The Articles of Confederation Assignment, Research Paper Example

The Articles of Confederation was the document that served as the first constitution of the United States.  It was a historic document that was written between 1776 and 1781 that reflected the democratic ideals of the men that led the American Revolution, ideals that were set forth in the Declaration of Independence, which was drafted during the same time period.  The Articles have a somewhat dubious reputation amongst historians.  The fact that a new constitution was ratified in 1788 in order to replace the so-called chaos in the young nation has led many to assert that the Articles were a “product of ignorance and inexperience and the parent of chaos (Jensen 1940).” This controversial reputation has led to the common belief that the Articles were simply faulty and needed to be replaced.  The truth is, of course, more complex than this.  In order to understand the Articles of Confederation, a study must be made of the sociopolitical ideologies and currents of both the time in which they were drafted and the time period in which the “chaos” had supposedly overtaken the young republic of the United States.  The Articles of Confederation was a document created to be a “constitution embodying the ideals of self-government and economic practice (Jensen 1940)” and it defined the United States of America from the time of its official ratification in 1781 until it was officially replaced 6 years later with the Constitution of the United States in 1787.

The years leading up to 1776 were defining ones for the history of America.  The famous slogan “taxation without representation” was on the lips of colonists throughout the 13 colonies due to the fact that the colonies were denied a vote Parliament for the passage of tax laws which they were obligated to pay to Britain. By April of 1775 war had broken out between the colonists and Britain.  At first, many colonists opposed an outright split from Britain, hoping that the rebellion would force Parliament to change its stance on how it treated the colonial citizens. Though declaring independence from Britain had been suggested by Jefferson right at the start, it was not until June 1776 that an official stance on the subject was taken.  “On June 7, 1776, a Virginian named Richard Henry Lee offered a formal resolution -or, made a motion – that two important documents be drafted.  He asked that a declaration of independence be prepared and that Congress form ‘a plan for confederation’ (Rebman 2006).

Four days after Lee’s motion was set before Congress, the decision was made to declare independence from Britain.  “They appointed committees to draft the two documents.  One document would declare independence.  It became the Declaration of Independence.  The other document was called the Articles of Confederation.  It would set the structure and define the powers of the new government (Rebman 2006, 6).”  There was great hope at this moment since the founding fathers realized that they had the power to shape a new type of government, one that was free from the tyranny of monarchy from which they had been fighting against.  The person chosen to lead the task of drawing up the Articles of Confederation was Pennsylvania’s John Dickinson.

John Dickinson had written for various newspapers throughout the 1760’s explaining the stance the colonist’s took in regards to the British taxes.  These articles “were then published together as a pamphlet. His work won him the nickname ‘Penman of the Revolution’ (Rebman 2006).” This made him a natural choice for author of the Articles of Confederation.  In addition, he was also an eminent lawyer, and “he believed that the Articles should preserve the familiar organization of American society and restore the liberties lately threatened by Parliament (Wright and Morris, 1987).”  Dickinson was also a military man and understood that the Articles would need to be “designed primarily to deal with the war emergency, providing the Continental Congress with the specific powers needed to meet Washington’s military needs (Wright and Morris, 1987).”  There was much to consider in the creation of the Articles but time was of the essence and there was much to be done in the creation of the new nation.

Though Dickinson was the author of the Articles of Confederation, he used many of the ideas that had previously been set forth by Benjamin Franklin. The idea of independence was not a new one and Franklin had earlier penned documents relating to the creation of an independent nation.  “Franklin had presented such a plan a year earlier.  At the time, there was no move toward independence (Rebman 2006).”  So when in 1776 when independence was being openly discussed and Dickinson was put in charge of creating the Articles of Confederation, he was able to utilize the ideas already put forth by Franklin.  For example, “he suggested Congress take money from each state and keep it in a treasury.  He also suggested Congress should have control over war matters.  Like Franklin, he wanted the United States to establish its own post office (Rebman 2006).”

Despite the similarities between the ideas of Franklin and Dickinson, there were many viewpoints on which their opinions varied.  One area in which the two men did not agree was the amount of say each state should have in the national congress.  Franklin believed that each state should have votes depending on how many people were living in the state.  More populous states should have more votes.  Today, states follow Franklin’s philosophy in the creation of the electoral college, in the amount of electoral votes that states have and the amount of House Representatives that each state is allowed to send to represent them in the national government.  Dickinson disagreed with this and wanted each state to have only 1 vote regardless of their state population.

