3.7
State constitutions and the shift after independence
After declaring independence, the new states maintained their own constitutions and (for a time) expectations of governance based on republicanism and landholding rights.
State constitutions were written rules, not informal understandings; there was no supreme state leader or monarch, and governors were no longer appointed by the crown.
Each state had a legislative branch with most of the power concentrated there for the time being; there was no national executive or federal court system yet.
In practice, many state power structures echoed colonial-era patterns: power often rested with landowners, and many groups (notably artisans and others without land) faced political exclusion from whom decisions were made.
Virginia and other colonial legacies persisted: town hall meetings in some places remained important; republicanism meant broad participation was possible but restricted in practice by property requirements.
To participate in governance, landownership was typically required, which excluded large segments of the population from political power.
The absence of a national executive and a federal judiciary meant there was no single center to administer laws across states or to resolve interstate disputes.
The idea of one person holding supreme power (a president or monarch) was rejected by the founders, who viewed centralized executive power with suspicion (a ‘monarchy hangover’).
The Articles of Confederation (ratified by the states) reflected these preferences: power centralized in a unicameral legislature with equal representation for each state and very high thresholds for change.
The Articles of Confederation: structure and intent
The Articles of Confederation were ratified in as the first governing document of the new nation (following the declaration of independence on ).
Core design goals: avoid centralized executive power; avoid a national court system; ensure state sovereignty; keep the federal government deliberately weak to limit potential tyranny.
Key structural features:
No national executive or president.
No national supreme court; judiciary remained at the state level.
A unicameral Congress where each state had an equal vote (regardless of population).
Equal veto power for each state over amendments; changes required the agreement of all states (with the phrase that even with no vetoes, amendments required the consent of states – i.e., a supermajority threshold that was effectively near-impossible to achieve).
This created a very rigid, largely unchangeable framework that centralized almost no real power in the federal government.
The federal government’s powers were limited to what the states delegated: conduct diplomacy, wage war, sign treaties, and handle certain collective concerns—but with no real leverage to enforce policy within states (no tax power, no standing army, no national currency).
Consequences of weakness: the federal government could not levy taxes; it depended on voluntary contributions from states for revenue and for paying debts from the war.
The absence of a centralized power to tax became critical after the war, given debts to foreign lenders and the need to cover war expenses; states could and did tax their own citizens to fund debts, but there was no mechanism to fund the central government or to coordinate nationwide fiscal policy.
Early state and national financial challenges after the war
The United States faced a postwar downturn and a fragile economy after independence, with heavy reliance on Great Britain for trade and capital.
After the war, states began increasing taxes to cover war debts, which angered veterans who could not meet the new tax burdens.
Veterans who fought in the Revolution faced a double bind: their service had helped win independence, but without adequate federal support and a functioning central government, they bore the taxation burden that funded postwar debt.
Inflation and new taxes strained farmers and other rural communities who had contributed to the war effort and were promised relief that did not materialize under the weak central government.
The economic strain contributed to widespread dissatisfaction with the Articles of Confederation and concerns about the government’s ability to respond to crises.
Westward expansion, land policy, and early territorial plans
Proclamation of 1763 (the Appalachian Proclamation) issued by King George III restricted colonial settlement west of the Appalachian Mountains; settlers still moved westward despite the prohibition.
Land Ordinance of 1785 and Northwest Ordinance of 1787 aimed to regulate western expansion and settlement.
Land Ordinance of 1785 established a method for surveying and selling western lands, contributing to orderly settlement and revenue.
Northwest Ordinance of 1787 established a framework for governing the Northwest Territory and setting the stage for admission of new states to the Union.
The Northwest Ordinance included provisions that promoted public education and protected private property; it also created a process for territorial governance and eventual statehood.
Importantly, the Northwest Ordinance attempted the abolition of slavery in the Northwest Territory, reflecting Enlightenment-era ideals, though it also allowed slavery to persist elsewhere and created tensions over the reach and enforcement of anti-slavery provisions.
The Ordinance also contemplated the treatment of enslaved people and the legal status of freedmen in the territories; there were mechanisms in the Northwest Territory to return escaped enslaved people to ownership (the slaveholding states preferred retention of slavery, and enforcement in the territories could undermine slave freedom claims).
The ordinance’s provisions foreshadowed the national conflict over slavery and governance in new territories and states.
Slavery, abolition, and the paradox of the founding era
Most founding leaders opposed slavery in principle, viewing it as a moral wrong and a sin against the fledgling republic; yet their economic interests (especially in Virginia and other Southern states) were deeply tied to slavery.
