The Greek philosopher Plato once said that democracy often turns into "the tyranny of the majority." And this cynical opinion is exactly what Patrick Henry and other Anti-Federalists had on their minds.
Many decisions left to Congress under the Articles had to be approved by a unanimous vote of the states (Source). It would have been impossible for the majority to abuse the minority under this system. After all, a state with one million residents would get the same amount of power in Congress as a state with ten million. If a minority of states disagreed with a federal tax, they were effectively able to ignore it by "forgetting" to send tax revenue to the Congress.
In terms of nation building, it was the equivalent of free-for-all laser tag.
Questions About Majority vs. Minority
- In the Confederation Congress, states with large populations got more delegates but still only had one vote. Why was the system designed this way?
- Taking into account the historical context of the American Revolution, why did the Articles of Confederation make it difficult for Congress to collect taxes?
- Should wealthier states, which paid more in taxes, have received a greater share of votes? Why or why not?
- Why might a democratic system turn into "the tyranny of the majority?" Come up with and explain one example of a majority abusing its power.
Chew on This
The Constitution balanced power between small and large states better than the Articles of Confederation by creating two chambers of Congress—one with representation by population (the House), one with equal representation (the Senate).
Under the Articles of Confederation, a minority of states could easily prevent the majority from taking action on a number of fronts, including war and foreign treaties.