Abstract
The United States was forming a system of government that had never been tried in a nation so large. The many Articles of Confederation and the Constitution represent the countries attempt to form a system of government true to ideas of the American Revolution. Although the Articles of Confederation had serious flaws that ultimately led to its doom, it was still an attempt to put in place the ideas of the American Revolution. The Constitution, from and ideological standpoint, was not entirely different. Many of the federal powers granted in the Articles of Confederation were the same powers granted in the Constitution, the Constitution gave the federal government more tools to enforce the powers. We see the drafters of the Constitution further attempting to honor the ideas of the American Revolution in the compromises that took place during the drafting of the Constitution and the debates regarding the ratification of the Constitution. Most of these compromises and ratification debates center around differing idea of what the motivating factors were behind the American Revolution, though some of the compromises were solely pragmatic. The efforts to honor the ideas of the American Revolution has created a stable government that has lasted continuously for 250 years.
The birth of the United States of America was a series of unique circumstances, the country won its independence by defeating the greatest military power of the time and it was founded on ideas of freedom, liberty, and inalienable rights. The founders of the United States needed to create a form of government that would hold up to the lofty expectations and ideals of the American Revolution. No government had ever been set up on such a scale before. The system of government was a relatively novel idea, so the founders of the United States had to improve through trial and error as well as compromise. The well-thought-out and substantial steps the founders took to recognize the unworkability of the Articles of Confederation, to draft the United States Constitution, and to adopt the Bill of Rights shows that the founders believed in the ideas of the American Revolution and were truly committed to creating a more perfect union.
The Articles of Confederation set up, literally, a confederation of states. Under the Articles of Confederation most of the executive and legislative power was in the hands of the individual states, the federal power outlined in the Articles of Confederation was rather weak (Policies and Problems of the Confederation Government, n.d.). While the Articles of Confederation were a good step forward because it preserved many of the ideals of the American Revolution, it ultimately was unworkable because it relied too heavily on the voluntary cooperation of the states and did not give the federal government proper tools to handle emergency situations.
The largest benefit of the Articles of Confederation was that it preserved many of the freedoms that Americans fought for in the American Revolution. Following the revolution, there were suggestions that King should be appointed (Furr, 2007). The Articles of Confederation, however, creates only a weak executive that is appointed by Congress to oversee general affairs and cannot serve as President for more than one year (Articles of Confederation, Art. IX). Though the President may have been weak under the Articles of Confederation, it shows that the drafters of the Articles were very wary of appointing one man into King-like position when they had just fought a war to get from under the control of tyrannical King. Additionally, under the Articles of Confederation, states kept the vast majority of their sovereignty, only the sovereignty that was expressly ceded to the federal government in the Articles was a federal power (Art. of Confed. Art. II). The power of the individual states rights was a major issue in the Revolutionary War and the Articles preserved the power of the states by creating this division of power, called federalism.
While the sovereignty of the states was a major issue in the Revolutionary War, the Articles of Confederation left to much sovereignty with the states that the federal government was unable to function, especially in regards diplomatic relations, this would ultimately be the fatal blow to the Articles of Confederation.
Under the Articles of Confederation the federal government did not have the power to levy taxes or collect taxes. The federal government does, however, have the power to provide for the common defense of the state (Art of Confed., Art. III), which costs a great deal of money. At the passage of the Articles of Confederation, the United States was still in debt from the Revolutionary War. The states often would not help pay for the self-defense of the nation, and the federal government was powerless to stop it. Shays’ Rebellion is likely the best example of this. Daniel Shays’ from Massachussets led a force of 1800 farmers and revolutionary war veterans to the steps of the Massachussets State Supreme Court to cause havoc for being forced to pay property taxes while they were serving in the Revolutionary War (Cain and Dougherty, 234). The United States government had at least a few weeks’ notice of this rebellion. Congress took it very seriously and put out a nationwide notice for troops (Cain and Dougherty, 234). The 13 Congressional delegations agreed to raise an army of 2000 troops. The next step was to fund the army, only one state, Virginia helped to fund the army, every other state decided against providing any funding for army, despite the fact that all 13 states had agreed that Shays’ rebellion was a serious threat and that it warranted raising any army of 2000 troops (Cain and Dougherty, 236). If the states refuse to fund an army for a very serious internal rebellion, then the states will refuse to fund almost anything, the federal government was paralyzed by the self-interest of the individual states. Shays’ rebellion, more than anything else made political elites realize that a new system of government needed to be adopted.
Compared to the Articles of Confederation, the Constitution had a much stronger federal government. The Constitution puts in a place a President elected by the Electoral College and who is the commander-in-chief of all the nation’s military forces (U.S. Constitution, Art. II Sec. II). The Constitution also gives Congress the power to lay and collect taxes (U.S. Constitution, Art I, Sec. IIX). The Constitution also, however fundamentally incorporates several of the themes that were included in the Articles of Confederation, including federalism (U.S. Constitution, Art. I, Sec. IV). The Constitution kept the best ideas from the Articles of Confederation while creating a stronger federal government with enforcement power to carry out many of the same powers listed in the Articles of Confederation.
In is clear in the drafting of the Constitution that the drafters were balancing competing ideas, and not all about freedom and equality. The Great Compromise is example of a compromise meant to find a middle ground between differing ideas of fair political representation, while the Three-fifths compromise was solely a pragmatic affair, both compromises saved the Constitution.
