Difference Between The Articles Of Confederation And The Constitution

1617 Words7 Pages

Throughout the annals of history, the advocation for a democratic government has been at the forefront of many prosperous, well known societies. From Ancient Greece, to countries that have based their prosperity on democracy, like the United States for instance, popular sovereignty has been the contributing factor that integrates the common man into the government in which they are encapsulated. In the context of the American Independence movement, the need for American people to rule by their own terms meant the difference between being the slaves of a tyrannical leader, or the people belonging to a free society. The recalcitrant Americans fought against the unruly British in order to gain this independence. The document that initially gave …show more content…

In the Articles of Confederation, the assumption was that each state would adhere to the principle that they would be in a “firm league of friendship” (Art of Conf. Art III). This did not prohibit majority of power though. This, instead, assumed that the states would adhere to this belief, and that the government would be based upon this trust system enacted by the Articles of Confederation. The Constitution, therefore, dictated that there would be three governmental bodies: the Legislative, the Executive, and the Judicial. This was the measure that people like James Madison and John Jay took so that the states would not be ruled by one supreme government, they would instead spread the power out into three different sections of government. This is called limits on power, and the Constitution used limits on power to assure the American people that there would be no, one, overarching leader, which kept the democratic society, but with regulations so that the states would not be bound to a trust system. The Constitution instilled a greater sense of protection within the United States because of this. In the Articles of Confederation, the power was held by the heads of states, and moreover, by the central leaders of those states. This could represent a problem, in that, there …show more content…

In 1783, America officially gained that creed. Initiating that freedom was a document called the Articles of Confederation. Ratified in 1781. this document represented the freedom that the Americans had obtained, and the measures that they would enforce to create that ideal democratic society. Although this document seemed to be the solution to all of their problems, this document became surrounded by contention in the late 1780’s. The argument arose that of whether the American society should be ruled over by a centralized government, or state led. In 1789, another document was ratified, replacing the Articles of Confederation, named the Constitution. People such as James Madison, quoted saying: “the powers delegated by the proposed Constitution to the Federal Government are few and defined. Those which are to remain in state governments are numerous and indefinite” (Madison, 45), argue that the constitution would protect the liberties that of the people, while making a more centralized government. On the other hand, people such as Patrick Henry, quoted saying: “The rights of conscience, trial by jury, liberty of the press, all your immunities and franchises, all pretensions to human rights and privileges, are rendered insecure, if not lost, by this change” (Henry) , argue that the introduction of the Constitution would bring

Open Document