ManintheField
Banned
Reading through Pauline Maier's masterpiece, Ratification, for what seems like the 50th time (really: third, I think, not counting the audiobook listen through I did when it first came out), it's very clear from the get-go that what many of the federalist partisans and delegates called 'anti-federalism' during the Philadelphia Convention and beyond was, in actuality, an array of different positions that were sometimes very mutually exclusive. The two factions within this array that were probably the largest, which traded members most often, and which are probably the most responsible for the success of the ratification process in the long run were:
1. The 'Prior Amendments' moderate anti-Federalists, who agreed with the necessity of a more 'energetic' central government but saw the Philadelphia Convention as having produced a document that was unacceptable as is. This was the faction that was the most offended by the Federalist contention that state ratification conventions had to 'take it or leave it' with the Constitution and, as such, was in favor of some kind of process to produce amendments to be incorporated into the Constitution prior to actually ratifying it.
2. The 'Later Amendments' anti-Federalists, who also agreed with the necessity of more powerful central government but believed it was more important to get the government up and running than to amend it beforehand. Amendments could be made once the new government was safely functional. This was the position that many Federalists at least pretended to argue from when confronted with the 'Prior Amendments' positions and, ultimately, the position that many anti-Federalists converted to as time went on and momentum built up for ratification.
There were vast splits within even these factions over exactly what kind of amendments needed to be made, from the more universal feelings of a need for an explicit bill of rights, to more sectional desires like prohibitions against non-Christians serving in public offices. There was, however, very broad agreement on at least three different additions that should be added that, if the Prior Amendments people had had their way, would have been included in the Constitution with almost 100% certainty:
1. A kind of 'Articles of Confederation' option for direct taxation, where states would have the option of collecting a requisitioned total when the Federal government wanted to directly tax the population (instead of indirectly, such as through tariffs), instead of having Federal tax officials going into the several states themselves. Only if a state failed to collect its requisition within a certain period of time would Federal collectors be allowed to go in and collect a direct tax levy (with interest, according to certain proposals).
2. An amendment to ensure a high degree of representation with the House of Representatives, with as many as 1 Rep for every 30,000 inhabitants being the most common proposal. The idea went right back to the heart of what the Revolution was fought over, the relationship between representation and the justice of taxation, with the argument being that only a representative who was familiar with the conditions his constituents lived under could justly vote for a tax upon them. A large constituency would lead, according to proponents, to representatives who are utterly unfamiliar with the needs and limitations of their constituents.
3. An explicit bill of rights, similar to those several state constitutions had. Pauline Maier actually makes the (AFAIK) novel case that the first ten amendments written up by Madison IOTL weren't actually intended as a bill of rights and didn't have a whole lot in common with what people would have understood such a document to be in that time period. A bill of rights, to these people, would have preceded the Constitution itself and simply been a list of rights, rather than a series of structural or legal modifications. Among these might have been some more radical rights than those we got IOTL, such as a prohibition on commercial monopolies or on a standing armies (perhaps without a supermajority vote in Congress, according to some proposals).
How might these alterations to the US Constitution affect US history? Maier makes the argument that many of these changes occurred de facto anyway, with the Revolution of 1800, as direct taxation was an extremely rare form of Federal Revenue raising outside of wartime for the first century of American history anyway, and representation in the House stayed in the 1 delegate for every 30-50,000 constituents range in the same time period regardless of what the Constitution said.
It would seem only later on that major changes would start coming up. If an alternate historical version of the Civil War occurs, for instance, the Federal government is going to have to spend time requisitioning the remaining states for at least some of the revenue it tries to raise. Likewise, as the decades start to drag on, the House of Representatives is going to start getting truly huge, especially getting into the 20th century as the US population starts getting into the triple digit millions.
As a fun addition, what if other, less popular amendments are also made?
Some anti-Federalists wanted to take many of the pseudo-executive powers of the Senate, such as related to treaty-making, federal appointments, and even impeachment away and give them to an executive council whose members would be chosen by either the states or by the Congress. This was often paired with taking away the position of the Vice President as President of the Senate and allowing the Senate to elect its own presiding officer.
Some, especially Southern, delegates, worried about Federalist intentions vis navigation on the Mississippi River, wanted to have a super-majority requirement for the approval of laws or treaties related to commerce or navigation, which might be interpreted to include tariffs.
