Change is a very common thing, whether it’s good or bad, something is always changing. There are instances where we can affect, or even make, change and other instances where change is made whether we like it or not. Everything that’s been going on lately, the election, the decisions being made, and the actions being taken, isn’t something I agree with or the change I would’ve liked to see but I can’t exactly do anything about it at this point. One of the points I will be talking about is how I feel like the United States would be better off with stronger state governments and a national government with limited power. I will also be talking about the Articles of Confederation vs the Constitution. It’s hard not to think about what the world would be like today if the Articles of Confederation were still relevant. I think it’s both a good thing and a bad thing that the Articles of Confederation were replaced by the Constitution. I will be talking about both sides, the good and bad of each, and I will conclude with which I feel our country benefits from more.
In 1781 the Articles of Confederation were ratified, and lasted for eight years, till 1789. In 1789, the Constitution took the place of the Articles of Confederation. To this day, even though it’s been revised, the Constitution still remains relevant today. The Articles of Confederation were applicable nearly two and a half centuries ago, so a lot has changed since then. Despite all the change that has occurred, there are still aspects of the Articles of Confederation that we would be better off with, even if they weren’t amended, rather than with what the Constitution states. The Articles of Confederation had a strong state based government and a weaker national government while the Constitution has a strong national government and a weaker state based government. “The winds of change are blowing in states across the country. Governors and state attorneys general have begun to challenge what they view as the federal government’s overstepping its constitutionally prescribed role.” (“The New York Times Company.”) I get that the national government should be involved, but I think the state governments should have more of an influence.
Even more so now, since Donald Trump is president, the Articles of Confederation had in right in saying “No executive with power. President of U.S. merely presided over Congress.” (“Articles of Confederation vs. the Constitution.”) While the Constitution states “Executive branch headed by President who chooses Cabinet and has checks on power of judiciary and legislature.” (“Articles of Confederation vs. the Constitution.”) I know that Trump is our president, and I know running our country is his job, but I’m not wanting to put my life and future in his hands to do whatever he wants. Giving states higher power would at least help alleviate the impact of whatever trump comes up with by not giving him as much power as he has now. Even if we had a good president, giving the states more power would help with all the weight being on the president’s shoulders. Individually, the states could make decisions and do what is best for their state. One executive decision may not be what’s best for everyone, but by having the power split up among states, each state would be able to make their own decisions.
As far as passing laws and amending documents goes, the Constitution seems to have better ideas about how to go about such things. When looking to amend documents the Articles of Confederation required all states approval for a document to be amended. One the other hand the Constitution only requires the majority of votes, 3/4 of state legislatures and 2/3 of both houses of Congress. While it would be great if every state could agree, that just isn’t how things seem to work out. This system at least makes a decision based on majority, otherwise nothing would ever change because not everyone sees think the same, thus no one can ever agree, especially 50 different states trying to make one decision. With this system though, not everyone is always happy with what’s being passed and amended. We as a nation should be looking to do what is best for everyone and not just for ourselves since we are under such a strong nation run government rather than a strong state government.
On top of laws being passed and documents being amended, it’s hard to imagine what the world would be like without the Constitution as well, even if the Articles of Confederation were amended. Amending them to the point of being where we are as a country today, the whole thing obviously had to change. With the knowledge of what we gained by the Constitution replacing the Articles of Confederation, the United States definitely wouldn’t be the country it is today. It would probably be a lot smaller and rather than being seen as one nation, it would probably be more like having independent states as if they were their own country. Also, the Louisiana Purchase wouldn’t even exist. The Louisiana Purchase came about due to the Constitution; so again, the United States wouldn’t be what it is today and not just because of the size and amount of land that we have due to the changes since the Constitution was ratified. I can’t even tell what more would be different because in the past two and a half centuries so much change has come about, I have no clue what the United States would even be like, it’d be interesting to see though.
“The colonies which gained independence from the British would stay in North America and only truly interact with each other, not other foreign countries. In this timeline citizens would identify by their state and not by their country (ex: A person from Ohio would think of themselves not as an American but an Ohioan)” (“What If the US Kept the Articles of Confederation?”)
The whole dynamic of our country would be different, the 13 states couldn’t regulate money, taxes, treaties, or military. The Articles of Confederation brought the states together because none of the states could go at it alone since they were all too small, all in hopes of defending themselves from the outside. So even though they were “united” under the Articles of Confederation, they didn’t act as such, and that would’ve hurt the United States even more as time progressed. In terms of military and war, I don’t know what things would’ve been like, or would be like today, without the Constitution. Congress wasn’t able to raise up troops to deal with military situations, it was the states responsibility to contribute such needs. Going to war probably wouldn’t even be an option due to the lack of unity, as well as military and resources.
Despite all the good and bad aspects of each side, it does have something to do with the fact of how things are viewed and how things are being dealt with. There are positives and negatives to everything, because nothing is perfect. I’m sure there are plenty of people that will back both the Articles of Confederation and the Constitution up but the fact is that there’s ups and downs to both no matter what side you are. Both are flawed and there’s plenty of aspects that could be dealt with in order to make this country a better place to live. The thing about the past is that it’s always there to learn from. No matter what it was that happened, we can look back in history and make what’s happening now and in the future even better. “Oh yes, the past can hurt. But you can either run from it, or learn from it.” (Allers and Minkoff, The Lion King) This is one of my favorite quotes and has so much truth in it. There has been so much that’s happened in the past, both good and bad, in our country alone. The two ways to look at something is to either run from it or learn from it, like the quote says. Personally I think that taking the past and learning from what was done right and what wasn’t, is the best way to go. As a nation we can hold onto what makes us a great country and change the things that need to be changed, whether it be things from the past or even things today that don’t make us the great country we should be.
In conclusion, after going through some of the major points and issues of both the Articles of Confederation and the Constitution, I have come to the conclusion that we wouldn’t be better off if the Articles of Confederation had been amended. While the Articles of Confederation had good points, and the Constitution has some bad ones, nothing would be the same without the Constitution. Not only would things be worse but a lot of what the United States is today wouldn’t even exist. Just amending the Articles of Confederation wouldn’t have changed that, a lot of things would have to be changed in order for the United States to be better off. On the other hand, in agreement with the Articles of Confederation, I believe that our country would be better off with strong state governments and national governments with limited power. Like I mentioned earlier, even though it is important that the national government to have some power, I feel like most of it should be coming from the states individually. There’s a lot of aspects that go into running a country, taxes, treaties, trade, money, military, and so many other things. Each state isn’t like all the rest and having a strong state government ensure that each state, individually is being taken better care of, hopefully. So even though it is the president’s job is to run our country, the national government shouldn’t be given all the power. Right now, I believe that more than ever now that Trump is our president, he definitely shouldn’t be given all the power. As for the Articles of Confederation and the Constitution, I believe that the people that came before us made the right decision when terminating the Articles of Confederation and ratifying the Constitution. With all the change that has happened, I do believe it was for the best.