[On December 7th, 1787, Delaware became the first state to ratify the U.S. Constitution. So for the 235th anniversary of that historic moment, this week I’ll AmericanStudy a handful of Constitutional contexts, leading up to a special weekend post on present issues and debates!]
On what
was drastically different in the new nation’s first unifying documents, and
what wasn’t.
Until
researching this post, I hadn’t really understood just how much the Articles of Confederation
paralleled the American Revolution. I knew they went into effect in March 1781,
while the Revolution was still very much ongoing, but it turns out that that
timing was due solely to how long it took all 13 states to ratify the Articles
(Maryland
was the last state to do so, on March 1, nearly two years after Delaware
had become the 12th to ratify); they were initially
proposed in the immediate aftermath of the Declaration of Independence, in
July 1776, and were after more than a year of heated debate approved by that
Second Continental Congress and sent to the states for ratification in
November 1777. Which is to say, the Articles weren’t a product of the
Revolution (as I had always thought of them) so much as part of its impetus and
origins, which now that I’ve reframed it that way does make sense—once the
colonies had declared independence, it was vital that they immediately and
consistently envision a political and civic arrangement through which they
could exist in Perpetual Union (the usually elided part of their full
title) without England, even (if not especially) while their war to
establish and cement that independence was entirely ongoing.
Better understanding
that Revolutionary context for the Articles can help explain some of the ways
in which they differed from the Constitution that would eventually replace
them. The most famous such difference is that under the Articles the central
government (known first as the Continental Congress and then, after 1781, as the
Congress
of the Confederation) was quite weak, both on its own terms and in
comparison to the individual states. I had always attributed that to the
colonists’ hatred of the King and thus fears of a tyrannical government, and of
course those were factors; but given the highly regional nature of the
Revolution (with different
battles/campaigns fought across the regions and states in
somewhat disconnected and certainly discrete stages), it makes perfect sense
that the Articles granted each state the power necessary to respond to those
particular, evolving circumstances without needing to rely on or wait for a
central authority. It’s harder to understand the choice to deny Congress any
ability to levy taxes, leaving the central government entirely dependent on
funding from the states; that limitation frequently left not just Congress
but the Continental Army in the lurch. But on the other hand, that too can
be seen as a wartime decision: fighting a war requires continued support and
buy-in from civilians, and it’s fair to say that in a war which originated with
opposition to onerous taxes, many colonists might have been unwilling to
continue supporting a new government which immediately began imposing its own
taxes.
Explicable
or not, that element of the Articles continued to produce financial
difficulties after the Revolution, and (along with the related histories
of Shay’s Rebellion) contributed significantly to the move toward
a new governing document. The ability to levy taxes was just one of many powers
given to the far stronger federal government created by the Constitution
(although not without extended debate, as I’ll discuss in tomorrow’s post). But
despite those shifts, the Articles can be seen as a predecessor to the
Constitution, and not just in symbolic ways (ie, how the Constitution’s
Preamble echoes part of the Articles’ opening: “The said States hereby
severally enter into a firm league of friendship with each other, for their
common defense, the security of their liberties, and their mutual and general
welfare”). In particular, the Articles created the new nation as a representative,
democratic republic, with the state legislatures appointing
representatives from each state to the Congress of the Confederation. Since the
fundamental nature of the nation’s political system was just as uncertain as
every other Revolutionary aspect, this was a vital choice, and one that was
carried forward into and enhanced by the Constitution.
Next
Constitutional context tomorrow,
Ben
PS. What
do you think?
No comments:
Post a Comment