Compare And Contrast The Articles Of Confederation

compare And Contrast The Articles Of Confederation with the new

This essay explores the comparison and contrast between the Articles of Confederation and the United States Constitution of 1787, evaluating their respective strengths and weaknesses. It examines specific historical issues such as the Western problem to highlight the deficiencies of the Articles, and analyzes how the drafting process of the Constitution involved compromises among various states, especially highlighting Roger Sherman’s plan and the Great Compromise. Additionally, the essay discusses the contentious ratification debates between Federalists and Anti-Federalists, referencing key documents like The Federalist Papers and contrasting their positions with prominent opponents such as John Hancock. It also assesses how the Bill of Rights addressed the concerns of Anti-Federalists and its effectiveness in balancing national and state interests.

Paper For Above instruction

Introduction

The transition from the Articles of Confederation to the United States Constitution marked a pivotal moment in the development of American self-governance. While the Articles of Confederation served as the initial framework for the nascent nation, their limitations soon became apparent, necessitating a more robust governing document. The Constitution of 1787 emerged from intense debates and negotiations, leading to a system designed to balance power among states and between the federal government and its citizens. This essay compares and contrasts the Articles of Confederation with the Constitution, exploring their respective strengths and weaknesses, and analyzing the key compromises that shaped the new government, especially the Great Compromise. It also scrutinizes the ratification debate, highlighting the ideological divide between Federalists and Anti-Federalists, and evaluating the Bill of Rights’ role in reconciling these differences.

Comparison and Contrast of the Articles of Confederation and the Constitution

Strengths of the Articles of Confederation

The Articles of Confederation, ratified in 1781, established a loose confederation of states with a primary focus on sovereignty retained by individual states (Rakove, 2004). It provided a framework for conducting diplomacy, making war, and managing western expansion through the Land Ordinance of 1785. A notable strength was its ability to preserve state independence and prevent the consolidation of power in a central authority (Elkins & McKitrick, 1993).

Weaknesses of the Articles of Confederation

Despite these strengths, the Articles exhibited significant weaknesses. It lacked a strong central government capable of enforcing laws or regulating commerce, which led to economic disarray and interstate conflicts (Wood, 1997). Notably, the federal government had no power to levy taxes or regulate trade, relying solely on voluntary contributions from states. This deficiency became evident during the Western problem, where the federal government lacked authority to control land sales or resolve disputes, leading to unrest such as Shays’ Rebellion (Bailyn, 1992). The inability to amend the Articles without unanimous consent further hindered effective governance, making reforms nearly impossible (Maier, 2010).

The Drafting of the Constitution and State Compromises

Balancing Interests of Slave and Free States

The framing of the Constitution involved critical compromises to address regional and economic differences. The Three-Fifths Compromise, for instance, was a contentious agreement that counted enslaved persons as three-fifths of a person for purposes of representation and taxation, thus balancing the influence of slave-holding states with free states (Finkelman, 2003). This concession was essential to secure southern support for the Constitution.

East vs. West and the Role of Roger Sherman

Moving beyond regional interests, the drafting process aimed to create a federal system that could function effectively across diverse territories. Roger Sherman’s plan, the Connecticut Compromise or Great Compromise, was pivotal in resolving deadlock by establishing a bicameral legislature—one house based on population (House of Representatives) and one with equal representation for each state (Senate) (Wood, 1997). This compromise prevented domination by populous states and ensured smaller states’ interests were protected, facilitating the Constitution’s ratification.

The Ratification Debates: Federalists vs. Anti-Federalists

The Federalist Perspective

The Federalists, led by figures like Alexander Hamilton and James Madison, championed a strong central government to stabilize the nation and maintain order. The Federalist Papers, a collection of essays, eloquently argued for ratification, emphasizing that a robust federal system was necessary to unify the states and ensure effective governance (Hamilton et al., 1788). For instance, Federalist No. 10 advocated for controlling factions through a large republic, protecting minority rights while promoting stability (Madison, 1787).

The Anti-Federalist Opposition

Conversely, Anti-Federalists such as John Hancock expressed concern that the new Constitution would diminish states’ sovereignty and concentrate too much power in a distant federal government (Dunn, 1996). They feared the absence of a bill of rights would lead to potential tyranny and undermine individual liberties (Lutz, 1988). Their opposition gained momentum, emphasizing the need for explicit protections of rights and limits on federal authority.

The Bill of Rights and the Federalism Balance

The inclusion of the Bill of Rights in 1791 was a pragmatic compromise that addressed Anti-Federalist demands. It enumerated fundamental rights and placed clear boundaries on governmental power, reassuring skeptics that individual liberties would be safeguarded (Levy, 1999). The Bill effectively balanced national strength with protections for state and individual rights, fostering broader acceptance of the new government.

Conclusion

The transition from the Articles of Confederation to the Constitution reflected a profound evolution in American political philosophy. While the Articles prioritized state sovereignty and lacked the capacity for effective governance, the Constitution established a balanced federal system capable of responding to the nation’s diverse needs. The compromises made during its drafting—such as the Great Compromise and the Three-Fifths Agreement—were instrumental in uniting disparate interests. The ratification debates underscored the ideological divisions prevalent at the time, with the Bill of Rights playing a crucial role in reconciling these differences. Overall, the Constitution successfully created a framework that balanced authority and liberty, setting the course for the future development of the United States.

References

• Bailyn, B. (1992). The Ideological Origins of the American Revolution. Harvard University Press.
• Dunn, J. (1996). The Political Thought of the American Revolution. Liberty Fund.
• Elkins, S. & McKitrick, E. (1993). The Age of Federalism. Oxford University Press.
• Finkelman, P. (2003). Slavery and the Founders: Race and Liberty in the Age of Jefferson. M.E. Sharpe.
• Hamilton, A., Madison, J., & Jay, J. (1788). The Federalist Papers. Classical Publishing.
• Levy, L. W. (1999). The National Constitution: A Commentary and Supplement. University of Chicago Press.
• Lutz, D. W. (1988). The Origins of the American Bill of Rights. University of Florida Press.
• Maier, P. (2010). The Declaration of Independence: A Global History. Harvard University Press.
• Rakove, J. N. (2004). Original Meanings: Politics and Ideas in the Making of the Constitution. Schocken Books.
• Wood, G. (1997). The Radicalism of the American Revolution. Vintage.