When the American Revolutionary War began, the then thirteen North America colonies of the British Empire were in need of a different government that would replace that of the Monarch. The Founding Father’s first try in attempting to establish the territories’ self-governance produced the Articles of Confederation proposed to the Second Continental Congress in the year 1777 at Philadelphia. The States ratified the Articles and in 1781, the new laws were active. Still, by 1789, the United States Constitution was already in place as a replacement to the Articles and for that reason alone, it was evident that the original laws were not ideal for the new government. To that end, this paper explores the differences between the Articles of Confederation and the United States Constitution by analyzing why there was a need for the States to adopt new laws and the conditions that were necessary for the same.
Foremost, unlike the United States Constitution, the Articles dictated certain limitations to the powers of the Central government and instead, encouraged the formation of more powerful State governments. To mention a few of the restrictions, the States did not have a national court system and at the same time, the central government could not raise an army (Nash et al. 220). Evidently, without a sure way of upholding justice in the country, and the lack of defenses in case of an invasion, the United States was in a vulnerable position. In other words, there was no guarantee that crimes would receive proper judgment without a national court system that would hold State officials accountable. Additionally, the idea of having a country without any military defenses was absurd because in the event of war, such as the one that was going on against the British, Americans would have been weak. Within its boundaries, Shay’s Rebellion of between 1786 and 1787 provides a perfect example of why the Articles were a weak form of government. It was impossible for the national government to handle the rebellion in Massachusetts without going against the State’s authority and as a result, the protests lasted an entire year (Nash et al. 238).
Therefore, the problem with the Articles was that although they prevented tyranny by limiting the powers of the central government, they also encouraged chaos by giving State governments too much authority. In answer, fifty-five delegates from the United States convened in Philadelphia again for the Constitutional Convention of 1787. The American Constitution was the remedy to the problems that the Articles highlighted. Now, while some people agreed that there was a need for a new government, others were not for that idea because to them the concentration of power in one office was a recipe for disaster. On one hand, there were the pro-Constitution Federalists who supported the changes. On the other, there were the anti-Constitution Anti-Federalists who feared the removal of powers from the local administrations. Federalists supported the Constitution since they wanted a “strong central government” that the Articles of Confederation did not support (Nash et al. 220). The Strong States did not mean democracy because too much power in the hands of individuals was as dangerous as having one absolute leader. Either way, there was no guarantee of liberty and justice. After all, as the Federalists insisted, not all American citizens possessed the necessary skills and education that government affairs demanded. On the other hand, the Anti-Federalists supported the “individual rights” of people that would protect them from a tyrannical ruler and advocated for a Bill of Rights (Nash et al. 220). If the people accepted a federal government, all individuals and States would be answerable to a standard power, and none could refuse without threatening the Union. However, a Bill of Rights that would limit the strengths of the government would ensure the protection of individual autonomy. The events leading to the American Civil War give a perfect explanation of the Anti-Federalists fears. When the Southern States seceded to create the Confederacy, it was to protect their interests in the slavery system from the abolitionist Republicans. Apparently, with the national authority supporting the non-slaveholding States, the South was at risk of losing its autonomy in deciding to hold slaves. The arguments between the opposing sides reveal more differences between the Articles and the Constitution by emphasizing on the former giving stripping the central government of its powers and directing them to the regions.
In conclusion, the desires for liberal yet efficient government propelled the founding fathers to endorse the Articles of Confederation and the Constitution of the United States. However, one was dependent on people desperate for independence and the departure of a dictator while the other revolved around individuals with an idea of the mechanisms of self-governance. Thus, the differences between the two documents were more than the similarities.
Antebellum Southern and the Northern States of the United States
The “North” and “South” States of America were different despite belonging to the same country. The individuals in each section were different based on their religious practices, and social orders. After all, by the commencement of the American Civil War, each side assumed a different stand with the South being pro-slavery and the North anti-slavery. Expectedly, there were more blacks in the South because the slavery system allowed whites to buy and hold them in bondage. In the North, the slavery institution did not exist, and black people considered the regions as the Free States of the country. Nonetheless, because whites could legally own black people as slaves, the Northern States had more citizens that the federal government recognized as American citizens. From that point, the differences and similarities between the two areas emerge as each had economic, societal, and cultural practices that served their respective needs between 1820 and 1860.
About the economic systems, the Northerners and the Southerners relied on agriculture. Because of their unique climates, the farmers in both regions specialized in crops that could survive in the environments available in their territories. Tobacco, rice, cotton, and sugar were common in the South, and both the large and small-scale farmers survived on growing and selling the mentioned crops. For food, Southern farmers produced corn and grains and kept domestic animals for meat (Nash et al. 366). Meanwhile, in the North, planters were not keen on gaining profits from planted crops but instead, focused on growing food for their families (Nash et al. 366). In other words, unlike in the South, Northern farmers did not show as much concern in how much money their farm produce could generate. For that reason, it was no wonder that the two territories later diversified further as the South embraced slave ownership for their plantations and the North became the industrial areas of the country. Notably, when the Southerners turned to farms, they became the source of raw materials for the factory owners of the North. At the same time, the North created a ready market for Southern farmers as their industries, for example, produced clothes from the cotton grown in the South. Thus, the factories in the North and the agriculture in the South created a balance that served both sides well. To understand the mentioned points on the different economies, one could consider the persons of African descent and immigrants to the United States during the antebellum era. For the South, black slaves provided free labor and were inferior to the whites. In the North, immigrants and free blacks also worked, at a low price, and the whites remained as superior as those in the North were before federal law. Therefore, the economy of each territory used distinct methods to give different products.
Concurrently, the social classes of Antebellum America operated with strict rules for the white people and others. Therefore, opportunities were available to Caucasians but non-existent to other races and the relationship between different classes depended on the desires of the white man. For example, because the whites wanted slaves, they made black people inferior and took advantage of their numbers. Still, wealth was more important because even for white people, the richest had more authority and access to power (Nash et al. 368). Only the rich white people made up the upper social classes of the communities in the North and the South while the poorer whites formed the middle class before colored persons occupied the lowest level. The amount of wealth was a sign of the quality of houses, goods, and other forms of riches that Americans in the antebellum period could afford. In the South, wealthy planters and slave owners dominated the region and protected the interests of other white people by handling them as equals in the eyes of society. For instance, the killing of disobedient slaves by any white person was not a crime even when the owner was unaware of the same. However, any black person who dared to touch a white individual could not expect any protection from the law or the master if he or she receives punishment. Similarly, in the North, factory laborers had no rights before the law unless they were white; hence, mistreatments and low pay went unchallenged by the people and the government.
In conclusion, for all their differences, the antebellum South and North possessed complementary elements that defined American societies that were materialistic, capitalistic, and socially stratified by race while religiously heterogeneous. Nonetheless, if the American Civil War is anything to go by, their disparities about the slavery system tipped the scales.
Works Cited
Gary B. Nash, Julie Roy Jeffrey, John R. Howe, Peter J. Frederick, Allen F. Davis, Allan M. Winkler, Charlene Mires, Carla Gardina Pestana. The American People: Creating a Nation and a Society. 7th. Vol. Combined Volume. New Jersey: Pearson, 2010.
