A Tale of Two Charters: Tracing the Democratic Evolution from Confederation to Constitution
Introduction
In the aftermath of the United States' revolutionary struggle against Great Britain, the fledgling nation took immense pride in the innovative governmental framework crafted by the Framers at the Constitutional Convention. However, this model, which has since become a template for numerous nations, initially emerged from a profound failure. The American Revolution was fundamentally rooted in the grievances of unequal representation of the British Colonies in Parliament and the imposition of unrepresented taxation. Consequently, when the Framers established a new central government following independence from British rule, they envisioned a weaker government with circumscribed powers. The Articles of Confederation embodied this vision, ensuring the implementation of a restrained federal government to address the colonial grievances that had precipitated the Revolution.
Nevertheless, the Articles of Confederation manifested significant structural deficiencies that compromised the welfare of the nascent republic, necessitating either substantial alteration or outright replacement. At the Constitutional Convention, convened originally to amend the Articles, the Framers identified critical issues: the cumbersome process for enacting federal laws, the absence of an executive branch, and problematic federal-state relations.
This essay aims to analyze the structural disparities between the Articles of Confederation and the Constitution, assessing which framework more effectively promoted democratic governance, independent of practical efficacy. By employing case analysis, literature reviews from diverse sources, and philosophical insights, this essay’s objective is to elucidate the desirability and necessity of democratic government for thriving nations. Furthermore, given that the Constitutional Convention initially sought to amend the Articles, this essay will explore hypothetical scenarios had the Articles been amended instead of replaced. How would such amendments have influenced the state of democracy in the United States today? Ultimately, this analysis posits that the Constitution is more inherently democratic than the Articles of Confederation, yet acknowledges that even the Constitution does not fully realize democratic potential. Hypothetically, had the Articles been amended rather than entirely replaced, the nation would likely be in a significantly deteriorated state, with societal functions vastly different from the present.
Philosophy of Democracy
Democracy fundamentally ensures that the authority to govern emanates from the consent of the governed. This principle is predicated on the belief in the inherent worth of every individual, entitling them to participate in decisions affecting their lives. John Locke, in his seminal work "Two Treatises of Government," posits that legitimate government is based on the consent of the governed and must protect the natural rights of life, liberty, and property. Locke asserts, “government has no other end but the preservation of property” [1]. This notion was revolutionary, advocating that governmental power derives from the people's will rather than divine right.
Jean-Jacques Rousseau further advances this concept in "The Social Contract," arguing that true democracy is achieved when individuals collectively participate in shaping the laws that govern them, thereby ensuring freedom and equality. Rousseau asserts, “Man is born free, and everywhere he is in chains” [2]. Rousseau’s notion of the "general will" underscores the importance of collective decision-making and the role of direct participation in achieving a just society.
In "On Liberty," John Stuart Mill emphasizes the significance of individual freedoms and the dangers of tyranny, whether by a single ruler or the majority. Mill asserts, “The only freedom which deserves the name is that of pursuing our own good in our own way” [3]. Mill’s advocacy for representative democracy aligns with the need for a system that balances individual liberty with collective governance, ensuring the inclusion of diverse perspectives in the political process [4].
A democratic constitutional order aims to protect these values by providing mechanisms for representation, accountability, and the rule of law. In contrast to authoritarian systems, where power is concentrated in the hands of a few, democracy disperses power among many, fostering a more equitable and just society. Alexis de Tocqueville, in "Democracy in America", highlights the strengths of American democracy, particularly its emphasis on civic engagement and the decentralization of power, which contribute to a vibrant and resilient society [5]. Tocqueville observes, “The health of a democratic society may be measured by the quality of functions performed by private citizens” [6]. This further emphasizes the role of civic engagement and sustaining healthy democracy Tocqueville’s point furthers that democracy is not only reliant on its institutions, but through the engagement and responsibilities of its citizens. In a robust democracy, power is ideally decentralized, and individuals are responsible and encouraged to shape the government through their participation, which thus reinforces democratic values at local, state, and national levels.
