Reconciling Constitution and Articles of Confederation

I'm starting to work on a timeline where a few states never ratify the US Constitution, but remain under the Articles of Confederation indefinately.

This, under the Constitution, would be quite possible, as it took effect when nine states had ratified it.

Article Seven: The Ratification of the Conventions of nine States, shall be sufficient for the Establishment of this Constitution between the States so ratifying the Same.

Looking over the two documents, it seems that running a nation long term with both in effect would be quite a challenge, and some form of Document of Reconciliation would be needed to make it work.

It would be a MESS--but could something be worked out to allow some sort of One Nation, Two Systems?

So--does anyone have any ideas as to how this could work? The states not ratifying are Massachusetts, New Hampshire, and Rhode Island. (Note that Maine is part of Massachusets.)
 

Jasen777

Donor
Interesting idea. Not sure how it would work at all. Maybe the non-joining states would just be left out of the union - though at this point it would seem in their best interest to join.
 

Philip

Donor
Article Seven: The Ratification of the Conventions of nine States, shall be sufficient for the Establishment of this Constitution between the States so ratifying the Same.

Not my field of expertise, but the wording here seems to suggest that the ratifying states would become a new country under the Constitution. ISTM that the other states would be left behind and retain the Articles.

It would be a MESS--but could something be worked out to allow some sort of One Nation, Two Systems?

No, I don't see how this could work. The Articles and Constitution describe different federal governments. You would have two separate countries.
 
Not my field of expertise, but the wording here seems to suggest that the ratifying states would become a new country under the Constitution. ISTM that the other states would be left behind and retain the Articles.



No, I don't see how this could work. The Articles and Constitution describe different federal governments. You would have two separate countries.

This, as far as I can tell, is how it would work, because it's how it did work OTL. While the first 11 states had ratified the Constitution by the start of 1789, which was enough to put it into effect, North Carolina and Rhode Island held out for a while (North Carolina until November of that year, RI until May of 1790). In the meantime, they simply were sort of on their own, apparently. They sent no senators and had no votes in the first presidential election.

Now it seems to me that a scenario where the OP's three states do not ratify, they would seem to be left under the old Articles as a separate union. Whether this union lasts longer than, say, the year or so that RI held off in OTL will depend on why they did not ratify. If it's something minor, the equivalent of peer pressure may eventually force them to ratify. If it's more major, they may remain separate longer.
 
Interesting concept, probably not practical long-term. OTH Rhode Island could set itself up as a free port for European imports, sort of an American Hong Kong, and grow rather wealthy. If South Carolina was really worried about the slavery issue from the debates at the Constitutional Convention and decides to stay out for a longer time, Charleston could become longer-term a entrepot for slave smuggling.
 
Not quite seperate...

I plan for this non-ratification to continue for a long time--likely permanently. Yet, in the face of potential foreign enemies and other advantages of being one nation, the three states don't want to go their seperate ways. In the absence of amending the new Constitution (won't happen) to satisfy the non-ratifying states, I'd guess that there will have to be another meeting, once things are stable. The goal, to produce a seperate set of rules governing the interaction between the two governments. A common army and navy will need common funding and command, interstate trade will need a common framework, etc. A common currency will be needed, things like that.

Any more ideas would be much appreciated!
 
The way it's interpreted today (9 wasn't just a number, it was 3/4 of the 13 states) is that once that 3/4 is reached, the effect is universal, whether everyone's agreed or not. Thankfully, all states did ratify, so such a situation was never an issue.
All that said, as you said, what would happen to those not ratifying would be curious. IMO, it depends on just who doesn't ratify. If say, Delaware, New Jersey, Connecticut and South Carolina are your dropouts, they've really got no choice but to accept the new Constitution. If, on the other hand, New York, Virginia, Pennsylvania and Massachusetts don't ratify, it's not going to work. In that case, negotiations would probably continue until some other consensus is reached.
 
I think it's most likely that the states would try to work out a new compromise government rather than create a two-tiered system of statehood. But the system intrigues me. And after all, the Constitution itself was a very unlikely thing, which few would have predicted in 1786.

