“It has long been a grave question whether any government, not too strong for the liberties of its people, can be strong enough to maintain its existence in great emergencies” (Abraham Lincoln, November 10, 1864). Though Abraham Lincoln was aware of the events after the articles of Confederation. This statement is still relevant in many ways because despite the articles of Confederation were in some cases successful. The overall effectiveness was disastrous, many times the articles of confederation was tested through circumstances and failed. Instead of unifying the states as a whole, the articles of confederation instead gave the individual states more power to govern themselves rather than giving the power to the federal government; which
…show more content…
Under the Articles of Confederation, the rights of the people were protected by state bills of rights. As Article II of the Confederation states “All states are independent from one another. The state governments will retain all powers that are not specifically given to the national congress”. This reveals that since the states were not united as one, or under a single power of order, the states were not able to maintain order and conflict between each other. Since each state had different laws and obligations, it caused too much chaos, such as “In 1784, Congress sent John Adams as a minster to London to solve these issues, but the English did not consider him a suitable representative” (Page 153). Due the fact that the Articles of Confederation placed power in the hands of the state, it led to a lack of national leadership; which caused it to be difficult for Britain them to distinguish Adams as a representative of a single nation or thirteen different ones. This shows that though the American people posed their rights, many challenges occurred due to the complexity of the articles of confederation to maintain power. However this is not the case for the consituion as it maintained peace and balance of power. For instance, the framers of the constuion created three separate branches of the government. The legative …show more content…
Not only did the constuion allow efficient power to the federal government, but it also balanced power and liberty, with the system of checks-and-balances, which protected the people from absolute power. It was the lack of economic unity and foreign affairs that distingihed the articled of confederation from the consituion. Though some people, such as the antifedrislt thought that the consituuion was a means to diminish the American people’s liberty; however with the cration of the bill of rights, many saw the constuion the only way to protect and build America. Hence, I believe that the consution is very different from articles of confederation in many ways, one for example, the constuion did not bring upon a “Critical Period” in America, unike the articles of
Under the Articles of Confederation, the rights of the people were protected by state bills of rights. As Article II of the Confederation states “All states are independent from one another. The state governments will retain all powers that are not specifically given to the national congress”. This reveals that since the states were not united as one, or under a single power of order, the states were not able to maintain order and conflict between each other. Since each state had different laws and obligations, it caused too much chaos, such as “In 1784, Congress sent John Adams as a minster to London to solve these issues, but the English did not consider him a suitable representative” (Page 153). Due the fact that the Articles of Confederation placed power in the hands of the state, it led to a lack of national leadership; which caused it to be difficult for Britain them to distinguish Adams as a representative of a single nation or thirteen different ones. This shows that though the American people posed their rights, many challenges occurred due to the complexity of the articles of confederation to maintain power. However this is not the case for the consituion as it maintained peace and balance of power. For instance, the framers of the constuion created three separate branches of the government. The legative …show more content…
Not only did the constuion allow efficient power to the federal government, but it also balanced power and liberty, with the system of checks-and-balances, which protected the people from absolute power. It was the lack of economic unity and foreign affairs that distingihed the articled of confederation from the consituion. Though some people, such as the antifedrislt thought that the consituuion was a means to diminish the American people’s liberty; however with the cration of the bill of rights, many saw the constuion the only way to protect and build America. Hence, I believe that the consution is very different from articles of confederation in many ways, one for example, the constuion did not bring upon a “Critical Period” in America, unike the articles of