Wait a second!
More handpicked essays just for you.
More handpicked essays just for you.
Comparing articles of confederation and the constitution
Compare and contrast articles of confederation
Evolution of american federalism
Don’t take our word for it - see why 10 million students trust us with their essay needs.
The Articles of Confederation were approved by Congress on November 15, 1777 and ratified by the states on March 1, 1781. It was a modest attempt by a new country to unite itself and form a national government. The Articles set up a Confederation that gave most of the power to the states. Many problems arose and so a new Constitution was written in 1787 in Independence Hall. The new Constitution called for a much more unified government with a lot more power. Let us now examine the changes that were undertaken. 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. Under the Articles each state could send between 2 and 7 delegates to Congress. In the Constitution each state was allowed 2 members in the Senate and 1 representative per 30,000 people (this number has now increased greatly) in the House of Representatives. As I stated earlier each state wanted to be represented according to different factors. The states with bigger populations wanted representation to be based solely off of population. The states with smaller populations wanted there to be a fixed number of representatives per state, regardless of size or population. The Connecticut Compromise resolved this issue by forming the two houses that we have today. In one house, the Senate, every state is represented equally regardless of population. In the lower house, the House of Representatives each state receives one representative for a set number of people. This satisfied all of the states and helped resolve one of the greatest conflicts while writing the Constitution. Another conflict that arose was with the counting of slaves in the census used to set the number of representatives per state. This was resolved under the Three-Fifths Compromise which stated that every slave would be counted as 3/5 of a person, although these slaves were given no voice or rights.
For weeks convention delegates have been argued over representation in congress, Large States want it based on population. Small states want each states to have the same number of votes. representative s shall be apportioned according to population. The number of shall not exceed one for every thirty thousand, but each state shall have at least one representatives. This piece of evidence relates to the argument because they said that big states has more power than small states that is why big states only need one representative.
It is sometimes wrongly said that the compromise meant the founders considered slaves as only partial human beings. In fact, the compromise had nothing to do with the human worth of the individual slave. States with slaves wanted to count all of their slaves in the state�s population because that would yield more representatives in Congress. The opponents of slavery, noting that slaves had no rights of citizenship including the vote, argued that slaves should not be counted at all for purposes of representation. In the end, the compromise was to count three-fifths of the state�s slaves in the total population. In another words, for every five slaves, three of would be added to the population count used to determine representation in the House of
At the time, larger states like Virginia were creating an unfair amount of power for themselves that the small states didn’t have. In the new government, Congress was created to make laws, and was made up of the House of Representatives and the Senate. The House of Representatives would give states a number of Representatives they could have based on their population. This would give fair power deserved to the larger states. The Senate however would be two and only two Senators for each state, no matter how large or small, bringing some equality to Congress.
Senate... senate shall be composed of two senators from each state”, Stated document D. This clearly explains that Representation in Congress should be based on population in the House of Representatives and equality in the Senate by sending two senators from each state no matter the size of the state.*The Great Compromise guard against tyranny by Hensing a double security by having two systems within the
At the convention, the founders were debating about how many representatives in the Congress should each state allowed to have. For example, James Madison, who came from Virginia, one of the larger states, suggested that representation should be proportional to the state’s population (Hart et al. 109-110). Coming from a state with larger population had influenced Madison’s proposal, for he reasoned that since Virginia has a large population of people, so more representatives are needed to represent more people. However, the states with a smaller population disagreed with this proposal and came up with a proposal that would counter Madison’s proposal. Paterson, who came from New Jersey, one of those states with smaller population, proposed a plan in which equal number of people should be elected from each state for representation in the Congress (Hart et al. 109-110). It was evident to see how coming from a smaller state had affected Paterson’s proposal, for he feared
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.
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.
Luckily, a compromise was reached. The outcome of this compromise was that the House of Representatives is to be based of the population size of the states, which, of course, benefited the larger states. But, the Senate benefited the smaller states, all states from Virginia to Georgia having equal representation.
The United States Constitution and the Articles have several ever present difference that some considered to be too radical. In terms of levying taxes, the Articles Congress could request states to pay taxes while with the Constitution; the Congress has the right to levy taxes on individuals. The Articles government had no court system while the Constitution created a court system to deal with issues between citizens and states. The lack of provisions to regulate interstate trade the Articles possessed created large economic problems, leading into a depression in the mid 1780's. The Constitutional Congress has the right to regulate trade between states. The Constitution has a strong executive branch headed by our president who chooses cabinet and has checks on power of the other two branches; the Articles had no executive with power. The president merely presided over Congress. The Articles took almost 5 years to ratify due to the fact that 13/13 colonies needed to amend the Articles before it could go into affect, with the Constitution, 2/3 of both houses of Congress plus ¾ of the states legislatures or national convention had to approve. During the years under the Articles, foreign soldiers occupied US forts during our early years, we were unable to force them out due to the fact that Congress could not draft troops, and they depended on the states to contribute to the forces. Under the Constitution we have the ability to raise an army to deal with any sort of military situations. In terms of passing laws, under the Articles 9/13 states needed to approve legislation while under the Constitution, 50% plus 1 of both houses plus the signature of the president is needed to pass a law. The Articles had a huge problem when it came to state representation. Under the Articles every state only received one vote, regardless of its size, this hindered the power of the larger states. With the Constitution, the upper house (Senate) has 2 votes and the lower house (House of Representatives) is based on population. When two states had disputes the Articles had a complicated system of arbitration to go through before any resolution was reached, under the Constitution, the federal Court system handles disputes between states.
On May 25, 1787 in a State House in Philadelphia, fifty-five delegates from twelve out of the thirteen colonies re-united, in efforts to modify the ineffective Articles of Confederation. This meeting was called the Continental Convention of 1787. After the Articles of Confederation, it was clear that a unicameral legislature was not going to uphold the needs of all the states, to maintain and unify them. Many ideas arose to offer a solution for the controversial debate on how many representatives each state should have in the U.S. Congress. The ...
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.
The Articles of Confederation set up a government that consisted of a one house body of delegates, with each state having a single vote, acting collectively, could make decisions on certain issues that affected all states. There was no president or judiciary so any decision required nine of the thirteen states’ votes. At this point in time the United States of America ... ... middle of paper ... ... o consider the charms of liberty as imaginary and delusive.”
The articles of confederation were adopted by the Continental Congress on December 15, 1777. It created a weak central government, leaving most of the power to the states. Even though this was what the anti-federalists wanted, they knew they needed a change in government. The articles of Confederation state in section two that “Each state retains its sovereignty, freedom, and independence, and every power, jurisdiction, and right, which is not by this Confederation expressly delegated to the United States, in Congress assembled.” This is where the tenth amendment derived from with certain modifications.
First, the formation of the Articles of Confederation was the first constitution in the United States. The Articles of Confederation was not the best constitution out there since congress could make decisions, but had no power to enforce them. There was a requirement for unanimous approval before any modifications