More handpicked essays just for you.
The creation of the american constitution
Role of federal government in states
Relationship between state and federal government
Don’t take our word for it - see why 10 million students trust us with their essay needs.
Recommended: The creation of the american constitution
I read your letter explaining that you’re a member of your school debate team. You said that you’re arguing against the point that Americans are unfit to govern themselves. I am here to help you prove that Americans are fit to govern themselves. To begin with, the Confederation government wasn’t effective when it first started, however it grew stronger over time. According to Alexander Hamilton, the Confederation government was defective, meaning that it wasn’t ready to maintain law and order, or prepared for war. Primarily, the major problems were treasury, lack of troops, and not being a strong government overall. Also, states didn’t help the federal government pay for debts. States had more power than the federal government, yet they couldn’t
One’s ability to analyze the motives of the Framers necessitates some understanding of the sense of national instability instilled in the US its first form of government, the Articles of Confederation in granting little power to the central government; in particular, focusing on the economic turmoil and it’s effects on the Framers. In his analysis of America in the Articles, Beard comprehensively summarizes the failures of the Articles as compromising to the “national defense, protection of private property, and advancement of commerce,” (Beard, 36) in the US. Additionally, Beard utilizes these indisputable truths to establish a case for what he believes to be the self-interested influences that urged the Framers to craft an undemocratic Constitution. As Beard puts it, the state centered control of the US under the Articles caused the economic
Renowned author Charles Dickens once wrote, “it was the best of times and the worst of times” (Tale of Two Cities). An all to true statement when one looks at the current American political situation, but author and journalist Jonathan Rauch endeavors to analyze the current political climate and explain how it became what it is today. In his article ‘How American Politics went Insane’, Rauch dissects the 2016 election and events leading up to the final vote to understand how politics went sideways. Rauch begins by offering a hypothetical scenario that depicts an extreme disintegration of American politics and its political institutions and parties.
The Americans after obtaining independence from England needed to establish a form of government. Before the war had ended, the Second Congress of the Confederation called for the drafting of a new government in order to govern this new country, which the Articles of Confederation established. The Articles of Confederation built a government solely based off republican ideals, such as civic virtue, the idea that the states and the people will make sacrifices to the common good in order to benefit everybody. Relying on civic virtue did not pull through as successful for the young country. The Articles of Confederation shone through as successful in organizing and establishing states in the Old Northwest, spreading republican ideals; however, the success of the Articles of Confederation was trumped by its failures. The Articles of Confederation failed to provide a new and young United States with an effective government in its inability to collect tax revenue to pay debts, controlling the mobocratic uprising of upset factions, and dealing with foreign policies; additionally, the failure of the Articles of Confederation revealed the inefficiency and failure of republicanism.
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.
To say that the Articles of Confederation provided the United States of America with an effective government would be quite an over exaggeration. For most people in modern day, an effective government would be one that can govern mass numbers of people and still be politically correct in overruling decisions on matters while keeping the law in mind, yet keeping the benefit of common good front and center. But, the Articles of Confederation were not written in the present day, so these ideals of a competent government were not quite applicable. For most people, an effective government was one that could govern mass numbers of people, still giving the states and the people many rights, while still being able to keep all under control. This would have eliminated any possibility that a federal government could become too strong or resemble a monarchy. However, the Articles of Confederation did few of these things. The Articles of Confederation were ineffective because they provided a weak central government, did not give the authority to settle boundary disputes, and eventually led to civil unrest which included incidences such as Shays’ Rebellion.
Let’s face it – our current form of government plagued by the Confederation is growing weaker, and recent events such as Shay's Rebellion prove evident that there is growing unrest. As many of my fellow Federalists have proposed, it's crucial that we ratify the Constitution.
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.
Following the failure of the Articles of Confederation, a debate arose discussing how a centralized government ought to be organized. The prevailing opinion ultimately belonged to the Federalists, whose philosophy was famously outlined in The Federalist Papers. Recognizing that in a free nation, man would naturally divide himself into factions, they chose not to remedy this problem by stopping it at its source; instead, they would limit its effects by placing strict structural safeguards within the government's framework. The Federalists defined a facti...
