Comparison between the Articles of Confederation and the new Constitution of 1787

Answer

Comparison between the Articles of Confederation and the new Constitution of 1787

The Articles of Confederation were proposed by the continental congress in 1777, and it was the United States first constitution. It gave every state sovereignty, freedom and independence and any other power not explicitly given to the United States (Office of the Historian, 2016). For any amendment to pass, the states had to be unanimous. The national government comprising the Congress had the power to declare war, sign treaties, deal with the Indians, and appoint foreign ambassadors and military officers.

Additionally, thirteen states had to approve a bill before it became law and each state was represented equally in the Congress.  Moreover, the states had the power to tax and could not regulate money or appoint soldiers. The only way the national government could get funds is from borrowing foreign governments, states or selling western lands. An executive arm was not provided to ensure the laws passed by Congress were enforced. In essence, the central government was very weak.

On the other hand, the Constitution gave more power to the central government. All legislative powers were given to the Congress, and it was bicameral consisting of two houses; the House of Representatives and the Senate (Sidlow & Henschen, 2014). Unlike the articles of confederation, the constitution had provisions for both national courts and a president. The Congress was given powers to collect taxes, coin money, manage commerce with foreign nations, provide defense and to pay debts. Similarly to the articles, the Constitution gave the central government the power to declare war and to deal with anything pertaining soldiers like recruiting and managing them.

The weaknesses of the Articles of Confederation included a lack of a national court, unanimous votes for an amendment to the articles, the Congress was not given the power to tax which according to Hamilton (2000) prevented it from carrying its duties like provision of defense. Additionally, there was no executive branch tasked with enforcing the Acts passed by Congress.  The Western land problem was a dispute between states on the ownership of the western land. The big states had claims to the land and refused to give them up. The small states refused to ratify the articles until the large states gave up their claims to the lands. The small states wanted the big states to give the western land to the central government. Although eventually solved when the Congress convinced states laying claim to drop them, it led to the delay in ratification of the articles of confederation.

Drafting of the Constitution

Following the collapse of the economy after the war, the weaknesses of the Articles of Confederation were exposed as it could not be relied upon to bring order. For instance, the legislatures had debt which they needed to pay. The states increased the taxes to already struggling citizens. The increased difficulty imposed to already impoverished and struggling citizens threatened to cause a revolt. The states were in crisis, and the Congress was powerless to act. American class (2016) explains that Madison decided to draft the ills of the political system particularly the articles of confederation. He listed and explained the weakness of the central government resulting from the Articles of Confederation and the defects in the states’ laws.

 However, fixing the problems did not go smoothly, and numerous debates were carried out during and after the convention. In 1787, fifty-five delegates met at the constitution convention to deliberate how best to enact the changes in the articles of confederation. They, however, decided to draft a new constitution with checks and balances.  When it came to representation, the delegates differed significantly on the number of representatives each state could have. The larger states wanted the Virginia plan which accorded representation according to size.

 On the other hand, the smaller states wanted equal representation regardless of the size as presented In the Jersey plan. The stalemate threatened the process of developing a constitution. Roger Sherman was a legislature from Connecticut, who broke the stalemate by proposing a compromise in which Congress would be bicameral consisting of a senate and a house of representative. Each state would have an equal number of representative to the Senate and one representative to the house for every 30000 residents in that state. This compromise was called “the great compromise”.

Federalists and Anti-federalist

The ratification process started after writing the constitution was complete. The constitution stated that for the constitution to be in effect, 9 out of the 13 states had to ratify it. However, there were a group of people most notably George Mason and Patrick Henry, who did not want the constitution. They were called the anti-federalist.  The anti-federalist argued that the central government was given too much power and the states were stripped of most of their powers.  Additionally, due to the size of the national government, some felt it was too removed and too large to respond adequately to the needs of the people. Moreover, the anti-federalist felt that the citizen needed to be guaranteed protection hence the need for the bill of rights. With the central government having a lot of power, they felt it would be critical to have something to protect the citizens. For instance, Robert Yates, a prominent anti-federalist, wrote under the pseudo name “Brutus” that the needs of the people can be better served in small republics and that the liberties of the citizens were threatened by the unlimited power granted to the national government (“Brutus,” 2000).

In contrast, the Federalist, led by Alexander Hamilton, James Madison and John Jay wanted the constitution ratified as it was. Madison (2013) in Federalist Paper 10 (argues that as opposed to the notion that a large republic cannot serve its citizens well, it can help maintain the people’s liberty by containing dangerous factions from gaining undue influence. Hamilton (2000) in paper number 84 outlines his objection to the inclusion of the bill of rights. He states that initially such measures were used for privilege and reservation of rights not surrendered to the prince.

Since it was between the king and his subjects, Hamilton felt such a provision was not necessary for a government elected by the people. Besides, they would be a risk of taking more power than prescribed in the constitution thus making it not only unnecessary but dangerous too. He argued that the Constitution was in itself a bill of rights.  While the Federalist feared that a bill of rights could be misused by some people to get more power, the anti-federalist felt the government would take away people’s liberties without it. Eventually, the bill of right was drafted to convince the anti-federalist to ratify the constitution. It was later adopted into the constitution.

Bill of rights

Madison crafted the proposed amendments to the constitution. Although there were originally 14, 2 were defeated by the Congress and two by the state. While crafting, the aim of Madison was to make sure the federal government was not weakened by the provision of these rights and to ensure that the anti-federalist were convinced that the national government could be controlled despite its size and perceived distance from the people. The first ten amendments to the constitution, therefore, became known as the bill of rights (US history, 2016). In Bill number  10, it is stated that any other power not given to the United States by the Constitution or prohibited by it are reserved to the states and people respectively. The Articles of Confederation had a weak government which resulted in inefficiency in performing duties and States spiraling out of control. Consequently, the Constitution gave the national government enough power to carry out its functions.

 Any other powers were given to the States to prevent the federal government from abusing power. The bill of rights attempted to bring balance to states and the federal government. The states were therefore given the mandate to have any powers as long as it did not interfere with the federal government.  For instance, since it does not fall under the Congress, the states can make individual laws on same-sex marriage.  Such a provision was necessary to the anti-federalist as they feared repeating history as was seen before independence. The central government abused its powers and the citizen suffered greatly. 

ns