Differences Between The Articles Of Confederation And The Constitution

The New Government: The Articles of Confederation and The Constitution
After gaining its independence from England the United States, required a government. The first attempt to create a national government led to the formation of the Articles of Confederation. Though short-lived, the Articles of Confederation marked an important step in the formation of the US government. The Articles of Confederation were ratified by the states in 1781 after approval by Congress in 1777 (Johnson, 2003). The main objective of the Articles of Confederation was to unite different states and form a common national government (Johnson, 2003). As a result of their formation, the Articles set up a confederation which gave more power to the states. However, the Articles of Confederation were perceived to be weak and lacked the required power to run the country effectively. As a result, problems arose which led to the development of the New Constitution in 1787 which advocated for a government with more unity and power.

One of the main differences between the Articles of Confederation and the Constitution is in the process of forming the legislature.

In the Articles of Confederation, the legislature was formed as a unicameral legislature while in the new constitution, the legislature was bicameral consisting of an Upper House, Lower House, the Senate, and the House of Representatives (Haworth, 2010). The change in structure of the legislature happened because the states wanted the representatives to be selected in different ways. In addition, all the states were represented equally under the Articles of Confederation (Haworth, 2010). As a result, the bigger states felt that they were entitled to more decision-making power on some of the decisions made by the country which angered the smaller states this led to the development of the Virginia

Plan.
In the New Constitution, each state was entitled to representation by 2 to 7 representatives in the Senate and one representative for every 30,000 people in the House of Representatives (Bernstein, 2014). However, this was not fully supported by the smaller states which wanted a fixed number of representatives for each state irrespective of the population size. This was known as the New Jersey Plan. This led to the formation of the Connecticut Compromise. Also known as Sherman's Compromise, that would create the Senate and the House of Representatives, which are present to date (Haworth, 2010). In the Senate, all the states were to be equally represented irrespective of the size of the population and to cater for large states each state received one representative for a particular number of people in the House of Representatives.
However, despite this resolution, other conflicts still arose. For example, in the census performed for the purpose of setting up the required number of representatives per state, disagreements ensued regarding the counting of slaves since they had no rights (Haworth, 2010). While the northerners owned and regarded slaves as properties that were not entitled to any representation, the southerners wanted the slaves counted just like the whites. This was, however, resolved under the Three-Fifths Compromise which required every slave to be counted as 3/5 of a person.
The Strengths and Weaknesses
Both the New Constitution and the Articles of Confederation had their strengths and shortcomings. For instance, the Articles of Confederation gave a lot of powers to the state, therefore, it led to the formation of a loose confederation of states and a weak central government. In addition, the national government did not have the power to tax, therefore, it could not fully impose its law on the different states. In addition, there was no national army or courts and each state could produce its own currency and impose tariffs between states. However, the strengths of the Article of Confederation lie in the ability of Congress to declare war and make peace, borrow money, negotiate with other countries, sign treaties, and to operate offices (Bernstein, 2014).
In the new Constitution, the senator or member of the House bears the vote of his/her state as compared to the Articles of Confederation where each state was entitled to only one vote regardless of the number of representatives it had. The change in the voting process ensured more representation of the people while at the same time adhering to Connecticut Compromise. Under the Articles of the Confederation, the state legislatures appointed the members of congress. However, with the creation of the new Constitution, people were allowed to vote for their members in the House of Representatives (Bernstein, 2014). Though at first the senators were still picked by the legislature, this has changed and today the people can vote for the Senators as well. This move was meant to give more power to the people, enable them voice their concerns easily and make the leaders more accountable to the population. The representatives, under the Articles of Confederation were given a maximum of three-year terms within a period of six years in office while the new constitution gives the senators and representatives 6-year and 2-year terms respectively (Bernstein, 2014). However, they can still be re-elected by the people after their terms expire.
The form of taxation was also different under the Articles of Confederation where the right to levy taxes was reserved to the states as opposed to the national government (Bernstein, 2014). Therefore, to fund its activities, the government had to request funds from every state. The new Constitution however allows the Congress and the House of Representatives to tax and create revenue. This was an important move because it allowed the national government to function properly and enabled funding of military and other national services.

Federalists versus Anti-Federalists
After the formation of the New Constitution, it still needed ratification from all the states before being finally put in place. This however proved to be a difficult task since the people were divided into two groups: Federalists led by Anthony Hamilton and Anti-Federalists each with different perspectives on the new Constitution. Anti-Federalists like James Mason had reservations about ratifying the New Constitution because he thought that it gave too much power to the national government and executive, it had no bill of rights, the national government could maintain an army in peacetime and that the Congress had too much power (Eslison, 2012). With the memories of the American Revolution still present, the bill of rights captured the most attention. Americans felt intimidated by too strong a national government which could take away the rights they fought to defend.
On the other hand, Federalists such as George Washington and James Madison argued that by separating power into three independent branches, the rights of the people would be well protected. In addition, since the three branches represented different aspects of the people and were equal, no group was more powerful than the other (Hamilton, n.d). The Federalists also argued that the listing of individual rights was dangerous since the national government could manipulate the law and violate the rights that were not listed in the first place. Since it was impossible to list all the rights, the Federalists led by Alexander Hamilton argued that avoiding the list of rights was the best decision (Hamilton, n.d).
As a result of their organization, the Federalists won the debate, and by 1788, nine states had ratified the new Constitution. This meant that only one state (Hampshire) was left out (Amar, 1993). However, in order to acquire approval the Federalists made a compromise to draft in the bill of rights once Congress met. Consequently, New York and Virginia approved the new Constitution.
Though the Bill of Rights was not originally drafted into the new Constitution, it has been fundamental in the protection of Americans’ human rights. The Non-Federalists played an important part because, without their arguments, the Bill of Rights would not have been realized. Additionally, some of the protections under the Bill of Rights have been adopted through the Doctrine of Incorporation which protects the citizens’ fundamental rights from infringement by the state.