The Articles of Declaration were debated heavily by the Continental Congress.  Those involved realized what a monumental task that it was creating a new nation and took the responsibility very seriously.  The drafts of the Articles were debated for 16 days over a months time.  The whole reason for independence and the spark that had lit the revolution was the unfair actions of the British government on the citizens of the colonies.  For this reason, “Delegates wanted to be very specific about what the government could and could not do (Rebman 2006).” After much debate and many drafts, the delegates were finally able to agree on a final draft of the Articles of Confederation.  The final draft “consisted of 13 sections, which were largely devoted to placing limits on the new government (Rebman 2006).”  The fact that the Articles placed so many limits on the powers of the centralized Federal government would be the reason that the Federalist party would move to amend the document in 1787.  However, the ideas behind the Articles reflected the passions and ideals of the men and the times in which the Articles were created.

The Articles of Confederation limited the power that was placed in the hands of a centralized federal government.  Instead, states rights and individual rights were highlighted, and the individual “states retained much of their power and independence (Rebman 2006).” In fact, state’s rights were addressed in the very beginning of the Articles.  Article 1 starts off with the name of the confederacy, asserting that “The Stile of this Confederacy shall be ‘The United States of America’ (Articles of Confederation, 1777).”  The very next statement, Article 2, states that “Each state retains its sovereignty, freedom and independence,and every Power, Jurisdiction, and right, which is not by this confederation expressly delegated to the United States, in Congress assembled (Articles of Confederation, 1777). The fact that states rights are the first priority to be addressed stresses how important this issue was to the founding fathers.  “The Articles of Confederation were written by men many of whom rose to leadership as a result of the tempestuous local political battles fought in the years before the Revolution. Most of these new leaders gained power because they voiced the animosities and thus won the support of the discontented – the masses in the towns and the farmers of the back-country, who in most of the states won the right to express themselves politically, or were able to force concessions where the conservative element remained in control of the new governments created (Jensen 1940).”

The Articles of Confederation were officially ratified by Congress on March 1, 1781, making them the official rule of law of the federal government of the United States of America. “Actually, however, the Articles merely formalized a national government that in most essential remained severely restricted.  Under their terms, the United States remained a ‘firm league of friendship’ that bound together thirteen independent entities (Wright and Morris, 1987).”  The Articles of Confederation differed greatly from the Constitution of America that would replace them in 1788.  Within the Articles, “no provision existed for a national executive or judicial organization (Wright and Morris, 1987).” There was no provision for a president to lead the country.  Instead, a “president of Congress would be in charge of meetings but he had no real power.  When Congress was not in session, a committee was in charge.  Representatives from each state were appointed to the committee (Rebman 2006).”  The one state, one vote rule was also in effect with the Articles.  The states population did not affect the say it had in issues of federal importance, instead each state had equal say.

The Articles of Confederation came under the scrutiny of the Federalist Party in 1787.  The Federalists did not like the lack of centralized power and blamed the Articles for the troubles that the new nation was facing. The Federalist Party did not “have faith in the democracy made possible by the Articles of Confederation (Jensen 1940).” The Federalist Party was “organized to destroy a constitution embodying ideals of self-government and economic practice that were naturally abhorrent to those elements in American society of which that party was the political expression (Jensen 1940).” It was acknowledged by Edmund Randolph at the Convention of 1787 that the “framers of the Confederation were wise and great men, but that ‘human rights were the chief knowledge of the time’ and since then ‘our danger arises from the democratic parts of our constitution’ (Jensen 1940).”            The men of the Federalist party did not want to trust the country in the hands of those they felt were unable to understand politics, and thus not able to make sound decisions for the country.  Alexander Hamilton, one of the founding fathers and constructors of the new Constitution, agreed that the people should not be allowed control of the government.  “He had only contempt for the popular belief that the voice of the people was the voice of God.  The people, he said, seldom judge rightly (Jensen 1940).”  John Jay, another leader of the Federalist Party and a Founding Father, believed that “the people who own the country ought to govern it (Jensen 1940).”

The Founding Fathers under the lead of the Federalist Party did indeed assert their wills and belief that the Articles of Confederation should be amended and replaced by a new Constitution. This occurred officially on June 21, 1788 when all 13 states officially ratified it.  Though the two documents served the same purpose, they were inherently different in how the gave and limited power, especially in relation to individual rights.  Some key points on which they differed include term limits for elected officials.  For members of the legislative office, the articles called for a term limit of 1 year.  With the Constitution, Representatives are given a 2 year term while Senators are given a 6 year term.  There are no term limits for legislators in the Constitution, while the Articles call for no more than 3 out of every 6 years for members of the Legislative office.

