November 1777 The Continental Congress passed the Articles of Confederation. The national government had few powers, because Americans were afraid a strong government would lead to tyranny. It was run by a Continental Congress. They had the power to wage war, make peace, sign treaties, and issue money. July 1778 Eight states ratified the Articles.
How did the Constitution Guard against Tyranny? Nolen Michael Ms. McKee U.S. History Nov.27, 2012 Abstract In the summer of 1787, fifty-five delegates representing twelve of the thirteen states met in Philadelphia to fix the national government. The problem was that the existing government, under the Articles of Confederation, just wasn’t doing the job. It was too weak. The challenge was to create a strong central government without letting any one person, or group of people, get too much power.
I believe the Constitution did a better job of protecting liberties, specifically in the areas of the federal court system, representation of the people, and the levy of taxes. Alexander Hamilton, statesman and economist, proclaimed "Laws are a dead letter without courts to expound and define their true meaning and operation”. The Articles of Confederation which gave rise to the Confederation government that took effect in March 1781, did not give the national government any means to enforce the federal laws. The states could, and often did, choose to interpret or enforce federal laws in any manner they saw fit. This led to disputes amongst the states that could not be readily settled, as it relied on each state’s court system which invariably chose to discount the ruling of the other states.
By the spring of 1776 reconciliation with Britain appeared to be impossible, and on May 10 the Continental Congress called on each colony to assume sovereignty. By May 15, the Virginia Convention passed a resolution to sever all ties with the mother country and called on the Continental Congress to declare complete independence. In 1787, delegates meeting in Philadelphia drafted a Constitution after bitter debate on a variety of issues. The discussion of a bill of rights was addressed on several occasions, but it failed to carry a single state. Federalists justified the absence of a declaration of rights by arguing that the Constitution established a federal system with specific powers delegated to the national government and other powers reserved to the states.
Some of the measures that the British government brought in might have over stepped the boundaries and this will also upset the colonist. The colonies have never been happy with the fact that Britain had the right to regulate trade, but they have never really been happy with the face that the British policies will increase the internal tax. Then the stamp act was brought in the colonies together agreed that Britain had no right to tax them in this area. The stamp act was tax on documents. If you wanted to print anything such as newspapers
Nonetheless, The Articles of Confederation offered very little success as a government tool. The U.S. Constitution was put in writing in 1787. The new U.S. Constitution attempted to address the unsuccessful failures of the Articles of Confederation. For example, the Congress had no authority to charge taxes on the states. The system relied on donations from the states.
Each of my arguments revolves around the idea that the British were unfair towards their treatment of the colonists, which compels me to justify the Colonists quarrel against the British. My first argument states that there were no representatives in Parliament. The Colonists refers strictly to the British who moved to the New World, in Daniel Dulany considerations it states that “a tax imposed by Parliament, is a tax with out [the Colonists’] consent” (October 1765) Therefore, no Colonist represented Parliament because all the Colonists were in the New World. However, Jenyns’ rebuttal states “Parliament may have the power to impose taxes on the Colonies [but] they have no right to use it, beause it would be an unjust tax” (1765). I do not think this qualifies as a just statement because Parliament only composed of British representatives, and no Colonist representatives, therefore, no Colonist could back up their viewpoint or dispute any taxes enforced, only the British would have say in what would be a just or unjust tax.
antifederalists Opponents of the 1787 Constitution, they cast the document as antidemocratic, objected to the subordination of the states to the central government, and feared encroachment on individuals’ liberties in the absence of a bill of rights. (190) Articles of Confederation (1781) First American constitution that established the United States as a loose confederation of states under a weak national Congress, which was not granted the power to regulate commerce or collect taxes. The Articles were replaced by a more efficient Constitution in 1789. (179) Great Compromise (1787) Popular term for the measure which reconciled the New Jersey and Virginia plans at the constitutional convention, giving states proportional representation
The nation was quite poor from the Revolution and had loans from the French that it was unable to pay back. This was because the Confederation did not have the power to tax, the states were supposed to donate money to the government and as a result, when other states realized that some were not donating money, they refused to as well. Despite the lack of taxing for the nation, the states placed taxes on goods being traded in or through their territory from other states. However, trade was complicated by the fact that there was no national currency. A Virginia dollar could be worth more than a South Carolina dollar, or worth less than a New England gold coin.
This made it difficult to conduct business from state to state. When people purchased goods from other states, they had to pay a tax. In these respects, under the Articles of Confederation, the United States were not treated as united states, but as many different countries. The new Constitution corrected this by stating that only the Federal Government has the right to coin money. Therefore, people no longer had to worry about changing the currency when crossing into other states.