Confederation and Constitution The Articles of Confederation were ratified in 1781, and provided a fairly rudimentary framework for the governance of the new country. But the Articles left the U.S. mainly as a collection of states, with powers concentrated primarily at the state level. The central government's power was severely limited, and one of the results of this was a push for a stronger central government to strengthen the union. The Constitution of 1787 came out of that push. This paper will examine these two documents, noting strengths and weaknesses of each.

Articles of Confederation

The Articles framed the union as a "mutual friendship" among the states, but left the states with a high degree of sovereignty. Article 3 noted that warfare/national defense was one of the main points of central government, where the states would defend each other from external attacks. The Articles governed issues such as interstate commerce and trade, in addition to military matters.

There were several weak points in the Articles, however. For example, Article 4 noted that "the free inhabitants of each of these states...shall have free ingress and regress to and from any other state." This in theory extends the rights of all free people to all states, but those conditions did not work in the slave states, for example, which continued to violate this article for many decades to come. The status of Native Americans was not given any mention at all, whether they were considered free or what their status might be within the Union, whether living in one of the states or otherwise. The central government was granted power of Indians' Affairs, however, which more or less created a rather parochial relationship with the native population.

Western expansion was actually not mentioned directly in the Articles. Article 11 notes that "Canada acceding to this confederation...shall be admitted into...this Union, but no other colony shall be admitted...(unless) agreed to be nine...

They outlined in a few pages some basic items about how the states are to interact, and sketched out a somewhat limited role of Congress, dealing predominantly with trade and warfare, and little else. There really was no framework for anything involving human rights (slaves, Natives, etc.) nor was there mechanisms for governance beyond these limited Congressional powers.
The Constitution served to further define a lot about government, strengthening central government in a way that the Articles really could not do. The Constitution clarified the role of Congress, specifically enumerating Congressional authority, outlining electoral rules, to establish the rule of law, to build out postal and transportation infrastructure, to govern immigration, defining executive and judicial powers and more.

Some of the issues that were left on the table in the Articles remained unresolved by the Constitution as well. The Constitution still did not touch on human rights (the First Amendment was basically the start of that process), so issues like slavery, and Western expansion were unresolved. Expanding Congressional powers did lay out the framework for a stronger central government, and ensuring that there were rules for that government was an important step in the formation of a stronger nation. However, the powers that the Constitution granted still did not lay out the framework for any particular policies. The policies themselves would need to be resolved, using the powers that the Constitution elaborated to the three branches of government.

States' Rights

The issue of states' rights was a critical one during the debate…