Democracy's preference is further justified by its emphasis on individual freedom and equality. In a democratic system, citizens possess the right to engage in the political process, express their opinions, and hold their leaders accountable [7]. This participation is not merely a privilege but a fundamental right ensuring the government reflects the people's will. Additionally, democracy promotes transparency and accountability, crucial for preventing abuses of power and corruption [8]. By establishing a system where leaders are regularly elected and can be removed from office, democracy ensures that those in power remain answerable to the electorate.
Moreover, democracy fosters social and political stability. When citizens feel they have a voice in their government, they are more likely to support and adhere to enacted laws and policies. This sense of ownership and involvement reduces the likelihood of civil unrest and promotes societal harmony [9]. Furthermore, democratic systems are more adaptable and responsive to change. Based on the principle of majority rule while protecting minority rights, democracies can evolve and adjust to new challenges and societal shifts more effectively than rigid systems [10].
Background and Theoretical Framework
In the aftermath of the American Revolution, the Framers of the United States faced the monumental task of creating a new government that would appeal to the majority of the population, specifically focusing on balancing the need for a functioning central authority while addressing the colonies’ grievances with British rule [11]. In response to their concerns, the Articles of Confederation established a limited federal government, specifically a lack of executive power, leaving most of the power to the single-house legislature. The federal government thus lacked the authority to collect taxes, regulate commerce, or enforce laws uniformly across states, resulting in economic instability and internal conflicts [12]. Recognizing these weaknesses, the Constitutional Convention convened in 1787 with intent to revise the Articles [13]. However, after further analysis, the Framers deemed the Articles a failure and decided to draft an entirely new Constitution, establishing a stronger executive branch, a national judiciary, a bicameral legislature, and a system of checks and balances to address the limitations of the Articles and ensured a more cohesive and effective federal government [14]. The new government under the Constitution transformed the United States from a loose confederation of states into a more unified democratic republic.
This shift from the Articles of Confederation to the Constitution is deeply rooted in key democratic theories expanded on by several highly influential philosophers. John Locke’s social contract theory, which posits that individuals consent to surrender some of their freedoms and submit to the authority of a government in exchange for the protection of their remaining rights, plays a critical role in the development of philosophical ideas for both documents [15]. Locke’s ideas were particularly influential during the American Revolution, justifying the colonies’ rebellion against British rule [16]. His emphasis on life, liberty, and property is a pivotal factor in both the Articles and the Constitution [17], reflecting an attempt to balance the need for order and the protection of individual liberties, although they approached this balance in different ways.
James Madison’s views on federalism, particularly articulated in Federalist No. 51, also informed the new Constitution, as Madison argued for a system of federalism that prevents any one faction from gaining too much power [18], thus protecting individual liberties and promoting a more effective government, asserting “ambition must be made to counteract ambition” [19]. The Articles of Confederation reflected a fear of centralized power, but Madison’s vision introduced a stronger federal structure that still respected state sovereignty [20]. Montesquieu’s concept of checks and balances, was integral to the theoretical framework of the Constitution, as he argues, “to prevent the abuse of power, it is necessary that the very disposition of things, power should be a check to power” [21]. The Articles lacked any formal system of checks, with no executive or judicial branches, while the Constitution remedied this by creating a more balanced and dynamic government.
The Constitution established the United States as a democratic republic, a term central to understanding the new government’s framework. In a democratic republic, citizens elect representatives to govern on their behalf, blending elements of direct democracy with republicanism [22]. This system aims to ensure that the government remains accountable to the people while providing practical means of governance for a large and diverse nation. This structure, with a bicameral legislature featuring the House of Representatives and Senate, ensured both majority rule and protection of minority rights. Popular sovereignty, another critical principle, is reflected in the Preamble’s opening words: “We the People,” signifying that government authority stems from the consent of the governed [23]. Under the Articles, popular sovereignty was indirect, as power was concentrated in state legislatures rather than directly with people. Constitutionalism, the idea that governmental authority is derived from and limited by a fundamental body of law, guided both documents. However, the Constitution more effectively embedded this principle, as it clearly defined governmental powers and incorporated robust mechanisms for accountability. Although the Constitution and its theoretical underpinnings were designed to promote democratic values, it is essential to acknowledge that early American self-governance was limited to a narrow segment of the population. Many were consciously excluded from participation, a reality that modern democratic reforms continue to address.
