Chapter 9: The Confederation and the Constitution 1776-1790 Flashcards
ARTICLES
A nnapolis Convention, 1786
R atification debate between Federalists and Antifederalists
T reaty of Paris, 1783
I nternational challenges from England, Spain, France & Barbary Pirates
C onstitutional Convention, 1787
L and legislation (Land Ordinance of 1785; NW Ordinance of 1787)
E conomic depression (no regulation of interstate commerce)
S hays’ Rebellion
- Which of the social changes brought about by the Revolution was the most significant? Could the Revolution have gone further toward the principle that all men are created equal by ending slavery or granting women’s rights?
There were many social changes that came about as a result of the American Revolution. The most significant change, however, was probably the increased push for equality. This can be seen in many ways. One example is that men and women of all classes, not just the wealthy, insisted on being addressed as “Mr.” and “Mrs,” which used to be titles only for the wealthy. Also, servants began to call the people they worked for “boss” instead of “master. Another example is that many people began to resist slavery and indentured servant-hood, saying that the positions infringed upon democratic ideals. Americans also disposed with primogeniture and de-established the Anglican Church. There were no doubt many movements towards equality at this time, but the Revolution could have gone much further towards equality by abolishing slavery and granting women more rights. Many people wanted to abolish slavery, but believed that the economy of the southern states would collapse because of their dependence on it. Others were afraid that a fight over slavery would ensue, as it later did, and cause a break in the government which was still so new. Women were also cheated in the rights they received from the revolution. They did not receive suffrage, nor did they acquire many other political rights. Many women dressed up as men and joined the army for the vote. Women, however, benefitted more than slaves. Because of the concept of “civic virtue,” the idea that democracy was dependent on the integrity of each person, women were given more educational opportunities. Women were the educators of the children, and society began to feel that they should be better educated if they were to properly teach their children civic virtue
2.Was the United States in a crisis under the Articles of Confederation, or was the crisis exaggerated by the Federalists to justify their movement? Could the United States have survived if the Articles had stayed in effect? What successes did the Articles of Confederation achieve? Was the Constitutional Convention a second American Revolution?
The Articles of Confederation were a very important milestone in the move towards a Constitution. They outlined government powers and helped hold the states together until a Constitution could be written. They outlined the processes for treaty making and postal services. Without them, Americans would have most likely resisted the jump towards a Constitution. But the United States would not have been able to survive under them for long. The government was too weak and unable to regulate commerce or collect taxes. It could not punish citizens of another state, nor could it protect itself. The Articles of Confederation also gave a single vote to each state, leaving smaller states like Rhode Island with a voice the same size as Massachusetts. If Congress had continued with these Articles, it is highly likely that the government would have been taken over by whoever had the most man power. One example of Congress’s weak power under the Articles is the mutiny of Pennsylvania soldiers in 1783, who threatened Congress because they wee unhappy with their pay. Congress members had no power to do anything and were forced to flee. The United States truly was in a crisis. The Federalists most likely exaggerated somewhat to help move towards their cause, but there is no doubt that the United States were struggling to achieve unity under these Articles. The Constitutional Convention could be defined as a second, smaller revolution. The delegates came up with a brilliant scheme. They said that when nine states, a majority, approved of the Constitution, it would become the law. It was revolutionary and bold. The people were shocked when it was brought forth, expecting a new version of the Articles, but instead getting a Constitution. This was a huge step towards the strength of America as a union
3.Should the Founding Fathers general elitism and indifference to the rights of people, women, African Americans, and Indians be held against them? Or should they be viewed with more understanding in their historical context?
The Founding Fathers were said to be indifferent to the rights of the people as a whole, as well as women, slaves, and natives. This subject, like all decisions made throughout history, should be viewed with more understanding of the historical context. I do believe that it was unjust that women, slaves, and natives were treated as they were and deprived of basic rights, but I doubt that the Founding Fathers would have been able to grant them those rights at that point in history. The government was weak under the Articles of Confederation, and ultimately the states had a greater voice. Too many people would have been opposed to the loss of slave workers because they would be afraid that it would damage their economy. Many colonists still held onto traditional beliefs that the woman’s place was in the home, and several still held spite for the natives, despite the rising ideal of equality. The Founding Fathers were already enacting such a great degree of change that it is not surprising that they would be too timid to grant these rights.
4.What was really at stake in the debate between Federalists and Anti-Federalists? Did the Federalists win primarily because of their superior political skills or because they had a clearer view of the meaning of the Revolution and the future of the United States? What role did the ratification process play in the fight between the Federalists and Anti-Federalists (and did it favor one side or the other)?
For many of the Anti-Federalists, their own personal interests were at steak. Some were afraid of a strong central government because they would have to pay off their debts. Others saw it as a plot by the wealthy to steal power from the common people. Many were afraid that a more powerful government would take away their basic rights. The Federalists, in contrast, felt that it would actually help protect rights and enforce justice. The Federalists won this battle because of they had more power and influence. George Washington and Benjamin Franklin, both of whom were well respected by the people, supported them. Most members of the group were wealthier, more organized, and better educated. They also controlled the media and were able to gather more support for their cause. You could also say that most were less concerned with their own personal interests than the antifederalists and more concerned with the future of the US as well as the ideals of the Revolution such as justice. At the beginning of the ratification process, things seemed to be in favor of the Anti-Federalists. The Constitution could only be accepted if all 13 states were to ratify. The Federalists overcame this barrier by requiring that only nine states would need to approve for the Constitution to become law.
5.Why did Americans accept the Constitution with its strong national government and powerful executive after only a decade earlier violently revolting against similar
institutions? Why did the Anti-Federalists not violently oppose the new Constitution?
The process of accepting the Constitution was not immediate. Americans eventually came to terms with it, but not without qualms. It began with four small states accepting because it was much better than they expected. Pennsylvania accepted only after irregularities were employed by the federalists to call a convention. They had to force antifederalist members to come so they could complete the vote. Massachusetts accepted once it was assured that its rights would be protected. New Hampshire and two other states accepted as a result of clever federalist tactics. Once all of these states had ratified, the other four were eventually forced to as well because the likelihood that they could survive on their own was low. The Anti-Federalists opposed the Constitution, but not violently because they were outmatched and because they got a Bill of Rights out of it. Without the Bill of Rights, the Anti-Federalists probably would have reacted violently, but the Bill of Rights would help preserve the rights that they were so afraid of losing.
Articles of Confederation
A loose confederation of states – “a firm league of friendship.” 1 vote in Congress for each state 2/3 vote (9 states in Congress for all important measures) Laws executed by committees of Congress No congressional power over commerce. States free to impose levies, and restrictions on trade with other states and enter economic agreements with foreign countries. No congressional power to levy taxes – payment of taxes by states was voluntary. No federal courts – states free to resolve their own matters, or conflicts with other states. Unanimity of states for amendment No authority to act directly upon individuals and no power to coerce states
Federal Constitution
A firm union of people where the national government was supreme. 2 votes in Senate for each state; representation by population in House (Art.I, Secs. II., III) Simple majority vote in Congress, subject to presidential veto Laws executed by powerful president Congress to regulate both foreign and interstate commerce Extensive power in Congress to levy taxes Federal courts, capped by Supreme Court Amendment less difficult (Art. V) – 2/3 Congress and ¾ of the states Ample power to enforce laws by coercion of individuals and to some extent of states
