The Articles of
Confederation and
the Constitution:
A Brief History
United States of America
Articles of
Confederation
Why did the Articles of Confederation fail?
I. Currency Issues
• The United States did not have a common currency.
• Americans carried money from
the federal government, state
government, and foreign nations.
• Merchants stopped accepting money from outside of their
own state, causing a lot of money to become worthless.
• This caused an increase in inflation.
Why did the Articles of Confederation fail?
II. Debt
• Congress could not tax the people and depended on money
from the states.
• Therefore, the U.S. was unable to pay its debts!
Examples:
- The U.S. owed money to France, Holland, and Spain for
loans made during the Revolutionary War.
- The U.S. had not paid many of their own soldiers!
Why did the Articles of Confederation fail?
III. International and Domestic Problems
• The U.S. lacked the
military power to defend
itself against Great Britain
and Spain.
• States acted as
individual countries and
seldom agreed.
Example:
- Connecticut and Virginia
almost went to war over
land claims!
Why did the Articles of Confederation fail?
President (Executive Branch)
• The nation did not have a
President, or Chief Executive.
•No enforcement of the
nation’s laws!
White House
Why did the Articles of Confederation fail?
Courts (Judicial Branch)
• The nation lacked a
national court system.
•No interpretation of the
national laws!
Supreme Court
Why did the Articles of Confederation fail?
Congress (Legislative Branch)
• Congress had one house. (unicameral)
• Laws were difficult to pass, needing the
approval of nine states.
• Congress was responsible to the states, not
the people.
• Congress had no power to collect taxes,
regulate trade, coin money, or establish a
Capitol
Capitol Building
military.
Building
"Video Professor"
Shays’ Rebellion
• Farmer’s income
decreased while taxes
increased.
•Federal government
failed to pay ex-soldiers
for their service
• Farmers who could not
pay their debts had their
farms taken away by the
courts.
•Many of these farmers
could not vote nor could
hold public office!
Massachusetts farmer
Daniel Shays and his
supporters occupy a
Massachusetts courthouse.
• Therefore, in 1786, Daniel Shays led a group of farmers in
an attempt to capture a federal arsenal.
Men Fighting
During Shays'
Rebellion
• The U.S., without an organized army, was powerless.
Massachusetts sent a militia to stop the rebellion.
• Shays’ Rebellion convinced many people that the U.S.
needed a new, stronger government.
• The Articles of Confederation needed to be replaced!
How did Shays’ Rebellion reflect the Articles’ weaknesses?
This is a picture of Daniel Shays grave in Scottsburg, NY.
Constitutional Convention: Philadelphia, 1787
•Delegates from all the states invited to a convention to
improve the Articles of Confederation, which were not
working (Rhode Island did not attend)
•
George Washington was elected president of the Convention.
•However,
it soon became clear that agreement on a new
Constitution would be difficult!
How did the Framers resolve the conflict between
large and small states?
Virginia Plan
- It called for a
bicameral
legislature, in
which the number
of representatives
in each house
would depend on
the population of
the state.
New Jersey Plan
- Both plans
called for a
strong
national
government
with 3
branches.
- It called for a
unicameral
legislature, in
which every state
received one vote.
Virginia Plan
- It called for a
bicameral legislature,
in which the number
of representatives in
each house would
depend on the
population of the
state.
New Jersey Plan
- Both plans
called for a
strong
national
government
with 3
branches.
- It called for a
unicameral
legislature, in
which every state
received one vote.
Great Compromise (Connecticut Plan)
• It provided for a bicameral Congress.
A. House of Representatives – each state is represented
according to its population (satisfied the VA Plan)
B. Senate – each state has 2 Senators (satisfied the NJ Plan)
* Both houses of Congress must pass every law.
How did the Framers resolve the conflict
between the Northern and Southern States?
