Student’s Name
Professor’s Name
Course
Date
The Different Visions of Governance in the Articles of Confederation and the Constitution
Too often, people perceive the progression of early post-independence American as one that involved an inevitable, smooth passage from a cluster of independent colonies into the current incorporated United States. However, this perspective describes the contrary picture of the actual sequence of post-independence events, especially concerning the founding of ideal approaches to governance and organizational matters. Immediately after independence, the leaders of the Republic had to grapple with a myriad of complex issues, including the formulation of appropriate measures for controlling the new nation, settle the immense domestic and foreign debts, and rebuild the nation’s severely disrupted commerce. Additionally, there emerged a philosophical dilemma on what rights and how much freedom the American citizens should be accorded. Thus, during the early years of independence, extensive debates were conducted to address the perceived deficiencies of the decentralized government system in the Articles of the Confederation, yielding in the ratification of the U.S Constitution.
Just six years after their ratification, the Articles of Confederation proved to be unworkable as sections of the country’s leadership started questioning their capacity to facilitate a stable political and economic environment. According to Ginsberg and counterparts, the main reservations concerning the Articles of Confederation were founded in the fact that they primarily tended to limit the central government’s powers (38). In the document, the central government, which only comprised of a Congress, did not have the mandate to execute its laws (Ginsberg et al. 38). Notably, Congress members were compelled to work under the direction of state authorities, who had the ultimate influence on their selection and remuneration packages. While Congress had the authority to declare war or peace, coin or borrow money, regulate commerce with the native Americans, and establish treaties and alliances, it could not impose levies or control trade among the states. Moreover, although Congress could appoint senior military officers, there was no unified army under which they could serve since the states owned and controlled their militias. Most importantly, the centre was not accorded the mechanisms for applying the mandate of unifying the states to prevent inter-state discrimination. Collectively, these deficiencies reduced the central government the role of a submissive oversight body with minimal consequential administrative and political influences.
By failing to designate effective trade control and states unifying mechanisms to the central government, the Articles of Confederation allowed for the upsurge of internal revolts and conflicts and easy manipulation of states by external forces (Lecture 1593414484). In the absence of a unifying force, the post-independence states tranced into a competitive mode, as they struggled for the scarce foreign commerce opportunities. As a consequence, Britain, which offered vast trade opportunities, started to manipulate some of the states to act and discriminate against others. This elevated Britain’s influence so much that it offered to renegotiate the forsaken treaties with each state separately (Ginsberg et al. 39). Expectedly, the ensuing influence of the British and a few other European powers on state governments did not go down well with some Americans, especially the merchants and farmers. As a result, several local rebellions were initiated during this period to protest the growing European influence. Collectively, these events exposed the extent to which the Articles of Confederation had failed to unite and strengthen the new nation. It became apparent that revisions to the Articles of Confederation were necessary to address the flaws that seemed to invoke continued political strife, national weakness, local rebellions, and international embarrassment. To the majority of national leaders, the system of government, as envisioned in the Articles of Confederation, was unsustainable.
The following efforts to revise the Articles of Confederation yielded in the Great Compromise that encompassed several provisions that would form the basis of a new governance system. As implied by Ginsberg and counterparts, the Great Compromise entailed a comprehensive amalgamation of views from different groups (43). Notably, the Great Compromise took into account the demands of both the small- and large-state factions concerning the aspect of representation. At that point, it became apparent that a new government structure comprising two chambers of Congress, including the House of Representatives and the Senate (Ginsberg et al. 43). Here, the House of Representatives would incorporate the proposals of the large-states faction by apportioning state representation based on population while the Senate would facilitate the small-states calls of equal representation. The ensuing representation compromise was later revised to accommodate the accords of the Three-Fifths Compromise that required the representation in the House of Representatives to be based on a population that included a headcount of only three-fifths of a state’s slaves (Ginsberg et al. 43). Visibly, the main idea behind the Great Compromise and the following Three-Fifths Compromise was to have all leaders on board to facilitate the drafting of a new Constitution (Lecture 1593412228). Notably, the two concessions served to alleviate the fears of dominion among state leaderships and diffused the contentions between planters and merchants.
In contrast to the Articles of Confederation, the Constitution sought to establish a central government that would be capable of promoting and safeguarding the nation’s trade and properties without abusing its new-found powers. The framers sought to achieve some level of balance in the distribution of power by establishing a three system of the federal government, including the executive, legislature, and judiciary (Ginsberg et al. 45; Lecture 1593409691 “What is Government”). In their efforts to reassure the citizens that the new government addresses their concerns adequately, the framers accorded Congress most of the crucial mandates. Here, they believed that the actions of the central government would receive widespread acceptance if they were sanctioned by the people’s representatives (Ginsgerg et al. 46). Thus, the framers deliberately used the Congress to increase the powers of the national government without causing uproars among the masses. To safeguard the acceptance of the national government further, the framers designed the Constitution to imply that all the powers that were not listed were not granted (Ginsgerg et al. 46’ Lecture 1593408297 “Rules of the Game”). However, they also included a provision called the elastic clause that mandated Congress to pass laws enabling the national government to apply its expressed powers – these reflected extensions to government powers. Additionally, the framers established the judicial branch that offered the promise of protecting the citizens’ liberties and property from government infringement. Also, while the framers established a presidency with executive powers to apply timely and decisive actions in dire public matters, they reaffirmed their dedication to maintain checks and balances by according Congress an oversight role over most executive decisions. Thus, the framers of the Constitution employed various tactics to empower the national government to perform crucial administrative and organizational functions without appearing to interfere with the various rights and liberties of the states and their citizens.
In conclusion, it is apparent that government under the Constitution was markedly complex and advanced compared to the Articles of Confederation. Essentially, the federal government system, though characterized by many uncertainties, has succeeded in holding the nation together to date. By centralizing most of the crucial control mandates, the Constitution managed to unite the states behind one purpose.
Works Cited
Ginsgerg, Benjamin et al. We the People: An Introduction to American Politics. New York, NY:
W.W. Norton, 2017.
Lecture 1593408297.
Lecture 1593409691.
Lecture 1593412228.
Lecture 1593414484.