Articles of Confederation vs. Constitution

Articles of Confederation vs. Constitution The Articles of Confederation and the Constitution, although vastly different in their philosophies of governing the nation, both played a big role in setting the stage for America's economy in the upcoming nineteenth century. A few years after the Articles of Confederation were drafted many politicians and economists, such as Alexander Hamilton, began to see problems with the decentralized form of government that was created by this document. These advocates of a more centralized government were referred to as federalists, and although they were not in favor of a dictatorship, like that of England's, they saw the need for a central governing system to reside over the individual states. In the Federalists' opinion some of the detrimental consequences of the confederate system were the lack of an organized treasury, military or government system. Furthermore, the nation suffered from poor commerce; a result of insecure financial transactions, non-regulated interstate trade, and poorly enforced tax laws. They believed that instead of ridding the country of oppression by a superior government, the Articles of Confederation creates conflict between the states and hinders economic prosperity. The emergence of these difficulties early in the life of our nation indicated, to those in favor of the constitution, the fundamental imperfections and the dire need for reform. Hamilton and the Federalists contend that a unified, federal system is more equipped to govern the nation. On the other hand the anti-federalists, such as Virginia's Patrick Henry, were harshly opposed to the doctrines of the Constitution, which promoted a centralized government. They though that the economic problems of the time were a consequence of excess spending on behalf of the consumer, and had nothing to do with the government. The anti-federalists believed that the federal system places the economic, and political, responsibilities of the