To what extent was the United States Constitution a radical departure from the Articles of Confederation?
In 1781, during the late stages of the Revolutionary War, the Articles of Confederation were officially approved by all states as the first governmental structure of the new nation. However, created as a wartime document, the Articles proved insufficient in addressing the economic and political concerns arising during peacetime. In 1787, state delegates formulated the United States Constitution, which put forth a federalist governmental structure with a strong national government. To determine the extent to which the Constitution radically departed from the Articles of Confederation, one must consider the components of the Constitution and its ratification. Although the Constitution marked a shift in power from the states to the national government, it was not a radical departure from the Articles in its objectives and established policies; rather, it was a necessary revision to better uphold the Articles’ goals, as can be seen by the public support for the Constitution.
The objectives of the Constitution resembled those of the Articles and embraced federalism with a stronger central authority to better achieve these goals. The “Articles of Confederation and Perpetual Union” was proposed and written by Richard Henry Lee and John Dickinson, respectively, to unite the nation as “an association of sovereign states.” However, because the Articles reflected the widespread hatred for tyrannical central power at the time, an impotent central government was created, failing to establish the perpetual union of the sovereign states as intended. Under the Articles, the national government lacked many essential powers such as enforcing taxes, settling domestic and foreign disturbances, and executing nationwide laws; without an overseeing power, each state prioritized its interests and began to disunite. For instance, states created “barriers and tariffs between states” and built their own “transportation and trading systems.” To fix the emerging political and economical problems from this disunity, state delegates gathered at the Constitutional Convention, where they created and signed the Constitution. Under this Constitution, defined as the “supreme Law of the Land,” the central government could now execute enumerated powers such as regulating foreign and interstate commerce and enforcing the direct tax, marking the sudden creation of a strong, centralized system of governance., Despite this change, the objectives of the Constitution, “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,” was nearly identical to those established in the Articles, to form “a firm league of friendship [between the states], for their common defense, the security of their liberties, and their mutual and general welfare.”, This illustrates that the objectives of the two documents aligned, and that creation of a stronger national authority in the Constitution was not a radical difference, but a means to better meet the Articles’ original intentions. Within these objectives, continuous debates and compromises led to organizational policies of the Constitution that set limits on the strengthened federal government to uphold the Articles’ values.
Though the U.S. Constitution created a stronger national authority, compromises and federal limitations made sure that the Constitution’s established policies still valued the Articles’ focus on state sovereignty and prevention of tyranny. Because general consensus from state delegates was needed to make the Constitutional Convention a success, self-interested states contributed to each policy to create compromises that protected state sovereignty. One such compromise was the Great Compromise. The first proposal of the Constitution’s legislative structure, the Virginia Plan, laid its foundations on James Madison’s ideals for a national government that was “stronger than the states” and “drew power from people, not states,” radically differing from the valuing of state sovereignty in the Articles. However, this departure did not fully translate to the Constitution due to opposition from smaller states who predicted their loss in power, leading to the Great Compromise: an establishment of a bicameral legislature to allow representation from both the states and the people. Additionally, to gain support from the Southern states, the Constitution omitted the words “slave” and “slavery” and reached the 3/5th Compromise that assumed the inferiority of the black population, thus avoiding the issue of slavery and race in a similar manner to the Articles. Therefore, these compromises reduced potentially radical differences between the two documents. Furthermore, limitations were placed on the federal government to prevent tyranny, aligning with the Articles’ values. For example, the President, despite his powerful position, had to be elected by an Electoral College and could be removed from office through impeachment. Moreover, the Constitution limited the federal authority to its enumerated powers, thus preventing the central government from dominating all issues. Although the elastic clause did provide some flexibility to this limitation, the 10th Amendment made clear that the remaining powers would be reserved for the states and the people., Such include states’ powers to assume the rights of their citizens, ratify amendments, and elect senators., After these compromises and limitations were settled, the Constitution was signed by the majority of the delegates at the convention. By accepting the new system of government, these delegates confirmed that the Constitution’s policies did not threaten previously established objectives. Furthermore, even the public, who had been unaware of the creation of the Constitution, shared similar positive sentiments, allowing a smooth ratification and implementation process.
The smooth transition of the nation under the Articles of Confederation to the Constitution suggests that the public considered the new government as a necessary change, not a radical departure. To start, the Constitution was ratified and officially adopted in a short amount of time. The ratification of nine states was necessary to adopt the Constitution and the remaining four states was reached less than two years after the Constitutional Convention while the Articles took nearly four years. At this time, fear of tyranny, one of the major Anti-federalist arguments, remained in the minds of the people, so this relatively quick transition shows that the public viewed the Constitution as necessary and trustworthy, not radical. During this process, peaceful and democratic measures like the Federalist Papers written by John Jay, James Madison, and Alexander Hamilton were used to persuade the opposition to the Constitution. The lack of violent outbreaks between the Federalists and the Anti-federalists further illustrates that the changes were controversial yet acceptable. Moreover, support for the Constitution came from not only the cities that would benefit from the new Constitutional establishments like national commerce, but also from “urban artisans, laborers, and sailors that hoped for the revival of the ‘depressed economy,’” once again illustrating the positive public sentiments towards the Constitution as a necessary revision of the Articles instead of a radical departure.
The creation and implementation of the Constitution marked the nation’s transition from an alliance of states to serve wartime needs to a balanced and powerful republic. Though the national authority was greater in the Constitution, this difference was not radical because it was necessary to carry out the objectives of the Articles. Furthermore, the organizational policies of the Constitution aligned with these objectives through compromises and federal limitations. Due to this limited deviation from the Articles, the Constitution successfully gained support from the public and underwent a smooth ratification process. The success of the Constitution in replacing the Articles allowed its longevity through times of war and peace in the United States until the present day.