The economic system in the South made slavery profitable, complicating abolitionist ideals among leaders who nonetheless supported gradual or partial abolition in certain territories.
The Northwest Ordinance’s anti-slavery stance was a significant step, but it conflicted with the broader practice of slavery in existing states and in the domestic economy of the early United States.
The fugitive slave issue was contentious: enslaved people who escaped to Northwest Territory could be pursued and returned to owners; this undermined the claim of freedom in new territories and highlighted tensions between abolitionist impulses and slaveholding interests.
The overall stance of founders toward slavery reveals a dual ethic: rejection of slavery in principle, yet accommodation of slavery in practice within the political and economic system of the time. This contradiction contributed to ongoing ethical, philosophical, and political tensions in American governance.
The Shay’s Rebellion: a pivotal test of the Articles’ legitimacy
Daniel Shays, a veteran of the Revolution from Massachusetts, led a militia force aiming to shut down courts to prevent tax and debt collection and to challenge state authority.
The rebellion grew as debt, rising taxes, and economic distress affected farmers and veterans who could not meet financial obligations.
Shays’ Rebellion involved arming a militia and targeting courthouses to obstruct tax and debt enforcement and to protest economic conditions and political neglect.
Massachusetts authorities eventually responded with a militia; the federal government, under the Articles, could not intervene because there was no national executive or army to deploy, illustrating a key weakness in the Articles’ framework.
The rebellion was eventually suppressed; in the aftermath, 18 rebels were hanged (as example and warning). The event exposed the fragility of the new national government and demonstrated that the social contract between the people and the new government could be fragile and easily tested by economic distress and popular action.
The episode underscored the fear among elites that a popular uprising could overturn the new government, reinforcing calls to strengthen the national framework and move toward a new constitutional design.
Shay’s Rebellion signaled to elites that a stronger, more cohesive federal structure was needed to maintain order and to lend legitimacy to the new political system.
The move toward a new constitution: Philadelphia convention and beyond
The visible weaknesses exposed by the Articles (no executive, no national court, no power to tax, no standing army, difficulty amending the framework) prompted elites and landowners across states to discuss changes.
The leaders from the states gathered in Philadelphia to discuss how to fix the national government and to replace the Articles with a new constitutional framework that could support a stronger central government while limiting the danger of centralized power.
This set the stage for the drafting and eventual ratification of a new constitution, which would replace the Articles and establish a more robust federal system with a separation of powers and a system of checks and balances.
Key dates and events to remember
Declaration of independence announced:
Articles of Confederation ratified:
Northwest Ordinance (territorial governance and path to statehood):
Land Ordinance (lands in the west, governance, and revenue):
Proclamation of 1763 (restrictions on westward settlement):
Shay's Rebellion (Massachusetts):
Connections to foundational principles and real-world relevance
The Articles embodied a strong suspicion of centralized power, rooted in recent experiences with monarchy; yet the inability to levy taxes and coordinate defense or economic policy demonstrated a critical mismatch between ideals and practical governance.
The Northwest Ordinance and related land policies illustrate the young nation’s attempt to balance expansion, education, private property, and a cautious approach to expanding slavery into new territories, foreshadowing major constitutional debates.
Shay’s Rebellion highlighted the risk that a weak federal government could be unable to respond to civil unrest and economic distress, reinforcing the case for a stronger national framework with authorities that can resolve interstate issues, fund defense, and manage fiscal policy.
The tension between anti-slavery ideals and the economic realities tied to slavery reveals a broader ethical and political dilemma at the heart of early American governance, influencing later constitutional compromises and policy debates.
These events collectively explain why a new constitution was drafted: to create a government capable of managing national interests, defending the country, and regulating economic and territorial expansion while still guarding against the concentration of power.
Foundational takeaways for AP US History Unit 3, Topic 7
The Articles of Confederation established a deliberately weak central government to avoid monarchical power, but its design failed to provide effective national governance.
The federal government under the Articles could not tax, enforce laws, or raise a standing army, which impeded its ability to address debt, economic turmoil, and security threats.
State constitutions maintained strong legislative power and voter eligibility conditions, which often favored landowners and limited broader democratic participation.
Key regulatory initiatives (Northwest Ordinance, Land Ordinance) attempted to organize westward expansion, promote education, and manage territorial governance, but these efforts could not overcome the centralized weaknesses of the framework.
Economic instability, debt, and social unrest (notably Shay’s Rebellion) exposed the fragility of the Articles and catalyzed the move toward drafting a new constitution with a more effective federal system.
The process set the stage for the later creation of a Constitution that would balance national power with protections against tyranny, shaped by experiences of war, debt, expansion, and rebellion.