Democratic Analysis
While the Constitution is widely regarded today as having created a well-functioning government and society, it is essential to examine which framework—the Articles of Confederation or the Constitution—is truly more democratic, independent of their efficacy. Under the Articles of Confederation, the single-house legislature imposed one-year terms for Congressmen and established term limits [24]. This feature could be interpreted as both more and less democratic. On one hand, term limits prevent politicians from remaining in power for too long, aligning with the democratic principle of preventing entrenched authority. On the other hand, term limits restrict the electorate's ability to re-elect representatives they support, which can be seen as limiting democratic choice [25]. In this system, frequent turnover of legislators meant that the people enacting laws changed regularly, potentially allowing for more diverse perspectives. However, it is important to note that each state had only one delegate in Congress, appointed by the state legislature rather than elected by the citizens, which undermined direct democratic representation.
The absence of an executive branch under the Articles further concentrated power in Congress, requiring unanimous consent of all 13 states to amend the Articles and approval from nine of the 13 states for major laws [26]. This high threshold made it extremely difficult to pass laws and amendments, and even more challenging to ensure their enforcement. States could choose whether to enforce federal laws, leading to significant inconsistencies and undermining the authority of the federal government [27]. Furthermore, the federal government under the Articles lacked the power to raise revenue directly from the citizens, relying instead on voluntary contributions from the states. This arrangement was inherently unstable and insufficient for maintaining a cohesive national government.
In contrast, the Constitution grants the federal government more authority over the states, making it inherently more democratic by aligning more closely with the principle of popular sovereignty. Congress, under the Constitution, is elected directly by the people, enhancing its democratic legitimacy. The House of Representatives is based on state population, ensuring proportional representation, while the Senate provides equal representation for each state. Representatives serve two-year terms without term limits, allowing the electorate to maintain or change their representatives based on performance. Although senators serve six-year terms, they too are elected directly by the people, further ensuring democratic accountability.
The Constitution's system of checks and balances is another critical feature that enhances its democratic nature. Influenced by Montesquieu's principle that "power should be a check to power," the Framers designed a government where legislative, executive, and judicial branches can limit each other's powers [28]. The Articles of Confederation lacked such a system, with no executive branch to veto laws or national judiciary to resolve disputes, leaving most legal battles to the states and contributing to legal inconsistencies [29].
Moreover, the Constitution includes a Bill of Rights, which the Federalist Papers, particularly those by James Madison and Alexander Hamilton, emphasized as essential for protecting individual freedoms. These first ten amendments guarantee fundamental rights such as freedom of speech, religion, and assembly, which are crucial for a functioning democracy. The inclusion of the Bill of Rights ensures that regardless of who is elected, these rights cannot be infringed upon, providing a safeguard against potential abuses of power.
The executive branch under the Constitution, while powerful, is designed to be accountable to the people. The president is elected through the Electoral College, a system intended to balance popular sovereignty with stable electoral processes [30]. Although this system is debated for its democratic efficacy, it provides a mechanism for indirect election that aims to balance various interests [31]. The president’s cabinet appointments require Senate confirmation, which ensures a check on the executive's power. This structure helps prevent the concentration of power and maintains the democratic nature of the executive branch.
A thorough examination of the differences between the Articles of Confederation and the Constitution reveals that the Constitution is more democratic. It establishes a legislative body that more accurately represents the people, incorporates checks and balances to prevent any one branch from becoming too powerful, and includes a Bill of Rights to protect individual freedoms. These elements collectively ensure a more democratic system of governance, aligning the government more closely with the principles of popular sovereignty and accountability. The Constitution's ability to adapt and respond to the needs of the nation has solidified its role as a superior democratic framework compared to the Articles of Confederation.
