The U.S. Articles of Confederation and Constitution
Articles of Confederation versus the Constitution of 1787
The 2nd article defines the sovereignty of the state which is fundamental to the new nation’s existence. At first glance, this may seem to go against the spirit of confederation but it actually stabilizes it by reiterating the foundation of the freedom of self-rule which was the basis of the revolution. While it accedes to aspects of federal rule that have been duly and clearly agreed among the states, the article establishes the natural state of the state to be free to conduct its own affairs according to the happiness of its constituency.
Article 9 embodies the representative powers granted to the nation for world affairs. It sets the tone differentiating domestic rights of the states and the overarching powers of the federal government as sovereign protector and internal arbiter. It is encompassing by including the power for war, foreign affairs and international jurisprudence. This serves proof that the states unequivocally recognize the strong and broad powers that the federal government must have to represent the country in the world scene.
The immense size of the sub-continent posed an internal problem among the 13 states in how it may expand without bypassing the authority of the congress. This is the Western Lands problem where landed states had the potential of gaining land and becoming wealthier and more powerful than the others and the central congress. The Articles were silent on territorial expansion, except for Canada. The federal government moved resolutely to quiet this issue by establishing the Land Ordinance and the Homestead Act defining how newly defined states may be settled under federal supervision.
The persistent suspicion of centralized power among the states is evident in Article 13 wherein ratification of Article amendments may only occur upon the stamp of all the states. This was seen as too high as standard and an obstacle for meritorious amendments which already have a strong majority. An illustrative instance was immediately demonstrated when in the process of convening the states to draft the Constitution, Rhode Island refused to attend hounded by fears of economic suppression. The convention eventually proceeded with resounding success including the changing of standard of Article 13 of complete vote into a majority vote.
Drafting of the Constitution
Improving the Articles towards forming the Constitution created divisive issues. A critical one is how to define the representation of each state in terms on number of votes. The Articles only allowed only one vote per state. This was contested by more populous states while equally resisted by the smaller states. There was enough argument for both sides to stonewall for 6 weeks until a compromise was finally arrived by a compromise which consequently altered the structure of congress. This was known as the Great Compromise (Kelly, 2014) put forward by Roger Sherman of Connecticut. From a unicameral body, it was changed into bicameral with a house of representative and a senate. The house would have the proportionate number of congressmen and votes which was the change proposed while voting in the senate would be have one senator per state with one vote as originally set in the Articles.
The US was also forced to face the emerging issue of slavery. Slavery was introduced to the colonies by the Dutch in 1619 and it became an integral part of the agricultural South’s economy specifically for the growing and exporting of tobacco and cotton. The more industrialized North had no need for slaves thus it can afford harp on morals to push for slavery’s abolition. (Slavery in America, n.d.)
This issue was raised in the convention but since the economic effect on the south would be so severe, it threatened the proceedings and the unity of the union altogether. The issues of representation and taxes were also linked. A compromise was then forced wherein slavery was tacitly accepted with blacks being assigned a 3/5 vote per person. The Northern states also proposed to stop the slave trade and the South also vehemently opposed which resulted in a compromise that the issue will be revisited again in 1808.
There was also a debate on how the President would be elected. The straightforward way would have been a direct election by the citizens but there were some delegates that feared that the population would not be informed enough to vote wisely. This fear was well founded considering the state of communications in those times. The compromise taken was that the whole body of citizens would vote for individuals that would make up an electoral college that would vote for the president.
Debate over Ratification
When the Constitution was just about to be ratified and signed, there still persists a general fear that the government to be formed will be misused by the powers-that-be and will plunge the nation to where it came from: in the dark place of tyranny and oppression. They fear that too much power will be given to one body and the states will be vulnerable to persecution. The Anti-Federalists kept the debates alive seeking assurances and measures that will remove this fear. The Federalists countered with the argument citing the design of the government as composed of three equal branches: the executive, legislative and juridical. In particular the Federalist Paper No. 47 expounds on the concept wherein it explains in intricate detail the inter-locking relationships of the three branches. (FEDERALIST No. 47, 1788)
Another solution that was proposed by the Anti-Federalists who found an acceptable voice in John Hancock is the enshrinement of the Bill of Rights into the constitution as 10 amendments. This made explicit but not all inclusive, the basic rights of individuals and states against possible abuse of government. The Federalists initially opposed the subject as it argued that the Constitution was framed to define the powers and limits of the government. It also feared that any definition of individual rights may be prejudicial to others not mentioned. The Anti-Federalists successfully argued that inclusion would be the lesser evil and it is the only way they can be assuaged of fears of possible abuses. The Bill of Rights was then included.
Aside from individual rights, Anti-Federalists were also concerned about the state’s well-being vis-à-vis the new government. They fear that the government would be allowed to meddle unnecessarily in the local affairs of the state. The Federalists countered with the introduction of the state militia for local defense and by setting up a federal court system composed of local and state courts overseen by the federal courts. These are expounded in the Federal Papers 29 and 78-83. The federal and state court systems mirror each other but the federal courts are limited to cases that involve a ‘federal question’ and ‘diversity of citizenship’. (State Courts vs. Federal Courts, n.d.)
Over-all, the Federalists saw the creation of a strong union government as indispensable for the survival of the confederation of states. They foresaw the future threats of foreign powers who will be attracted to the rich vast lands of the sub-continent. A growing population would have created imbalances in resources and power among the states which could have been a recipe for internal strife and instability.
On the other hand, the Anti-Federalists saw the problems on a more elemental level. The concern was the stability of the individual with his new found freedoms. They sought to protect their hard won victories which they saw threatened by a potential replicate of tyranny in the central government.
Both sides sought for sustainable social orders for their new country albeit looking from different angles. The Constitution was the result of a wise compromise between these two well-meaning parties.
References
FEDERALIST No. 47. (1788, February). New York Packet. Retrieved March 25, 2016 from http://www.foundingfathers.info/federalistpapers/fedindex.htm
Kelly, M. (2014, December 16). Key Compromises of the Constitutional Convention. About Education. Retrieved March 20, 2016 from http://americanhistory.about.com/od/usconstitution/tp/compromises-of-the-constitutional-convention.htm
Slavery in America. (n.d.). History. Retrieved March 25, 2016 from http://www.history.com/topics/black-history/slavery