The Great Compromise deals with how seats in Congress are apportioned to states. Big states, like Virginia felt that seats in Congress should be apportioned solely based on population, this was called the Virginia Plan (Virginia Plan). This would, of course, give the larger states a much larger say in the federal government. The smaller states favored the New Jersey Plan, which called for each state to get an equal number of members in Congress (New Jersey Plan). Likewise, the large states felt this would give small states a disproportionately large opinion in Congress. The Virginia Plan and New Jersey Plan go to a fundamental issue that was facing the nation at the time, whether federal government envisioned was one meant to enforce cooperation among states, or one meant to be a co-sovereign with some authority over the states themselves (Reply to the New Jersey Plan).
The Great Compromise, was, as the name suggests, a compromise between these two competing views. Whereas the Virginia and New Jersey Plans called for a unicameral house, the Great Compromise called for a bicameral house with one houses seats determined by state population and the other with equal representation among all states (The Connecticut Compromise). Each house of the bicameral legislature would have slightly separate powers, but both houses needed to approve a bill by majority vote before it can signed into law. The Connecticut Compromise saved the Constitution because it was able to balance the dueling ideas of what the role of the federal government should be.
The three-fifths compromise on the other hand was certainly more of a pragmatic decision. After the great compromise, which allowed apportionment by population, it then had to be determined who in each state would count towards the population. The northern free states did not want slaves to count towards the population as it would give the South more representation by counting people who were not even granted rights. The southern slave states, out of self-interest, wanted the slaved to count so that their apportionment of the House of Representatives would be higher (Three-Fifths Compromise). The Three-Fifths Compromise was a pragmatic compromise to keep the Constitutional drafting alive. The final outcome was that each slave would be counted as three-fifths of a person towards population this would affect apportionment of House seats, but also taxation, as part of the compromise, the Constitution allows taxation be tied to representation, thus increasing taxes on the slave holding states (Three-Fifths). The Three-Fifths compromise though not looked kind upon by history, was essential to keeping the Constitution alive.
The main groups debating the ratification were the Federalists, in favor of ratification and the anti-federalist, against the ratification The federalists felt that the federal government need to be stronger have more enforcement power in order to protect the freedom and liberty of the common people. The anti-federalists felt that more federal power would only lead to tyranny.
Federalist Paper 45 states that, If the new Constitution be examined with accuracy, it will be found that the change which it proposes consists much less in the addition of NEW POWERS to the Union, than in the invigoration of its ORIGINAL POWERS” (Federalist 45). This is meant to suggest that the fears of a tyrannical federal government are overblown and in fact the powers are nearly identical to those offered in the articles of confederation. Federalists also argue that Bill or Rights is unnecessary as they ae generally between a King as his subjects (Federalist 84).
Antifederalists argue that too much federal power is tyrannical and that the federal Constitution unfairly supersedes state constitutions, which were decided by the people in each state (Anti-Federalist, No 2). The anti-federalists also argue that if the Constitution is ratified, a Bill of Rights must be included to clearly and plainly protect the inalienable rights of Americans (Anti-Federalist, No. II)
The ideals Americans fought for in the Revolutionary War were issues that were of a great deal of importance to Americans after the war also. By examining the time, attention, and debate given to the setup of government in the United States; from the Articles of Confederation to the Drafting and finally ratification of the Constitution, it is clear the United States was struggling, but making progress in creating a system of government to fit the ideals of the American Revolution, those efforts have made the United States one of the most stable nations on earth today.
References
“Articles of Confederation.” Yale Law Avalon Project. Retrieved from http://avalon.law.yale.edu/18th_century/artconf.asp#art9
Cain, Michael and Dougherty, Keith. ”Suppressing Shays’ Rebellion.” Journal of Theoretical Politicals Vol. 11 Iss. 2, 233-260
DeWitt, John. “Anti-Federalist No. 2.” Constitution Society. Retrieved from http://constitution.org/afp/dewitt02.htm
DeWitt, John. “Anti-Federalist No. 11.” Constitution Society. Retrieved from http://constitution.org/afp/dewitt02.htm
Furr, Gover. “Did George Washington Turn Down An Offer To Be A King? The Story Behind the Myth.” Montclair State University. Retrieved from https://msuweb.montclair.edu/~furrg/gbi/docs/kingmyth.html.
Hamilton, Alexander. “Federalist 84.” Constitution Society. Retrieved from http://www.constitution.org/fed/federa84.htm
Madison, James. “Federalist 45.” Constitution Society. Retrieved from http://www.constitution.org/fed/federa84.htm
”New Jersey Plan.” Library of Congress. Retrieved from http://memory.loc.gov/cgi-bin/ampage?collId=llfr&fileName=001/llfr001.db&recNum=271
“Policies and Problems of the Confederation Government.” Library of Congress. Retrieved from http://www.loc.gov/teachers/classroommaterials/presentationsandactivities/presentations/timeline/newnatn/confed/
“Replay to the New Jersey Plan.” National Archives. June 19, 1787. Retrieved from http://founders.archives.gov/documents/Madison/01-10-02-0036
“Roger Sherman and the Connecticut Compromise.” Connecticut Judicial Branch Law Libraries. Retrieved from http://www.jud.ct.gov/lawlib/history/sherman.htm
“Three Fifths Compromise.” Heritage Foundation. Retrieved from http://www.heritage.org/constitution#!/articles/1/essays/6/three-fifths-clause
U.S. Constitution, Art. 1 §IV, Art. 1 §IIX, Art. 2 §II
“Virginia Plan (1787).” National Archives. Retrieved from http://www.ourdocuments.gov/doc.php?flash=true&doc=7
Washington, George. “Letter to George Clinton dated Sep. 11, 173.” Library of Congress. Retrieved from http://memory.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/r?ammem/mgw:@field%28DOCID+@lit%28gw270170%29%29
