Compare And Contrast The Articles Of Confederation And The Federalists

It was the year of 1787 and the country was in conflict. The new constitution had just been written and states were deciding to ratify it (Davidson, 205). This constitution would hopefully protect better than the Articles of Confederation did. As with many other situations, there were two sides; the Federalists and the Antifederalists. Federalists agree with the Constitution while Antifederalists disagree (Davidson, 205). Each side had valid arguments, but the Federalists more so. Federalists argued to support the Constitution because it allots the federal government power over trade and tax, gives each branch checks and balances on one another, and can be changed. One argument of the Federalists was that the Constitution gives the federal
government the power to tax and regulate trade. Under the Articles of Confederation, both of these powers were reserved to the state governments. Without the ability to tax, the federal government had to ask, not force, states for money. States often declined and the nation was left penniless. Also states regulated trade and would tax each other’s products. This led to division and tension between the states and prevented the nation from prospering. Both of these problems caused the American nation to be looked down upon by larger countries, such as Britain and Spain. Giving the federal government powers over tax and trade, as the Constitution does, makes the nation much stronger. Thus, the document should be ratified (Beauchemin, 13). The Constitution also includes checks and balances for each branch, giving states another reason to ratify it. Checks and balances on the federal government ensures that it won’t abuse any of its powers. Having periodic elections for the legislative and executive branch is an example of a check on the federal government. The Constitution balances the power between the branches with things such as vetoing laws (executive branch checking the legislative branch). These checks and balances will prevent a tyranny (remember King George III), which is another reason to ratify the Constitution (Beauchemin, 13). Of course, not everyone agreed with the Constitution. There were a number of Antifederalists who strongly opposed the Constitution. Antifederalists argue that the Constitution makes the federal government too powerful and that it gives the President to much power. The main complaint of the Antifederalists is that the Constitution does not include a Bill of Rights (Beauchemin, 14). Though these may be valid arguments against the Constitution, Federalists have a stronger point: the Constitution can be changed. If the nation decides a Bill of Rights should be written, it can easily added with the amendment process (Beauchemin, 13). The first step in the process is for two thirds of the states or of Congress propose an amendment. Then it must be ratified by three fourths of the states (Davidson, 207). So if the Antifederalists want to shorten the President’s term, it can be done. If the Constitution can be changed to make the nation better, even the opposers should ratify it. The Constitution gives tax and trade powers to the federal government, includes checks and balances, and can be changed, meaning it should be ratified. With powers over trade and tax, the nation is able to prosper and grow. Checks and balances prevent the government from becoming tyrannical. Since the Constitution can be changed, any problems that arise can be solved. The Constitution remedies all the problems caused by the Articles of Confederation, and therefore, should be ratified before the nation drowns in the sea of previous mistakes.