Haley Quantz
Prof. Gretchen Jackson
HIST 1301
July 26, 2018
The Beginning Constitutions: The Articles of Confederation vs. The Constitution
After the American Revolution a new a nation was born, now known as the United States. In order to have structure and function among the colonies, both individually as states and unified as a nation, a set of laws needed to be put in place. The colonists had just achieved freedom from a tyrannical monarch and feared a government too strong in executive power. So, the Articles of Confederation was born. The text was extremely flawed and so many problems arose from the Articles of Confederation that a group of Americans called the Federalists called for a revised version, which became the Constitution that the United States now follows. Although, this was not easy because of those in opposition to a new constitution, the Anti-federalists.
The Articles of Confederation was written after the Revolution by John Dickinson so that the United States could be united under a set of laws and provisions. Those in charge at the time had Dickinson write multiple drafts of the Articles in order to make it seem perfect to colonists and give everyone some peace of mind. The Articles provided for a very weak central government and gave the majority of powers to the states. The national government, or Congress, was “granted significant financial powers” only to help with debts by “the exclusive rights to regulate the value of both national and state coinage” (Freedman, 148). In addition to this, the national government could make treaties and alliances, manage Indian relations, and appoint foreign diplomats. The states were left to be almost completely supreme and in control of their own personal affairs. The national government was essentially only able to address foreign affairs and were seen as “the last resort on appeal in all disputes . . . between two or more states, concerning boundary, jurisdiction or any other cause” (Freedman, 149). Due to the central government being so weak, they were not able to enforce any laws or handle any major issues. One issue that stood out to the government in particular that they could not handle was Shay’s Rebellion in 1786, where many impoverished farmers gathered to rebel against high taxes. The government could not properly handle the rebellion because they were not allowed a standing army and it wasn’t directly affecting the national government. This led to a large number of leaders calling for reform in the countries’ constitution.
Those who wanted reform and a new constitution called themselves the Federalists, and those in opposition were called the Anti-federalists. They disagreed on a few major topics, such as “the Anti-Federalists were especially concerned with preserving for ordinary citizens the ability to participate in government” and they “liked local government” (Amar, 113). However, the Federalists did not want to remove these things, they just wanted a stronger, more united national government that was allowed more power. One reason that the Federalists advocated for a stronger central government was “to prevent the states from warring with each other” and “to protect citizens against their own state governments” (Amar, 117) because both of these things could also result from any part of the government, even the states, having too much power. The Federalists just wanted to make sure that everyone was protected, and that their ideas were still represented. The Anti-federalists were also apprehensive about approving a new constitution unless it had a Bill of Rights where the citizens’ rights were clearly stated, which was later written by James Madison. The Constitution replacing the Articles of Confederation was necessary because the government had so many problems enforcing laws and handling issues in just the short time after the Revolutionary War.
The main difference between the Constitution and the Articles of Confederation is that the Constitution was made to contain a Bill of Rights. The Bill of Rights was implemented because of the Anti-federalist’s apprehension and is made up of the first ten amendments. These amendments are a list of rights, but originally were “less from a concern to protect individual liberty against governmental power than from a desire to promote political harmony”, (Hobson, 268) which is the reason James Madison wrote them at first. Along with that, the Bill of Rights did help convince the Republicans and a few states to ratify the new United States Constitution. Another large difference between the Constitution and the Articles is that the Constitution contains three distinct branches of government. It also has a set of checks and balances and a separation of powers between these branches. The Constitution gives a set list of powers to each branch of government and also gives implied powers to each of these levels. This just makes sure that no branch gets too much power and abuses it. The Constitution also has the condition of federalism which is basically the division of powers between the national, state, and local governments. The implied powers are another thing the Constitution has that the Articles does not have which makes the government stronger through the Constitution because they now had some leeway with what they could do. The Articles of Confederation and the Constitution are also similar in some ways. One of the instances is when they are both speaking on the Full Faith and Credit Clause and “as the Supreme Court put it, the two provisions are of ‘the same order.’” (Maggs, 420). This basically just proves that there are a few laws or clauses found in the Constitution that may have been taken from or influenced by those found in the Articles of Confederation.
All in all, the government had many issues with control and overall performance under the highly flawed Articles of Confederation. This led to many people calling for some revisions and even though they achieved that, those in opposition had some sway in what it included due to their demands. The framers then wrote the Constitution, which had similarities to the Articles of Confederation, but mainly had some large differences. These included the Bill of Rights, federalism, and the separation of powers. The government definitely worked better off of the new constitution and most citizens were happy with the circumstances.
Works Cited
Amar, Akhil Reed. “Anti-Federalists, The Federalist Papers, and the Big Argument for Union”, Yale Law Faculty Scholarship Series (1993) website: http://digitalcommons.law.yale.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=2004&context=fss_papers
Freedman, Eric M., “The United States and the Articles of Confederation: Drifting Toward Anarchy or Inching Toward Commonwealth?”, Maurice A. Deane School of Law at Hofstra University (1978) website: https://scholarlycommons.law.hofstra.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1811&context=faculty_scholarship
Hobson, Charles F., “James Madison, the Bill of Rights, and the Problem of the States”, William and Mary Law Review (1990) website:
https://core.ac.uk/download/pdf/73974106.pdf
Maggs, Gregory E., “A Concise Guide to the Articles of Confederation as a Source for Determining the Original Meaning of the Constitution”, The George Washington Law Review (2017) website:
http://www.gwlr.org/wp-content/uploads/2017/03/85-Geo.-Wash.-L.-Rev.-397.pdf