There is a stark contrast between the
two documents in question and the difference begins with the first lines of
each. As this essay is written, we shall hit on several key points of variation
between the two documents. What political motives or events drove the latter to
be written? As well what in the political winds led to The Articles
abandonment? What is Sovereignty?
Finally describing The Articles’ weaknesses compared to the strengths of the
Constitution.
In
the very first phrases of each Document, The Preamble, you can see a huge difference between them. The articles read as follows: “To all to whom these Presents
shall come, we the undersigned Delegates of the States affixed to our Names
send greeting. Whereas the Delegates of the United States of America in
Congress assembled did on the fifteenth day of November in the Year of our Lord
One Thousand Seven Hundred and Seventy seven, and in the Second Year of the
Independence of America, agree to certain articles of Confederation and
perpetual Union between the States of New Hampshire, Massachusetts-bay, Rhode
Island and Providence Plantations,
Connecticut, New York, New Jersey, Pennsylvania, Delaware, Maryland, Virginia,
North Carolina, South Carolina and Georgia, in the words following…” Those
words stink a bit of rich land owners having rights others will not by way of
“to all those whom these presents” as if the nation had just been split for the
wealthy alone. Also the mention of “plantations” is probably the first example
of “corporate personhood” I have seen. They are not recognizing the people in
out-lying communities, but plantations from which great wealth came to the
colonial elites. The articles also lay out state by state sovereignty vs.
national sovereignty of the United States as a whole. John Dickenson was a bit
short sighted it appears. As this seems to be more of a document by those who
were privileged under British rule and wanted to regain that status by
centralizing power.
By contrast we have the Preamble of the U.S.
Constitution, a lot more inclusive speech it seems, “We the People of the United
States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure
domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general
Welfare, and secure the Blessings of
Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this
Constitution for the United States of America.” This is a bit more inclusive for all who fought to gain this
nation. No speaking of delegates, plantations or other business interests, but
the people and how this will be a land of equality and opportunity. Finally
instead of referring to the document as a loose collection of states, they
called it The United States of America. Implying we had overcome the first
state by state isolationist sentiment held by some.
Some
of the perceived weaknesses of the Articles were as follows: Each state has one
vote toward anything regardless of population. Congress had no taxation power
(and we all know that is the main reason Government is ever created). Congress
had no powers over commerce; either interstate or international meaning one
part of the nation could tank another by dropping prices on a product. There
was no executive branch for enforcement, probably because we feared another
king situation. There was no national Court system to insure even justice.
Amendments required all members to vote yes, and laws required a 9/13ths
majority (not really accounting for future growth). The Congress had full power over foreign affairs,
questions of war and peace and disputes between the states, Indian affairs, and
the postal service, as well as government of the western territories. They
could actually print money and decide the weights and measures. However, it had
no power to enforce resolutions or ordinances. Administrative duties were often
assigned to committees, members were often overworked; John Adams served on 80
different committees for example.
The
political turmoil at the time was the Revolutionary War. Considering it was
fought between 1775 and 1783 The Articles of Confederation seemed to be more a
Document to show a bit of togetherness without much legal teeth to enforce it
in the long run. Agreed to by Congress November 15, 1777; ratified and working
by March 1, 1781. This all occurred while boots were on U.S. soil and trying to
force the colonies back under the crown. The Colonies had been through battle
after battle; Thomas Paine had released Common
Sense, and after many defeats at the hands of the British it seems after
the second Battle of Saratoga in October of 1777 when General Burgoyne
surrendered his army may have played a role because within a few short months
the articles appeared and were ratified. It seems as though a fair document was
drafted for the first attempt, and it tried to show there would be teeth in the
new Colonial Government even if they could not tax for war efforts or conscript
fighters but had to requisition (Bill or ask) monies for the standing army. Washington
posed his issues with an inactive Congress many times and especially in during
his time at Valley Forge when a significant amount of soldiers were lost to
illness, disease, freezing to death and just leaving because they were starting
to believe this was indeed a lost cause. As the General tasked with feeding and
arming a force trying to defeat what amounted to the greatest military forces
on earth at the time was tantamount to suicide without Congress helping with
supplies and moneys. These circumstances even led Washington’s army to have to
steal from locals wherever they went; calling it “helping the effort” they took
livestock, food, supplies and anything else they needed including the boats for
the famous Delaware ride.
