Articles Of Confederation Vs. The Constitution History ARTICLES OF CONFEDERATION vs. THE CONSTITUTION There are major differences between the Articles of Confederation and the Constitution. The Articles of Confederation had been in effect sine 1781. They established what could be referred to as a league of friendship and a quasi-constitution for the states that were sovereign and independent subsequent to the American Revolution.
Those articles appeared to be woefully inadequate to James Madison. Madison believed that the central government had little power, while the states had considerable power. The central government was not able to tax, or set commercial power, nor could a war effort be effectively supported. It did not have the power to settle disputes between the states. The central government was considerably weak in all aspects in light of the Articles of Confederation. Something had to be done about this before a great economic disaster occurred.
Congress attempted to function with a treasury that had been drained. Inflation was at an all time high. Many people were in debt. In fact, quite a few of them were thrown into prison, while land was being confiscated and sold for taxes. James Madison felt that something had to be done quickly, and he opined that there should be a strong central government so that order and stability could be provided to the nation. The Constitutional Convention was the means to fashion the new government of America into Madison’s mold.
The Constitution would become a revision of the Articles of Confederation. When the delegates of the states met in Philadelphia, it was a momentous occasion. In fact, many were optimistic of the Constitutional Convention. What Madison had in mind was the production of a central government that would be powerful with state governments becoming subversive. Had I been alive in the year the Constitution was submitted to the states, I can honestly say that I would have supported the ratification of the Constitution.
However, if I had known what I know now, I would not have supported the Constitution, because the federal government has entirely too much power and the states have too little in the 1990s. Yes, I agree that something had to be done about the Articles of Confederation, but as a new and growing nation, it was likely to experience growing pains. Some power is good for all forms of government, but this new and developing nation did not know which way to turn. They were tired of the British type of rule, but many were in favor of something similar to monarchy, only better. To have one central government that provides checks and balances to the states is just what was needed at the time.
Although the delegates fought tooth and nail for their individual issues, there was a consensus that a central form of government was needed. The Constitution was a compromise. In order to accomplish some things, others had to be forfeited. No one person or state or party should be unwilling to compromise for the good of all people and states of the nation. This nation is the best one in the world, although it is not without fault.
The Constitution is a document that many men toiled over for a considerable time period in order to be as just as possible. Although the Constitution has since been amended and shall continue to be amended as situations arise, the original Constitution is a time-honored document to the necessity for having a people that is governed so that the states will not assume too great a power or leadership and economic resources can be shared. The learned men that wrote the Constitution knew what they were doing and what they wished to accomplish. History Essays.