I think it is clear that, provided he still wants it, Washington has the Presidency in almost any TL where such a position exists, but beyond that I cannot guess where things go. Will the same pro- and anti-Administration factions, eventually developed into the Federalists and Democratic-Republicans still grow if people feel more secure about the limitations on Federal powers? What kind of policies will the Washington and later administration follow vis issues like the national debt and the soured position of the US in the international arena?
What do you think?
1. The 'Prior Amendments' moderate anti-Federalists, who agreed with the necessity of a more 'energetic' central government but saw the Philadelphia Convention as having produced a document that was unacceptable as is. This was the faction that was the most offended by the Federalist contention that state ratification conventions had to 'take it or leave it' with the Constitution and, as such, was in favor of some kind of process to produce amendments to be incorporated into the Constitution prior to actually ratifying it.
2. The 'Later Amendments' anti-Federalists, who also agreed with the necessity of more powerful central government but believed it was more important to get the government up and running than to amend it beforehand. Amendments could be made once the new government was safely functional. This was the position that many Federalists at least pretended to argue from when confronted with the 'Prior Amendments' positions and, ultimately, the position that many anti-Federalists converted to as time went on and momentum built up for ratification.
There were vast splits within even these factions over exactly what kind of amendments needed to be made, from the more universal feelings of a need for an explicit bill of rights, to more sectional desires like prohibitions against non-Christians serving in public offices. There was, however, very broad agreement on at least three different additions that should be added that, if the Prior Amendments people had had their way, would have been included in the Constitution with almost 100% certainty:
1. A kind of 'Articles of Confederation' option for direct taxation, where states would have the option of collecting a requisitioned total when the Federal government wanted to directly tax the population (instead of indirectly, such as through tariffs), instead of having Federal tax officials going into the several states themselves. Only if a state failed to collect its requisition within a certain period of time would Federal collectors be allowed to go in and collect a direct tax levy (with interest, according to certain proposals).
2. An amendment to ensure a high degree of representation with the House of Representatives, with as many as 1 Rep for every 30,000 inhabitants being the most common proposal. The idea went right back to the heart of what the Revolution was fought over, the relationship between representation and the justice of taxation, with the argument being that only a representative who was familiar with the conditions his constituents lived under could justly vote for a tax upon them. A large constituency would lead, according to proponents, to representatives who are utterly unfamiliar with the needs and limitations of their constituents.
3. An explicit bill of rights, similar to those several state constitutions had. Pauline Maier actually makes the (AFAIK) novel case that the first ten amendments written up by Madison IOTL weren't actually intended as a bill of rights and didn't have a whole lot in common with what people would have understood such a document to be in that time period. A bill of rights, to these people, would have preceded the Constitution itself and simply been a list of rights, rather than a series of structural or legal modifications. Among these might have been some more radical rights than those we got IOTL, such as a prohibition on commercial monopolies or on a standing armies (perhaps without a supermajority vote in Congress, according to some proposals).
How might these alterations to the US Constitution affect US history? Maier makes the argument that many of these changes occurred de facto anyway, with the Revolution of 1800, as direct taxation was an extremely rare form of Federal Revenue raising outside of wartime for the first century of American history anyway, and representation in the House stayed in the 1 delegate for every 30-50,000 constituents range in the same time period regardless of what the Constitution said.
It would seem only later on that major changes would start coming up. If an alternate historical version of the Civil War occurs, for instance, the Federal government is going to have to spend time requisitioning the remaining states for at least some of the revenue it tries to raise. Likewise, as the decades start to drag on, the House of Representatives is going to start getting truly huge, especially getting into the 20th century as the US population starts getting into the triple digit millions.
As a fun addition, what if other, less popular amendments are also made?
Some anti-Federalists wanted to take many of the pseudo-executive powers of the Senate, such as related to treaty-making, federal appointments, and even impeachment away and give them to an executive council whose members would be chosen by either the states or by the Congress. This was often paired with taking away the position of the Vice President as President of the Senate and allowing the Senate to elect its own presiding officer.
Some, especially Southern, delegates, worried about Federalist intentions vis navigation on the Mississippi River, wanted to have a super-majority requirement for the approval of laws or treaties related to commerce or navigation, which might be interpreted to include tariffs.
I think it is clear that, provided he still wants it, Washington has the Presidency in almost any TL where such a position exists, but beyond that I cannot guess where things go. Will the same pro- and anti-Administration factions, eventually developed into the Federalists and Democratic-Republicans still grow if people feel more secure about the limitations on Federal powers? What kind of policies will the Washington and later administration follow vis issues like the national debt and the soured position of the US in the international arena?
What do you think?
Last edited:
I hope this conversation gets going though...