Articles of Confederation or the Constitution?
Ever hear someone say that taxation is not constitutional? Or hear them argue that our Founders didn’t want a stronger central government? Those arguments happen a lot when people get the Articles of Confederation and the US Constitution mixed up.
What was the Articles of Confederation?
In short, the Articles of Confederation was the US’s first Constitution. From 1781-1789, the Articles of Confederation served as the written document that bound the 13 Colonies together. It was drafted in 1776 and first ratified by Virginia in 1777.
At its core, it represents some of the reasons for the US Revolution, and understanding it can help you understand some of the things the Constitution does.
What did it do?
It established a “league of friendship” among the 13 Colonies and promised that each state would basically retain its own sovereignty.
You may remember the “no taxation without representation” slogan. That basically had influencer status over the creation of the Articles of Confederation, which did not give the federal government the power to tax or really to enforce laws.
Why did it fail?
I don’t like taxes either, but I do like America (and schools, and fire departments, and roads that don’t have potholes). But it turns out, when you tell people they don’t have to pay taxes, well, they don’t pay taxes.
In short, the government was broke. There were little insurrections around the country because the federal government could not pay its revolutionary war debts. This lead to things like the Shays’ Rebellion (or the Whiskey Rebellion) in Massachusetts, where a bunch of veterans in Western Massachusetts were getting short-changed by a economic ruling class in Eastern Massachusetts (which is pretty typical of Massachusetts politics)
The Constitutional Convention met in 1878 in Philadelphia to straighten things out. Soon, they realized it was too far gone and decided to draft a new constitution. But who seriously expected a bunch of people who had just fought a revolution to meet up and follow the rules?
Quickly the delegates broke up into two main camps: The Federalists and the Anti-federalists. Their arguments about how much power government should have and what forms that power should take are still major sticking points in US politics today.
Who were the Anti-federalists?
The Anti-federalists you’ve probably heard of are Samuel Adams (yes, the beer guy), George Mason, James Monroe, and Patrick Henry. Lots of Virginians here, and not for the last time do you see our political and legal questions break down by geographical, cultural, and economic lines. The Anti-federalists were a group of people who favored a weaker central government with more powers in the states. They were not wild about the “necessary and proper clause” and thought Congress would use it to take too much power. In short, they were opposed to the US Constitution as it was drafted.
They lost that fight, but the big victory for them came in the form of the Bill of Rights. The Bill of Rights is the first ten Amendments to the US Constitution, and it stipulates what Congress cannot do (“Congress shall make no law….”). The Anti-federalists intended this to limit how much power Congress could take.
Who were the federalists?
You’ve probably read some of the Federalist Papers in school. They are a collection of essays in support of the new constitution. Written primarily by James Madison and Alexander Hamilton (yes, the one from the musical), and with a little help from John Jay (who would become the first Chief Justice of the US Supreme Court but leave the boring old job after two months to be Governor of New York—life before people could call your job references was easier).
The Federalists wanted a stronger central government, the ability to lay taxes, and a federal judiciary (especially a Supreme Court).
In addition, they were really concerned about a Bill of Rights because they thought that a written Bill of Rights would confuse people into thinking those were the only rights they had.
In order to keep the government from too much power, their suggestion was what French political philosopher Montesquieu called a separation power powers. Sound familiar? That’s because they won.
What does that mean for our Constitution?
It’s important to understand the founding fights (and I’ll have more on that for you) because it helps explain some things about our Constitution. For instance, no, taxes are not unconstitutional. Not all of them anyway.
Yes, we are meant to have a stronger federal government, but it’s still supposed to be one of limited powers.
Yes, the Bill of Rights outlines some of our rights, but it was never intended to list our only rights, otherwise, the 9th Amendment wouldn’t be in there.
Throughout US history political actors, social movement advocates, and anyone who wants to claim moral authority for their point tries to use the Constitution to justify those claims. We want to be really careful when we agree with that. It’s important to know a little more about where the Constitution comes from, but also what it is supposed to do.
Our Constitution does not say a lot about individual rights. What it does is set up a system of government. It’s a blue print for how we’re meant to make decisions and share power. The rest of the stuff is meant to be up to “We the People.” When we forget that and assume the Constitution can solve all our problems, we pass the buck on the vital responsibility that each of us has to our country and our community. It’s not the Constitution’s job to put us right, it our job. The Constitution is our document and we are meant to follow its guidelines, but can’t solve all our problems because that’s just not its job.
Remember that the Articles of Confederation was wildly inflexible (requiring all states to sign it to amend) and this was one of its fatal flaws. Understanding our Constitution is difficult because it was meant to overcome those fatal flaws by outlining institutions while leaving the rest for the people.
