Articles Of Confederation Vs Unifying The Constitution

479 Words2 Pages

In the beginning before the Constitution and before the Articles of the Confederation, there was no law or identity to the United States. We were independent but had no centralized government. The colonists didn’t want a strong government because they were breaking away from a strong government and didn’t want to have a government as powerful as Brittan, so they created the Articles of the Confederation, (The confederation being the original 13 colonies) this was essentially the rough draft for the Constitution and was ratified in 1781. Since the Articles were weak it was only used to decide final decisions among the states, make treaties-alliances, and to create currency. Many opposed the articles, many were farmers whose land had been taken away and ultimately led to …show more content…

The Constitution had a much stronger centralized government, which enforced democracy. The Constitution was created for the people, to secure the natural born rights, like the freedom of speech. In 1787, the Constitutions final text was finished and was said to have been about 4,200 words in length and on the final day of the Constitutional Convention in 1787 Benjamin Franklin said “I agree to this Constitution with all its faults, if they are such because I think a central government is necessary for us… I doubt too whether any other Convention we can obtain may be able to make a better Constitution.” Soon after the colonies including Delaware, Pennsylvania, New Jersey, Georgia, and Connecticut ratified the constitution, but many states including Massachusetts opposed the constitution because it was said to have lacked reserved undelegated powers to the states and constitutional protection of basic political rights. In 1788, they put their ideas together and they all agreed to put amendments into the constitution. After this agreement the constitution was ratified in Massachusetts, followed by Maryland and South

Open Document