payment page
How did state constitutions reflect the struggle between tradition and change?
The founding fathers were clearly influenced by the traditions and habits of the past while also wanting to create a new form of government based on the republican values that arose during the revolution. One example of this tension playing out with tradition wining out was in the formation of state constitutions. Despite the chance to radically alter the form of government, states usually maintained the practices of the past, including establishing bicameral legislatures (a direct parallel to the structure of British Parliament) and maintaining property ownership as a necessity for voters and office holders.
What were the main ideas behind the Articles of Confederation?
In 1777, America’s leading politicians understood powerful governments could become stifling and oppressive. In the Declaration of Independence, Thomas Jefferson had outlined King George III’s “long train of abuses” against the colonies: unfair and unpopular taxes, quartering acts, and other punishments. With these abuses fresh in mind, the framers of the Articles decided that the United States should be only a loose confederation of 13 nearly independent members. They believed that this structure would bind the states for common defense but would allow republicanism to flourish in smaller communities. The Articles therefore created a national Congress with the power to maintain armies, declare war and peace, govern western lands, and resolve interstate disputes, but lacking the power to levy direct taxes. Each state was given one vote, and most decisions were to be made by majority rule.
How did “radicals” and “conservatives” differ over the new confederation of states?
In the language of the time, “radicals” believed that the confederation should protect the sovereign rights of states while providing a Congress to provide for common defense, and “conservatives” argued for sovereignty in the hands of a strong central government.
Did the Articles of Confederation more reflect the “radical” or “conservative” beliefs?
The “radicals” mostly got their way in the Articles of Confederation, which placed the balance of power in the state governments. “Radicals” did not believe the central government should have the right to tax or to regulate commerce or have supreme authority over the states. Their triumph would prove short-lived, however, as the Constitution adopted a few years later would see “conservative” view come out on top.
Why was each state having one vote in Congress the Articles significant?
By giving each state a single vote in Congress, the Articles of Confederation implied that each state was its own sovereign government, and that the national government did not directly reflect the mass of all the people in the country. If the Articles had dictated that representation in Congress be based on the population of each state, it would imply that sovereignty lay with the national government rather than the states.
The equal vote also avoided the potentially difficult and divisive issue of slavery and different size states. If votes in congress had been based on population, then the states would have disagreed about the way to count slaves. Non-slave states would have insisted that they not be counted towards representation and slave states would have insisted that they do. Additionally, larger states would have had an advantage over smaller states, which already worried about being economically disadvantaged. Overall, giving each state one vote in Congress was in line with the “radical” perspective and avoided the contentious issues of slavery and state size. However, these issues would resurface and be dealt with by the U.S. Constitution.
How effective was Congress under the Articles of Confederation?
Afraid of strong centralized government after the Revolutionary War, the drafters of the Articles of Confederation made sure that the federal government would never be able to strip power from the individual states. As a result, the national Congress was so weak and politically ineffective that it was unable to maintain national unity and went virtually bankrupt. The specter of rebellion and collapse forced American elites to create a stronger, more centralized government under the Constitution.
What were the main failures of the Articles of Confederation?
Although the confederation looked good on paper to its framers, it proved to be wholly ineffective. First, since Congress had virtually no power to control the states, commerce and territorial disputes erupted throughout the decade during which the Articles were in effect. Second, Congress, unable to levy taxes of its own, could only request money from the individual states. Many states, however, refused to pay. Finally, growing domestic unrest among the working classes, which reached a peak in Shays’s Rebellion, convinced wealthier Americans that the Articles had to be amended, if not replaced.
How did Shays’s Rebellion reflect the failures of the Articles of Confederation?
Shays’s rebellion demonstrated the problems with the state and national governments under the Articles of Confederation. In an effort to quickly repay all state debts, the Massachusetts state legislature sharply increased taxes while demanding immediate repayment of all debts. Daniel Shays followed democratic procedures to protest these measures through petition. When his pleas were ignored, he claimed that his rights were being abused and took up arms, declaring “no taxation without representation.”
To many, this demonstrated the corruption of democracy in a state government unwilling to bend to the will of its constituents. Furthermore, Shays’s insurrection lasted for many months before a state militia suppressed it. This demonstrated the weakness of the national government to suppress rebellion from within. The overall impact of this event was to convince many of the need for a new system of government that would prevent similar incidents. Many agreed on the need for a strong national government that would have the authority to assume the debts of the states, to tax, and to be the final appeal in all cases of injustice. These items were all integrated into the Constitution.
