Winning independence in 1783 was the easy part compared to what came next: building a government that could actually run a country. The United States' first attempt, the Articles of Confederation (1781–1789), was designed by people who had just fought a war against a powerful central government — so they deliberately built a weak one.
Why the Articles were built weak on purpose: Americans had just rebelled against a distant king and parliament with too much power. The Articles of Confederation reflected a fear of tyranny — so the states kept almost all real power for themselves, and the central Congress was left with very little.
- No power to tax — Congress could only ask states for money; states often refused or paid late
- No power to regulate trade — states taxed each other's goods, causing trade wars between them
- No national army — Congress had to request troops from state militias
- No executive or national courts — no single leader to enforce laws, no way to settle disputes fairly
- Amendment required unanimous consent — all 13 states had to agree to change anything, which almost never happened
By the mid-1780s these weaknesses were causing real damage. The government could not pay its war debts, could not stop states from printing worthless paper money, and could not respond effectively when trouble broke out.
Shays' Rebellion (1786–1787): In Massachusetts, farmer Daniel Shays led an armed uprising of indebted farmers against high taxes and aggressive debt collection. The state militia had to put it down because Congress had no army to send. The rebellion terrified political leaders — it showed the Articles could not keep order, and pushed many towards demanding a stronger central government.
Debt crisis
War debts unpaid; Congress cannot tax to raise revenue
Trade chaos
States impose tariffs on each other; no single national currency
Shays' Rebellion
Armed uprising in Massachusetts (1786–87) exposes lack of federal force
Call for reform
1787 Philadelphia Convention called to revise — delegates instead write a new Constitution
Debt → Disorder → Danger → Delegates: the Articles failed their way into the Constitution.
Free preview
This is the free notes preview
You're reading the free notes. Aimnova Pro unlocks the full study experience — and you can try it free for 7 days:
- FlashcardsLock in vocabulary and key terms with spaced repetition.
- Practice questionsAnswer exam-style questions and get instant AI marking.
- Mock exams & past-paper vaultSit full mocks and see exactly how examiners award marks.
- Personalised study planA daily plan built around your exam date and weak areas.
Delegates met in Philadelphia in the summer of 1787, officially to revise the Articles — but they scrapped them entirely and wrote a new Constitution instead. It created a much stronger central government while still trying to prevent any one person or group from becoming a tyrant.
Enlightenment philosophy behind the design: The Constitution drew heavily on Enlightenment ideas: separation of powers (from Montesquieu) split government into legislative, executive and judicial branches, each able to check the others. This was meant to stop power concentrating in one place, unlike the monarchy they had rejected.
- Legislative branch — Congress (House of Representatives + Senate) makes laws
- Executive branch — the President enforces laws and leads foreign policy
- Judicial branch — federal courts interpret laws and the Constitution itself
- Checks and balances — each branch can limit the others, e.g. the President can veto laws, Congress can override a veto
Reaching agreement required several major compromises, because delegates from different-sized and different-economy states wanted very different systems.
| Compromise | Problem it solved | Key terms |
|---|---|---|
| Great (Connecticut) Compromise | Large states wanted representation by population; small states wanted equal representation | Two-house Congress: House by population, Senate with 2 seats per state |
| Three-Fifths Compromise | Southern states wanted enslaved people counted for representation but not for tax; Northern states disagreed | Each enslaved person counted as three-fifths of a person for both representation and taxation |
| Commerce Compromise | Northern states wanted Congress to regulate trade; Southern states feared this would threaten slavery and exports | Congress could regulate trade but was barred from taxing exports or banning the slave trade before 1808 |
The compromises did not solve slavery — they postponed it: Every major compromise treated slavery as a problem to be managed between regions, not resolved. This built a fault line into the new nation that would eventually help cause the Civil War (covered in a later micro). For Paper 3, this is a strong example of the Constitution creating short-term unity at the cost of long-term stability.
Naming the change accurately: Do not say the US simply "got a government" in 1787 — say it moved from a confederation (a loose alliance of sovereign states) to a federation (a strong central government sharing power with the states). Examiners reward precise constitutional vocabulary.
Know your predicted grade
Take timed mock exams and get detailed feedback on every answer. See exactly where you're losing marks.
While the United States built a written constitution, most newly independent Latin American states struggled to build any stable government at all. Into that gap stepped the caudillo — a regional strongman who ruled through personal loyalty, force and patronage rather than law.
What made caudillo rule possible: Several regional conditions combined to produce caudillos across Latin America after independence.
- Power vacuum — Spanish colonial rule collapsed suddenly, leaving no local tradition of self-government or written constitutions to fall back on
- Weak central institutions — new national governments had little money, no reliable army loyal to the state, and poor communication across vast territories
- Regionalism — huge distances and geography (mountains, plains) meant local identity and loyalty were often stronger than national identity
- Militarization — the independence wars had produced large numbers of armed, battle-hardened men and ambitious officers used to fighting, not farming
- Personal loyalty (*caudillismo*) — rural and regional populations often trusted a known local strongman far more than a distant, abstract national government
A caudillo typically built power through a private army, control of land and patronage (rewarding followers with land, jobs or protection), and a direct, personal relationship with ordinary people — bypassing weak formal institutions entirely.
Case study: Juan Manuel de Rosas in Argentina (ruled 1829–1852): Rosas rose from a wealthy cattle-ranching (estanciero) background in Buenos Aires province. He built a private militia, won support from rural gauchos and landowners, and was twice granted near-total power by the Buenos Aires legislature.
| Policy area | What Rosas did | Impact |
|---|---|---|
| Political control | Ruled through the Federalist party; demanded absolute loyalty via the mazorca (his enforcement squad) | Crushed the rival Unitarist opposition; opponents exiled, imprisoned or killed |
| Economy | Favoured Buenos Aires' control of trade through its port and customs revenue | Enriched Buenos Aires but deepened resentment among interior provinces |
| Federalism vs unity | Claimed to defend provincial rights (Federalism) while centralizing personal power | Delayed a genuine national constitution for Argentina until after his fall in 1852 |
Caudillo rule was a response to a real problem: Caudillos were not simply villains grabbing power for its own sake — they filled a genuine vacuum left by weak new states. Explaining this cause (not just describing the strongman) is what separates a strong Paper 3 answer from a narrative one.