Articles of Confederation and Constitution - Essay Sample

The Articles of Confederation is considered to be the first constitution that the United States operated under. However, the founding fathers, in less than 8 years of operation, realized that these Articles deteriorated the economy and the defense of the nation, especially after the Shays rebellion. There was a need for a stronger federal government and this could only become a reality through the change of Articles. This is what gave way to the birth of the current U.S Constitution that has been in operation since 4th March 1789. This essay will delve into details what were strengths and weaknesses of the Articles of Confederation vis-a-vis the Constitution, analyze the Constitution Drafting processes, focus mainly on the compromises that were made and finally analyze the ratification debate to compare and contrast the anti-federalists and federalists positions as wells as the Bill of Rights.

The main strength of the Articles of Confederation is that it, it established the fundamental that democratic systems of government that have further been enhanced by the current Constitution. It brought together the thirteen states during the American Revolution to fight against the British, which secured the nation its independence and an ample environment to carry out the reforms in the Constitution. Additionally, the Treaty of Paris signed in 1983 that ended the Revolutionary War and solved the border US border issues was made possible by the Congress of the Confederation (Morris, 1965). The above achievements and the fact that the national departments such as foreign affairs, marine, and treasury that are a critical embodiment of the US Constitution show how important the Articles were to the establishment of the nation and the foundation of the Constitution.

Despite these achievements, the Articles had gross limitations. Opposed to the Constitution, which was fundamentally drafted to empower the federal government, the Articles primarily were established with an outright intention to weaken the national government. Hamilton et al.,(1945) records that under the Articles, the national congress had no power to raise funds through taxes and this meant that its operations and institutions such as the military were at the mercies of the state governments. According to Feer (1969), the reason why the federal government could not even help out with Shays rebellion that occurred in 1786 in Western Massachusetts was that it could not gather a combined military force to combat the rebellion due to the limitation of the Articles of Confederation framework. It was only after ratification of the constitution that the national government was accorded the power to regulate both interstate and international trade and commerce, and raise an army to settle conflict situations.

Another weakness of the Articles was attributed to the fact that it focused more on making each of the member states as independent as possible within the federal government. This meant that the Congress had no power to tax, control interstate and foreign trade or enforce any acts because the Articles did not even provide executive and judicial branch (Bernstein & Rice, 1987). Because of these provisions, the states were allowed to make separate agreements with foreign governments, print their own money, and form their military. These and trade issues destabilized the national economy.

Though there was a consensus that the Articles of Confederation limitations caused chaos that required urgent solution through the drafting of the Constitution, the process faced challenges due to antagonizing divides. There was a rift between the anti-federalists who feared strong national governments and the Federalists who were mainly composed of the larger states. While the main issue whether to establish a new stronger central federal government or add powers to the existing central structure, the federalists supported the first option because it would allow their domination in any strong government. The antifederalists, mostly the smaller states, on the hand opted the second because it would allow them to retain their sovereign power. As Bowen (1989) narrates the story of the constitutional convention, opposing opinions resulted to each of the two groups offering their proposals to the convention. The Virginia plan advocated for a two-chambered legislature and whose representation would be based on population or the amount of taxes each state rose. The opposing rift, on the other hand, proposed New Jersey Plan. Under this Plan, the federal government would be granted power to levy taxes on the imported goods as well as regulate the trading activities. For the sake of the nation, the two parties had to make compromises.

Roger Shermans plan or the Great compromise ensured that the dissatisfaction caused by the adoption of proportional representation in the Lower House was addressed by the proposition of an equal representation in the Upper House. Through this plan, the convention agreed that each State would include two representatives regardless of the size while the lower house would be composed of representatives from each State and whose number would be dependent on its population (Hoar, 1902).

One of the controversial constitutional compromises was the issue of slavery. Though Pope (2016), records that slaves did not become a key part of the southern states economy until 1792 when the cotton gin was introduced, the issue became a subject of dispute between the North and the South. Under the proportional-base representation, the increased number of slaves in the South compared to the North meant they southern states such as Georgia and South Carolina would have more delegates in the lower house. To prevent the delegates from these states from storming out of the convention, a three-fifths compromise was agreed, where five slaves were considered to be three free men. To ensure that there was a balance, the delegates also agreed to adopt the same fraction to levy any national direct taxes.

