Compare And Contrast The Articles Of Confederation 922880

Compare and contrast the Articles of Confederation with the new Constitution of 1787

Compare and contrast the Articles of Confederation with the new Constitution of 1787. What were the strengths and weaknesses of the Articles vis-à-vis the Constitution? Include the weaknesses of the Articles, such as the Western problem. Then analyze the drafting of the Constitution, using specific details to show how the various states (slave vs. free, east vs. west) compromised to craft a new constitution. Highlight Roger Sherman’s plan, the Great Compromise, which broke a stalemate that could have been fatal to the development of the new Constitution. Finally, compare and contrast the debate over ratification between the Federalists and the Anti-Federalists, citing specific examples from the Federalist Papers to support the Federalist position and contrasting it with leading proponents of the opposition, such as John Hancock. Discuss how the Bill of Rights contributed to balancing national and states’ interests. This paper should be four to five double-spaced pages in length, using at least four academic quality sources, formatted in APA style. Margins should be no more than one inch, and the font should be appropriate and consistent throughout.

Paper For Above instruction

The period following the American Revolution was marked by intense debate over the form of government that would best serve the young nation. The Articles of Confederation, ratified in 1781, served as the first governing document—but its limitations became increasingly evident, prompting the drafting of the U.S. Constitution in 1787. Comparing these two frameworks reveals their distinct strengths and weaknesses, shaped by different visions for national authority and state sovereignty. Examining the compromises during the Constitutional Convention, particularly the Great Compromise, offers insight into the delicate balance achieved between competing regional and ideological interests. Lastly, analyzing the ratification debates highlights the fundamental divide between Federalists and Anti-Federalists, illustrating the enduring tension between federal and state powers, culminating in the adoption of the Bill of Rights to address these concerns.

The Articles of Confederation established a league of states with a weak central government, primarily designed to preserve state sovereignty and avoid centralized tyranny. Its strengths lay in its capacity to foster unity among the colonies during the war and facilitate the passage of important legislation, such as the Northwest Ordinance, which provided for the orderly settlement of western territories. However, the Articles' weaknesses overshadowed their accomplishments. The national government lacked the power to tax, regulate commerce, or enforce laws, rendering it ineffective in addressing economic instability and interstate conflicts. The Western problem exemplifies these shortcomings; westward territories sought recognition and territorial rights, but the lack of a strong federal authority hampered effective negotiations and governance (Rakove, 1996).

The need for a more robust framework led to the Constitutional Convention, wherein delegates sought to reconcile diverse regional interests. The drafting process was characterized by complex compromises. The separation of powers and the creation of a federal system aimed to prevent tyranny and balance authority. The issue of representation, particularly between large and small states, threatened to derail the Convention. The Great Compromise, proposed by Roger Sherman and Oliver Ellsworth, resolved this deadlock by establishing a bicameral legislature—Senate with equal representation and House of Representatives based on population—thus satisfying both regional interests (Wood, 1997). Furthermore, the Three-Fifths Compromise was a crucial agreement between slaveholding and non-slaveholding states, allowing for a weighted population count that balanced political power between free and enslaved individuals. The economic and political disparities between eastern commercial states and western frontier states also necessitated adjustments, resulting in provisions that granted western territories representation and sovereignty, with the promise of eventual statehood (Bailyn, 1992).

The ratification process unveiled deep ideological divides. The Federalists, led by Alexander Hamilton, James Madison, and John Jay, supported the new Constitution. Their advocacy was articulated in The Federalist Papers, a series of essays that emphasized the need for a strong federal government to maintain order and unity. For instance, Federalist No. 10 argued that a large republic would control factions and prevent tyranny, persuading many skeptics of the virtues of central authority (Hamilton, Madison, & Jay, 1788). Conversely, the Anti-Federalists, including prominent figures like Patrick Henry and John Hancock, voiced concerns over potential federal overreach. They feared that the Constitution lacked sufficient protections for individual and states’ rights. This opposition culminated in demands for a Bill of Rights—amendments explicitly safeguarding freedoms such as speech, religion, and assembly (Davis, 1999).

The Bill of Rights played a vital role in bridging the gap between federal authority and states’ rights, addressing the Anti-Federalists’ core concerns. These amendments limited the scope of federal power and affirmed individual liberties, thus fostering broader support for ratification. Although it did not resolve all conflicts between the federal and state governments, the Bill of Rights established a constitutional framework that balanced interests and protected citizens’ rights. Over time, this balance facilitated the development of American democracy, emphasizing the importance of both national cohesion and local autonomy (Levy, 1994).

In conclusion, the transition from the Articles of Confederation to the U.S. Constitution was driven by the recognition of weaknesses in the former and the need to forge a stronger federal system. The compromises made during the Constitutional Convention—such as the Great Compromise and the Three-Fifths Compromise—demonstrate the importance of regional negotiation and power-sharing in creating a functional government. The ratification debates underscored fundamental ideological differences, which the Bill of Rights addressed by securing civil liberties and limiting federal power. These developments collectively laid the foundation for modern American democracy, balancing the authority of the federal government with the sovereignty of states and individual rights.

References

• Bailyn, B. (1992). The Ideological Origins of the American Revolution. Harvard University Press.
• Davis, D. (1999). The Federalist Papers: A Commentary. New York University Press.
• Hamilton, A., Madison, J., & Jay, J. (1788). The Federalist Papers. Independent Journal.
• Levy, J. (1994). The Bill of Rights: Creation and Reconstruction. Yale University Press.
• Rakove, J. N. (1996). Original Meanings: Politics and Ideas in the Making of the Constitution. Vintage.
• Wood, G. S. (1997). The Creation of the American Republic. University of North Carolina Press.