The Differences Between the Constitution and the Articles of Confederation

After the United States gained independence from Britain, their next task was to establish a government. America’s first attempt at that was ratifying the Articles of Confederation. These so-called “Articles of Confusion” were very unorganized and hastily written because one of its purposes was to prove to France that the United States was a real country as soon as possible. After a few years, the Articles of Confederation was taken out and the Constitution, a better alternative that had completely different idas, was put into place.

The biggest areas that prove that there differences between the Constitution and the Articles of Confederation can be found in the three branches of government, the military, and how they could modify them. The first main example of why the Articles of Confederation and the Constitution were different were the three branches of government.

In the Articles of Confederation, no executive branch was mentioned, whereas in the Constitution, the president was instated as the head of the executive branch.

This proves that they are not alike in content because some things that are important in the Constitution were not mentioned at all in the Articles of Confederation. As for the Judiciary branch, in the Articles of Confederation, Congress was the assigned group to adjudicate the fights between states. In the Constitution, that role was given to the Supreme Court. This means that the writers of the Constitution put a lot more things into it than the writers of the Articles of Confederation put into their document.

Get quality help now

Marrie pro writer

Verified

Proficient in: Articles Of Confederation

5 (204)

“ She followed all my directions. It was really easy to contact her and respond very fast as well. ”

+84 relevant experts are online

Hire writer

Finally, the Legislative branch holds the most differences, yet the biggest difference of all lies in Congress. In the Articles of Confederation, Congress was only one body and in the Constitution, the Congress is split up into two areas: the Senate, which has an equal amount of 2 votes per state, and the House of Representatives, which has a varied amount of votes based on the populations of the states.

The differences between the Legislative branches prove that the Articles of Confederation weren’t expecting any issues with the voting system, unlike the Constitution which not only expected it, but prepared for it too. The next area of difference is their plans for the military. Although both the Articles of Confederation and the Constitution gave Congress the right to create the Navy but in the Articles of Confederation also gave states the rights to keep the ships to fight against pirates, a right that the Constitution did not give. As for the Army, the Articles of Confederation gave Congress almost unlimited power, whereas the Constitution only gave Congress the rights to raise and authorize the new Army. This proves that even though the two documents had a few similar contents, they are different in many ways.

The final major group of differences can be found in the process of modifying the documents. To add a state with the Articles of Confederation, 9 states would have to agree and in the Constitution, Congress would have to agree. To add an amendment to the Articles of Confederation, all of the states would have to agree. To add an amendment to the Constitution, only 3/4ths of the states had to agree. This proves that even though they work towards the same thing, they take completely different roads to get there.

In conclusion, the Constitution and the Articles of Confederation are very different because of the three branches of government, the military, and how they could be changed. While some people might say that they state the same things in the same ways, that is not true because the Constitution has entire sections that were not even mentioned in the Articles of Confederation.