History
The Articles of Confederation were ratified in 1781 although the first draft had been written by Benjamin Franklin during the Revolutionary War. The Articles organized the colonies into a weak confederation of more-or-less independent states (Sturgis, 2002). The United States of America became a new nation but unfortunately in the mid-1780s an economic depression forced a serious challenge for the national government to find solutions to the economic problems. The Articles of Confederation did not include taxation power or any other power that would provide income for the national government. The meaning of an American democracy became a debating point particularly on the subject of how individual citizens would be represented. Two political parties developed. The Federalists were the Conservatives who argued for a strong national government; the Anti-Federalists were the Radicals who argued for giving states the power to aid people financially during the depression. The differences between the Articles of Confederation and the Constitution have been discussed. And then a closer look has been taken of the Constitution in reference to the states, the Federalist papers and the Bill of Rights.
Meeting the Challenges of Forming a Government for a New Nation
The Confederation faced big challenges to meet their goal of forming a new nation. The situation was made worse by the problems created by the war and building the administrative capacity to handle a national bureaucracy (Jensen, p. 360). The Articles of Confederation were expected by some to fulfill the needs of a loose organization of states and the settling of new land to the west. On the other hand the Constitution addressed the issues of individual citizens as in ‘We the People’ (Wootton 2003).
The problem of war debt was handled by the Confederation using one solution that solved two problems. People were moving into the lands west of the thirteen colonies posing a problem because the government under the Articles did not have the power to force settlers to move back East. Congress had no power to levy taxes to raise money so many people supported the Congress’ decision to sell the lands “to solve the financial burden left by the Revolution” (Jensen, p. 359). The Articles of Confederation had no other way to raise money independently so it was unable to pay the costs of running the government unless the settlers were charged for the land they claimed. Eastern states and western states were not in agreement because no more land taxes were wanted in the east. For example the Agrarian New York Party controlled the New York legislature; they did not want any more land taxes (Jensen, p. 416). In the West land was less expensive and settlers desperately wanted land.
The three executive branches of government were not formed by the Confederation but by the Constitution. A problem for the Confederation was that laws passed by Congress under the Confederation could not be enforced in the States if the States refused to comply. But the Articles of Confederation were an improvement from the Second Continental Congress just as the Constitution of 1787 was an improvement over the Articles. As progress was made after each new set of recommendations and the young national government became more able to carry on the work of the nation.
The Annapolis Convention of 1786 was the first attempt for delegates to meet in order to strengthen the Articles of Confederation but no consensus could be reached. The Annapolis Convention was adjourned after a resolution was made to hold another convention after one year to revise the Articles. The goal to revise the Articles did not work because the Articles were designed well for setting up the nation. They were not designed to handle the challenges of proper representation in Congress. Many of the delegates that attended the Constitutional Convention had experience in writing their state’s constitutions. The delegates unanimously chose George Washington as chairman. The delegates were all male and all owned land so men and slaves were discussed but no one thought that women might also need representation.
The delegates for the Constitutional Convention devised the three branches of government and a way to keep them balanced in respect to each other. In order to run the country a consistent and stable income source needed to be decided upon but the Articles only had the option of Western settlement for income. The Articles were suitable for providing a good bureaucratic foundation adaptable to a growing government but more substance was needed to govern the growing nation.
Deciding on how people should be represented by the Congress was debated thoroughly when drafting the Constitution. James Madison fought strongly not to have a body in the government that was not based on proportional representation (Morgan, 1988) Madison also was thinking of the new states that would be entering the Union because they would want equality with the original states (Morgan, 1988). “If representation were made proportional, the northern states would outnumber the southern, but "not in the same degree, [as they do] at this time;" and "every day would tend towards an equilibrium” (Morgan, 1988, p. 26). On the other hand Oliver Ellsworth from Connecticut suggested apportion representation in one branch to the number of free inhabitants and in the other to the whole population of each state, counting slaves in the ratio of five to three. This arrangement would give the southern states the voting advantage in one house and the northern states in the other one (Morgan, 1988, p. 25). The northern states would be favored in one house and the southern in the other in order to give a sense of balance to the Congress.