Another major difference between the Articles and the Constitution had to due with defense.  As stated in Article 6 of the Articles of Confederation, “No vessel of war shall be kept up in time of peace by any State, except such number only, as shall be deemed necessary by the United States in congress assembled, for the defense of such State, or its trade; nor shall any body of forces be kept up by any State in time of peace, except such number only, as in the judgment of the United States, in congress assembled, shall be deemed requisite to garrison the forts necessary for the defense of such State; but every State shall always keep up a well-regulated and disciplined militia, sufficiently armed and accoutered, and shall provide and constantly have ready for use, in public stores, a due number of filed pieces and tents, and a proper quantity of arms, ammunition and camp equipage (Articles of Confederation, 1781).”  Today, military is strictly a federal issue, and states do not keep standing militias.  An abundance of arms are stored in times of peace and in times of war by the federal government and the numbers of soldiers and the amount of arms deemed necessary is determined directly by Congress.

Another important point where the Articles and the Constitution differ is on the printing on money.  In the Articles, both the states and the Federal Government are given the power to print money.  This is an important issue because the Articles sought to give the people alternatives when it came to currency.  If the states were unhappy with how the currency was being traded or treated by one group, they could take steps to make their own currency.  In addition to giving the federal government sole responsibility and control over currency, the Constitution also gave the Federal government control over taxes.  In the Articles, taxes were appointed by Congress, and collected by the states.  The Constitution gave Congress the responsibly of laying and collecting federal taxes.  A final point on which the documents differed is in the ratification process.  The Articles called for unanimous consent for laws to be passed.  In order to streamline the process, the Constitution only required a majority of states to ratify new laws.  At the time, 9 out of 13 states, or roughly two thirds consent, was needed to turn a bill into law.

When the political atmosphere in which the Articles were written is understood, the reason for the lack of centralized power is made more obvious.  In 1776, there was a general fear among many that Revolution and Independence would fall into the wrong hands, and the colonies would be under no better of a situation under an Independent nation than under British rule.  Alexander Graydon, a captain in the revolutionary Army, lawyer, prothonotary, author and delegate to the 1790 Pennsylvania Constitutional Convention, is quoted as saying, “Power, to use a language which had already ceased to be orthodox, and could therefore, only be whispered, had fallen into low hands….It was, in face, just beginning to be perceived, that the ardour of the inflamed multitude is not to be tempered; and that the instigators of revolutions are rarely those who are destined to conclude them, or profit by them (Jensen 1940).” The founders of the new nation, and the writers of the Articles, knew that they would not win popular vote amongst the colonies by presenting a governing document that again called for centralized power similar to structure of Great Britain.  Instead, a new form of government should be created, one that gave more power to the individual states and concentrated on individual human rights.

Today it is possible to look back at the Articles of Confederation as an idealistic dream of men who wished to free humanity from the restraints that any form of centralized government is sure to assume.  However, it is also important to consider that maybe not enough time was given for the Articles and the new nation to grow into a healthy and functioning relationship.  With time, it is possible that the Articles of Confederation could have worked well for the United States, creating a truly unique form of government that gave more power to individuals focusing on human rights and state sovereignty.  Had the Articles remained the rule of law for longer than the 10 years, it is possible the United States of today would be a vastly different nation, one in which the centralized government took a backseat to state sovereignty.   The Founding Fathers made decisions for the new nation based on the politics of their time, trying to ensure a secure and lasting form of government that would work well into the future to guarantee as much rights and privileges as possible. In this aspect, the Articles of Confederation were successful in securing the new nation and paving the way for the system of government Americans have enjoyed for over 200 years.

References

Jensen, Merrill. (1940)  The Articles of Confederation: An Interpretation of the Social-Constitutional History of the American Revolution 1774-1781. Madison,Wisconsin: The University of Wisconsin Press

Mount, Steve (2010) Comparing the Articles and the Constitution. U.S. Constitution, Web. Retrieved July 9, 2010 from http://www.usconstitution.net/constconart.html

Rebman, Renee C. (2006) The Articles of Confederation Minneapolis, Minnesota: Compass Point Books. The Articles of Confederation, 1776. Web. Retrieved July 9, 2010 from http://www.usconstitution.net/articles.html

Wright, Robert K. Jr, MacGregor, Morris J. Jr. (1987) Soldier-statesman of the constitution.  Center of Military History, United States Army.  Web. Retrieved June 8, 2010 from http://www.history.army.mil/books/revwar/ss/ss-fm.htm