How long can America keep the Articles of Confederation?

[Flubber]

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.

Well said.

Now, if one government without any sources of revenue aside from gifts by autnomous states is replaced by another government which can set and collect tariffs along with regulating interstate/foreign commerce, is that a policy change or a structural change?

If a government without a standing army is replaced by a government with a standing army, is that a policy or a structural change?

How about adding central treasury? A policy or a structural change? Gaining the right to dictate naturalization requirements to "autonomous" states? A policy or a structural change? Adding a national court any state can take any case to for final appeal? Gaining the right to enforce edicts made by the national government? Simply policy changes? Or fundamental structural changes?

Getting hung on labels, that is suggesting that because each are described as confederations that only an amending process has occurred, ignores the great structural differences between the AoC system and the system proposed under the New Jersey Plan.

 

[Widukind]

You claim, Flubber, that I am "confusing a theoretical mechanism with actual practice". But look at it like this: is the current US constitution essentially the same document as the original consitution, except amended several times? I would argue that it is. And that means that the Articles under the New Jersey Plan would also still essentially be the original Articles, except amended. The changes brought to the original consitution through amendments were no less significant than the changes proposed to the Articles by the New Jersey Plan.

Therefore, my position remains: altering the Articles per the New Jersey Plan may be compared to taking the orginal constitution, and adding all OTL amendments that exist as of today at once. In other words: you may or may not call it a big deal, but it cannot within reason be denied that it's still just an alteration of essentially the same fundamental document.

Changing the confederal Articles to a completely new federal constitution, on the other hand, may be be compared to taking the orginal constitution, scrapping it, and creating an entirely new one that abolishes the federation and turns the USA into a unitary state. That is not an alteration, but a replacement.

When two alternatives of those respective magnitudes are compared, I consider the former to be a relatively minor alteration to a pre-existing system. (And do observe that I only call the changes 'minor' in comparison to a far more relative step, namely replacing the pre-existing system altogether.)

I conclude that the New Jersey Plan would have only amended the Articles, and certainly would not have been seen as a plan to replace them altogether. Lending further support to that position is the simple fact that many anti-federalists - whose whole raison d'être by that point was to preserve the Articles! - supported the New Jersey Plan, and felt that it would save the existing system. As such, your statement that "calling the states under New Jersey Plan in any way autonomous is asinine" proves very shaky indeed: the radical firebrand supporters of state autonomy themselves felt that the New Jersey Plan preserved that autonomy, after all. I think that rather proves the point.

 

[Dathi THorfinnsson]

Would the New Jersey Plan have passed in every single state, which is what would be required under the AoC. I also dont see any change to the amending formula in the linked texxt, and that single flaw would doom any constitution that contained it.

Unanimity proved impossible for 13 states in every amendment attempt iotl. How much more with 15 or 50.

I could imagine something like the njp passing, and if it managed to pass all 13 states, and had a sane ammending formula, it might survive too today.

 

[Widukind]

Would the New Jersey Plan have passed in every single state, which is what would be required under the AoC. I also dont see any change to the amending formula in the linked texxt, and that single flaw would doom any constitution that contained it.

Unanimity proved impossible for 13 states in every amendment attempt iotl. How much more with 15 or 50.

I could imagine something like the njp passing, and if it managed to pass all 13 states, and had a sane ammending formula, it might survive too today.

I suspect it would have passed; even the states that had their doubts regarding the constitution accepted it in the end. Sure, there were states that wanted a more federalist model, but if for some reason it became impossible to pass something like the OTL constitution (due to more anti-federalist resistance), they would have settled for revising the Articles. Everyone wanted that much, at least.

A more workable amending formula was also pretty inevitable: if I recall correctly, one of the drives to call a convention to revise the Articles was that sometime before, a proposed alteration regarding tariffs had been ratified by all states except one (Rhode Island, I think, but don't quote me on that)... which then proceeded to reject it all by its lonesome. Everyone agreed that this was unacceptable, so I'm sure they would have changed that (any opposition could be overcome, I'm sure, or they'd never have gotten the OTL constitution ratified either).

So, yeah. I can also see the revised Articles (with some modernizations from time to time, just like the OTL constitution) existing up to the present day.

 

[Simreeve]

One advantage that the Articles had over the OTL replacement constitution was their inclusion of a statement that the union entered into was to be permanent: The authors of the later constitution omitting this left it open for people to claim that -- in the absence of any explicit statement to the contrary -- seccession was legal...

 

[Dathi THorfinnsson]

I suspect it would have passed; even the states that had their doubts regarding the constitution accepted it in the end. Sure, there were states that wanted a more federalist model, but if for some reason it became impossible to pass something like the OTL constitution (due to more anti-federalist resistance), they would have settled for revising the Articles. Everyone wanted that much, at least.

A more workable amending formula was also pretty inevitable: if I recall correctly, one of the drives to call a convention to revise the Articles was that sometime before, a proposed alteration regarding tariffs had been ratified by all states except one (Rhode Island, I think, but don't quote me on that)... which then proceeded to reject it all by its lonesome. Everyone agreed that this was unacceptable, so I'm sure they would have changed that (any opposition could be overcome, I'm sure, or they'd never have gotten the OTL constitution ratified either).

