Limited Authority of the Central Government
Taxation
After ratification in 1781, the Articles of Confederation (AoC) had several shortcomings that necessitated constitutional amendment; one was the national government’s limited authority. The AOC prohibited the central government from directly imposing taxes, leaving it mostly reliant on voluntary state payments. Hirsch (2021) clarifies that “…all charges of war, and all other expenses that shall be incurred for the common defense or general welfare, and allowed by the United States (US) in Congress assembled….shall be supplied by the several States, in proportion to the value of all land within each State…” (p. 620). The US Congress convened to determine the timeframe for the several States to lay and levy taxes to cover these expenditures. This clause emphasizes that the States are required to pay into the joint treasury and that the federal government’s ability to collect revenue independently is constrained.
The AoC’s restriction on the central government’s capacity to levy taxes was, in fact, one of its significant shortcomings. This drawback eventually prompted the creation of a new constitution that included elements for a stronger federal government (Hirsch, 2021). Economic instability resulted from the government’s inability to control commerce and to pay off war debts. The need for a more powerful, centralized authority arose from the national government’s inability to levy taxes and enforce laws.
Internal Threats
The vulnerabilities in the AoC were further shown by Shays’s Rebellion (SR) in 1786. The rebellion, spearheaded by farmers in debt in Massachusetts, brought attention to the government’s failure to uphold law and order and to address internal threats. The SR sought to avoid both eviction and incarceration (Harris, 2022). This uprising was a politically disruptive social upheaval that affected all property owners. Harris (2022) continues to mention that “…General Henry Knox, in a letter to George Washington, said the belief uniting the rebels …. perilous position of the plutocracy…”(pp. 4-5).
The quotation from these two paragraphs demonstrates how inadequate the AoC is in enforcing law and order and in handling internal threats. The Massachusetts militia and soldiers that Congress had requisitioned were meant to put down the insurrection. Still, the militia’s noncompliance and the acquisition system’s breakdown revealed the government’s incapacity to deal with the revolt.
This incident underscored the urgent need for a highly resilient structure that can withstand internal turmoil. The inability of the national government to raise the necessary funding for a militia and the lack of a permanent army made it difficult to put down the rebellion (Harris, 2022). SR served as a vital reminder to the ruling class of the day, underscoring the need for a stronger central authority to fend off internal uprisings and preserve order.
State Representation
Another crucial concern under this was representation, where every state was granted an equal vote in the unicameral Congress. The government’s inability to implement and enforce legislation was further impeded by the lack of a powerful executive branch, and the 1787 Constitutional Convention looked forward to addressing these concerns (Dixon, 2019). The Constitution intended to achieve this by establishing a system of government that defined a bicameral legislature, an executive branch, and a judiciary. These schemes managed to provide an exceptionally efficient and just form of government, as well as recognize the necessity of adequate and equal representation.
According to Dixon (2019), “…historian Woody Holton states that Federalists as well as ‘most historians of the Constitution ‘ place the economic blame on ‘state assemblies’…” (p. 1). This section of the article argues that the federal government’s shortcomings stemmed from its incompetence in enacting sensible economic policies and resolving state-to-state conflicts. There was another addition to the discussions regarding “…altercations between large and small States and how the large states intended to refuse the small States an equal vote…” (Dixon, 2019, p. 1). This signifies that throughout the Convention’s proceedings, the top agenda item was uneven representation. Similarly, the discontent with the equal vote system was mirrored in Edmund Randolph’s Virginia arrangement. Edmund’s plan called for proportional representation based on each state’s population.
References
Dixon, C. (2019). Importance of interstate divisions at the Constitutional Convention. Hist 1483, 1-7.
Goodin, B. (2021). Two barbary captives: Allegiance through self-interest and international networks, 1785–1796. The Pennsylvania Magazine of History and Biography, 145(1), 1-32.
Harris, D. (2022). Critically analyzing American constitutionalism. Liberty University, 1-17.
Hirsch, J. M. (2021). War powers abrogation. George Washington Law Review, 89, 593-666.