During the construction of the new Constitution, many of the most prominent and experienced political members of America’s society provided a framework on the future of the new country; they had in mind, because of the failures of the Articles of Confederation, a new kind of government where the national or Federal government would be the sovereign power, not the states. Because of the increased power of the national government over the individual states, many Americans feared it would hinder their ability to exercise their individual freedoms. Assuring the people, both Alexander Hamilton and James Madison insisted the new government under the constitution was “an expression of freedom, not its enemy,” declaring “the Constitution made political tyranny almost impossible.” (Foner, pg. 227) The checks and balances introduced under the new and more powerful national government would not allow the tyranny caused by a king under the Parliament system in Britain. They insisted that in order achieve a greater amount of freedom, a national government was needed to avoid the civil unrest during the system under the Articles of Confederation. Claiming that the new national government would be a “perfect balance between liberty and power,” it would avoid the disruption that liberty [civil unrest] and power [king’s abuse of power in England] caused. The “lackluster leadership” of the critics of the new constitution claimed that a large land area such as America could not work for such a diverse nation.
In response to the anti-federalists arguing that the new government would have no power over the country, they said that the Constitution would unite the United States of America as a whole. Federalists countered the argument that the new government would lack power, saying, “Extend the sphere, and you take in a greater variety of parties and interests; you make it less probable that a majority of the whole will have a common motive to invade the rights of other citizens; or if such a common motive exists, it will be more difficult for all who feel it to discover their own strength, and to act in unison with each other,” therefore stating that the new government can benefit political parties (Doc. G). Also, federalists said that Congress would be capable of executing laws, showing that the new government would be in control of the nation (Doc. F). Federalists also stated, “Congress likewise are to have the power to provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining the militia, but have no other command of them, except when in actual service,” to prove that the Congress could provide for the military too, therefore showing that the government had nationwide power (Doc. F). The federalists countered the anti-federalists’ argument that the new government would hold no power in its hands by saying that the United States of America would
The Articles placed all power in the hands of the state’s leading not only to a bad economy but a lack of leadership. In Article II of the Articles of Confederation “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 one of the most important weakness of the Articles of confederation was the fact that it called for a confederacy which places basically all power in the hands of the states instead of the central government. This came from the fear of another British monarchy which had happened because of the King and the reason the Americans had rebelled and created a new country in the first place. Article IV states that “Full faith and credit shall be given in each of these States to the records, acts, and judicial proceedings of the courts and magistrates of every other State.” Meaning it didn’t have any independent judiciary (America’s first failure). The article
doing the right thing in a lot of the actions it takes. Of course, nobody
Anti-Federalist believed that a strong federal government would weaken or destroy the current state governments. As summarized in one Anti-Federalist essay, most Americans believed the Articles of the Confederation simply needed to be revised and that “not one man in ten thousand in the United States, till within these ten or twelve days, had an idea that the old ship was to be destroyed” (The Federal Farmer, 1787). They believed that the Constitution was not needed and as stated by George Mason (1788) that it was “calculated to annihilate totally the state governments” (pp.1). Mason believed that two government could not coexist and that one would destroy the other. He also warned that individuals would not submit to taxation by two governments. Federalist believed that a strong federal government was essential to establish foreign policy a...
The Articles of Confederation was the United States method of making itself official. The purpose of the Articles of Confederation was to establish government, but limit the central government. The states under the Articles of Confederation were able to act independently of the others and of the nation. “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.” (Articles of Confederation, Article II) By viewing the central government as dangerous, the states were able to make destructive decisions and feud with each other. The need for reform was established at the Annapolis Convention. A resolution was drafted, but it did not speak of any future actions to fix the Articles of Confederation. (Lowi et al.,38) Afte...
In spite of the prominence of the states in everyday life, the most demanding public policy questions former to the American Civil War involved discussions over the possibility of national power with most Americans believing it should remain partial. Yet federalism was still the center of political arguments. The Constitution did not report if states did nor did not reserve any remaining sovereignty in the powers given to the national government. The fact that the states were much more capable in accomplishing governmental purposes adequately t...