Case Studies
To illustrate the practical implications of the Articles of Confederation and the Constitution, it is useful to examine specific historical instances where each framework was applied. These case studies highlight the strengths and weaknesses of each document in addressing the challenges faced by the new nation. Shay’s Rebellion was a significant uprising that exposed the weaknesses of the Articles of Confederation. The rebellion was led by Daniel Shays and other disgruntled farmers in Massachusetts who were facing severe economic hardships, including high taxes and debts [32]. The lack of a stable national economy under the Articles, compounded by states importing conflicting and often oppressive economic policies, created a volatile environment. Without the ability to levy taxes or regulate trade, the federal government could not address the growing economic discontent that contributed to the rebellion. However, the most glaring weakness revealed during Shay’s Rebellion was the federal government’s lack of a centralized military power. The Articles failed to establish and maintain a standing army, leaving the federal government entirely dependent on the states for military support. The federal government could neither raise an army to suppress the rebellion nor intervene in what was deemed a state matter. The inability of the federal government under the Articles to effectively respond to this crisis highlighted its lack of centralized power [33]. As a result, the Massachusetts state government had to rely on a private militia to quell the rebellion. This situation underscored the inability of the national government to maintain order and protect property rights, leading many to call for a stronger federal government.
Had the Articles granted the federal government more authority over national defense and internal stability, the response to Shay’s Rebellion would have been more efficient. The inability to address even internal conflicts and economic instability underscored the need for a more robust federal system. This event directly influenced the Constitutional Convention, where delegates sought to create a government capable of maintaining order and stability.
The Whiskey Rebellion, occurring just a few years after the ratification of the Constitution, provides a stark contrast to Shay’s Rebellion in terms of the federal government’s response. The rebellion arose from discontent over a federal excise tax on whiskey, which was particularly burdensome to small farmers in western Pennsylvania [34]. Under the Constitution, President George Washington had the authority to call up a national militia to suppress the rebellion [35]. Washington, with the support of Alexander Hamilton, personally led a force of nearly 13,000 militiamen to Pennsylvania, effectively quelling the rebellion without significant bloodshed. However, unlike the Articles of Confederation, which left the federal government powerless to intervene in domestic disputes like Shay’s Rebellion, the Constitution provided the necessary tools for a swift and decisive response. President George Washington, utilizing the new authority granted to the executive branch, called upon a national militia, a move not only crucial for suppressing the rebellion but also for demonstrating the strength and legitimacy of the federal government under the Constitution. The federal government’s swift and decisive action showcased its capacity to enforce laws and maintain order, thereby affirming the Constitution’s framework for a more stable and cohesive nation. Further, Washington’s suppression of the Whiskey Rebellion carried significant political and symbolic weight. The peaceful resolution of the conflict without extensive violence reinforced the notion that the federal government could assert its authority without resorting to tyranny, demonstrating that centralized power could be exercised responsibly, simultaneously balancing authority with liberty–something the Articles had failed to do.
Under the Articles of Confederation, the federal government lacked the power to regulate interstate commerce, leading to significant economic challenges. States often imposed tariffs on goods coming from other states, creating barriers to trade and fostering economic rivalry rather than cooperation [36]. For instance, New York and New Jersey engaged in economic conflict, with New York imposing heavy duties on goods transported from New Jersey [37]. This lack of a unified economic policy hindered the development of a national economy and contributed to economic instability and inefficiency. The fragmented approach to commerce under the Articles of Confederation highlighted the need for a centralized authority to manage economic policy, also exemplifying the states’ prioritizing their own interests at the expense of national cohesion. Instead of fostering cooperation, the Articles allowed states to act as independent entities, often engaging in economic competition that ultimately weakened the nation as a whole, making it difficult for businesses to operate efficiently across state lines and preventing the establishment of a strong, cohesive economic framework [38]. The Constitution addressed this issue by granting Congress the power to regulate interstate commerce, leading to a more integrated and prosperous national economy. By centralizing the regulation of trade, the Constitution eliminated the incomprehensible economical relations between states, creating a more integrated a cooperative economic environment. The federal government’s authority to oversee commerce also enabled implementation of policies that benefited the entire nation, rather than just the states independently.
