Pros And Cons Of The Articles Of Confederation

By late 1786, it was clear to the states that the Articles of Confederation could no longer provide for an adequate government, an essential function to promote the prosperity of the fledgling country. To fix this problem, delegates from all states except Rhode Island congregated in Philadelphia in an attempt to revise the Articles of Confederation. During the convention, the delegates had a variety of views on how the government should function, which led to lengthy and, at times, acrimonious debates. In the end, however, some kind of compromise would always be reached; then another issue would be brought about and the whole cycle repeats over and over again. Sleepless nights and smoke filled rooms followed one after another. Little did the
delegates know that four months later, a whole new constitution would be born. The Constitution of the United States, the first formally written "rules of conduct" of a government in the world, still stands firmly today. The genius of the Constitution is found in the series of compromises which made it acceptable to so many, especially in representation, presidency, and slavery. Maybe some of the compromises were not the best for the country, but they definitely achieved the purpose of uniting all the states; and at the time of the convention, that was one of its most important goals.

During the convention, there were two general plans of government that were proposed.
One of these is the Virginia Plan, also called the Large State Plan, which advised that the representation in a bicameral legislature be proportional to property or population. The other is the New Jersey Plan, which called for equal representation for all states regardless to population in a unicameral legislature. Had the Virginia Plan been adopted entirely, large states would always have a dominant voice over the smaller states. On the other hand, if the New Jersey plan had been adopted entirely, bigger states with bigger needs would never prevail. When the delegates began to discuss this issue, they willingly agreed that a bicameral legislature is necessary for the new national government. They differed widely, however, in the representation of the two houses. Bitter debates followed until, finally, the compromise of equal representation in the House and proportional representation in the Senate was reached. In Henry Steele Commager 's article, "The Constitution, Was It an Economic Document?", he remarked that the framers "feared the powers of the majority, as they feared all power unless controlled" (141); the compromise of the representation of the houses underscores exactly this point because it prevents an absolute body majority which would prove to be fatal to the country had they had a malevolent intent. Furthermore, the compromise effectively appealed to all states and therefore
sped up the ratification process.

For the role of the President, the executive officer of the United States of America, the delegates also had competing visions. During the period of the American Revolution, the colonists had distrusted the King so much that they had chosen not to appoint an executive officer in the Articles of Confederation. The delegates in the Philadelphia Convention realized the need for such a person, but they were cautious to not give the president so much power as to be potentially abused. One of the most controversial issues was the length of the president 's term. Four, seven, eleven years long terms had all been suggested by the delegates; some even proposed a limit to one or two terms. After rigorous debates, the term length was set to four years with no limit on the number of terms. Another great issue of presidency was how the president should be elected. Irving Kristol, in his article "The Most Successful Revolution," argues that the Founding Fathers understood that the nation is too diverse to be wholly democratic, or wholly republican "since they did not have that much faith in the kinds of 'common men ' likely to be produced by such a nation" (119). The delegates, therefore, made another compromise and made up the Electoral College, which would elect the president in place of the common people. At that time, it was probably a good idea because many citizens were not very well educated and informed.

Even though the Constitution did not mention the word slavery, it was inevitably entangled with other issues.
The Northerners opposed slavery, whereas the agriculture dependent Southerners supported it. It was on this issue that the most acerbic debates took place. For the unity and efficiency of the whole country, both sides gave in and made the most famous of the compromises, the Three-Fifth Clause, which won unanimous approval. Not wanting to loose the valuable revenues from the South, the Northerners compromised again in the Constitution by prohibiting Congress from outlawing the slave trade for at least twenty years in order to appeal to the masses. Was this necessarily the right and just decision? No. But it undeniably guaranteed the South as a part of the
Union.

As the oldest federal system still standing, it is safe to say that the Founding Fathers did a exceptionally superior job in creating the Constitution. The non-violent debates allowed compromises which maximized the democratic republicanism for the government and enabled the fledgling country to grab the most advantageous of the advantages that came out of those compromises. The delegates did exactly what they intended to do, and that is "to devise such further provisions as shall. . .appear necessary to render the constitution of the feral government adequate to the exigencies of the Union" (qtd. in Norton et al. 120).

Works Cited

Commager, Henry Steele. "The Constitution: Was It an Economic Document?". Historical Viewpoints: Notable Articles from American Heritage. Ed. John A. Garraty. New York: Longman, 1999: 134-144.

Kristol, Irving. "The Most Successful Revolution". Historical Viewpoints: Notable Articles from American Heritage. Ed. John A. Garraty. New York; Longman, 1999: 111-119.

Norton, Mary Beth, et al. A People and A Nation. New York: Houghton Mifflin Company, 2003.