How Are The Articles Of Confederation Different From The Constitution

696 Words3 Pages

After the Revolution, the immediate crisis was a national government. Congress felt the need of a powerful central government was crucial to their survival from Great Britain. Even though the war was over, the settlers felt as if they might always have a need to be stronger than their former foes. In my opinion, they probably thought that the bad blood between them and Britain would always pose a threat to their new found freedom and independence. Because of this, their next step was a big and strategic one. Creating a government that was strong enough to overcome other governments was key, but not so powerful that it concerned the people of their own state’s individual rights. There were many American diplomats that contributed to the first constitution or The Articles of Confederation. Opinions were given, disagreements took place, and revisions were made. Still there were some that were …show more content…

The Constitution and the Articles of Confederation are very similar, but different at the same time. In my opinion, the years that passed between the articles and the Constitution were very hard learning years. When the articles were ratified, the founders were quite inexperienced at running their own government, but I feel like the Articles of Confederation was really good considering they were newly independent. In my opinion, the time between the two constitutions gave some trial and error time, and also some time to mature in government. After the Revolution, they did the best they could with what they had, and even though it failed, they didn’t give up. Instead, they created something that was much more thought out and detailed, and it is what we still go by today! Even though the Constitution is still in effect today, there was much resistance towards it when it was first