How long can America keep the Articles of Confederation?
- Thread starter Nofix
- Start date
They aren't gonna kept it unless the leadership is beyond stupid, you were having states getting into territorial disputes and potential wars of over tariffs. I doubt they have last, how would they solve that problem depends they could a central document or they split off into regional federations.
katchen
Banned
I believe that if Thomas Jefferson had not been away as Ambassador to France in 1786 that he would have led a southern mutiny against the Constitution that would have resulted in the Carolinas and Georgia not ratifying the Constitution and therefore staying with the Articles of Confederation. Jefferson;s native Virginia would have split into two states, with South Virginia (south of the James River and with it's capital probably at Charlottesville or Roanoke) staying with the Articles and North Virginia, with it's capital remaining at Williamsburg ratifying the Constitution due to the influence of that Nothern Virginian George Washington.
Since none of the southern states would give up their land claims, there would only be four states in the Confederation (five once Florida is acquired) until Louisiana comes up) which would be workable. It would make for an interesting TL with two United States's especially if carried through to the present.
Since none of the southern states would give up their land claims, there would only be four states in the Confederation (five once Florida is acquired) until Louisiana comes up) which would be workable. It would make for an interesting TL with two United States's especially if carried through to the present.
This may be true if they keep the Articles as they were. But that was never really an option; even the vast majority of the so-called anti-federalists wanted to revise the Articles. The real choice was: 'do we revise the Articles to create a more stable confederation... or do we turn it into a federation?' The alternative to the Consititution is not leaving the Articles unchanged, but altering them along the lines of the New Jersey Plan. As katchen points out, Jefferson, had he been in the US at the time, could have been a crucial figure in making sure the Constitution was never adopted. I don't think he would have led a rebellion, however. I think he would have gathered enough support to make the federalist ambitions impossible, forcing the US to stick to less ambitious plans - like altering the Articles instead of completely replacing them. And if we are talking about revised Articles, more or less like the New Jersey Plan proposed, I think the US could have worked fine under the resulting system. Mind you, there would have been problems. Sure. Every system has problems. But assuming that a revision of the Articles was going to occur (and believe me, this was inevitable), I foresee no sudden disintegration of the US.
Jasen777
Donor
Even without reforms the AoC system probably had a few years left before things got out of hand.
David S Poepoe
Banned
I think it is hard to answer such a WI since we have been conditionalized and indoctrinated to believe that was no workable option other than a more centralized federation represented by the Constitution.
Surely not? The whole point of alternate history is, after all, to think about the roads untaken.
I can't speak for anyone else, but I think there were lots of workable solutions to the problems of the original Articles - ranging from a slightly more well-organized confederation under somewhat revised Articles, all the way to ideas like Hamilton's "British Plan", that would have reduced the states to glorified provinces.I think the real issue is not that people don't think other alternatives were unworkable; I think many people were indoctrinated to believe that the OTL solution was the only desirable option. But that's a matter of opinion. Even the most die-hard Hamiltonian will have to admit that the New Jersey Plan could have worked. And even the most staunch anti-federalist cannot really deny that Hamilton's plan would have been a possible solution.
There may be people who think that alternate history should be about wish-fulfillment, but I think it should be about what could have happened, instead of being about what we think should have happened.
(Please forgive me; I seem to have turned this into a minor rant.)
If the young US immediately splits into several States, among which a southern loose confederation, it is very doubtful that Louisiana is going to be acquired by the northern federation or by the southern loose confederation.
David S Poepoe
Banned
Surely not? The whole point of alternate history is, after all, to think about the roads untaken.
I think the real issue is not that people don't think other alternatives were unworkable; I think many people were indoctrinated to believe that the OTL solution was the only desirable option. But that's a matter of opinion. Even the most die-hard Hamiltonian will have to admit that the New Jersey Plan could have worked. And even the most staunch anti-federalist cannot really deny that Hamilton's plan would have been a possible solution.
There may be people who think that alternate history should be about wish-fulfillment, but I think it should be about what could have happened, instead of being about what we think should have happened.
(Please forgive me; I seem to have turned this into a minor rant.)
I see we agree on many common points. I think it would be interesting to see an ATL, yet I'm not motivated enough to do the amount of research necessary to do justice to such an ATL.
My own timeline (see sig) is not specifically about it, but I've just gotten to the point where ATL Articles of Confederation have been adopted as the start of an ATL war of independence. I intend to cover the debate regarding centralization versus decentralization in some depth, in the next chapter. I can tell you right now that the chapter in question will be called 'American Dreams', and will be about the very different visions of what kind of a country America should be.
It remains a fascinating topic. So many people nowadays (especially in politics) tend to refer to "what the Founding Fathers intended". They don't seem to get that those Founding Fathers disagreed with one another very often.
Flubber
Banned
While undoubtedly true, a convention that somehow doesn't produce the Constitution isn't going to necessarily produce minor tweaks to the Articles and leave it at that.
First, the Articles had no mechanism for providing an "intermediate" amending process. It was either all or nothing, you either kept the Articles as is or you called a full bore convention in which everything was under review. The sole reason the Constitution has the amendment process it does is because the lack of same in the Articles was widely considered a major flaw.
