Thirteen States, One Nation: From the Articles of Confederation to the Federal Republic
The victory of the American revolutionaries over England (with key support provided by France and Spain), spawned a new nation made up of all the former colonies which had fought against England, but 1 divided into 13 states, each with its own constitution, government, and institutions.
Nevertheless, conscious of the fact that their union had been decisive in their victory against the British crown, the new states from the outset created a joint assembly, a national Congress in which the representatives of all the states met to discuss issues of shared concern and, when appropriate, to approve measures binding upon all of them. This was the first constitutional government of the United States: the “Articles of Confederation”. The nation’s initial constitutional framework, however, did not include any viable institutional mechanism to implement and enforce decisions made by the Congress, a flaw which ultimately rendered the “union” almost inoperative.This fact was not overlooked by America’s elite, which clearly perceived that, unless united, the nation would not be able to compete with its European counterparts. Of particular concern was England, which continued to have a firm hold on Canada, and Spain, which after the 1783 treaty still maintained an immense and solid empire in the Americas, including territory which covered a third of the present-day United States of America.
14.2.1 The Stage of the Constitutional Debate (1783-1787)
14.2.1.1 The Impotence of the Articles of Confederation
Under the Articles of Confederation system, designed in 1777, the “national Government” was little more than a league of states who met intermittently in congresses when circumstances so required. The states were essentially all-powerful, as the second clause of the Articles of Confederation made it crystal clear that “each state shall retain its sovereignty, its freedom, and its independence, as well as each power, jurisdiction and right which has not been specifically delegated by this Confederation to the United States, gathered in Congress”.
In addition, the financial maintenance of the national Congress depended on the monies granted it by the governments of the different states, at their discretion. Most of the states were not inclined to augment central power, as they were wary of the establishment of a stronger and more authoritative national government.A certain sector of American public opinion, however, was in favor of strengthening the union and endowing it with a more powerful national government.[720] Industrialists and merchants, for example, wanted a government capable of establishing tariffs that would protect the 13 states’ market and productive system, and argued that it was necessary to enact uniform laws governing commerce throughout the new nation. In addition, those interested in acquiring new property in the west thought that their land would be safer under a strong federal government. Finally, also in favor of a tighter union were those who sought a more uniform national financial system, specifically bankers and creditors who feared that the states would begin to indiscriminately issue their own money, thereby devaluing their assets. The foremost champion of the establishment of a strong central government was Alexander Hamilton (1755-1804), aNew York lawyer and former Revolutionary War officer, who believed that republicanism would not endure and America could not survive as nation if the states were not united by a strong central government under which the states would assume a subordinate position (Murray 2007, 57).
The clash between the two camps grew more and more intense in what came to be known as the Federalist and Anti-Federalist debates. The controversy took shape in a series of pamphlets written in favor of and against the federal union.[721] The most important documents endorsing a fortified union formed part of a series called The Federalist Papers, penned by Alexander Hamilton, James Madison and John Jay.[722]
14.2.1.2 Shay’s Rebellion (1786) Buoys the Federalist Movement
The fears of those favoring federalism were not unfounded, as the War of Independence had sunk the United States into a serious economic crisis, its most evident result being a chronic cash shortage.
Some states sought to remedy this by issuing paper notes, which creditors were reluctant to accept as valid currency. In 1786, this attitude prompted the State of Rhode Island to pass legislation forcing creditors to accept its currency at its face value, which was lower and lower than its actual market value, sowing widespread discontent among the people of the state.In that same year of 1786, western Massachusetts witnessed an armed uprising of farmers determined to abolish the courts which had ordered the execution of the mortgages on their properties. This pivotal revolt came to be known as Shay’s Rebellion.
Daniel Shay was a veteran of the Revolutionary War who had lost his farm when it was impossible for him to pay off his mortgage debt of 12 dollars. Desperate, Shay mustered a group of farmers who were facing the same situation and formed an armed band[723] that on August 29, 1786, headed for the Supreme Court of the State of Massachusetts, located in Springfield. Shay and his men managed to paralyze the sessions of the court, but when they attacked the arsenal at Springfield on February 3, 1787, they were defeated by an army recruited by the State of Massachusetts and financed by the farmers’ creditors. Shay and his men took refuge in Vermont (Richards 2002, 159-162).
Shay’s Rebellion itself did not have dramatic consequences (Brown 1983, 598-615). However, it was decisive in swaying the Federal/Anti-Federal debate in favor of those advocating a stronger union.[724] Among them was George Washington who, when hearing of the uprising, openly told his friends that in his opinion the Articles of Confederation government was driving the country towards anarchy.[725] Washington was outraged by the fact that the State of Massachusetts, though it had the authority to muster an army to quell the uprising, lacked the financial resources to do so, and that its efforts to convoke a national Congress to obtain the necessary funds from the other states had been fruitless.
Thus, had it not been for the private initiative of those who financed the army that defeated Shay, the rebellion would not have been put down. To prevent this kind of situation, Washington began to publicly argue that if the United States was to survive, it had no choice but to establish a strong federal government.The Federalists ended up winning over public opinion, thanks in part to the newspaper coverage[726] of Shay’s Rebellion and other similar incidents. Thus, in the 13 states more and more Americans came out in favor of reinforcing their union to more capably defend shared interests and prevent chaos, which could became widespread and wreak havoc with the new states’ financial systems.[727]
The problem was that there existed no unanimity when it came to how to reach this objective, as under the terms of the Articles of Confederation the unanimous consent of all the states was required to undertake their revision.
14.2.2 The Reopening of a Constitutional Convention
14.2.2.1 A Frustrated Attempt: The Annapolis Convention (September 1786)
The first step towards constitutional reform took place in March of 1785 when representatives of the States of Virginia and Maryland met at George Washington’s home to seek to resolve a dispute sparked by a navigation improvement project for the Potomac River (Dunn 2007, 93). At the end of the meeting an agreement was reached to convene a congress of all the states to discuss the possibility of jointly addressing affairs affecting commerce.
In January of 1786 Virginia’s General Assembly sent the other states a formal call for a congress to be held in Annapolis (Maryland) in September of that year. During the summer of 1786 several proposals for the revision of the Articles of Confederation were debated, like that drafted by the Massachusetts General Court. None of them, however, were sent to all the states. In the end the meeting at Annapolis took place in September of 1786, although it was disappointing for those who had hoped to reform the Articles of Confederation, as delegates from only five states attended, a number insufficient to propose changes to the states’ common constitutional system (Mcferran 2005, 149-153).
14.2.2.2 The Constitutional Convention of Philadelphia (May-September of 1787)
In spite of the failure of the Annapolis meeting the movement in favor of reforming the Articles of Confederation did not lose steam. The main proponent of reform was George Washington himself, who forcefully argued that the Congress must be granted powers sufficient for it to adopt and enforce national policies. Alexander Hamilton went even further, striving to convince the representatives of the 13 states that only drastic centralization could keep the new nation from falling apart. Hamilton proposed that a new convention be held in the city of Philadelphia to discuss constitutional reform, calling for the delegates attending this new body to be empowered to negotiate a sweeping plan of reform remedying the shortcomings of the Articles of Confederation.[728] Hamilton’s plan was approved by the Congress and all the states, with the exception of Rhode Island (Bowen 2010, 13), sent delegates to the Philadelphia Convention.[729]
14.3