The process of ratifying the Constitution itself serves as a case study in the practical implications of creating a more democratic framework. The Articles of Confederation required a unanimous vote of all 13 states for any amendments, a nearly impossible standard that stymied significant reforms [39]. The unanimity hindered the ability for significant reforms, specifically to address the structural weaknesses of the Articles, as even a single state’s opposition could block changes necessary for further development. In contrast, the Constitution required only nine of the thirteen states to ratify it for it to become effective [40]. This more pragmatic approach facilitated the adoption of the new framework, allowing for a smoother and more feasible transition to a stronger federal system. The decision to require only a supermajority for ratification demonstrated the fundamental shift towards a more adaptable system of governance. It acknowledged that such a diverse set of states would be difficult, if not impossible, to reach a complete consensus. The successful ratification of the Constitution, despite initial resistance from several states, demonstrated the effectiveness of its more flexible and practical approach to governance. The Constitution’s framework allowed for necessary changes and adaptations, ensuring a more resilient and enduring government structure. This approach laid the foundation for a government capable of adapting to new challenges as needed, depicting a key feature that has allowed the Constitution to endure for over two centuries.
These case studies highlight the practical implications of the Articles of Confederation and the Constitution in addressing the challenges faced by the early United States. Shay’s Rebellion and the Whiskey Rebellion illustrate the contrasting responses to internal conflict, showcasing the need for a strong central government. The issues of interstate commerce under the Articles and the ratification process of the Constitution further underscore the advantages of the more robust and adaptable framework provided by the Constitution. These historical instances provide concrete examples of how each document influenced the development of American democracy and governance.
Hypothetical
The original purpose of the Constitutional Convention was to revise the Articles of Confederation rather than to replace them entirely. This raises intriguing hypothetical questions about the potential state of the country had the Articles been amended instead of replaced. This section examines the fatal flaws of the Articles, proposes plausible amendments, and analyzes the possible hypothetical state of the country today if those amendments had been implemented.
One of the essential flaws of the Articles was the absence of executive and judicial branches. If the Articles had been amended, a modest executive branch could have been introduced. Instead of a single president, a small panel of elected officials could have acted as the executive branch. This panel, elected by popular vote, would have an odd number of members to avoid ties in decision-making. The primary role of this executive panel would have been to enforce federal laws and handle foreign affairs, though with significantly less power than the executive branch under the Constitution. The lack of a singular leader may have led to inefficiencies in decision making, particularly during times of crises. In foreign policy outcomes such as the Cuban Missile Crisis [41], the absence of a single authoritative figure to make decisive decisions could have left the government unable to act in a timely manner.
The legislative branch under the amended Articles could have retained its single-house structure but with enhanced powers. Congress would have gained the authority to collect federal revenue, albeit limited compared to the states' taxation powers [42]. To facilitate legislative changes, the requirement for amendments could have been reduced from a unanimous vote to a three-quarters majority, making legislative adjustments more feasible. This shift in the amendment process would have marked a significant departure from the difficulty to pass laws and amendments, yet even with this change, the system would have likely struggled to respond effectively to national crises, given the overall weakness of the federal government. If these hypothetical amendments had been implemented, the implications for the United States would have been significant. The limited executive power might have resulted in a weaker federal government, struggling to enforce laws and manage national affairs effectively. For instance, during periods of economic downturn, such as the Panic of 1819 or the Great Depression, a weak federal government would have little capacity to intervene or provide relief [43]. The lack of a robust judicial branch could have led to increased legal inconsistencies and potential corruption, as there would be no mechanism to ensure laws' adherence to the Articles. Without judicial oversight, conflicting state laws could have created an unpredictable legal landscape, discouraging interstate commerce and leading to frequent disputes that further weakened the country’s national unity.
