This paper examines the transition from the Articles of Confederation to the Constitution of 1787, analyzing the structural and governmental weaknesses that made a new framework necessary. It identifies eleven major differences between the two documents, explores the competing Virginia and New Jersey Plans, and explains how the Connecticut Compromise and Three-Fifths Compromise resolved key disputes at the Constitutional Convention. The paper also surveys the ratification debate between Federalists and Anti-Federalists, with particular attention to Alexander Hamilton's arguments in Federalist No. 1 and John Hancock's opposition, which ultimately produced the Bill of Rights as a condition of ratification.
This study guide is drawn from PaperDue's library of 130,000+ paper examples across 47 subjects.
The paper demonstrates the technique of comparative historical analysis: it places two governing documents side by side, identifies their structural divergences, and then traces how specific political conflicts — competing state interests, the slavery question, fears of centralized power — drove each compromise that shaped the final Constitution. This approach connects document-level differences to broader political and economic causes.
The paper opens with historical context (post-Revolution debt and depression) before moving to a direct comparison of the two documents. It then narrows to the Constitutional Convention itself, examining the Virginia Plan, New Jersey Plan, and the two major compromises. A dedicated section covers the Federalist–Anti-Federalist ratification debate. A brief conclusion synthesizes the argument that the Constitution succeeded because it balanced national power with guaranteed individual and state rights.
This paper examines the replacement of the Articles of Confederation with the new Constitution of 1787. It considers the strengths and weaknesses of the Articles relative to the Constitution and provides specific instances that demonstrate the weaknesses of the Articles, with particular attention to their financial shortcomings.
Default and debt are an American tradition, and they were embraced with gusto in the days following the Revolution, when Dutch and French holders of American bonds found it impossible to receive regular payments on the Continental notes they held. Depression had also struck the new nation by the mid-1780s, raising questions about the nature of American democracy and the ability of the new government to function. Conservatives believed that the answer to the nation's problems lay in a stronger national government, while most radicals believed it was up to the states to relieve the financial burden on the people. These sentiments fostered a movement for a new constitution, and political differences soon stimulated the creation of political parties ("The Articles of Confederation," 2010).
The Articles of Confederation had many flaws, some potentially fatal. When the founders drafted a new Constitution in 1787, they identified many of these shortcomings and corrected them in the new federal framework. When the first convention was called in Annapolis in 1786, the founders initially sought only to alter and amend the Articles of Confederation. Few delegates appeared in Annapolis in September 1786 — only New York, New Jersey, Pennsylvania, Delaware, and Virginia sent representatives — which led the convention to merely recommend another convention for 1787. That recommended convention, held in Philadelphia, became the Convention that drafted the new Constitution ("Compare and Contrast," 2011).
In comparing and contrasting the two documents, eleven major differences existed between the Articles of Confederation and the Constitution. Though there are many distinctions, these are the most significant in how they brought about a change to the structure and power of both state and national governments. These differences transformed the United States from a loose collection of thirteen independent states into a nation of thirteen states that retained their individual sovereignty while also possessing a strong national government. The key areas of difference were:
The main questions addressed at the Constitutional Convention revolved around the controversies between the Virginia Plan and the New Jersey Plan, as well as the sectional conflicts between states — most notably the Three-Fifths Compromise — that had to be resolved in order to produce a workable constitution. Particular attention is due to Roger Sherman's plan, the Great Compromise, which broke the stalemate between the Virginia and New Jersey plans.
James Madison drafted the Virginia Plan. It proposed a strong national government that would make laws, enforce them, and collect taxes. The people would be governed by two systems — national and state. Both houses of the legislative body would feature proportional representation, meaning that the more people a state had, the more representatives it would receive in the legislature. Larger states favored this plan; had it been adopted without modification, smaller states would have had virtually no voice in the government. In the contrasting New Jersey Plan, the legislature had only one house with equal representation, giving smaller states the same power as larger ones. The New Jersey Plan was ultimately rejected as the basis for a new constitution ("Virginia & New Jersey Plans," 1997).
The Connecticut Compromise was an agreement that large and small states reached during the Constitutional Convention of 1787, partly defining the legislative structure and representation that the states would have under the Constitution. It retained the bicameral legislature proposed by James Madison and proportional representation in the lower house, but required the upper house to be weighted equally among the states (Langley, 2012). The Three-Fifths Compromise was a separate agreement reached between Northern and Southern states at the Philadelphia Convention of 1787, in which three-fifths of the enumerated population of slaves would be counted for representation purposes with regard to both the distribution of taxes and the apportionment of members of the House of Representatives ("The Three-Fifths Compromise," 2011).
The Constitution is a document of compromise. It allows for both state and national power in a balanced manner. The old government under the Articles of Confederation was weak and unable to manage the financial and political pressures facing the young nation. The Constitution made the national government more powerful, but it guaranteed the rights of the states and the people through the Bill of Rights, satisfying opponents such as John Hancock and making ratification possible.
You’re 76% through this paper. Sign up to read the remaining 1 section.
Sign Up Now — Instant Access Already a member? Log inAlways verify citation format against your institution’s current style guide requirements.