weak and limited in power. A major issue was that congress could not collect taxes; they could only merely request funds from the states. The national debt was growing and soldiers needed to be paid for their service. Congress had only one representative for each state. This meant that a populous state would not be represented fairly with respect to its population. Another issue was that The Articles did not have separation of powers. Without a federal court, congress could interpret laws as they saw fit and there would be …show more content…
There were Federalists, who were pro strong central government. This included George Washington, Alexander Hamilton, James Madison, and John Jay. Anti-Federalists were for a weaker central government and stronger states’ rights. This included Thomas Jefferson, John Hancock, Samuel Adams, and Patrick Henry. A major issue among both sides was whether to include a bill of rights. The Anti-Federalists, most prominently John Hancock, insisted that a bill of rights was necessary to prevent tyranny. On the opposition, the Federalists felt that the Constitution was written in such a way that inherent rights could not be denied. In The Federalist No. 84, Alexander Hamilton argues that the Constitution does not need a Bill of Rights, stating “And the proposed Constitution, if adopted, will be the bill of rights of the Union.” In The Federalist No. 46, Madison said State governments were enough to protect civil liberties, proclaiming “still it would not be going too far to say, that the State governments, with the people on their side, would be able to repel the danger.” Despite these arguments, the Anti-Federalists insisted still on a bill of rights. Compromising once more, a condition that a bill of rights be amended to the Constitution convinced the Anti-Federalists to ratify the
There were many differences between the Articles of Confederation and the Constitution. At the end of the American Revolution the free states needed some sort of control that would generate to a unified country. Issues arose such as: How should power be divided between local and national governments? How should laws be made, and by whom? Who should be authorized to govern those laws? How could the government be designed to protect the unalienable individual rights? Their first attempt at solving this issue was the Articles of Confederation, which was a failure for the most part, but not completely. After the failure of the articles, the state delegates tried to revise the articles, but instead, constructed the Constitution. There were so many changes made and very little remained the same.
Supporters of the Constitution called themselves Federalists, a name referring to a balance of power between the states and the national government. They argued for a federal system as in the Constitution. James Madison claimed that the Constitution was less dangerous that it looked because the separation of powers protected people from tyrannical abuse. The Federalists compile a group of essays, known as The Federalist Papers. In No. 51, Madison insisted that the division of powers and they system of checks an balances would protect Americans from the tyranny of centralized authority. He wrote that opposite motives among government office holders were good, and was one of the advantages of a big government with different demographics. In No. 10, he said that there was no need to fear factions, for not enough power would be given to the faction forming people; thus, they wouldn't become tyrannical. Hamilton, in No. 84, defended the Constitution with the case that the Constitution can be amended by representatives, who are there to represent the citizens' interests.
Hamilton, Madison, and Jay argued that limitations on governmental power were built into the Constitution with a series of checks and balances. The two different parties, the Federalists and Anti-Federalists, interpreted the Constitution in a way to support the cause for ratification or rejection. The Federalists saw the new government in a way that would guarantee the rights of the governed. The Anti-Federalists saw it in such a manner that would make no such guarantee. While the Constitution was eventually passed, it was the Anti-Federalists who ensured that it would eventually contain a Bill of Rights to protect individuals, as such Federalists and supporters of the central government as Alexander Hamilton argued that a Bill of Rights was
In the final copy of the Constitution, many compromises were made between the Federalists and the Anti-Federalists. The main goal of the Federalists’ was to ratify and publish the Constitution; however, the unanimous ratification by all thirteen states needed to publish the Constitution set their progress back, as the Anti-Federalists had many issues with the standing draft of the Constitution. The primary topic of discourse between the two factions was over the addition of the Bill of Rights. Another topic of contention held was the Anti-Federalists’ demands for full and fair representation in the government. Their argument was that the Constitution would give an overwhelming amount of power to the federal government, and leave the state and local governments deprived of power. They feared that the federal government would be too absent in governing to represent the citizen, as a
The Articles of Confederation and its ideas were strong and powerful in bettering the US and its government. However, the realization of its ideas and an improvement of federal government and states representatives were not successful enough. On the other hand, the government under the Constitution was radically different from the one under the Articles of Confederation. United State's economical, political, cultural, and social aspects and statuses changed under the new type of powerful government, with different type of voting, and by the new way of levying taxes. Constitution of the US prevented people from gaining too much power, and it was the greatest success of the US government.
