Economic Power: A Constitutional Ratification Catalyst

The Constitution of the United States, ratified in 1789, was the nation's second attempt at establishing a federal government. The first, the Articles of Confederation, had been ratified in 1781, but it had provided for a weak executive branch, no national power of taxation, and a lack of standard currency. The Constitution aimed to address these issues, but the issue of economic power was a key concern during its ratification. The Constitution's supporters, known as Federalists, believed it would help remedy the economic downturn caused by the Articles of Confederation, which had prevented the federal Congress from entering into credible trade agreements with foreign powers. The Constitution's opponents, known as Anti-Federalists, feared that it would lead to a government controlled by the wealthy and that it would enable the federal government to infringe on states' rights to regulate their own economies.

Explore related products

The Rise and Fall of the Great Powers: Economic Change and Military Conflict from 1500 to 2000

$12.7 $25

How Economics Explains the World: A Short History of Humanity

$13.99 $26

Accumulation and Power: Economic History of the United States

$69.34 $72.99

An Empire of Wealth: The Epic History of American Economic Power

$10.44 $23.99

Why Nations Fail: The Origins of Power, Prosperity, and Poverty

$14.45 $22

Economica: A Global History of Women, Wealth, and Power

$30 $35

The Articles of Confederation's economic limitations

The Articles of Confederation, officially the Articles of Confederation and Perpetual Union, was the United States' first constitution. It was an agreement and early body of law in the Thirteen Colonies, serving as the nation's first frame of government during the American Revolution. The Articles gave little power to the central government, which had limited power to regulate trade.

The Articles were debated by the Second Continental Congress between July 1776 and November 1777, and were finalized and adopted by the full Congress on November 15, 1777. Ratification by the 13 colonies took more than three years and was completed on March 1, 1781. The Articles included language guaranteeing that each state retained its sovereignty, and established a unicameral legislature with limited and clearly delineated powers.

The Articles' economic limitations were significant. Firstly, there was a lack of economic unity, with each state legislature deciding how to raise money, and oftentimes not providing these funds to the national government. This led to substantial revenue shortfalls for Congress, which struggled to pay off foreign debts and manage foreign affairs. The unpredictability of the central government's revenue made establishing a national budget nearly impossible.

Secondly, Congress had very limited power to regulate trade and commerce. It could only regulate trade with Native American tribes, and even then, it could not impair an individual state's ability to monitor its own trade. Congress had no ability to negotiate trade agreements with foreign countries or to police imports and exports. This meant there was very little economic coordination among the states, and America struggled to compete economically in the late 1780s.

Thirdly, the Articles offered no system of courts in the jurisdiction of the national government, so the entire judiciary branch was dependent on the states. Consequently, states could overturn national actions that they found objectionable.

Finally, the Articles' weakness in foreign policy was demonstrated by the 1786 Jay-Gardoqui Treaty with Spain, which was never ratified but would have seen the United States give up rights to use the Mississippi River for 25 years, economically strangling the settlers west of the Appalachian Mountains. The Confederation's military weakness also meant it could not compel the British army to leave American soil, despite promises made in the Treaty of Paris in 1783.

Overall, the Articles of Confederation's economic limitations were a significant factor in its inadequacy as a governing document, leading to financial hardship for the emerging nation.

The Commerce Clause

In the early years of the Constitution, the Commerce Clause was used to address issues such as debtor relief laws and the abolition of the slave trade with other nations. The international commerce power gave Congress the authority to abolish the slave trade, which it did on January 1, 1808, the earliest date allowed by the Constitution. However, the Commerce Clause did not give Congress the power to abolish slavery within the states, as that was allowed by state governments within their borders.

The interpretation of the Commerce Clause has been a subject of debate, with some arguing that it refers simply to trade or exchange, while others claim that it describes a broader concept of commercial and social intercourse between citizens of different states. The Supreme Court has played a significant role in interpreting the Clause, with cases such as NLRB v. Jones & Laughlin Steel Corp. and Gonzales v. Raich shaping the understanding of congressional power over interstate commerce.

The Dormant Commerce Clause is an important aspect of the Commerce Clause, prohibiting states from passing legislation that discriminates against or excessively burdens interstate commerce. This has been crucial in preventing protectionist state policies and ensuring a more level playing field for businesses operating across state lines. The Commerce Clause continues to be a source of controversy, with ongoing debates about the balance of power between the federal government and the states in economic matters.

