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.
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.
On June 12, 1776, the Continental Congress appointed a committee, consisting of one delegate from each of the thirteen states, for the purpose of setting up a cohesive Federal Government. Headed by John Dickinson, the committee presented a draft of the Articles of Confederation to Congress a month later. Though the Articles were not officially ratified until five years later, Congress began operating under them in 1777. The delay that occurred during the years from drafting to ratification was partially caused by the opening of a multi-faceted debate that encompassed the issues of representation for citizens, the balance of power within the country, and state sovereignty. Densely-populated states wanted a system of representation based on population, while the more sparsely-inhabited states disagreed. The Federalist Party wanted a small federal government, but common sense demanded a balance in size. Everyone wanted the question of state sovereignty answered. The Articles of Confederation attempted to answer these questions, but instead, only succeeded in creating an ineffectual, self-contradictory government that required reform. This reform came in the form of the Constitution of 1789.
In the final copy of the Constitution, many compromises were made between the Federalists and the Anti-Federalists. The main goal of the Federalists’ was to ratify and publish the Constitution; however, the unanimous ratification by all thirteen states needed to publish the Constitution set their progress back, as the Anti-Federalists had many issues with the standing draft of the Constitution. The primary topic of discourse between the two factions was over the addition of the Bill of Rights. Another topic of contention held was the Anti-Federalists’ demands for full and fair representation in the government. Their argument was that the Constitution would give an overwhelming amount of power to the federal government, and leave the state and local governments deprived of power. They feared that the federal government would be too absent in governing to represent the citizen, as a
The Articles of Confederation and its ideas were strong and powerful in bettering the US and its government. However, the realization of its ideas and an improvement of federal government and states representatives were not successful enough. On the other hand, the government under the Constitution was radically different from the one under the Articles of Confederation. United State's economical, political, cultural, and social aspects and statuses changed under the new type of powerful government, with different type of voting, and by the new way of levying taxes. Constitution of the US prevented people from gaining too much power, and it was the greatest success of the US government.
One of the major leaders of the party was Alexander Hamilton. Hamilton was one of the main supporters and advocates for the development of the Constitution. His desired version of the Constitution clearly reflected the ideals and agenda of the Federalist party. The ideals of the Federalist party involved limited state powers, and a very strong centralized government. It was these ideals that essentially led to the development of the Anti-Federalists who feared that such great allocations of power to centralized government would lead to a centralized rule that could not be controlled. Once the Federalists had control of the federal government, the fears of the Anti-Federalists quickly came to fruition. Although the Anti-Federalists were in opposition to the actions and strength of the federal government under Federalist control, certain accommodations were made to appease some Anti-Federalists. The main one being that Thomas Jefferson, a leader of the Anti-Federalists was made vice-president after losing in a presidential
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.
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.
People or some other power. The Continental Congress first drafted the Articles of Confederation in 1776 and 1777. The documents were then sent to the states for approval in 1778. Thirteen states had
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 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.
...ection of the Constitution on the grounds that a strong federal government would abuse power and lead to corruption. . They used pseudonyms of “Brutus” and “A Federal Farmer” to remain anonymous. The Federalists won the battle of ratification, but the Anti-Federalists were successful in getting the Bill of Rights adopted in 1791.
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.
...stitutional Rights Foundation. Retrieved Feburary 10, 2014, from The Major Debates at the Constitutional Convention: http://crf-usa.org/bill-of-rights-in-action/bria-25-2-the-major-debates-at-the-constitutional-convention.html
Bruns, Roger A. 1986. “A More Perfect Union: The Creation of the United States Constitution,” Online: http://www.nara.gov/exhall/charters/constitution/conhist.html. Downloaded 6/12/2001.
After winning the Revolutionary War and sovereign control of their home country from the British, Americans now had to deal with a new authoritative issue: who was to rule at home? In the wake of this massive authoritative usurpation, there were two primary views of how the new American government should function. Whereas part of the nation believed that a strong, central government would be the most beneficial for the preservation of the Union, others saw a Confederation of sovereign state governments as an option more supportive of the liberties American’s fought so hard for in the Revolution. Those in favor of a central government, the Federalists, thought this form of government was necessary to ensure national stability, unity and influence concerning foreign perception. Contrastingly, Anti-Federalists saw this stronger form of government as potentially oppressive and eerily similar to the authority’s tendencies of the British government they had just fought to remove. However, through the final ratification of the Constitution, new laws favoring state’s rights and the election at the turn of the century, one can say that the Anti-Federalist view of America prevails despite making some concessions in an effort to preserve the Union.