Stronger Articles of Confederation

SsgtC

Banned
I'm trying to do some research for a timeline with a POD in 1777. I need to make the Articles of Confederation for the United States stronger without making them completely different. Basically, I want to give Congress the ability to raise funds and to specifically require a small, tough professional standing Army and Navy.

I've already found the Article I need to change to allow Congress to raise funds, but what else is required and who should I be looking at to drive these changes?
 
The individual colonies WANTED a weak central government. Getting them to agree to any such thing would be very, very difficult. IMO.
----
OK, but this is a challenge. Hmmm....

How about George Washington dies early on, and someone like Benedict Arnold is the primary general.

Then, when the men are freezing and starving in winter encampments, with no response to stronger and stronger demands for supplies, the men start muttering about marching on Philadelphia and seizing what they need. Note that Washington had bad enough problems getting supplies, and Congress didn't fear HIM. The General in charge (Arnold, Lee, Gates, whomever) doesn't have the personal loyalties that Washington had, nor the sense of civic honor. So, firstly being unable to stop the men, and secondly not wanting to lose power, said general leads them in a march on Philly.

The Continental Army is in pretty bad shape, and loots 'requisitioning' supplies on its march. Some men drop out because they're too sick or weak, some because this is SO not what they signed up for, and some just flee as discipline breaks down - as it likely would in a mutinous army like this one.

Meanwhile, news of the oncoming horde strikes fear in the hearts of the Representatives, the citizens of Philadelphia, and most State governments. Philadelphia in particular, Pennsylvania in general and neighboring States raise and organize militias to meet the oncoming army.

In a close run battle, the State forces beat the diminished Continental Army. Most of the officers of the CA, and 'elected' leaders from the soldiery are hung

However. The primary reason for lack of supply was that Congress COULD NOT provide it. It didn't have the money or resources. This makes it obvious that a stronger central body (for at least war making) is necessary. Other reforms include constitutional limits on Standing Armies and an operational aversion to any single overall command. (Fearing a repeat.)

When the ARW is finally won (probably at least a year or two later than OTL), the US that results is a very different place. Much less hopeful and trusting. But the AoC is stronger.
 
Last edited:

SsgtC

Banned
I'm not looking for a strong central government. I basically want Congress to be able to raise taxes (I'm thinking import duties and not direct taxes on the states) and maintain a small standing Army and Navy after the war. That's it. No other changes to the Articles
 
Oh I didn't know you came to this forum SsgtC.

How about amending the articles only requiring 3/4 of the states to agree in order to do stuff (instead of unamity required for passing laws) and Congress allowed to put tariffs? I think a sufficient Charismatic orator might be able to convince them to do this... after 3 years of Articles chaos.
 

SsgtC

Banned
Oh I didn't know you came to this forum SsgtC.

How about amending the articles only requiring 3/4 of the states to agree in order to do stuff (instead of unamity required for passing laws) and Congress allowed to put tariffs? I think a sufficient Charismatic orator might be able to convince them to do this... after 3 years of Articles chaos.

Yeah, I do. Lol. That might work. I'm thinking of having Madison be the one to push for tariffs as he wrote several letters bemoaning how poorly the United States was functioning under the articles, and he specifically mentions economic policy
 
Interesting ideas. That would definitely work. But it would also doom the United States before it ever started. Could Washington have persuaded Congress to adopt the changes I'm looking for?
Nope.

Because it wasn't CONGRESS that needed to make the changes. SOMEONE would have to persuade the various States that a stronger central authority is needed. IOTL, the years the US attempted to run under the AoC did that, but by then the AoC with its unanimity clause was in place.

I suppose, maybe, if you could get a more practical process for amendments to the AoC included in the original document (and no, I don't know how to go about doing that), THEN you could amend the thing once its flaws became clear. IOTL, with unanimity required, it was foredoomed.

Note, any such clause would still be very strict - maybe 3/4 of all States have to agree, for instance. or 3/4 of Congress AND 3/4 of states. Or 4/5 4/5.....
 

SsgtC

Banned
Nope.

