Failure at Philadelphia

[IchBinDieKaiser]

How long can the United States stay unified under the Articles of Confederation. At the time of the Philadelphia convention the United States was in a shambles. In debt, still recovering from the revolution financially and physically. The British still occupied forts in the North West Territory. To itself and the rest of the world it looked on the verge of collapes.

I tend to be of the opinion that without a new constitution, the United States would either collapse, break up, or succumb to some kind of Absolutist rule.

So I was wondering, if the constitutional convention had failed, how long would the United States last? Would it break up, or fall under some kind of dictatorial rule?

[Jaded_Railman]

It depends how things unfold. The national debt is going to end up being the big football that gets tossed around: If the republicans can succeed in getting the states to assume the debt, I don't see any major reason the articles can't continue into the foreseeable future. If the federalists and monarchists continue to block all attempts to get the states to assume the debt, things could come to an early head.

[Wolfpaw]

Originally Posted by Jaded_Railman

if the republicans can succeed in getting the states to assume the debt, I don't see any major reason the articles can't continue into the foreseeable future. If the federalists and monarchists continue to block all attempts to get the states to assume the debt, things could come to an early head.

Umm....weren't the federalists the ones for all of the states assuming the national debt and the democratic-republicans the ones against the individual states assuming the national debt

[Jaded_Railman]

Originally Posted by Wolfpaw

Umm....weren't the federalists the ones for all of the states assuming the national debt and the democratic-republicans the ones against the individual states assuming the national debt

There were two major (and several minor) 'parties' (very informal interest groups) in the Confederate Congress: The Republicans, and the Federalists. The Federalists were in favor of a stronger central government that was superior to the state governments and allied with the much smaller faction of the monarchists, who favored turning the state governments into subsidiary branches of the central government. The Republicans were in favor of a weak central government that was inferior to the state governments.

The debt controversy was driven almost entirely by the monarchists and a small portion of the federalists who were intensely interested in giving the Congress the power of taxation of some sort. The Congress continually tried to vote to have the states assume the debt or to set up any kind of sinking fund or do something that didn't involve giving the central government an unconditional income and the federalists continually voted these solutions down.

So no, I do have it the right way around.

[mowque]

*Not knowledgeable* Was this before or after the government forced the state to give up claims out west?

[Jaded_Railman]

Originally Posted by mowque

*Not knowledgeable* Was this before or after the government forced the state to give up claims out west?

wiki has the answers



EDIT: And, to be more specific, it looks like the only areas not already ceded were Georgia's western territory and Connecticut's western reserve in modern Ohio.