Congress's economic powers

The US Constitution, ratified in 1787, established a powerful central government, with Congress as the legislative branch. Article I, Section 8 of the Constitution outlines Congress's enumerated economic powers, including the power to:

• Lay and collect taxes, duties, imposts, and excises, to pay off debts and provide for the common defence and general welfare of the United States.
• Regulate commerce with foreign nations, among the states, and with the Indian tribes.
• Establish uniform rules of naturalization and uniform laws on bankruptcy throughout the United States.
• Coin money, regulate its value, and punish counterfeiting.
• Establish post offices and post roads.
• Promote the progress of science and the useful arts by securing exclusive rights to authors and inventors for their writings and discoveries for limited times.
• Establish courts inferior to the Supreme Court.
• Define and punish piracies and felonies committed on the high seas and offences against the law of nations.
• Declare war, grant letters of marque and reprisal, and make rules concerning captures on land and water.
• Raise and support armies, but appropriations for this purpose cannot be for a longer term than two years.

These economic powers granted to Congress were a significant shift from the Articles of Confederation, the nation's first constitution, which provided for a weak central government with no national power of taxation and no ability to regulate commerce. The shift towards a stronger central government was driven by concerns that the young nation was on the brink of collapse due to disputes among the states over territory, war pensions, taxation, and trade.

Explore related products

Technology and the Rise of Great Powers: How Diffusion Shapes Economic Competition (Princeton Studies in International History and Politics)

$18.95 $29.95

A Little History of Economics

$15 $17.16

Purchasing Power: The Economics of Modern Jewish History (Jewish Culture and Contexts)

$24.95 $90

Private Finance, Public Power: A History of Bank Supervision in America

$39.95 $39.95

Democracy in Power: A History of Electrification in the United States

$37.03 $45

Power and Plenty: Trade, War, and the World Economy in the Second Millennium (The Princeton Economic History of the Western World)

$34.32 $53

State economic powers

The Articles of Confederation, the first constitution of the United States, gave state legislatures control over their commerce. This meant that the federal Congress lacked the ability to enter into credible trade agreements with foreign powers to open markets for American goods. The result was a nationwide economic downturn.

In 1787, political dissatisfaction with the economic situation led to a convention in Philadelphia to address the issue. The new Constitution it proposed included the Commerce Clause, which grants Congress the power "to regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian Tribes".

The original meaning of the Commerce Clause gave Congress the power to make and prohibit the trade, transportation, or movement of people and goods from one state to another, to a foreign nation, or to an Indian tribe. However, it did not include the power to regulate the economic activities that produced the goods to be traded or transported, such as manufacturing or agriculture.

Later developments have seen an expansion of Congress's power over interstate commerce, giving it power over the national economy. For example, the Constitution was amended to give Congress the power to prohibit the intrastate economic activity of producing and selling alcohol. However, the power to regulate all intrastate economic activities still resides with each of the fifty states.

The Constitution also addressed debtor relief laws with the Contracts Clause of Article I, Section 10, which barred states from "impairing the obligation of contracts".

Economic motivations for ratification

Economic motivations played a significant role in the ratification of the United States Constitution. The Constitution was shaped by economic interests and concerns, and its ratification was influenced by the desire to address economic challenges faced under the previous system, the Articles of Confederation.

One of the key economic motivations for ratification was the widespread perception that the Articles of Confederation had resulted in a weak central government with limited financial capabilities. George Washington, for instance, described the situation under the Articles as having "no money". The Articles gave limited power to the central government, and while the Confederation Congress had some decision-making authority, it lacked enforcement powers and required unanimous approval from all states to amend the Articles. This resulted in a weak executive branch, no national power of taxation, a lack of standard currency, and a flawed system of voting by state. These economic shortcomings led to divisions among the states and threatened the stability of the young nation.

Nationalists, led by figures such as James Madison, George Washington, Alexander Hamilton, and John Jay, advocated for a stronger federal government that could address these economic challenges. They believed that a more robust central government would provide the economic power and stability needed to unite the states and prevent further divisions.

Additionally, economic interests, including "commercial interests, men of property, and creditors", supported the ratification of the Constitution. They recognised the inadequacies of the Articles of Confederation in promoting economic prosperity and believed that a new constitution would better protect their financial interests. The Constitution's provisions for a stronger federal government, with the power to regulate commerce, establish a uniform rule of naturalisation, and lay and collect taxes, appealed to these economic motivations.

Another economic factor influencing ratification was the issue of slavery. To gain support for ratification in the South, particularly in Georgia and South Carolina, delegates agreed to protect the slave trade for 20 years. This economic concession, along with other compromises, played a significant role in securing the ratification of the Constitution.

The ratification debates also reflected economic concerns. Federalists, who supported the Constitution, faced opposition from Anti-Federalists, who argued that the Constitution dangerously expanded the powers of the central government at the expense of states' rights. Anti-Federalists, including influential figures like Patrick Henry, warned that a powerful national government would infringe upon civil liberties and natural rights. They also expressed a general revulsion against taxation and feared that a centralised government would be insensitive to local economic interests. In contrast, Federalists emphasised the need for a stronger union and believed that the Constitution provided a balanced framework for governing.

Frequently asked questions