So, yeah. I can also see the revised Articles (with some modernizations from time to time, just like the OTL constitution) existing up to the present day.

I disagree, actually. The important thing about the Constitution was that it DIDNT require unanimous approval, but would take effect in the ratifying States as soon as ?9? States ratified it. Thus Rhode Island, say, could NOT hold the whole thing hostage. Instead she had to either join the thing as stood, or be shut out of the new US. I understand, that even faced with that bleak choice, there was a lot of debate as to whether to join.

The genius of the OTL constitution was the balance between popular representation in the house and equal states in the Senate.

The New Jersey plan with Rhode Island being as powerful as Virginia, would never, ever have passed in Virginia. And the Virginia plan would never have passed in the small states.

Any system that requires unanimous consent is very, very very difficult to change.

 

[ManintheField]

I disagree, actually. The important thing about the Constitution was that it DIDNT require unanimous approval, but would take effect in the ratifying States as soon as ?9? States ratified it. Thus Rhode Island, say, could NOT hold the whole thing hostage. Instead she had to either join the thing as stood, or be shut out of the new US. I understand, that even faced with that bleak choice, there was a lot of debate as to whether to join.

It took the important coastal port towns threatening to secede from Rhode Island and adopt the new Constitution on their own, AFAIR.

 

[chornedsnorkack]

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.

But since the Articles themselves required unanimity to change, keeping them as they were was the default result of not agreeing on a replacement.

OTL, the 6th state to ratify was Massachusetts - with votes 187-168. Shift just 10 votes, Massachusetts rejects 177-178, the Constitution has obviously failed, the other states are not going to bother trying to ratify, and what next?

 

[Dathi THorfinnsson]

But since the Articles themselves required unanimity to change, keeping them as they were was the default result of not agreeing on a replacement.

OTL, the 6th state to ratify was Massachusetts - with votes 187-168. Shift just 10 votes, Massachusetts rejects 177-178, the Constitution has obviously failed, the other states are not going to bother trying to ratify, and what next?

All it needs is, what, 9 states to ratify it? So Massachusetts and Rhode Island don't. The other 11 states will cheerfully form a US and they'll probably come begging entry in a bit.

Why would the Constitution have 'obviously failed'?

If you're not talking the Constitution as we know it, but an amended AoC, well, then yes it's a problem. But the very different matter up for vote would change the votes in the various states, anyway.

 

[chornedsnorkack]

All it needs is, what, 9 states to ratify it? So Massachusetts and Rhode Island don't. The other 11 states will cheerfully form a US and they'll probably come begging entry in a bit.

OTL, the other 11 states did do ahead and form US - but the states that were out and came begging entry were North Carolina (November 21st 1789) and Rhode Island (May 29th, 1790)

Why would the Constitution have 'obviously failed'?

If you're not talking the Constitution as we know it, but an amended AoC, well, then yes it's a problem. But the very different matter up for vote would change the votes in the various states, anyway.

Yes, and the Constitution as we know it with different states having refused ratification would ALSO change votes.

The 3 states to ratify OTL at number 9-11 were all close votes. New Hampshire 21st of June, 1788, 57-47, Virginia 25th of June, 1788, 89-79, New York 26th of July, 1788, 30-27.

If Massachusetts is well known to have rejected ratification - and not just Rhode Island as per OTL - then for example New Hampshire would shift enough votes to also reject, and you have a compact block of 3 states in New England who are out. You also have 7 ratifications rather than the 9 which at that point made the ratification formally valid.

 

[ManintheField]

All it needs is, what, 9 states to ratify it? So Massachusetts and Rhode Island don't. The other 11 states will cheerfully form a US and they'll probably come begging entry in a bit.

Massachusetts' ratification was very influential on down the line. If Mass. fails to ratify, that jeopardizes the ratifications in New Hampshire, New York, and, to a lesser extent, Virginia and South Carolina.

 

[Sulemain]

The Articles of Confederation as written? Not very long. We were already starting to see clashes between the states.

A revised AoC, which while not equalling the Constitution still provided for a stronger federal government, would have to be put in place.

 

[Dathi THorfinnsson]

OTL, the other 11 states did do ahead and form US - but the states that were out and came begging entry were North Carolina (November 21st 1789) and Rhode Island (May 29th, 1790)


Yes, and the Constitution as we know it with different states having refused ratification would ALSO change votes.

The 3 states to ratify OTL at number 9-11 were all close votes. New Hampshire 21st of June, 1788, 57-47, Virginia 25th of June, 1788, 89-79, New York 26th of July, 1788, 30-27.

If Massachusetts is well known to have rejected ratification - and not just Rhode Island as per OTL - then for example New Hampshire would shift enough votes to also reject, and you have a compact block of 3 states in New England who are out. You also have 7 ratifications rather than the 9 which at that point made the ratification formally valid.

Thank you. Very helpful explanation.