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.
Connor's corner 