American History Lesson 62: Constitution vs. Articles of Confederation

In this lesson Dr. North compared the Constitution to the Articles of Confederation. He first talked about each individually, talked about their differences, and then compared their covenantal structure.

The Articles of Confederation didn’t allow congress the power of taxation. Only states had that power. When the states did consider giving that power to congress, the action was vetoed by Rhode Island, as it took the full consent of every state in order to amend the Articles. This would be the thing that would finish off the Articles. Now again only the states had the power of taxation, and they had it in the form of tariffs specifically. However state tariffs were falling, a main reason being that it was expensive to travel by land, making cross border trading expensive. So under the Articles, free trade was essentially unhindered, and it spread all across each state. Land ordinances were operating and settlers could buy farmland in the untamed west. As congress had relied on contributions from states to support itself, the land ordinances provided a steady stream of revenue. Speaking of the national government though, it was the weak national government that the revolutionaries had demanded in 1775. It stayed consistent with the reasons for the Revolution, so the old revolutionaries supported it.

However the self-proclaimed federalists, which were actually nationalists opposed the Articles, and the individualists were divided. The fact that the Constitution was passed tells us that the nationalists won and this was due mostly to public opinion. The defenders of the Articles were not as eloquent as the young men who opposed it, and the argument that “you can’t beat something with nothing” won the public over. The Articles put sovereignty in the hands of the states, but as we’ll see, that will change.

The Constitution made the central government far more powerful than Parliament in 1775. Sure Parliament had absolute power, but they didn’t dare to use it after the Revolution. This new central government had control over commerce. Yes, so did Parliament, but when they tried controlling commerce it led to the Revolution. It would have control over local courts, which Parliament had also, but which it also couldn’t use because the colonists would become rowdy and violent when they tried implementing acts such as the Stamp Act and the Townsend Act. It had the power of direct taxation, which Dr. North said would be demonstrated by the whiskey tax later on. It had a standing army where Parliament’s army sat in the cities for most of the year. It restricted states to using commodities such as silver and gold for their currencies but put no such restrictions on the central government, giving it the power of fiat money. It gave direct authority over individuals, as seen with taxation. It had control over militias. And finally it gave power over interstate commerce.

So what are the important differences between the Articles of Confederation and the Constitution? Originally, the states came together to form a federation, under the Articles, it recognized the states as sovereign. When the Constitution was implemented it took some of that sovereignty away, forcing it to share it with the people, meaning that the states were no longer autonomous. This Dr. North says, is the fundamental difference, and the one that would eventually lead to the Civil War. The Constitution would put in place an executive power, a president, whereas in the Articles no such power was present. Then there’s the difference of bicameralism. The Articles only had congress, which was filled on the basis of population. The Constitution on the other hand used bicameralism, a two house system where legislatures would elect two men to repesent each legislature in senate.

The differences are easy to spot when you look at the covenantal structure of the two documents. In terms of sovereignty, the Constitution names people, literally right in front, as sovereign, while the Articles name a deistic god. In terms of authority, the Constitution puts forth the president, while the Articles put forth no one. In terms of law, the Constitution detailed many powers of central government, while the Articles name only a few. In terms of sanctions, the Constitution describes a standing army, while the Articles use militias as the enforcers. Finally in terms of succession, the Constitution calls for amendment by the people, but all the Articles have shown is a veto by Rhode Island.

The public went along with the Constitution and the expansion of government because “you can’t beat something with nothing.” What they didn’t know was that it was the product of secret deliberations, openings made by the framers of the Constitution so they could change it to suit their needs. How could they? At first glimpse they were masters of rhetoric, beating out their opponents. Ultimately, this is the triumph of the thing seen over the thing not seen. Of government power over the miracle of the market.

American History Lesson 61: Shays’ Rebellion

In this lesson I learned about Shays’ Rebellion. Dr. North started by talking about what he called the great deceptions. The first deception took place in 1754 when the Indian known as the Half-king deceived George Washington in to attacking a French troop. This was the event which led to the French and Indian War. The second deception took place in 1786 when Henry Knox deceived Washington. We’ll look in detail at this second great deception.

During the Revolutionary War all the colonies had paid their troops directly, with the exception of Massachusetts, which handed out IOU’s instead of pay. Now these IOU’s acted as money, but that was was actually a problem. Because instead of giving the troops silver, of which there was a limited amount, the state could just print as many IOU’s as they wanted, causing inflation, vastly devaluing the IOU’s. Desperate to get something, families sold these IOU’s to speculators for what would’ve been pennies on the dollar. Then the speculators waited, they waited till the end of the war. Then, for the paper notes they bought for practically nothing, they got the state to pay interest in silver, whereas previously nobody could have hoped to get paid back anything meaningful for them.

Luckily at the time, John Hancock was governor of Massachusetts. Hancock knew the sacrifice some of these men had made for their country, and he knew what had happened to them, so he refused to collect the taxes to pay these speculators. However in 1786, he didn’t run for re-election because of gout. This created an opening for his opponent, Bowdoin, whom the House elected that year, and when the legislature started demanding payment in silver, he answered them. Taxes were collected from the families of soldiers who had put their lives on the line, some of whom never came back, and these taxes were being used to pay speculators.

Outraged, one-third of the towns revolted, and I’m not talking about farmers with pitchforks, though most of the soldiers were farmers, this was a matter of legal governments revolting. Nonetheless few militia members would take up arms because they knew what had happened to the rebels, led by a man named Shay. Knox however described the revolt as a property revolt, this is what he told Washington, and Washington trusted him. This was not a property revolt though, this was a tax revolt, and in Dr. Norths opinion, it was far more justified economically and morally than the American Revolution itself. There would be no men such as Samuel Adams among them, gifted in rhetoric and ready to explain their cause, but they did protest. The state legislature, however, would not listen to them. The revolutionaries had realized from 1775 to 1781 that they had trusted the wrong leaders. They found out the real cost of the revolution, and that the state used hyperinflation as a way of paying it off. Because of this they were skinned by speculators who had taken control of legislature.

In 1787, the nationalists deceived the public in the same way Knox had deceived Washington. They told Knox’s lies to everyone, the people outside of Massachusetts didn’t know what had actually happened. Historians have believed the winners of 1788, because the victors write the history books. It took 215 years for the truth to get out.

Shay’s rebellion is known as the event which brought about the Constitutional Convention. Without it Washington would not have attended the Convention, and without Washington the Convention would have failed. Yet the history books do not acknowledge the fact that Washington was deceived.

American History Lesson 60: Liberty! Part 5

In this lesson I watched Liberty! The American Revolution Part V.