Despite the enormous significance of the Constitution, its creation was associated with major controversy, which revolved primarily around the degree of centralization of the country’s governance. However, the final product can be considered a reasonable compromise between individual liberties and institutional responsibilities. The following paper provides a detailed analysis of the debate and the conditions in which the current political system was established.
The differences in political views are best illustrated through the comparison of the Articles of Confederation and the Constitution of 1787, which constitute key differences in approaches of both parties. Nevertheless, it would be reasonable to first identify the similarities between the documents. The most notable similarity is related to the financial aspect of governance. Specifically, both the Constitution and the Articles put the central government in charge of ensuring the value of the national currency. Another major similarity is the fact that both documents require compliance from each state regardless of the level of autonomy. Next, both the Constitution and the Articles forbid certain actions, such as the declaration of war, on behalf of individual states. Finally, both explicitly specify the limitations of different components of the government, intended to promote fairness and minimize corruption.
However, several differences exist between the documents. For instance, according to the Articles, each state is sovereign, which is ensured through the absence of a federal court system, the lack of taxing power at the federal level, and the inability of the Congress to regulate the interstate and international commercial interactions (Forte & Spadling, 2014). While it was suggested that such an approach could provide additional diversification of the economy and reduce the power monopoly, it should be acknowledged that it may also result in the accumulation of power and, eventually, the creation of privileged groups and parties. It is also notable that, unlike the Articles, the Constitution provided Congress with the possibility to enforce laws.
Finally, a number of Western territories historically occupied by pioneers were particularly difficult to govern under the conditions proposed by the Articles (the issue known as the Western Problem). Essentially, the strong state loyalty that existed at the time, coupled with the fear of a centralized government, has prompted the authors of the Articles to emphasize state-level authority over that of the nation. While such focus was suitable for the purposes of the American Revolution and helped to establish several national departments and international treaties early in the course of American history, several issues soon became apparent. Thus, the Constitution solved a number of issues more effectively, created fewer gaps in the system through which corruption could be introduced, and, most importantly, created a more efficient governance mechanism on the national level.
As can be expected in such a setting, the drafting of the Constitution was a complex process due to the existence of two major political forces that constantly negotiated for better terms. In addition to the “autonomy versus centralization” debate mentioned above, a division in view on slavery played a significant role in the process of drafting the Constitution. Since the final product had to be ratified on the national level in order to be adopted, it was necessary to create the conditions that would be acceptable to both parties. As a result, the drafting of the Constitution required several compromises to take place. The most apparent of these compromises was the absence of information on the abolition of slavery from the document. During the initial stages of the development, the representatives of the Southern states made it clear that any such elements would be met with an explicitly hostile reaction and lead to the rejection of the Constitution by the political forces at the state level.
The proportion of the slave population in the South and, perhaps more importantly, the importance of the slave labor to the economic, social, and political functioning of the region, has granted the slaveholders of the Southern states formidable political power (Finkelman, 2014). On the other hand, it was apparent that the representatives of the Northern states would oppose any attempts to make institutionalize slavery on the national level or, for that matter, grant any additional power to the slaveholders. In other words, the economic and social environment at the time required the recognition of slavery as an important component of the country’s economy without providing the slaveholders with excessive power. To address these restrictions, the final version of the Constitution granted several privileges to the Southern slaveholders but introduced a number of limitations that could later be leveraged to challenge the status of slavery at a national level.
Another issue that polarized the stakeholders was the issue of state representation in the voting process. Two different approaches were proposed to account for significant differences in size and population of each state. According to the first option, known as the Virginia Plan, the number of representatives in the U.S. Congress had to be proportional to its population, which put smaller states at a disadvantage. The New Jersey plan assumed an equal legal status of states and suggested a fixed number of representatives regardless of the state demographics. Since neither of the options could be accepted unanimously, a third option was proposed by Roger Sherman, who was a Superior Court judge at the time. According to the plan, also known as a Great Compromise, the Congress should consist of two chambers which utilize the principles of Virginia and the New Jersey plans. All states except Pennsylvania were familiar with such systems at the time, leading to the unanimous adoption of the Sherman Plan as a compromise solution.
The constant debate over the ratification of the Constitution has led to the emergence of two forces, the Federalists and the Anti-Federalists. The Federalists exhibited strong support of the Constitution, favoring the existence of a strong national government. Prominent representatives of the Federalists include George Washington, Benjamin Franklin, and James Madison, among others. The Federalists argued that the Constitution was sufficient for the protection of the individual rights of the citizens (The Gilder Lehrman Institute of American History, n.d.). To support their position, the Federalists published a series of essays that later became known as the Federalist papers. One of the principal points of the papers was the critique of what became known later as the United States Bill of Rights (Hamilton, Jay, & Madison, 2016). The Anti-federalists argued that the Constitution posed a threat to individual rights and liberties. To address the alleged gap, the Anti-federalists, such as Patrick Henry, John Hancock, and George Mason, argued in favor of the Bill of Rights to restore the violated liberties. In hindsight, it is apparent that the Bill of Rights has introduced important limitations of the government’s powers that were previously granted only at a national level.
The creation of the Constitution was a long and elaborate process that involved a significant amount of negotiation. It can be argued that the existence of several polarizing issues has led to a compromise between autonomy and centralization. The resulting document, along with the Bill of Rights, granted both the efficiency of the government and the existence of individual rights and liberties.
References
Finkelman, P. (2014). Slavery and the founders: Race and liberty in the age of Jefferson (3rd ed.). New York, NY: Routledge.
Forte, D. F., & Spadling, M. (Eds). (2014). The Heritage guide to the Constitution: Fully revised second edition. New York, NY: Regnery Publishing.
The Gilder Lehrman Institute of American History. (n.d.). Differences between Federalists and Antifederalists. Web.
Hamilton, A., Jay, J., & Madison, J. (2016). The Federalist Papers and the Constitution of the United States: The principles of American government. New York, NY: Racehorce Publishing.