The US had the Federalists (strong union) and the Antifederalists (who advocated for states' rights and a weak union).

WI there was a centralist party wanting to abolish the different states and establish a centralist states like France with its départements? Would this have been possible in the US?
 
I don't see how it would be possible. The USA has always been a union of states. The notion of abolishing the state governments would never have been popular.
 
Yeah, considering that the Union was formed by the states willingly participating in it, this would be supremely difficult. This was an era in which regional and state identity was paramount (even in the North) and the thought of abolishing state governments would have horrified many. Its one of the same reasons, I think, there was no serious effort to redraw the states in the South after the Civil War.
 
No its not really feasible without a pod long before independence or sometime after. Until they replaced the Articles of Confederation with the Constitution the USA government was more comparable to the League of Nations than most other political organizations; No federal courts, no body to enforce laws, no universal currency, no taxation, no trade regulation, and laws passed by Congress were merely suggestions to the states. Oh, and because there wasn't a head of state, foreign diplomats were expected to negotiate with representatives from every state for any issue. These are symptomatic of the fact that individuals did not identify themselves as "Americans", but as New Yorkers or Virginians, and didn't want Virginian interest's influencIng laws that would effect New Yorkers and vice versa. American started to become to primary identity after the Civil war I believe. My understanding is that "State" was equivalent to "Country" and not "province" back then. Any talk of centralizing the country would turn to talking about Britain and all the reasons for independence in the first place kinda like how Godwin's law works.

You could have a country in the same area that speaks English and has many parallels and many of the same place names as Otl eastern USA, but you would have to butterfly the revolutionary war, federalist vs antifederalists, and probably even the "United States" part, because it would require Americans of that time to see government as a positive rather than a hindrance, and frankly I think that's herding cats. Hell, the antifederalists thought the US constitution was TOO much centralization, and that wasnt an unpopular opinion.

I think you can make a more centralised entity in place of the USA that eventually gets independence from Britain, and I think you could have the US centralize more after independance in increments that could be exponentially more radical the farther in the past the revolution, federalism debate, and Articles are, but in the era where the federalist and antifederalist debate is ongoing, a full on centralist would be only slightly more popular than a monarchist.
 
Well, I'm sure it's possible. You might get a dozen members in the whole country, but you COULD set up such a party.

They'd never elect so much as a dogcatcher, though.
 
However, there were countries like Switzerland (Helvetian Republic) or the Netherlands (Batavian Republic), formed out of independent states, that were very weak federal states but became centralized republics due to French influence.

Also, Germany was a centralist state during the Nazi regime and the GDR, so it's possible to change a federal constitution into a central one.

Just HOW?
 
I don't see how it would be possible. The USA has always been a union of states. The notion of abolishing the state governments would never have been popular.
Well... you don't exactly have to. Just change it so that the States only have whatever power the federal government chooses them to have, rather than having any power that it doesn't expressly prohibit.
 
Well... you don't exactly have to. Just change it so that the States only have whatever power the federal government chooses them to have, rather than having any power that it doesn't expressly prohibit.

I think that's easier said than done. If that Constitution included that language, there is a very good chance that the Constitution itself would never be ratified by the required number of states and so the United States government as we know it never comes into being. The US would be stuck with the Articles of Confederation and could well dissolve in time (although that is debatable). Its very difficult to over stress how important state identity was to people through the United States in the 19th and, even, 20th century (hell, its still very important in a number of ways). A Centralist Party could potentially exist, yes, but as Dathi points out, it would only have about a dozen members nation-wide (well, maybe a few hundred).
 
Hamilton did make a statement during the Constitutional Convention that was taken to mean the abolition of states, but it was quickly clarified, I believe the next day. A Hamilton that doubled down and said "yeah, hell verily I said what I meant! I meant the abolition of state boundaries and create equal population voting districts instead!" could very well cause him to form, instead of the Federalist Party, the Central Party. It probably means Washington doesn't bring him in to the Cabinet, and you see an early America adopt more of Jefferson's insane idea of a moronic agricultural nation of extremes- hillbillies and plantation owners.
 
Top