Written in 1787, the United States Government defines the Constitution as the “supreme law of the United States,” providing the framework of our national government, laws, and basic freedoms we see today However, by the end of the Revolutionary War in 1776 up until 1787, Congress originally operated under the Articles of Confederation. Considering that the Articles of Confederation got the young nation through its war with England, over time, it was soon realized that this first governing document wasn’t of much use when it finally came down to running an entire country. Under the Articles of Confederation, Congress was very limited on what it could actually do, which furthered our nation’s difficulties politically and financially. Thus, as states exercised more power, the federal government became too weak, and Shay’s Rebellion in 1786 and 1787, among other circumstances, ultimately catalyzed the call to action to establish a more powerful central government (Roark). At the 1787 Constitutional Convention, the Constitution was created to revise the initial government under the Articles, and upon its reception, according to the essay “To Form a More Perfect Union,” the Constitution “provoked a great deal of resistance” (American Memory). Such reception by Federalists and Anti-Federalists was understandable given the circumstances at the time— in which debates over its ratification was the culmination of the young nation’s own struggle of trying to establish its identity, experimentation, as well as the situation being among the first of its kind.
…show more content…
Truly, as this is a groundbreaking period in the United States, it is safe to say that both the Constitution and the American Revolution have equally set a starting point for American History, though in their own way. Simply, in that the American Revolution had ideas, and the Constitution proposed changes— as a whole, both points were pursued for the sake of liberty. Further, by examining the circumstances leading up to the document’s creation, in addition to comparing the ideology of the Constitution and the American Revolution, will bring better understanding to how truly revolutionary this 227-year old governing document was to our national foundation. Firstly, to better understand the main goals that the Constitution defined, it is imperative to bring focus to the context of what led to the drafting of the constitution, more particularly, through the differences between the Articles and the Constitution. Adopted by the Second Continental Congress on November 15th, 1777, the Articles of Confederation was the United States’ first form of government consisting of a sovereignty upon the 13 States, and a unicameral legislature of one vote per state, with no system of federal courts and no executive branch (Roark). According to the essay, “To Form a More Perfect Union,” the Articles government was a reflection of a national concern for tyranny and executive power, and this proved severely troublesome over time through Congress’ inability to get things done. To begin, Congress did not have direct power to regulate foreign and interstate trade, and more importantly, Congress did not have direct power to tax in order to appropriate funds to establish national treasury and recover from debt (American Memory). There was also a severe lack of state support, and as a result, Congress commandeered very little respect from the States. So much so as to the point where in the sending the Treaty of Paris, (which required at least a “quorum of nine out of the 13 states present,”) ratifying the treaty was delayed for years due to the states’ “lackadaisical attendance” on the matter (American Memory). At the same time, all major policies in regards for the economy, treaties, and foreign relations under the Articles required a supermajority approval of the states as well, and amending the government required a unanimous vote of the 13 states. These weaknesses are important to acknowledge in context to the Constitution because it presents arguments for how the document can be revolutionary, as well as counter-revolutionary. As it was mentioned over Professor Igou’s lecture on the Articles of Confederation and the Constitution, “revolution is reconstruction.” Though as some can argue that the counter-revolutionary merits of the Constitution lies within its reconstruction through its interest being more contrary to the people and states, through
Truly, as this is a groundbreaking period in the United States, it is safe to say that both the Constitution and the American Revolution have equally set a starting point for American History, though in their own way. Simply, in that the American Revolution had ideas, and the Constitution proposed changes— as a whole, both points were pursued for the sake of liberty. Further, by examining the circumstances leading up to the document’s creation, in addition to comparing the ideology of the Constitution and the American Revolution, will bring better understanding to how truly revolutionary this 227-year old governing document was to our national foundation. Firstly, to better understand the main goals that the Constitution defined, it is imperative to bring focus to the context of what led to the drafting of the constitution, more particularly, through the differences between the Articles and the Constitution. Adopted by the Second Continental Congress on November 15th, 1777, the Articles of Confederation was the United States’ first form of government consisting of a sovereignty upon the 13 States, and a unicameral legislature of one vote per state, with no system of federal courts and no executive branch (Roark). According to the essay, “To Form a More Perfect Union,” the Articles government was a reflection of a national concern for tyranny and executive power, and this proved severely troublesome over time through Congress’ inability to get things done. To begin, Congress did not have direct power to regulate foreign and interstate trade, and more importantly, Congress did not have direct power to tax in order to appropriate funds to establish national treasury and recover from debt (American Memory). There was also a severe lack of state support, and as a result, Congress commandeered very little respect from the States. So much so as to the point where in the sending the Treaty of Paris, (which required at least a “quorum of nine out of the 13 states present,”) ratifying the treaty was delayed for years due to the states’ “lackadaisical attendance” on the matter (American Memory). At the same time, all major policies in regards for the economy, treaties, and foreign relations under the Articles required a supermajority approval of the states as well, and amending the government required a unanimous vote of the 13 states. These weaknesses are important to acknowledge in context to the Constitution because it presents arguments for how the document can be revolutionary, as well as counter-revolutionary. As it was mentioned over Professor Igou’s lecture on the Articles of Confederation and the Constitution, “revolution is reconstruction.” Though as some can argue that the counter-revolutionary merits of the Constitution lies within its reconstruction through its interest being more contrary to the people and states, through