Transition from the Articles of Confederation to the Constitution: Reasons and Effects
From the Articles to the Constitution
It is understood that the US Constitution was written to form a more centralized form of government, a federation, which could protect and regulate the rights of the US citizens. While the Articles of Confederation was avoiding this type of government affected by the British experience, the constitution encouraged it. The main difference between these two documents is the balance and centralization of powers. How did the constitution change the role of national government in the life of US citizens?
The first generation of American leaders, namely those who guided the American system and the American people through the trials of rebellion and independence, were pretty certain that a confederation type of union was the preferable option. The Articles of Confederation made it abundantly clear that the main power would stay in the hands of the states. Under the Articles, the central government would have no authority to raise a standing army. When an army was needed, it would call upon the states to form up their militia units and dispatch them to an appointed place. A formula would determine how many troops each state would be obligated to supply. The same procedure applied to the question of taxes and revenues. If the central government wanted money, it would issue a call to the states to contribute according to a specific formula again. The main point was that the actual authority to levy taxes or to maintain armed men stayed with the states and as long as everyone worked in a cooperative spirit, all would be well. Which brings me to the question: what if one state, at a certain point, could not provide the required money or armed forces because of internal lacking of these resources?
There were other ways in which the power of the states was stated and the confederation type of structure was emphasized under the Articles. The original Congress of the United States was founded on the principle that each state was the equal
It is understood that the US Constitution was written to form a more centralized form of government, a federation, which could protect and regulate the rights of the US citizens. While the Articles of Confederation was avoiding this type of government affected by the British experience, the constitution encouraged it. The main difference between these two documents is the balance and centralization of powers. How did the constitution change the role of national government in the life of US citizens?
The first generation of American leaders, namely those who guided the American system and the American people through the trials of rebellion and independence, were pretty certain that a confederation type of union was the preferable option. The Articles of Confederation made it abundantly clear that the main power would stay in the hands of the states. Under the Articles, the central government would have no authority to raise a standing army. When an army was needed, it would call upon the states to form up their militia units and dispatch them to an appointed place. A formula would determine how many troops each state would be obligated to supply. The same procedure applied to the question of taxes and revenues. If the central government wanted money, it would issue a call to the states to contribute according to a specific formula again. The main point was that the actual authority to levy taxes or to maintain armed men stayed with the states and as long as everyone worked in a cooperative spirit, all would be well. Which brings me to the question: what if one state, at a certain point, could not provide the required money or armed forces because of internal lacking of these resources?
There were other ways in which the power of the states was stated and the confederation type of structure was emphasized under the Articles. The original Congress of the United States was founded on the principle that each state was the equal