Morgan (1988) suggested that the real lack of balance was not based on large versus small but on slave versus non-slave. The North did not place the importance on owning property that the South did; and slaves were considered property (Land owners in the South were content with their government but the Northerners were not. (Morgan, p. 120, 1988) In the east property was expensive and many could not afford land so new settlers headed west. Two plans were submitted for structuring the new Congress, the Virginia Plan called for a two-house, bicameral legislator whereas the New Jersey Plan called for a one-house, unicameral body. The two plans put the larger states against the smaller states because the Virginia Plan (favoring large states) assigned representatives in proportion to the population and the New Jersey Plan (favoring small states) gave each state regardless of land size or population the same number of representatives. A great compromise was reached by integrating the two plans. Roger Sherman from Connecticut recommended the compromise and by doing so kept the convention together instead of seeing it dissolve because of stalemate. A bi-cameral Congress was created. The lower house would be chosen based on population (favoring large states) and the upper house would be based on equal representation between the states (favoring small states) (Schuyler 1923).
The Constitutional Convention needed to create a governmental system that would strength the Union of states and guarantee the continuation of the government. In the Federalist papers Madison described the goals as “to Deciding on how people should be represented by the Congress was debated thorougly. James Madison fought strongly not to have a body in the government that was not based on proportional representation (Morgan, 1988) Madison also was thinking of the new states that would be entering the Union because they would want equality with the original states (Morgan, 1988). “If representation were made proportional, the northern states would outnumber the southern, but "not in the same degree, [as they do] at this time;" and "every day would tend towards an equilibrium” (Morgan, 1988, p. 26).
On the other hand Oliver Ellsworth from Connecticut suggested an idea that was adopted for the Bill of Rights. Ellsworth suggested apportion representation in one branch to the number of free inhabitants and in the other to the whole population of each state, counting slaves in the ratio of five to three. This arrangement would give the southern states the voting advantage in one house and the northern states in the other one (Morgan, 1988, p. 25). The northern states would be favored in one house and the southern in the other in order to give a sense of balance to the Congress.
Morgan (1988) suggested that the real lack of balance was not based on large versus small but on slave versus non-slave. The North did not place the importance on owning property that the South did; and slaves were considered property (Land owners in the South were content with their government but the Northerners were not. (Morgan, p. 120, 1988) In the east property was expensive and many could not afford land so new settlers headed west.
Madison cited the goal to be “to improve and perpetuate” the union (Hamilton et al., 1961, p. 105). The anti-Federalist’s supported state’s rights over national government power and argued that Congress could yield too much power with the “necessary and proper clause.” (Wootton, 2003, p. 75) In 1787 an essay but Brutus started with a question referring to the possibility that a national government would drain all the power from the states (Wootton, 2003, p. 74).
In an paper written by Cato the dissatisfactions of the Anti-Federalist with the proposed government’s design including a dissatisfaction with how many representatives of the people would take part in the national Congress as well as with the way representatives would be chosen without knowing specific details such as how much property they owned (Wootton, 2003, p. 63). The Anti-Federalists had a serious concern about the Senate becoming an organization of a new aristocracy (Wootton, 2003, p. 63).
Conclusion
The Articles of Confederation assumed that the Union would continue to be of states that would cooperate on some issues but a strong central government was not formed by the Articles. Although delegates tried to revise the Articles they finally decided that they need to write a new document; that document became the Constitution of 1877. Three branches of the government were designed, electoral procedures were set and the design for representation of the citizens was decided upon. The Bill of Rights needed to be added to the Constitution in order to make into law how slaves and women were to be treated relative to their citizenship among other issues. The Federalists took a conservative stance that shaped the government in the USA today. The Anti-Federalists were not happy because of power of the executive branch of the government could be misused. They were also unhappy because they feared the Senate would become an organization representing the Aristocracy. The Anti-Federalists would have put more power at the state level and less power at the national level.
References
Hamilton, A., Madison, J., & Jay, J. (1961). The Federalist Papers. New York: New American Library. Retrieved from http://www.questia.com
Jensen, M. (1950). The New Nation: A History of the United States during the Confederation, 1781-1789. New York: Vintage Books. Retrieved from http://www.questia.com
Morgan, R. J. (1988). James Madison on the Constitution and the Bill of Rights. New York: Greenwood Press. Retrieved from http://www.questia.com
Rutland, R.A. (1955). The Birth of the Bill of Rights, 1776 - 1791. Chapel Hill, NC: University of North Carolina Press. http://www.questia.com
Schuyler, R. L. (1923). The Constitution of the United States: An Historical Survey of Its Formation. New York: Macmillan. Retrieved from http://www.questia.com
Wootton, D. (Ed.). (2003). The Essential Federalist and Anti-Federalist Papers. Indianapolis: Hackett. Retrieved from http://www.questia.com
