ARTICLES OF CONFEDERATION vs. THE CONSTITUTION
There are major differences between the Articles of Confederation and the Constitution.
The Articles of Confederation had been in effect sine 1781. They established what could be referred to as a "league of friendship" and a quasi-constitution for the states that were sovereign and independent subsequent to the American Revolution. Those articles appeared to be "woefully inadequate" to James Madison. Madison believed that the central government had little power, while the states had considerable power. The central government was not able to tax, or set commercial power, nor could a war effort be effectively supported. It did not have the power to
settle disputes between the states. The central government was considerably weak in all aspects in light of the Articles of Confederation.
Something had to be done about this before a great economic disaster occurred. Congress attempted to function with a t
Inflation was at an all timehigh. They were tired of the British type of rule, but many were in favor of something similar to monarchy, only better. Yes, I agree that something had to be done about the Articles of Confederation, but as a new and growing nation, it was likely to experience growing pains. However, if I had known what Iknow now, I would not have supported the Constitution, because the federal government has entirely too much power and the states have too little in the 1990s. This nation is the best one in the world, although it is not without fault. TheConstitutional Convention was the means to fashion the new government of America into Madison's mold. The learned men that wrote the Constitution knew whatthey were doing and what they wished to accomplish. Had I been alive in the year the Constitution was submitted to the states, I can honestly say that I would have supported the ratification of the Constitution. Although the Constitution has since been amended and shall continue to be amended as situations arise, the original Constitution is a time-honored document to the necessity for having a people that is governed so that the states will not assume too great a power or leadership and economic resources can be shared. Although the delegates fought tooth and nail for their individualissues, there was a consensus that a central form of government was needed. To have one central government that provides checks and balances to the states is just what was needed at the time. When the delegates of the states met in Philadelphia, it was a momentous occasion.