After the victory over the British, each state had its own Constitution and Bill of Rights, but there were no centralized government. The Continental Government had a number of responsibilities that were not granted to them legitimately. They had created the Continental Army, printed money, managed trade, and dealt with the nation’s debt. They felt that they needed to legitimate their actions and realized that there was a need for a centralized government (Schultz, p115). In this report, I will compare and contrast the Articles of Confederation with the new Constitution of 1787, analyze the drafting of the Constitution and how the states compromised to draft it effectively, compare and contrast the debate over the ratification between the Federalists and Anti-Federalists, and evaluate the success of the Bill of Rights in achieving balance between national and states’ interests. The Articles of Confederation were drafted between 1776 and 1777 and they were to define the collective sovereignty of the states. The following year, The Articles of Confederation were presented to the states for ratification, but only eight states had ratified the document by July 1778. This created a problem because all thirteen states needed to ratify the Articles before they were put into action. This didn’t happen until 1781. There were many weaknesses when it came to the Articles of Confederation that the Constitution of 1787 fixed. Before the Constitution, the Articles had placed all power in the hands of only one legislature, which closely mimicked the Continental Congress. There was no President, Monarch, or Prime Minister. There was a Committee of States where one person from each state had a seat in government, but the powers were very limit... ... middle of paper ... ...to help with the Constitution. Finally the Federalists and Anti-Federalists settled their differences with the making of the Bill of Rights. There were a lot of people putting in a lot of work to make this country to what it is now. We all need to thank them for giving us a great place to live, work, and raise our families. Works Cited Roland, J. (2011, November 10). Constitution for the United States of America. Retrieved from http://www.constitution.org/constit_.htm January 28, 2012. Schultz, K. (2010). Hist. (pp. 115-118, 121-122, 125-126). Boston: Wadsworth Cengage Learning Three branches of government. (2007, June 18). Retrieved from http://courts.michigan.gov/lc-gallery/3-branches-govt.htm January 28, 2012. Whitten, C. (2010). Federalist papers index. Retrieved from http://www.foundingfathers.info/federalistpapers/fedindex.htm January 28, 2012.
One’s ability to analyze the motives of the Framers necessitates some understanding of the sense of national instability instilled in the US its first form of government, the Articles of Confederation in granting little power to the central government; in particular, focusing on the economic turmoil and it’s effects on the Framers. In his analysis of America in the Articles, Beard comprehensively summarizes the failures of the Articles as compromising to the “national defense, protection of private property, and advancement of commerce,” (Beard, 36) in the US. Additionally, Beard utilizes these indisputable truths to establish a case for what he believes to be the self-interested influences that urged the Framers to craft an undemocratic Constitution. As Beard puts it, the state centered control of the US under the Articles caused the economic
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.
The Articles of Confederation was America’s first constitution. The Articles of Confederation failed to create a strong central government, however. With the demise of the states in sight, the need for a stronger and more structured central government became apparent. An invitation was sent to all thirteen states in February 1787 by the Confederation Congress to resolve the matter. The events that took place over the next several months would create the United States Constitution. Going down in history as a revolutionary form of government, the U.S. Constitution would give life to a country that is still running strong over 200 years later.
One of the key differences between the Constitution and the Articles of Confederation is in the way that they set up the Legislature. In the Articles, it is established as a unicameral legislature which it refers to as a Congress. The Constitution on the other hand establishes a bicameral legislature with an upper house, the Senate, and a lower house, the House of Representatives. The reason for this change was because different states wanted the number of representatives to be selected in different ways. Under the Articles of Confederation all States were represented equally and the bigger states felt that they should be getting more say in the decisions that the Country would be making. Needless to say the smaller states did not readily agree to this.
In 1789, the Confederation of the United States, faced with the very real threat of dissolution, found a renewed future with the ratification of the Constitution of the United States. This document created a structure upon which the citizens could build a future free of the unwanted pitfalls and hazards of tyrannies, dictatorship, or monarchies, while securing the best possible prospects for a good life. However, before the establishment of the new United States government, there was a period of dissent over the need for a strong centralized government. Furthermore, there was some belief that the new constitution failed to provide adequate protection for small businessmen and farmers and even less clear protection for fundamental human rights.
The Articles of Confederation were developed after the Revolutionary War, and were a good idea to help set standards for America. However, they had some major problems that needed to be solved in order for America to become a strong nation. After these problems were addressed the Constitution was developed.
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 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.
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...
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.
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.
xvii[xvii] “The Constitution of the United States of America” from American Politics: Classic and Contemporary Readings (Boston, MA: Houghton Mifflin Company, 1999) pgs 566-572. Article I, Section 2, Clause 1.
The articles of confederation were adopted by the Continental Congress on December 15, 1777. It created a weak central government, leaving most of the power to the states. Even though this was what the anti-federalists wanted, they knew they needed a change in government. The articles of Confederation state in section two that “Each state retains its sovereignty, freedom, and independence, and every power, jurisdiction, and right, which is not by this Confederation expressly delegated to the United States, in Congress assembled.” This is where the tenth amendment derived from with certain modifications.
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.
In spite of the prominence of the states in everyday life, the most demanding public policy questions former to the American Civil War involved discussions over the possibility of national power with most Americans believing it should remain partial. Yet federalism was still the center of political arguments. The Constitution did not report if states did nor did not reserve any remaining sovereignty in the powers given to the national government. The fact that the states were much more capable in accomplishing governmental purposes adequately t...