By
1778 and the Alliance Treaty with France, things were turning in a different
direction. Many battles all over the nation made people everywhere get
involved. By 1780 most of the major battling in the North had settled down, and
by 1783 we signed the second Paris Treaty ending the war. This may surely be
speculation but I often wonder if the Shay’s rebellion (and the many like it
during this time) or the Annapolis Convention had anything to do with the
changes being expedited. I know Shay’s brought to the forefront the Federal
Governments inability to call troops into action on a needed and fast
basis. I also wonder if the State meetings
at Annapolis’s failure to come to any resolution were a big reason another
Philadelphia Congress was called to get a “new” way started immediately that
would be more inclusive and give the Fed more power to both help and tax the
nation. Those seem like legit reasons to scrap an idea and start fresh, beyond
the obvious one that we had just earned our independence and it was time for us
to write a set of laws JUST for us.
Now
we discuss the topic of Sovereignty. As a definition we have discussed it is a
government setting up and controlling things inside its own borders without
outside interference from others. I would hope anyone who has looked in the
least bit at the two documents in question, would understand the differences in
the call for Sovereignty between them. First the Articles of Confederation, “Article 2: 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.” I am not
sure I can put it into more layman’s terms than that which is stated in plain
words. The Federal Government structure of the Articles leaves everything up to
the states and a set of judges for disputes. Unless of course you can obtain
that 100% amendment level or that 9/13 ratification of new laws level, both of
which are a bit heavy.
However, sovereignty is
expressed in a few spots in the Constitution. Section ten and Section nine spell
out in great detail what each has the power to do and who will answer to whom
for each cause. Article two gives the newly create “President” powers. Article
three lays out our Judiciary. Article four is full faith and credit, along with
how new states will be admitted to the union. Article six says the Fed does Treaties,
not individual states. Then you have a Bill of Rights promising people within
those states “certain unalienable rights” to which they must agree to be part
of the United States. Obviously the Constitution was a more thought out
Document to cater to the whole of the nation, and not just the singular idea of
one man. We would be United, or as Abe stated in the Illinois State House “A
house divided against itself surely cannot stand” Springfield, Illinois. June 16, 1858.
Finally, the organizational
principles of each Document were pretty well covered above, but we can revisit.
The articles lay out a lose nit group of “States” and how they are agreeing to
some basic rules with not a lot of teeth behind them. This move seems to have
been more out of a necessity to show the wealthy and those of “stance and
substance” there indeed was a plan when this whole Revolution business started
and it was just 12 colonies following one to total disaster with nothing in
mind for the greater good. However, to convince pocket strings as you must now,
you must play to their needs as well as the needs of others and often times put
them ahead of others… we see this with the “Providence Plantation” set of
words. Plantations were where the money was then, so leaders had to show “a
heart for money”, especially since that is one thing both documents spell out,
printing money. However, as you move to the United States Constitution, you can
see some forethought, and time taken to hash out most of the really important
ideals of the day. The Bill of Rights is for all states, they do not choose
which. Articles two and three lay out the Presidential powers and obligations
as well as the duties of a Judiciary branch. Four speaks of the relationship
each state will have with the Fed collectively, and the Fed is to be trusted,
along with crimes between states and how criminals will be treated, as well as
extradition. Five speaks to ratification
of amendments with two-thirds/ National Conventions etc… Six speaks to Supreme
Law, all treaties and national laws are iron clad. Number seven is how all this
will be ratified. Then when you move into Amendment numbers nine and ten you
see that we move into the unenumerated rights and reserved powers. Those seemed
to be moved back into the Bill of Rights due to Anti-Federalist persistence in
making these people’s rights and not governmental rights. The Supreme Court has
found that unenumerated rights include such important rights as the right to
travel, the right to vote, the right to keep personal matters private and to
make important decisions about one's health care or body. Number ten tried to
spell out “reserved powers” for Congress a few years after the initial signing
reserved powers has been in question as well but has been determined by the Supreme
court to be laws affecting
family relations, commerce that occur within a state's own borders, and local
law enforcement activities, are among those specifically reserved to the states
or the people.
In summary it should be seen that the Constitution was a
great leap forward from the Articles of Confederation. One was a bit cobbled
together to show certain groups of people there was a reason to continue to
support a cause. The other was when said cause was won, and it was time to
draft a new national document for all people to be able to look too for rights,
laws and the ease of which we should be able to deal with and maintain a
Federal Government. I sometimes think it would be nice if we harken back to
this document once in a great while and just see what is written instead of
putting our own politics on the Founders’ ideals.
Great work!
ReplyDelete