Could the Articles of Confederation Worked?

Next week, I'm taking the Ohio Proficiency Test. Because of this, all of my teachers have overhauled the classes, and now, we're doing an un-Godly amount of review. So, while I was sitting, bored in Social Studies, I wondered something: Could the Articles of Confederation worked, without the US breaking apart into tiny bits and pieces?
 
The major problems were about who got to keep the tariffs on imports and on internal tariffs between the states. New Jersey imported and exported lots of stuff, for example, but New York and Pennsylvania had the ports and collected the tariffs.
Fugitive slaves and indentured servants were not much of a political problem back then because Pennsylvania had never allowed indentures to control someone after they were 18 and all states except the frontier state of Vermont allowed slavery and returned slaves to their owners.
There was some political will for a navy but the formation of the US delayed a fleet instead of encouraging it. For some reason the Southern states thought a navy was to protect Northern shipping. They didn't want to pay for it. It took them a while to understand that an increase in the price of shipping caused by lack of a navy hurt them as much as the North.
The Articles of Confederation should have included a nationwide tariff to fund a navy. That was really the only reason to form a nation instead of each state going it's own way.
 
Not really. It was too weak (couldn't even collect dues from the states), couldn't reform itself (unanimous agreement for amendments?), and couldn't maintain a coherent internal policy among the states. It was an experiment that taught the lessons that have let the Constitution endure for so long, such as a strong but balanced government, a reasonably ability to amend itself, and, most importantly, a good deal of ambiguity.
 

HueyLong

Banned
I once posited a slight change, allowing it to lay a tariff (then the primary source of revenue) with only a majority of the state's consent.

That combined with the land sales that were handed over to them IOTL could be enough to keep it going for a time.

It would still be much less effective than the Constitution, but it could conceivably survive until some domestic conflict or unpopular war.
 
It might have been able to work in a HRE type of way.

smilies-11581.png


:D:D:D:D:D
 
YES
The proposed amendments would have doubled the number of Articles, and solved most of the problems.
Instead the Bond speculators Hijacked the convention, and did a political number on the states that had already payed off their debts.
 
YES
The proposed amendments would have doubled the number of Articles, and solved most of the problems.
Instead the Bond speculators Hijacked the convention, and did a political number on the states that had already payed off their debts.
That's a funny way of describing a successful compromise.

The proposed amendments to the Articles might have solved the immediate problems... had they been adopted. Which, considering the need for a unanimous vote and the stubbornness of certain small states, was about as likely as pork in the sky.
 
I remember when we tested the articles in a class I took and the only thing we were able to get done was to change it.
 
A number of things would have to happen for the Articles of Confederation to endure.

1. They have to be stronger earlier on. That is the Continental Congress has to delegate executive offices to directly empower certain men(example Robert Morris was made Agent for the Marine and head of the Bank of North America)with real authority to more efficiently prosecute the War of Independence.

2. Shorter Revolution. The above action may go a way to securing this, but what we need are some major victories in the New York campaign that would convince France to enter the war earlier. Shorter war means less damage to the American economy, which in turn means the Federal government can take advantage of the western land grants it receives fro the states.

3. Modifications. The Congress must have the power to levy and collect import duties on goods from other nations, the Congress must have the power to enforce free trade and common monetary policy(power to coin and print money)between the states.
 
the Congress must have the power to enforce free trade and common monetary policy(power to coin and print money)between the states.
This is the Article the Supremes used when they voided the Consitutional definition of Money, and allowed Roosevelt to steal all the Real Money in the Country.

If whe still had Real [lawful] Money whe may not be facing this past weekends Meltdown in the Financial Markets,
 
Next week, I'm taking the Ohio Proficiency Test. Because of this, all of my teachers have overhauled the classes, and now, we're doing an un-Godly amount of review. So, while I was sitting, bored in Social Studies, I wondered something: Could the Articles of Confederation worked, without the US breaking apart into tiny bits and pieces?
You bet they could have. Considering the amount of influence George Washington had, he could hold it tyogether in a loose confederation, among many other ways. Perhaps the U.S. could end up in a Netherlands-like scenario, with the House of Washington ruling like de facto kings.
 
Top