Articles of Confederation and the Constitution: A Comparative Analysis - Essay Example

Articles of Confederation and the Constitution: A Comparative Analysis During the period from 1774 through 1789, the 13Colonies of England in the new world overthrew the control of England in a violent revolution and formed a new nation, the United States of America. The foundational document1 of the new nation was the Declaration of Independence, authored by Thomas Jefferson. Recognizing the need for a formal organization of the fledgling nation, proposals for Articles of Confederation were submitted to the Continental Congress only eight days following the signing of the Declaration of Independence. (Thomson, 1837) The Continental Congress debated the issues for more than a year before finally adopting the Articles on 15 November, 1777, at which time the Articles of Confederation were passed to the various States to ratify. It was not until 1 March 1781 that the Articles were finally ratified, Maryland being the last State to ratify them. With ratification by the States, the United States had an agreed upon form of government. A government, however, not without problems. The people and the states had been through a decade of problems with a tyrannical government in the form of England and they were not thrilled with the prospect of setting up a powerful new central government. The States, individual sovereign nations in and among themselves, did not relish the thought of giving up their prerogatives. The Articles of Confederation established a weak and much restricted government unable to deal with many of the problems it faced. (Publius, 1787) The first job of the newly formed government was the war, which did not officially end until 3 September 1783 with the Treaty of Paris, although with the surrender of Lord Cornwallis at Yorktown the war was effectively over 19 October 1781. Congress had many problems that were a result of the weak Articles of Confederation and foremost of these was the inability to tax. The war was very expensive and the various states were all in debt as was the national government. The “greenbacks” were practically worthless, the economy was poor and with the cessation of hostilities, the states began to squabble amongst themselves. (Elliot, 1836) One of the major points of friction between the states was the issue of the western lands, which consisted of the land from the Appalachians to the Mississippi. The states bordering this area had already made claims to this territory, while other states lacked this ability. It was feared that the “landed” states would grow too powerful and have unfair advantage. The Articles of Confederation gave Congress no power to deal with this issue. Another point of conflict was representation, as under the Articles each state had one vote regardless of population. The larger states chaffed, the smaller states unwilling to give up their equality. The problems progressed until it was obvious that the new nation needed a stronger central government. Congress began meeting in secret in 1787 for the purpose of amending the Articles of Confederation, debating the issues of a new constitution for the country. During the four months of debate the new constitution almost died before it was born because of the differences between the states, especially on the issue of representation. Multiple plans were submitted, all were argued and the states were polarized and some were about to walk out. (Elliot, 1836) It was not until Roger Sherman introduced what came to be known as “the Great Compromise” that laid out a bi-cameral legislature with the lower house apportioned by population and the upper house apportioned by state that the issue was settled. Related to the issue of representation was the issue of slavery. The southern states desiring that slaves be counted as inhabitants for purposes of representation and as property for purposes of taxation, while the northern states desired that the slaves be counted for purposes of taxation only. The “three-fifths rule” was the compromise, whereby every five Negro slaves were counted as three inhabitants for the purposes of representation. The issue of the slave trade itself was not directly addressed due to the contentious nature of the issue between the states that were large slaveholders and the states that had already banned slavery. In addition to solving the vexing problems of apportionment of the legislature, the delegates to the Constitutional Convention desired to correct the problems created by the weak Articles. Taxation, a stronger executive, defense, a federal judiciary and in general the need for a stronger Federal government were the issues they debated and struggled with. It was their desire to forge a strong Federal government, having lived with a weak one and learned their lesson. (Elliot, 1836) The ratification of the Constitution by Congress 17 September, 1781, caused quite a disturbance throughout the nation because the Constitutional Convention had been meeting in secret. Within a month, editorials began to appear in newspapers rejecting the new Constitution. These were soon followed by editorials in support and two distinct groups of thought congealed: the Federalists2 and the Anti-Federalists. The Federalist essays were penned by Alexander Hamilton, John Jay and James Madison under the pen-name of Publius; while the Anti-Federalist essays were likewise written anonymously under names such as The Federal Farmer, Cato and Brutus. The speeches of Patrick Henry at the Virginia ratification convention were also published as Anti-Federalist editorials. While there was much debate and many editorials,3 the major issue that came out of the debate was the desire of the Anti-Federalists to see a Bill of Rights amended to the Constitution to guarantee the rights of the people. The argument can fairly be said to have been summed up by the Anti-Federalist, John Dewitt: “those powers which the people by their Constitutions expressly give them; they enjoy by positive grant, and those remaining ones, … they enjoy by tacit implication, so that by one means and by the other, they became possessed of the whole.” (Borden, 1965, 46) The solution for the Anti-Federalists was a Bill of Rights, forever enumerating the rights and liberties upon which the government might not tread. In the end, the Federalists won the debate and the Constitution was ratified, but the people got their Bill of Rights as well. Interestingly, some of the arguments of the Anti-Federalists were almost prophetic, especially with respect to the “necessary and proper” clause. However flawed it was, with the addition of the Bill of Rights the US Constitution became the law of the land and the US has flourished ever since. Work Cited Borden, M. (Ed.). (1965) The Anti-Federalist Papers. East Lansing, MI. Michigan State University Press. Elliot, J. (Ed.). (1836) Elliot’s Debates. Washington, DC. US Government. Library of Congress Virtual Services. n.d. Web 23 March 2011 Publius: Hamilton, A., Jay, J., & Madison, J. (1799) The Federalist Papers. New York, NY. John Tiebout. Library of Congress Virtual Services. n.d. Web 24 March 2011 Thomson, C., (1837). Journals of the Continental Congress. Library of Congress Virtual Services. n.d. Web 25 March 2011 Read More