Northern States
•
Diverse economy
–
–
•
Greater population than the South
•
Northern economy not dependent
on slave labor
•
Believed that tariffs (tax on
imported goods) were necessary
for American manufacturing to
proper
American goods cheaper than foreign
goods
Agricultural based economy
–
–
Fishing, farming, merchants, bankers,
manufacturing, etc.
Center of shipbuilding and trade
•
–
Southern States
Growing cotton, tobacco, indigo, etc.
Sold goods to Europe ; bought
manufactured goods from Europe
•
Smaller population than the North
•
Southern plantations grew
financially dependent on slave
labor to make their goods more
profitable
•
Believed that tariffs would
increase the cost of goods they
bought from Europe
–
Tariffs unfairly benefit the North
How did the Framers resolve the conflict
between the Northern and Southern States?
• Constitution gave Congress power
to place tariffs on imports and to
control interstate and foreign trade
– Southern Compromise
• The Southern states refused to
approve the Constitution unless
slavery continued.
– It was a terrible compromise to make,
but the Northern states had no choice if
they wanted a Constitution.
• 3/5th Compromise
– Made each slave worth 3/5 of a vote in
deciding numbers in House of
Representatives
• Congress can not ban the slave
trade until 1808.
Three-Fifths
Compromise
• In order to
determine the
population of
a state, only 3
out of every 5
slaves would
be counted.
So Now What?
• After much debate, the
Constitution was finally
signed in September 1787;
• It was then sent to the states
to be approved;
• Quickly, divisions arose over
how much power the federal
government should have.
– Political parties were formed to
debate the ratification of the
Constitution
“They [political parties] serve to organize faction, to give it an
artificial and extraordinary force; to put, in the place of the
delegated will of the nation, the will of a party, often a small but
artful and enterprising minority of the community.”
EVALUATE
What do you think Washington
meant by this quote? Does he
have a positive or negative outlook
on political parties? Explain by
using one of the themes:
-Unity/Disunity;
-Power; or
-Compromise.
Anti-Federalist Platform
• Thought the Constitution gave
the government too much
power
– The Constitution would create a
government with so much
power, it would just be like
having a king again.
• States should have more power
because they were closer to the
people…what could a national
government possibly know
about state and city problems?
• Also, there was no Bill of Rights
– nothing that said what people can
and cannot do.
Patrick Henry
George Mason
Federalists Platform
• Supported a new plan of
government known as the
Constitution.
• The Articles of Confederation
are too weak!
• The Constitution had a strong
sense of CHECKS AND
BALANCES, or a balance of
power between the three
branches of the national
government and the local and
state governments
• Strong federal government
protects against factions—the
oppression of the minority by
the majority
Alexander Hamilton
James
Madison
So…Do You Agree?
• What do you think…
– What is the danger with having a strong plan
of government?
– What’s better for the people – a strong
national government or a strong state
government?
– At this point…would you vote to approve the
Constitution as it is?
You have to wonder what the other side thinks…
So…Do You Agree?
• What do you think…
– Does the national government work fine the
way it is?
– Do we really need a Bill of Rights if everything
is so well done in the Constitution?
– At this point…would you vote to approve the
Constitution as it is?
Wonder what happens next…
Enter the “Fight”
• The Constitution needed 9 of the 13
states to approve it in order for it to
become law;
• Both sides (the Federalists and the
Anti-Federalists) tried to convince
people their side was correct
•After great debate, the states
finally ratified the Constitution…
only if there was a Bill of Rights
Enter the Bill of Rights
•
While Federalists didn’t think it was
really necessary, they agreed to add a
Bill of Rights so that both sides would
be happy;
•
The rights would be added as
amendments…meaning they were
seen as “official changes, corrections,
or additions”;
•
The Bill of Rights were based upon the
constitutions developed by the states;
•
There were a total of ten amendments
added…and they became known as
“The Bill of Rights”
Who Was Right?
• Which side had the best argument…the
Federalists or the Anti-Federalists?
• Why?
• Does the Constitution really need a Bill of
Rights? Why or why not?
• If you were alive back in 1787, how would
you vote?