These national "superstars" did not, however, include people from western parts of the country, nor did it include any artisans or tenant farmers. Indeed, there was only a single person of modest wealth whom we could consider a yeoman farmer. These were superstars and that meant that they did not reflect anything close to the full range of American society. Partly because the delegates had already served as national representatives, they shared a general commitment to a strong central government. Many were strong nationalists who thought the Articles of Confederation gave too much power to the states and were especially concerned about state governments' vulnerability to powerful local interests. Instead, the delegates to the Philadelphia Convention aimed to create an energetic NATIONAL GOVERNMENT that could deal effectively with the major problems of the period from external matters of diplomacy and trade to …show more content…
They already had the Articles of Confederation as a model for the nation. Unfortunately, the Articles of Confederation did not give the Federal government enough authority, leaving the power instead with the states. This link, from the Federalist Papers, provides Hamilton's list of the weaknesses (1787). Report broken link Articles of Confederation vs. the Constitution This site may not win any awards for its attractiveness with its yellow background, but when it comes to information, very few sites are as excellent. From interstate trade to levying taxes, this comparison between the Articles of Confederation and the U.S. Constitution will answer any questions that you have about the differences between these two important historical documents. In addition, this site links to a larger area with well-organized outlines and charts detailing the most influential periods in U.S. history. Report broken link Constitution of the United