Articles of Confederation vs. the Constitution of 1787
This paper examines the key structural and philosophical differences between the Articles of Confederation and the United States Constitution of 1787. It traces how power shifted from individual states to a central federal government, analyzing changes in legislative structure, taxation authority, commerce regulation, and amendment ratification. The paper also explores the major compromises that enabled the Constitution's drafting, the Federalist and Anti-Federalist debate over ratification, and the role of the Bill of Rights in addressing concerns about federal tyranny. The author ultimately argues that the Constitution consolidated power in the hands of a central government at the expense of genuine state sovereignty, a tension that culminated in the Civil War.
- From State Sovereignty to Federal Authority: How the Constitution shifted power from states to federal government
- Key Structural Differences Between the Articles and the Constitution: Comparing representation, taxation, commerce, and amendment rules
- Compromises That Shaped the Constitution: Great Compromise, Northwest Ordinance, and sectional bargains
- The Federalist and Anti-Federalist Debate: Competing visions of central versus state power at ratification
- The Bill of Rights: Liberty or Political Compromise?: Madison's amendments as concession to Anti-Federalist opposition
- Conclusion: The Unresolved Tension Between Nation and States: Civil War as consequence of unresolved constitutional power struggle
✍️ How to write this paper — guide, tools & examples ▾
What makes this paper effective
- The paper moves systematically from structural comparison to political philosophy, giving the reader a clear progression from institutional mechanics to broader ideological stakes.
- It integrates primary sources (Federalist No. 6, Brutus No. 1) alongside secondary scholarship, grounding interpretive claims in historical evidence.
- The argument builds to a pointed thesis — that the Bill of Rights was ultimately a political concession rather than a genuine guarantee of decentralized power — which gives the paper a clear analytical edge beyond simple description.
Key academic technique demonstrated
The paper demonstrates comparative historical analysis: it places two founding documents side by side across multiple dimensions (legislative structure, taxation, commerce, amendment process) and then traces the long-term consequences of those differences. This technique allows the author to move from descriptive contrast to causal argument about how constitutional design shaped subsequent American political history.
Structure breakdown
The paper opens with a direct structural comparison of the two documents, then examines the compromises required to draft the Constitution. It shifts to the Federalist–Anti-Federalist ratification debate, evaluates the Bill of Rights as a response to Anti-Federalist concerns, and closes with a broader argument that the Constitution's consolidation of federal power was an enduring source of national conflict, evidenced by the Civil War. Each section builds on the previous one, moving from mechanics to ideology to historical consequence.
From State Sovereignty to Federal Authority
The differences between the Articles of Confederation and the Constitution of 1787 were significant. The former entrusted power to the individual states, while the latter relinquished the majority of power to the central federal government. This was evident in the way representation was established and legislation enacted. For example, under the Articles, Congress was unicameral — that is, consisting of one house. Under the Constitution, Congress was bicameral, consisting of a House of Representatives and a Senate. Although this arrangement was said to give more power to the states by allowing more state representatives into the government, in actuality it diluted the process of passing laws, making it far more bureaucratic (Freedman, 1993).
Essentially, the Articles gave sovereignty to the states, while the Constitution gave it to the collective group of states — that is, the nation — represented centrally by the federal government. It was, in other words, a difference of allotting power to one central government rather than to several individual governments. The Constitution still involved the state governments in the processes of the federal government, but the hierarchy was clear: the central government would hold a greater position of authority. This could be seen in the fact that the Articles provided no independent executive, while the Constitution did. It was also evident in the fact that the Articles granted no power of taxation to Congress, while the Constitution did — an ironic provision, since it was the issue of taxation that had led to the American Revolution in the first place (Morgan, 1967).
Key Structural Differences Between the Articles and the Constitution
The Articles gave Congress no authority over interstate or foreign commerce, whereas the Constitution granted Congress precisely that power. Under the Articles, each state received a single vote; the Constitution allocated votes in the bicameral Congress based on population in the House, and gave each state two representatives in the Senate. Regarding the ratification of amendments, the Articles required unanimous agreement among all states, while the Constitution required only three-fourths of the states to agree. Under the Articles, Congress's authority was explicitly stated; under the Constitution, authority was also implied — a provision that effectively allowed the central government to assume considerably more power over time.
Finally, under the Articles, the only government with authority over the people was the state government. Under the Constitution, there were effectively two governments — state and federal — thus doubling the authority and power that the United States wielded over its citizenry (Petersen, 2007). The strengths of the Articles were evident in the way they limited government from accumulating too much power over the Union. The weakness, from a centralist perspective, was that competing individual claims among the states produced confusion, disorder, and conflict. For example, the problem of westward expansion under old colonial charters was not something the Articles could effectively address, and arguments were made that a stronger central government was needed to resolve such disputes.
Compromises That Shaped the Constitution
The various states compromised in order to draft an effective Constitution. Large and small states came together in the Great Compromise of 1787 — also known as Sherman's Compromise or the Connecticut Compromise — which established that the legislative structure would be bicameral and would allow states to send representatives to Congress based on population (the House) and equal state standing (the Senate). For slave and free states, the issue of slavery was deeply contentious. To bring these states together under the Constitution, the Northwest Ordinance of 1787 was enacted, banning slavery in the Northwest Territory, which was considered federal property. The Mason-Dixon line was extended westward and marked the boundary between slave and free territory in the course of westward expansion.
For eastern and western states, the question of representation was paramount. Sherman's Great Compromise ensured that each state would have the same number of representatives in the Senate (two), while in the House the number of representatives would be determined by each state's population. This arrangement allowed smaller and larger states alike — in both the east and west — to be more proportionally represented and to participate in a government responsive to popular will.
Conclusion: The Unresolved Tension Between Nation and States
National and states' interests were not truly balanced by the Constitution and the Bill of Rights. The states continued to fight, and the greatest example is the Civil War — the near-inevitable outcome of the tensions set in motion by the ratification of the Constitution. Whether the issue was slavery or tariffs, the division of powers offered no permanent resolution, as there remained in the United States two fundamentally opposed wills. This clash of wills and ideology manifested in many forms, and whether the central government was issuing directives through its executive branch or individual states were acting independently, the underlying problem persisted: the consolidation of power that the Constitution had effected.
References
Amar, A. (1993). Anti-Federalists, The Federalist Papers, and the big argument for union. Harvard Journal of Law and Public Policy, 16, 111–123.
Brutus No. 1. (1787). Retrieved from http://www.constitution.org/afp/brutus01.htm
Federalist No. 6. (n.d.). Retrieved from http://avalon.law.yale.edu/18th_century/fed06.asp
Freedman, E. (1993). Why constitutional lawyers and historians should take a fresh look at the emergence of the Constitution from the Confederation period: The case of the drafting of the Articles of Confederation. Tennessee Law Review, 60, 783–826.
Morgan, E. (1967). The Puritan ethic and the American Revolution. The William and Mary Quarterly, 24(1), 3–43.
Petersen, F. (2007). Comparison of Constitution and Articles. Retrieved from http://ocw.usu.edu/university-studies/u-s-institutions/comparison-of-constitution-and-articles-of-confederation.html
Create your account
Always verify citation format against your institution’s current style guide requirements.