A two-tiered Union might best be thought of as a federal republic with three associated states. The holdouts would have to agree that since they would not contribute financially or politically to the federal government, they would not enjoy most of its benefits either. So if there is a unified army & navy, the holdout states would probably be expected to contribute a certain percentage of its upkeep - to pick one example.

If it is the New England states that stay out of the Union, then the rest of the the country has a much stronger southern influence. Presumably the same issues that divided north & south in OTL - in particular, the spread of slavery into frontier lands - would remain there in TTL. But without the New England states' votes in Congress, an even more pro-slavery set of policies prevails.

At this point - maybe even quite early along, depending on whether the US is still able to acquire Louisiana and other far western territories - I can see the non-slave states calling it quits, pulling their representatives from the Congress, and dropping down to the lower tier of statehood to join New England. There would already be a precedent for non-participation in the federal structure, so secession wouldn't be the great controversy it was in OTL.

And that's the real flaw in this system: with the slave system, and the enormous sectional strife that flowed from it, the union was in danger from the beginning. The strong federal structure held it together for a good long time; with a different structure, I think the US goes the same way as the United Provinces of Central America.
 
Let us take the OTL course of ratification.

First 5 states ratified overwhelmingly. Delaware, Pennsylvania, New Jersey, Georgia, Connecticut did from 9th November to 9th January 1788. 3 of them unanimously, and all at least 67% majority.

6th of February, 1788, Massachusetts ratified.

With just 53 %. 187 votes to 168.

7 and 8 were Maryland (28. April, 85%) and South Carolina (23. May, 67%)

9 was New Hampshire (21. June, 55%, 57 to 47).

10. was Virginia (25. June, 53 %, 89 to 79).

11. was New York (26. July, 53 %, 30 to 27).

12. was North Carolina (21. November 1789, 72%)

13. was Rhode Island (29. May 1790, 52 %)

So.

If Massachusetts rejects (swing 10 votes out of 355), the Constitution is in trouble. New Hampshire would then not ratify. And the other states could also get cold feet and decide renegotiation is in order.

If Virginia rejects (swing 5 votes out of 168) or New York does (swing 2 votes out of 57), the Constitution is in force. But USA is plainly split in two or three.

How to negotiate - what is next?
 
If nine states ratify it, that is enough for the Constitution to take effect and replace the Articles of Confederation. Unless the people of the states that don't ratify say "fuck it" and form their own confederation.

If this happens, it's likely that another Convention would be called to resolve whatever issues those states have with the Constitution. We could see a much weaker federal government, in the new Constitution that comes out of the Convention. It all depends on what states refuse to ratify it, and why.

Such a scenario seems unlikely to me. Most of the people who originally opposed the Constitution were happy with it after the promise of a Bill of Rights.
 
Such a scenario seems unlikely to me. Most of the people who originally opposed the Constitution were happy with it after the promise of a Bill of Rights.

Not true. The promise of Bill of Rights was made during the debates of Massachusetts ratification. Even with the proposal of Bill of Rights, Massachusetts, New Hampshire, Virginia, New York and Rhode Island ratified by a narrow majority.

Which means that a small butterfly could mean one of those ratifications fails despite the promise of Bill of Rights.
 
The Ratification of the Conventions of nine States, shall be sufficient for the Establishment of this Constitution between the States so ratifying the Same.
Emphasis added. This clearly (clear to me, at least) states that the Constitution only applies to those states that ratified it. So the states that don't would be left out.

I'm thinking you'd quite possibly end up with an EU/EFTA situation, where you have a large core with a stronger union, and a periphery with a much looser union.

Just as EFTA was a good 'half-way' house for those countries that didn't want to get sucked all the way into the EU, so you could have something on the order of the AoC that unites all the 13 colonies into a loose union, with 9 or 11 in the closer new 'United States'.

Of course, the AoC would probably have to be amended/replaced, as it was meant as the federal structure itself, not as the loose trade configuration.
 
As for a PoD, what if there is more controversy over the Bill of Rights? As I understand it, a number of the original proposals never passed, so if the same forces that kept the Bill of RIghts out of the original Constitution and kept some of the ?12? from being passed were a bit stronger and it looked like maybe the OTL 10 wouldn't get passed, or would be watered down?

Then if the States that demanded the Bill of Rights shy off, there might be even less impetus to pass them?
 
Top