Regarding the ratification debate, the main subjects of the debate were three questions; what would be the best form of government? What rights would the government prioritize in protecting? And finally, what powers should the states and federal government each possesses? Other than the uncertainty of the best form of government, anti-federalist and federalist had similar constitutional and fundamental thinking. They, however, differed on how the country should operate.

From the Federalist papers, the federalists main ideas revolved around the benefits of the union among the member states, the limitations of the Articles at the time, the significance of a spirited and effective federal government as well as the defense of the republicanism of the proposed Constitution. For instance, in one of the essays written by James Madison, a popular federalist, in support of the republican type of government proposed by the Constitution, he argues that this was the only form of government that would address the problem of faction caused by the democratic government. He argues that faction was dangerous especially when they formed the majority of the population (Madison, 1988).

The anti-federalists proponents led by John Hancock were more inclined towards a pure democracy as the perfect type of government. He argues in his essay that the representatives should be a true depiction of people. These representatives should explicitly understand the peoples troubles meaning their numbers should be so large that the rich and the poor will efficiently be represented. Additionally, he argued that the federalist proposition that the representatives should consist of a small number would make the representation too competitive thus making it almost impossible for the ordinary people like a middle-class yeoman to run for office (Dellinger, 1987).

After a great victory by the federalists and ratification of the Constitution, a debate over amending it to include the Bill of Rights arose largely backed by the anti-federalists. The passing did not pass without opposition. According to the Federalist No. 84, Hamilton argued that the Constitutions existing clauses of Writ of habeas corpus and ex-facto prohibition were enough to offer great securities of liberties. Additionally, he argued that including these rights would make the unmentioned right dangerous and a loophole in the Constitution. His arguments were however refuted by Robert Yates by explaining that in any government, certain liberties require surrender to assure the government would establish and carryout laws. He further argued that inclusion of the bill of rights would protect the state governments.

From the case of Barron v. Baltimore, where Barron had sued the city for damage to a wharf on the basis of the bill of rights provision that the protected the private property for public use without compensation, it is clear that bill of rights was successful in protecting the states. Chief justice John Marshall ruled in his favor asserting that the Fifth Amendment was sole to limit the exercise power of the federal government (Doherty, 2007).

The analysis of the Articles of Confederation, the Constitution drafting and ratification process, as well as, the bill of rights shows that these processes were continuous tussles between the federalists and the antifederalist. The political differences also created the long-lasting ideological divides, the Democrats, and the Republicans but most importantly the founding fathers reasonable to make compromises for the sake of the nations welfare and economy.

References

Bernstein, R. B., & Rice, K. S. (1987). Are we to be a nation?: the making of the Constitution. Harvard Univ Pr.

Bowen, C. D. (1986). Miracle at philadelphia: The story of the constitutional convention may-September 1787. Back Bay Books.

Dellinger III, W. E. (1987). 1787: The Constitution and The Curse of Heaven. Wm. & Mary L. Rev., 29, 145.

Doherty, B. J. (2007). Interpreting the Bill of Rights and the Nature of Federalism: Barron v. City of Baltimore. Journal of Supreme Court History, 32(3), 211-228.

Feer, R. A. (1969). Shays's Rebellion and the Constitution: A Study in Causation. New England Quarterly, 388-410.

Hamilton, A., Madison, J., & Jay, J. (1945). The Federalist 1787-88. Heritage, New York.

Hoar, G. F. (1902, April). The Connecticut Compromise. In Proceedings of the American Antiquarian Society (Vol. 15, p. 233). American Antiquarian Society..

Madison, J., & Jay, J. (1888). The federalist. GP Putnam's sons.

Mason, A. T. (1985). Free government in the making: readings in American political thought. Oxford University Press on Demand

Morris, R. B. (1965). The Peacemakers: The Great Powers and American Independence. Northeastern Univ Pr.

Pope, J. (2016). ThreeFifths Compromise. The Wiley Blackwell Encyclopedia of Race, Ethnicity, and Nationalism