"John Kaminski, the long time director of the well-respected Documentary
History of the Ratification of the Constitution project, has argued that
Congress should have accepted New York's counter-offer as to the 1783
impost and that if it had, the country would have moved in salutary
directions.141 Rhode Island vetoed the 1781 proposal for a 5% federal
impost and Virginia then quickly retracted its prior approval. But the
desperate Congress returned again in 1783, this time limiting the 5%
impost to a 25 year duration and dedicating the money only to the existing
war debts.142 By May 1786, all of the states, except New York, had
ratified the 1783 proposal, including both Rhode Island and Virginia, the
vetoing states of the 1781 proposal. By 1786, however, New York had
established its own state impost on traffic through New York harbor, and
it was unwilling to cede nationalization of the impost without conditions.
"In response to the 1783 impost proposal, New York made a counter offer.
Payments would be made in New York paper dollars, discounted if necessary
to their worth in specie. Merchants would have procedural rights including
the right to jury on contested issues. Congress considered the conditions
unacceptable and asked New York to reconsider. In February 1787 the New
York Assembly refused to alter its stance.143
"Professor Kaminski argues that Congress should have accepted New York's
counter offer or continued conciliatory negotiations, as, for instance,
James Monroe recommended. 144 'Had Congress followed this advice,'
Kaminski says, 'its financial needs would have been met and no federal
convention would have been called to meet in Philadelphia in the Spring of
1787.'145 With the impost and sale of western land, the federal government
could have made the minimal payments on the war debts until imports grew
important enough to carry the debt comfortably. Kaminski believes that
confederation form of government would have been better for 1787 America
than was the strong national government the Constitution ordained. He
believes that Congress would have evolved into a Parliamentary form of
government with John Jay, as prime minister.146 The Founders would have
avoided an imperial President, modeled on the King.
"The Congress, however, rejected New York's conditions. The Federalists
interpreted the New York conditions as pretextual, tantamount to veto. New
York delegate, Melancton Smith, made a case for accepting the conditions,
which did not describe them as vetoing,147 but the Federalist
interpretation was that New York was vetoing the national impost, in bad
faith, just to keep the revenue from the New York harbor for its own
selfish purposes. 148 'The dominant party in New York' Madison would say,
'had refused even a duty of 5 percent on imports for the urgent debt of
the Revolution, so as to tax the consumption of her neighbors.'
Neighboring Connecticut reacted angrily at having to pay a New York state
impost on goods passing through New York harbor bound for Connecticut:
'Those gentlemen in New York who received large salaries,' editorialized
the Connecticut Courant, 'know that that their offices will be more
insecure.. when the expenses of government shall be paid by their
constituents, than while paid by us.'149 When New York responded to the
1783 impost, every 'liberal good man,', it was said, '[wished] New York
[should rest] in Hell.150
"A polity that is built on consensus and unanimity needs to negotiate to
work out the differences and needs to compromise to pull in all the votes.
In 1787, Congress was too angry at New York to perform its function within
a consensus system and to negotiate any further and it did not care to see
any reason in New York's counter-offer. One does not need to believe that
New York was right on the merits or that the Articles would have
evolved into a superior form of government to accept that some other
factor, such as anger, was necessary for the rejection of New York's offer
that in fact occurred. The need for the impost did not strictly require
rejecting the unanimity norm, but to get the impost from New York, the
nationalists would have had to let go of their anger, and negotiate,
as Monroe put it 'with temper to conciliate.'151 The Federalists went to
the Convention instead. As Hamilton truly wrote, 'Impost Begat
Convention.'"
https://groups.google.com/d/msg/soc.history.what-if/RQglKDaK4s0/LJH41-_Rof0J