Introduction
The Articles of Confederation are considered to be the first American constitution ratified by all the states with Maryland being the last one in 1777. Still, the specific factors related to American internal issues proved that the states needed a national government that would be stronger than the provided variant. The Articles were criticized a lot, and it was decided that they had to be revised. Still, in 1787, at the Philadelphia Convention, the participants came to the conclusion that it is better to draft the entirely new Constitution that would meet the nation’s requirements. The following paper deals with the comparison of the Articles of Confederation with the Constitution of 1787, as well as analyzes the drafting of the Constitution and debates over its ratification between Federalists and Anti-Federalists.
Articles of Confederation Versus Constitution of 1787
It is a general opinion that the Articles of Confederation had a number of serious weaknesses. According to them, the power was centralized in the state government’s hands, which resulted in many difficulties. The manufacturing of America suffered from severe foreign competition because Congress could not protect the domestic industry by imposing high tariffs and international trade agreements which would be favorable for America. Some researchers note that “Congress, in fact, had less power than the colonists had once accepted in Parliament since it could not regulate interstate and foreign commerce” (Tindall & Shi, 2016, p. 238). At the same time, settlers suffered from Indian attacks in the western territories and the central government needed an authority to apply a more aggressive policy demanded in this situation.
The comparison of the Articles and the new Constitution allows identifying a significant number of improvements that helped to form a strong nation while giving the states a certain autonomy. Primarily, the U.S. Constitution introduced the new legislation system by dividing the Congress into the House of Representatives and the Senate while the Articles suggested a unicameral government system. As to the system of voting, all the state representatives in the government were given the right to vote, as opposed to the Articles where each state had only one vote. It is stated that the Confederation had no judicial and executive branches, head of government, and federal courts (Tindall & Shi, 2016). The new Constitution is known to establish an executive branch with the President selected by an electoral college and a federal court system to resolve disputes between the states and their citizens.
According to the Articles, the new laws needed the approval of all or at least nine of the states to be passed while the new Constitution required more than half of the states’ representatives to pass the bill. The Constitution also allowed making amendments that required the approval of three-fourths of state legislatures or two-thirds of the houses while the Articles demanded the approval of all the states to pass amendments. The Articles allowed the states to have their own armies while the Constitution gave the right to the government to raise the army in case of conflict situations. The Constitution also allowed the government to regulate national trade and commerce, as well as imposing taxes on all citizens. The Articles allowed Canada to join the Union as a sovereign and independent state while the Constitution did not claim such a close connection to these territories.
Analysis of the Drafting of the Constitution
The ratification of the new Constitution became possible due to a number of compromises between the states. The draft included the so-called “small-state” plan or a New Jersey plan proposed by Madison. According to this plan, the one-house legislature was to be kept with expanding powers to regulate revenues and commerce. Some researchers emphasize that “at the Constitutional Convention of 1787, Madison argues at length—though mostly only once—for defending the rights of minorities by the method of fracturing majorities” (Coby, 2016, p. 27). However, this plan was rejected.
It is noted that the bicameral legislature is accredited to Roger Sherman who suggested the plan of candidates’ equal representation in the Senate, as well as proportional representation of them in the House of Representatives. It is known that the large states required the representation based on the population while the smaller states preferred equal representation. The Great Compromise gave a solution to this dilemma making the number of candidates in the House of Representatives be proportional to the population of the states and elected directly by citizens. The problem of counting slaves in the states was solved by the Three-Fifth Compromise, according to which the population was counted by a number of free people and three-fifths of the slaves. It allowed imposing direct taxes on the states fairly. Some people claimed that it also legalized the continuation of the slave trade in America, which was advantageous to the slave states. Thus, the right to vote was given to any white man who could pay taxes.
Debates over Ratification Between Federalists and Anti-Federalists
The ratification of the Constitution resulted in the continuous debates as the agreement of a minimum of nine states was required for it. Those who supported the ratification of the new Constitution were called Federalists. They published a number of works called the Federalist’s papers to support the idea of a strong federal government. They were opposed by Anti-Federalists who claimed that the national government received extensive power according to the new Constitution while the power of the states is restricted. The also insisted on ratifying the Bill of Rights which guaranteed certain liberties to the citizens.
It is a well-known fact that the Federalist Papers strongly opposed the additional ratifying of the Bill of Rights as the Constitution was initially written to guarantee the people’s rights, which are equally secured in it as they were secured by the Bill of Rights (“The Federalists Papers,” 1787). This position identified the key difference between the two parties since Federalists supported the power of government and the Constitution to make important decisions towards the rights of the people while Anti-Federalists insisted on the importance of individual rights. The Anti-Federalists were afraid that the new Constitution would question the sovereignty of the states and lead to the despotic government that would resemble Great Britain.
The other cause of the debates was a veto by New-York state to preserve the taxes on imported goods that were coming to the New-York harbor. It is noted that “the defeated proponents of the impost became the Federalists, and the party that had defeated the 1783 impost remained intact to become the Anti-Federalists” (Johnson, 2016, p. 1489). It is noted that John Hancock played a significant role in coming to the agreement between the parties as he was accepted by the opponents and could propose amendments. These recommendatory amendments have helped the ratifying of the Constitution. The ratifying of the Bill of Rights guaranteed the individual liberties of citizens which ensured the balance between the state powers and national interests.
Conclusion
The paper dealt with the comparison of the Articles of Confederation and the Constitution of 1787. It also provided a brief analysis of the drafting of the Constitution and the Great Compromise that helped the states to come to the agreement. The difficulties of ratifying the Constitution were observed, and the standpoint of Federalists and Anti-Federalists was evaluated.
References
Coby, J. P. (2016). The long road toward a more perfect union: Majority rule and minority rights at the Constitutional Convention. American Political Thought, 5(1), 26-54.
Johnson, C. H. (2016). Impost begat Convention: Albany and New York confront the ratification of the constitution. Albany Law Review, 80(4), 1489.
The Federalists Papers (1787). Web.
Tindall, G. B., & Shi, D. E. (2016). America: A narrative history. New York, NY: WW Norton & Company.