The implementation of a court system without the power of judicial review would have had its own drawbacks. While it could resolve disputes between states or between states and the federal government, it would lack the authority to ensure laws aligned with the Articles. This limitation could have led to an increase in corrupt and unjust laws, with no oversight from another branch of government. For example, before the strong judiciary, states often enacted laws that benefited local interests at the expense of broader national concerns, often disregarding individual rights, such as in the pre-Civil War period, when southern states enacted laws supporting slavery and suppressing civil rights [44]. The absence of a robust federal judiciary system enabled these laws to persist. Without judicial review, such abuses could have continued unchecked, as state governments exercised near-complete control over their legal systems. Consequently, the protections guaranteed by the Bill of Rights under the Constitution might not have been ensured under the Articles. Such as in the monumental case of Brown v. Board of Education (1954), which outlawed segregation nationally, demonstrates how judicial review has served as a crucial tool for upholding fundamental rights [45]. Under the Articles, however, a weak judiciary lacking the power of judicial review might have been powerless to stop states from enacting laws that infringed upon these rights. Without federal oversight, states could have passed laws restricting freedom of speech, assembly, or religion, with no recourse for citizens whose rights were violated.
With a smaller federal government and a limited budget due to fewer federal taxes, the federal government would have been less cohesive and functional. Had this framework persisted, the federal government’s inability to generate significant revenue would have dire consequences. Following the Revolution, Congress was unable to pay soldiers who had fought in the war, leading to civil unrest such as the Newburgh Conspiracy in 1783, where soldiers threatened mutiny due to lack of payment [46]. A similar scenario could have unfolded on a larger scale, with military forces disbanding or being underfunded, leaving the nation vulnerable to both internal and external threats. In addition to this, infrastructure projects such as the construction of the transcontinental railroad or the interstate highway system, which were heavily funded by federal resources, would have been delayed, incomplete, or never attainable. These projects not only revolutionized the United States’ economy, but also connected the country geographically, allowing for a more unified national market. Without such initiatives, the United States would have remained significantly separated, each state with varying levels of development, thus highlighting regional inequalities.
The inability to raise significant revenue would have impacted all branches of the government, resulting in a significantly weaker military and cuts to social services such as Medicare, Medicaid, disability benefits, food assistance, and pensions, none of which existed in the 18th century but are essential in the modern era. During the Great Depression, for instance, limited federal intervention and the lack of social welfare programs exacerbated poverty, leading to widespread homelessness and hunger. Currently, the federal government spends $1.3 trillion annually on Medicare and Medicaid alone, providing essential services to millions of Americans [47]. Without the centralized federal authority established by the Constitution, funding for such programs would have relied entirely on the states, leading to vast disparities in the healthcare and welfare services across the country. This would likely have led to a much lower standard of living, particularly for the struggling and elderly populations [48].
Had the Articles of Confederation been amended rather than replaced, the United States would have faced numerous challenges. The hypothetical amendments could have addressed some structural issues, but the overall weakness of the federal government would have persisted, leading to economic instability, legal inconsistencies, and a lower quality of life for many citizens. The stronger and more adaptable framework of the Constitution ultimately provided a more effective and democratic system of governance for the United States.
Maintaining Democratic Equity
While the U.S. Constitution has established a stable and enduring framework for democratic governance, there are several proposed amendments that could enhance its democratic principles even further. Abolishing the Electoral College is one of the most debated amendments. Critics argue that the Electoral College undermines the principle of one person, one vote, as it allows a candidate to win the presidency without securing most of the popular vote. Replacing the Electoral College with a direct popular vote would ensure that the president is elected by a true majority, thereby enhancing democratic legitimacy and reflecting the principle that all votes should carry equal weight.
Another proposed amendment is the introduction of term limits for Congress. Currently, there are no term limits for members of Congress, which can lead to the entrenchment of political power and reduce legislative responsiveness to the electorate. Implementing term limits for both the House of Representatives and the Senate could encourage fresh perspectives in legislative processes, reduce the influence of special interests, and make representatives more accountable to their constituents. This change would align with the democratic ideal of preventing the concentration of power and promoting political renewal. Expanding the size of the House of Representatives is also proposed to address the fixed number of representatives, which has remained at 435 since 1929, despite significant population growth. Increasing the number of representatives would ensure more proportional representation, allowing for a closer alignment between the population and the number of representatives. This adjustment would enhance the responsiveness of the House to the electorate and ensure that diverse communities are better represented.
