in a 4 page essay compare and contrast the articles of confederation with the ne
ID: 3362822 • Letter: I
Question
in a 4 page essay compare and contrast the articles of confederation with the new constitution of 1787 what are the strengths and weakness of the articles his a vis-a-vis the constitution,analyze the drafting of the constitution,pay particular attention to Roger Sherman plan,the great compromise,which broke a stalemate that could have been fatal to the development of new constitution,finally compare and contrast the debate over ratification btw federalist and anti federalist.pls add references at the end.
Explanation / Answer
THE ARTICLES OF CONFEDERATION AND THE NEW CONSTITUTION
The articles of confederation was among one of the official documents of the United States however after a short duration, it was replaced by the constitution and the bill of rights. The articles contained way too many weaknesses such that there was need for the constitution to be made to address them. The articles for one created a weak national government that could not even tax the states and was therefore unable to control the states and this thereby meant that the national government could no effectively unite the nation.
The articles basically set the stage for the constitution to be developed. Some of the strengths of the articles were the fact that they brought the states together for the first time and developed a strong legislature. The people were especially pleased about the legislature as it gave them a voice in the government. The articles also set up the land ordinance of 1785 and the Northwest ordinance of 1787 which were plans for making new states as well land to pay off the national debt. The land ordinance were basically plans to sell the land in the old northwest, the funds obtained would then be used to pay off the national debt. The northwest ordinance was more concerned with governing these lands and setting aside certain lands to build schools and other public projects.
The American people were very wart of a strong central government after their experiences with the British and a weak congress was meant to keep their fears at bay. However this did not work and the new constitution was drafted which had a more unified government with more power. One of the key differences between the two is in terms of legislature, the articles established a unicameral system called congress while the new constitution established a bicameral system with an upper house, senate and a lower house, house of representatives. The articles had one vote for every state but the new constitution gave each individual member a vote. The articles did not also have an executive branch, this was however corrected in the new constitution whereby the seat of the president was created. The court system was also specialized in the states but the new constitution led to the enactment of federal courts which resolved disputes between states as well as between citizens.
To pass laws under the articles, one required votes from 9 of the 13 states, the new constitution made it such that approval of half the nominees of the states was enough to enact new laws. To amend laws there was need unanimity in the 13 states, the new constitution requited approval of two thirds of both houses and three quarters for state legislature. Under that articles, states could raise their own armies, this made the national government dependent on states. Under the new constitution however, the duty was passed to the national government so as to deal with conflict situations. The national government had no right to interfere with trade and commerce among the states internally or even internationally, this gave rise to diplomatic complications. The new constitution enabled the federal government to regulate trade
A constitutional convention was set up in May 25, 1787 and consisted of delegates from every state except Rhode Island, George Washington then a delegate from Virginia was elected the convention’s president. After intensive debates they designed a federal system comprising of an intricate system of checks and balances. One of the issues that was debated upon was state representation in parliament, the larger states wanted proportional legislation while smaller states wanted equal legislation. The problem was resolved by Roger Sherman who came up with the Connecticut promise which put in place a bicameral system with equal representation in the upper house and proportional legislation in the lower house. The issue of slavery also came up about whether they should be counted as art of the population, only the southern states had a large number of slaves , this meant they would have greater political power but pay more taxes which they were willing to do. The northerners were therefore against counting slaves as people to prevent the south from having more power. In the end they compromised on counting a slave as 3/5 a person. Slave trade was also another issue, three states argued to minister while 10 denounced it. In the end they compromised to give congress the power to ban slave trade but until 1808. Massachusetts had refused to ratify the document as it did not give undelegated powers to states and did not protects basic political rights, they however compromised with the promise of immediate amendment, the bill of rights was eventually encompassed in September 25 1789. Rhode Island had refused to ratify the constitution based on federal control of currency and critical promise in the issue of slavery this was until the US threatened to sever commercial relations.
During the great debate there were two sides the federalists and the anti-federalists. One of the major issues brought up was the inclusion of the bill of rights, the federalist did not believe it was necessary as they believed the constitution only limited government not people but the antifederalists felt that it was necessary to check against oppression. The federalists were the first political party of the United States and from the federalist papers written by John Jay and James Madison they claimed that inclusion of the bill of rights would not protect people’s rights but would instead create a parchment barrier. The antifederalists feared the new system would curtail liberties and would fail to protect individual rights. They felt that a stronger government threatened the sovereignty of the states. The anti-federalist received support in places like Rhode Island where civil war almost broke out. The antifederalists were however unable to prevent the adoption of the constitution but they got the bill of rights included as the federalist concede in order to bring the constitution into fruition.
Related Questions
Navigate
Integrity-first tutoring: explanations and feedback only — we do not complete graded work. Learn more.