The Articles of Confederation and the Constitution in Comparison

The Articles of Confederation, the little discussed original legal framework for the United States, and the current American Constitution represent the early American debate over how the young nation’s government should develop. The Articles, born out of frustration with the British monarchy during the colonial period, had no executive, forced the amendment process for federal laws to be unanimous, required a two-thirds majority for the passage of federal bills, and encouraged a loose association of states. The more stable Constitution consisted of a strong union of Americans who had a strong executive (or president), a simple majority requirement for federal laws, and an easier constitutional amendment process. This fundamental difference in legal approaches became the basis for the first partisan battles of American politics.

The first American party system consisted of the Federalist Party and the Democratic-Republican Party. The Federalists were led by John Adams and Alexander Hamilton while the Democratic-Republicans were headed by Thomas Jefferson and James Madison. The points of contention between these two groups was the basic governing philosophy of the federal government, the balance between federal and state power, and how to interpret the constitution. The Federalists, who were still in favor of maintaining relations with the British, wanted a strong central government, had a pessimistic view of pure democracy, and a proactive economic policy (including charter banks and infra structural development).