Guaranteeing equal voting rights through a constitutional amendment would address recent efforts to restrict voting access, such as strict voter ID laws and purging of voter rolls. An amendment explicitly guaranteeing equal voting rights for all citizens and preventing discriminatory practices would reinforce the commitment to universal suffrage. This measure would protect against voter suppression and ensure that every citizen's vote is counted equally, maintaining the integrity of the democratic process.
Finally, codifying the right to privacy in the Constitution is a proposed amendment that would explicitly protect individuals against unwarranted government intrusion. While the right to privacy is implied through several existing amendments, making it explicit would safeguard civil liberties in an increasingly digital age. This change would address contemporary concerns about data security and surveillance, ensuring that privacy rights are unequivocally protected.
By addressing current democratic deficits, these changes would ensure that the Constitution remains a living document, as proposed by Thomas Jefferson in “The Papers of Thomas Jefferson,” responsive to the evolving needs and values of its citizens, and capable of upholding the principles of democracy in the modern era.
As society evolves, so must the frameworks that govern it. Learning from the successes and failures of the Articles of Confederation and the Constitution can help policymakers design amendments and reforms that address current challenges while preserving the core principles of democracy. This adaptability is essential in ensuring that the Constitution remains relevant and effective in a rapidly changing world. By drawing on historical insights and theoretical principles, contemporary policymakers can craft reforms that enhance democratic governance, protect individual rights, and promote a more just and equitable society.
Conclusion
Ultimately, when analyzing the Articles of Confederation and the Constitution, it is evident that the Constitution is more democratic. If the Articles were amended rather than replaced, the United States would be worse off, especially when examining the state of the federal government and the flourishing of society. While the Framers developed two flawed documents to run the country, it is evident that their second attempt was much more successful than the first. With the several alterations and newly drafted documents they created at the Constitutional Convention of 1787, the Framers created a historic document that changed modern-day government, influencing countries around the world to adopt this style of government for their own—one that values the opinions of the people and accurately represents them. As we continue to refine and amend our governing document, let us ensure that our Constitution not only withstands the test of time but also reflects the evolving ideals of democracy, reminding us that in the grand experiment of self-governance, the pursuit of a more perfect union is an ongoing journey—and a noble one at that.
Bibliography
[1] Locke, John. "Two Treatises of Government." Cambridge University Press, 1988.
[2] Rousseau, Jean-Jacques. "The Social Contract." Penguin Books, 1968.
[3] Mill, John Stuart. "On Liberty." Cambridge University Press, 2011.
[4] Thompson, Dennis F. "John Stuart Mill and Representative Government." Princeton University Press, 1976.
[5] Tocqueville, Alexis de. "Democracy in America." University of Chicago Press, 2000.
[6] Tocqueville, Alexis de. "Democracy in America." University of Chicago Press, 2000, p. 58.
[7] Pateman, Carole. "Participation and Democratic Theory." Cambridge University Press, 1970.
[8] Transparency International. "Corruption Perceptions Index 2019." Transparency International, 2019.
[9] Lipset, Seymour Martin. "Political Man: The Social Bases of Politics." Johns Hopkins University Press, 1981.
[10] Dahl, Robert A. "Polyarchy: Participation and Opposition." Yale University Press, 1971.
[11] Wood, Gordon S. "The Radicalism of the American Revolution." Vintage, 1993.
[12] Jensen, Merrill. "The Articles of Confederation: An Interpretation of the Social-Constitutional History of the American Revolution, 1774-1781." University of Wisconsin Press, 1940.
[13] Rakove, Jack N. "Original Meanings: Politics and Ideas in the Making of the Constitution." Vintage, 1997.
[14] McDonald, Forrest. "Novus Ordo Seclorum: The Intellectual Origins of the Constitution." University Press of Kansas, 1985.
[15] Wood, Gordon S. "The Radicalism of the American Revolution." Vintage, 1993.
[16] Maier, Pauline. "American Scripture: Making the Declaration of Independence." Knopf, 1997.