Anti –federalist believed that with out the bill of rights, the national government would became a to strong it would threating the americans peoples rights and libertys. Due to prior american revolution, ant-federalist did not forget what they fought for an believed that with a stronger national government, the president could become kind if he wanted. During this time people still feared a strong central government, due to british occupany of the states. Concidently the of people who wanted the bill of rights and were anti-federalist were famers and the working class, as to the fedarlist were extremely rich and powerful people Thomas Jeferson who was a active anti-federalist once wrote to james Madison A bill of rights is what the people are entitled to against every government on earth, general or particular; and what no just government should refuse, or rest on inferences. (Thomas Jefferson to James Madison, 1787. ME 6:388, Papers
The United States Constitution and the Articles have several ever present difference that some considered to be too radical. In terms of levying taxes, the Articles Congress could request states to pay taxes while with the Constitution; the Congress has the right to levy taxes on individuals. The Articles government had no court system while the Constitution created a court system to deal with issues between citizens and states. The lack of provisions to regulate interstate trade the Articles possessed created large economic problems, leading into a depression in the mid 1780's. The Constitutional Congress has the right to regulate trade between states. The Constitution has a strong executive branch headed by our president who chooses cabinet and has checks on power of the other two branches; the Articles had no executive with power. The president merely presided over Congress. The Articles took almost 5 years to ratify due to the fact that 13/13 colonies needed to amend the Articles before it could go into affect, with the Constitution, 2/3 of both houses of Congress plus ¾ of the states legislatures or national convention had to approve. During the years under the Articles, foreign soldiers occupied US forts during our early years, we were unable to force them out due to the fact that Congress could not draft troops, and they depended on the states to contribute to the forces. Under the Constitution we have the ability to raise an army to deal with any sort of military situations. In terms of passing laws, under the Articles 9/13 states needed to approve legislation while under the Constitution, 50% plus 1 of both houses plus the signature of the president is needed to pass a law. The Articles had a huge problem when it came to state representation. Under the Articles every state only received one vote, regardless of its size, this hindered the power of the larger states. With the Constitution, the upper house (Senate) has 2 votes and the lower house (House of Representatives) is based on population. When two states had disputes the Articles had a complicated system of arbitration to go through before any resolution was reached, under the Constitution, the federal Court system handles disputes between states.
In comparing the Articles of Confederation with the U.S constitution that was produced by the federal convention in 1787, it is important to note that the U.S operated under both documents. During March 1, 1781, the Articles of Confederation went into effect when it was ratified by Maryland. However, the U.S constitution replaced the Articles of Confederation as soon as it was ratified on June 21, 1788 by New Hampshire. The main difference between the Articles of Confederations and the U.S Constitution is that the constitution didn’t force the laws, but established the why of the constitution. In establishing the why, it warranted the farmers to work on the government being better than the Articles of Confederations. They wanted the government
The Articles of Confederation was the United States first attempt at creating a democratic government. Instead of giving power to the central government they divided it up among the states (Kelly). This fact left the Articles with many weaknesses that ultimately led it to fail. The lack of a strong central government led to economic disorganization, no central leadership and an ineffective legislative, all which led to its downfall (Brackemyre). Leaving power to the states left the nation in a state of economic disorganization. Without the national government having the power to levy taxes, it was left with the states (Murphy). The legislature only had the right to request taxes, and it was left up to the states how they wanted to raise them, but they oftentimes weren't (Brackemyre). There was also no uniform system of currency which made trade between states difficult. The fact that states instead of Congress regulated trade led to a lack...
Federalists such as Hamilton supported ratification. But Anti-Federalists, who feared that the document gave too much power to the federal government, worked to convince the states to reject it. Hamilton believed that the ratification was necessary because giving more power to the central government was essential for the nation's survival. In The Federalist Papers Hamilton sets the stage for those that would follow, entitling that "The vigor of government is essential to the security of liberty." The essay...
Following the states’ need to approve of the Constitution, both the Federalists and the Anti-Federalists began producing papers that argued for their point of view in detail. Anti-federalists, who were the small farmers, laborers, and other middle class men, inclined to believe in a strong state government and a weak national government; additionally, they demanded a Bill of Rights to strengthen individual liberties. For instance, Jefferson Writings wrote to James Madison in 1787, “… a bill of rights is what the people are entitled to against every government on earth, general or particular, and what no just government should refuse,” which meant to explain that a Bill of Rights would protect people’s freedoms and prevent corruption from the government that the Federalists envisioned, (Docume...
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
Both groups came to agreement and agreed that there needed to be a stronger authority requiring an independent salary to function. They both also agreed that they needed to raise safeguards against the tyranny. The anti-Federalists would not agree to the new Constitution without the “Bill of Rights.” The Federalists ended up including the Bill of Rights into the Constitution. The Bill of Rights protects the freedoms of people. It reassured the anti-Federalists the government could not abuse their power by taking it out on the people. The Federalists included the Bill of Rights to get the anti-Federalists votes and support in the Constitution to actually get it
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.
In 1791, the first 10 amendments, which became known as the Bill of Rights, were ratified. These amendments included many of the same rights that the Anti-Federalists had argued for, including freedom of speech, press and religion, and the right to bear arms. Both sides had well thought out arguments as to why a Bill of Rights was needed or not needed in the Constitution. Eventually, they came to a compromise and added the Bill of Rights as the first ten amendments. Overall, I believe the Federalists had a better argument on the subject of U.S Constitutional arrangements. The Federalists truly understood what America needed. If it had not been for the Federalists, our country would be completely different. As for the Anti-Federalists, they had some good points, but the Federalists were able to refute every argument. Without the Federalists and the Constitution, the United States of America might not have even