Second, from the very start of the convention radical, wholesale, replacements of the Articles were proposed. While the label at the top of the document may still read "Articles of Confederation", the mechanisms within the document would bare little resemblance to those in the original AoC. Whether the Virginia, New Jersey, or some ATL plan was adopted, the results would not have been an "amended" AoC. Instead the AoC would have been wholly recast and historians of this ATL would soon be referring to a "First" and "Second" Confederation.
Returning to the OP's question, the AoC simply wasn't working. Something would have happened, something had to happen, within a year or two of 1787.
I'm sure a distinction would be made between some sort of "First" and "Second" Confederation; even revising the Articles would be a watershed moment. But if you look at the OTL New Jersey Plan, it did not contain proposals to "wholly recast" the Articles. It only altered them to improve upon the major weak points, but the orginal would still be recognizable in such a "version 2.0". I assure you, having the Articles amended on a few points - as opposed to a thorough redesign - was a very real option.
Agreed. Following Shays' Rebellion, no-one was going to argue that the Articles sufficed. They would at least have to be amended.
Flubber
Banned
They weren't revising the AoC because the AoC had no mechanism for revisions. That was one of the AOC's many flaws.
Huh? The New Jersey Plan was radically different from the AoC. Unlike under the AoC, under the NJ Plan the national government would have the power to tax and enforce laws, there would be a standing army, proportional representation instead one per state, a federal judiciary, a central treasury, an elected executive branch, and several other things.
Changes like that aren't revisions or improvements. They deal with fundamental structural issues, the core of how a government operates.
That's factually incorrect. Article 13 stipulated that the Articles could be altered by Congress and subsequent ratification of the alterations by all the state legislatures. This was difficult, and that was perhaps a flaw (though one could also argue that it prevented ill-considered and hasty alterations) - but there was a mechanism for revisions.
In fact, the first point of the New Jersey Plan was a simple statement that the Articles of Confederation should be amended. Obviously, it wouldn't say that if amending them was impossible.
We clearly differ in opinion when it comes to what we consider "radically different" or "fundamental structural issues". Under the New Jersey Plan, the USA remained a relatively loose and decentralized confederation. The general government was noticably strengthened in the proposals, but nowhere near as much as it was by the constitution IOTL. This is clearly demonstrated by the fact that point five of the Plan clearly says "The said States hereby severally enter into a firm league of friendship with each other..." Observe that this indicates that the New Jersey Plan continued to envision the states as autonomous states, joined into a league. It does not consider the USA a nation unified on any true level, but instead considers the USA a league of nations.
Also, the New Jersey Plan did not propose any kind of proportional representation instead one vote per state. It continued the old system where each state could send between two and seven delegates, but where all states would still have a single vote. That was actually a major point of the New Jersey Plan; the Virginia Plan (also known as the "large states plan") wanted proportional representation, which logically favored the larger states. The New Jersey Plan (also known as the "small states plan") wanted to keep the one-vote-per-state system, which favored the smaller states.
Flubber
Banned
I wrote this earlier: First, the Articles had no mechanism for providing an "intermediate" amending process. It was either all or nothing, you either kept the Articles as is or you called a full bore convention in which everything was under review.
I'll also point out that the first time an attempt was made to revise the AoC, the convention called for that purpose threw out the entire AoC and wrote the Constitution instead.
When I compare two governments and one government has among other things a standing army, the right to levy taxes and tariffs, the right to enforce laws, a central treasury, a national judiciary, and an elected executive branch while the other government has none of those things, I consider those governments to be radically different and have different fundamental structures.
YM obviously Vs.
ManintheField
Banned
??
"Every State shall abide by the determination of the United States in Congress assembled, on all questions which by this confederation are submitted to them. And the Articles of this Confederation shall be inviolably observed by every State, and the Union shall be perpetual; nor shall any alteration at any time hereafter be made in any of them; unless such alteration be agreed to in a Congress of the United States, and be afterwards confirmed by the legislatures of every State."
As ManintheField kindly pointed out, and as I referred to previously, you are incorrect. There was no need to call a convention; Congress could vote on any proposed alteration, and if it passed the vote, the state legislatures would have to ratify it. They only called a special convention so they could implement all the required changes at once, and more importantly, so they could first take the time to discuss which changes were really required.
Also, it was not actually the first attempt to alter the Articles; minor alterations via Congress were previously tried, but the proposals never got ratified by all the states.
When I compare a loose confederation of autonomous states with 1) a more tightly organized confederation of autonomous states, and 2) a federation of no longer fully autonomous states, I consider the first option to be a very minor alteration in comparison to the alternative.
Flubber
Banned
Technically incorrect, but not incorrect in practice. You're confusing a theoretical mechanism with actual practice.
Yes, the AoC had a theoretical mechanism for revision. In reality, that mechanism was a total failure. Such a failure, in fact, that a new convention had to be called and that convention replaced the AoC completely.
Again, more concern over labels than practice.
First, an AoC replacement national government along the lines of the New Jersey plan would not operate like the AoC national government and would have wielded power than the AoC national government.
Second, seeing the the New Jersey plan allowed the national government to set tariffs, regulate interstate and foreign commerce, and set a single policy for naturalization, calling the states under New Jersey Plan in any way autonomous is asinine.
ManintheField
Banned
Widukind seems to be making the distinction between policy changes and structural changes. It's the difference, in the current constitution, between the income tax amendment and the amendment providing for the direct election of senators. The one just created a new source of revenue, the other completely altered how a part of the government would operate.