[17] Locke, John. "Two Treatises of Government." Cambridge University Press, 1988.
[18] Madison, James. "Federalist No. 51." In "The Federalist Papers," edited by Clinton Rossiter. Penguin Books, 1961.
[19] Madison, James. "Federalist No. 51." In "The Federalist Papers," edited by Clinton Rossiter. Penguin Books, 1961, p. 322.
[20] Ketcham, Ralph. "The Anti-Federalist Papers and the Constitutional Convention Debates." Signet Classics, 2003.
[21] Montesquieu, Charles de Secondat. "The Spirit of the Laws." Cambridge University Press, 1989.
[22] Dahl, Robert A. "On Democracy." Yale University Press, 1998.
[23] Beeman, Richard R. "Plain, Honest Men: The Making of the American Constitution." Random House, 2009.
[24] Wood, Gordon S. "The Creation of the American Republic, 1776-1787." University of North Carolina Press, 1969.
[25] Ellis, Richard E. "The Union at Risk: Jacksonian Democracy, States' Rights and the Nullification Crisis." Oxford University Press, 1987.
[26] Richards, Leonard L. "Shays's Rebellion: The American Revolution's Final Battle." University of Pennsylvania Press, 2002.
[27] Edling, Max M. "A Revolution in Favor of Government: Origins of the U.S. Constitution and the Making of the American State." Oxford University Press, 2003.
[28] Montesquieu, Charles de Secondat. "The Spirit of the Laws." Cambridge University Press, 1989.
[29] Hamilton, Alexander, James Madison, and John Jay. "The Federalist Papers." Penguin Classics, 1987.
[30] McPherson, James M. "Battle Cry of Freedom: The Civil War Era." Oxford University Press, 1988.
[31] Amar, Akhil Reed. "America's Constitution: A Biography." Random House, 2005.
[32] Szatmary, David P. "Shays' Rebellion: The Making of an Agrarian Insurrection." University of Massachusetts Press, 1980.
[33] Richards, Leonard L. "Shays's Rebellion: The American Revolution's Final Battle." University of Pennsylvania Press, 2002.
[34] Slaughter, Thomas P. "The Whiskey Rebellion: Frontier Epilogue to the American Revolution." Oxford University Press, 1986.
[35] Ferling, John. "The First of Men: A Life of George Washington." Oxford University Press, 1988.
[36] Edling, Max M. "A Revolution in Favor of Government: Origins of the U.S. Constitution and the Making of the American State." Oxford University Press, 2003.
[37] Jensen, Merrill. "The Articles of Confederation: An Interpretation of the Social-Constitutional History of the American Revolution, 1774-1781." University of Wisconsin Press, 1940.
[38] Rakove, Jack N. “The Beginnings of National Politics: An Interpretive History of the Continental Congress.” Knopf, 1979.
[39] Beeman, Richard R. "Plain, Honest Men: The Making of the American Constitution." Random House, 2009.
[40] Rakove, Jack N. "Original Meanings: Politics and Ideas in the Making of the Constitution." Vintage, 1997.
[41] Allison, Graham, and Philip Zelokow. “Essence of Decision: Explaining the Cuban Missile Crisis.” 2nd. ed., Addison-Wesley, 1999.
[42] Wood, Gordon S. "The Creation of the American Republic, 1776-1787." University of North Carolina Press, 1969.
[43] Howe, Daniel Walker. “What Hath God Wrought: The Transformation of America, 1815-1848.” Oxford University Press, 2007.
[44] Finkelman, Paul. “An Imperfect Union: Slavery, Federalism, and Comity.” University of North Carolina Press, 1981.
[45] Brown v. Board of Education of Topeka, 347 U.S. 483 (1954).
[46] Ellis, Joseph J. “Founding Brothers: The Revolutionary Generation.” Vintage Books, 2000.
[47] Congressional Budget Office. “The Budget and Economic Outlook: 2023 to 2033.” Congressional Budget Office, February 2023.
[48] Edling, Max M. "A Revolution in Favor of Government: Origins of the U.S. Constitution and the Making of the American State." Oxford University Press, 2003.