Because it wasn't CONGRESS that needed to make the changes. SOMEONE would have to persuade the various States that a stronger central authority is needed. IOTL, the years the US attempted to run under the AoC did that, but by then the AoC with its unanimity clause was in place.

I suppose, maybe, if you could get a more practical process for amendments to the AoC included in the original document (and no, I don't know how to go about doing that), THEN you could amend the thing once its flaws became clear. IOTL, with unanimity required, it was foredoomed.

Note, any such clause would still be very strict - maybe 3/4 of all States have to agree, for instance. or 3/4 of Congress AND 3/4 of states. Or 4/5 4/5.....

Gotcha. Depending on what I do, any process for amendments will still be strict and damn near impossible. Likewise concerning the use of the Army and Navy. Something like 3/4 of Congress has to approve it's use
 
I think they could get all 13 states to amend the artcles, with a suffificently persuasive orator.

The next changes might be this:
3/4 of Congress to do anything
Congress can raise tariffs
Congress can pay for an army if it's not in a debt hole
Congress is the only one to be able to authorize minting
Congress choses a president among themselves to lead
Unanimity of states can amend articles anytime
Every 30 Elections Congress (by 3/4) with presidential approval can propose alterations. It is put up to vote by the populace. All but 3 states must vote "yes" to pass (this is th voters of the states different than the states themselves). 3/4 of TOTAL votes (not state by state) must vote "yes" to pass.
For every 3000 (whatever currency) collected in taxes by the states, one goes to the central government

After even a mere 3 years of article chaos, people want to change things, but many of those people who wanted change were even more afraid of tyranny than the chaos. This proposal has a rather weak central government with the minimum authority needed to be functional (it can raise funds, it can provide for self defense, and it can pass laws without unanimity).

I think the right person can get all 13 states to agree to this.
 

SsgtC

Banned
I think they could get all 13 states to amend the artcles, with a suffificently persuasive orator.

The next changes might be this:
3/4 of Congress to do anything
Congress can raise tariffs
Congress can pay for an army if it's not in a debt hole
Congress is the only one to be able to authorize minting
Congress choses a president among themselves to lead
Unanimity of states can amend articles anytime
Every 30 Elections Congress (by 3/4) with presidential approval can propose alterations. It is put up to vote by the populace. All but 3 states must vote "yes" to pass (this is th voters of the states different than the states themselves). 3/4 of TOTAL votes (not state by state) must vote "yes" to pass.
For every 3000 (whatever currency) collected in taxes by the states, one goes to the central government

After even a mere 3 years of article chaos, people want to change things, but many of those people who wanted change were even more afraid of tyranny than the chaos. This proposal has a rather weak central government with the minimum authority needed to be functional (it can raise funds, it can provide for self defense, and it can pass laws without unanimity).

I think the right person can get all 13 states to agree to this.

I like this. Now, who is a strong enough orator to bully, I mean persuade, the states to agree to this
 
I don't know. They agree in a heartbeat if Washington endorsed it, but I thought he was a Federalist.

I think a good orator might do it. A time displaced (English speaking if not already) Benito Mussolini, Margret Thatcher, Henry II of England, General Dan Sickles could do it. Really, someone just needs to be good with speeches and have a viable plan with a weak government and the states would agree. The person doesn't need to be of high morality, good politician, or have analytical ability, just a good voice and personal charisma.

Many of the Democratic naysayers on the west coast and middle USA who met Hillary Clinton said something like "Wow, you're much more likable in person than on TV or the internet, where it always seems like you're doing normal politician scheming." Of course, in modern times, being likeable in person but not on screen is fairly worthless for getting elected even against someone with questionable manners and qualifications, but for the guy to convince the TTL guys to accept the Articles, he just needs to be likable in person and have a way with voice. It's not like this isn't what the governors were looking for (viable but weak central government)
 

SsgtC

Banned
I think Washington would endorse something like this. It creates a central government, barely, strong enough to function; but still dysfunctional enough to show everyone exactly WHY a stronger government was needed
 
Top