Merely terminology.So if you will never get to reform the AoC, how did we get the Constitution?
Merely terminology.So if you will never get to reform the AoC, how did we get the Constitution?
CalBear travelled back in time to get the Constitution approved to protect the right to arm bears, but accidentally switched the order of two crucial words.So if you will never get to reform the AoC, how did we get the Constitution?
So it can be replaced wholesale, but a less drastic set of reforms will not make it? That seems a bit odd. If a single holdout could stop changes how did we get the Constitution in OTL?
Exactly.The Convention just ignored the unanimity rule and said that the Constitution should take effect once ratified by nine states. This was a bit naughty of them, but they calculated, correctly, that once it was up and running in that many states, the remaining holdouts would have little choice but to join.
I don't follow? Why wouldn't you just announce you're amending the AoC the same way?
For that matter, didn't every state ratify the constitution?
I don't follow? Why wouldn't you just announce you're amending the AoC the same way?
For that matter, didn't every state ratify the constitution?
Right. So why wouldn't people make an end run around the Confederation Congress in ATL to get reforms through?
Hmm, maybe the British missed an opportunity to suggest Rhode Island or other holdouts could consider returning to the colonial fold. With something like the later Dominion status and favourable trading terms.And Rhode Island still vainly tried to torpedo the whole thing by refusing to attend the Convention or ratifying the Constitution. Until literally everyone else did and they risked being left out in the cold, that is.
I agree with Hamilton, as I said I'm reading his biography, it's far more likely that in lieu of a direct return to the colonial fold a prince of the royal family would be put in charge of the Americas with a dynastic alliance to the mother country.Hmm, maybe the British missed an opportunity to suggest Rhode Island or other holdouts could consider returning to the colonial fold. With something like the later Dominion status and favourable trading terms.
Ducks hastily while claiming the above was not meant entirely seriously. Though, could a TL come out of it?
An alternative pre-1770, maybe pre-1755 or so, would be to proclaim BNA as its own kingdom in personal union with the crown of GB. Making the monarch simultaneously the King of GB (England, incorporating Wales, and Scotland), King of Ireland (own parliament) and King of BNA (own parliament, each of the colonies with seats in a Commons and American peers for an Upper House). IF events permit there can later be a Union of Parliaments as with Ireland to create a Trans-Atlantic Anglosphere state.I agree with Hamilton, as I said I'm reading his biography, it's far more likely that in lieu of a direct return to the colonial fold a prince of the royal family would be put in charge of the Americas with a dynastic alliance to the mother country.
An alternative pre-1770, maybe pre-1755 or so, would be to proclaim BNA as its own kingdom in personal union with the crown of GB. Making the monarch simultaneously the King of GB (England, incorporating Wales, and Scotland), King of Ireland (own parliament) and King of BNA (own parliament, each of the colonies with seats in a Commons and American peers for an Upper House). IF events permit there can later be a Union of Parliaments as with Ireland to create a Trans-Atlantic Anglosphere state.
Stumbling block might be the reluctance of the colonies to become a single state pre the 1790s of course. Also, could the British crown have the imagination to see the lands as a potential kingdom to "invest in" rather than a set of colonies for the home country to exploit. Though as that's what it saw Ireland as, perhaps that's not insuperable to becoming a kingdom but it wouldn't be stable without buy in and benefits for the colonists.
Sounds plausible but I'll see what folk more knowledgable about that period of US history think.The powers granted to the states under the AOC were way too broad and the powers to the federal government way too narrow, short answer. Even with the constitution you ended up with the Civil War to determine the relative power of the federal versus state governments, and even before then there was the New England kerfluffle over the War of 1812 and the South Carolina nullification crisis 20 years later - just to mention a few. With the weak federal government and the impossible system to fund even that, I can't see the USA holding together if the AOC are the law of the land, even if somewhat modified. For sure the Louisiana purchase won't happen, so the "USA" will end at the Mississippi, possibly without the Gulf Coast although given the weakness of Spain Florida could end up attached somehow. The slave/free controversy will be worse, no way for the southerners to get anything like a federal fugitive slave law passed, and no way for free states to get importation of slavery stopped (as happened in the constitution). Absent a strong federal government to hold things together, and eventually reinforce union, it's highly likely you'll see a slave/free split - where the line runs between them along the border states is unclear, but i suspect it will happen before 1860.
The Pacific Northwest will eventually be British, probably Texas/New Mexico/Arizona/ California in part or whole Hispanic. Not sure what will happen to what was sold to the USA in 1803 - possibly still French. The area west of the Mississippi north of "Louisiana" and south of Canada could end up being a first nations reserve under the British, or could get spillover from the "free state USA" and attached or some combination of the above. The scenario Turledove did where almost each state is an independent nation is unlikely, confederations of several states perhaps but that many little small ones not stable, some will be gobbled up.
So if you will never get to reform the AoC, how did we get the Constitution?
The Pacific Northwest will eventually be British, probably Texas/New Mexico/Arizona/ California in part or whole Hispanic. Not sure what will happen to what was sold to the USA in 1803 - possibly still French. The area west of the Mississippi north of "Louisiana" and south of Canada could end up being a first nations reserve under the British, or could get spillover from the "free state USA" and attached or some combination of the above. The scenario Turledove did where almost each state is an independent nation is unlikely, confederations of several states perhaps but that many little small ones not stable, some will be gobbled up.
The Constitution was the only viable compromise. Either you get a Constitution or you get a series a civil wars like Argentina (where they weren't able to truly agree on a constitution). And like Argentina, the anti-federalists faction would eventually win said civil war due to the federalist's lacking any government organization capable of resisting the states.
I believe this is the correct answer, but I could be wrong.
A First Nations reserve wouldn't do so well, since that's similar to what the British tried to do with the lands beyond the Appalachians in 1763 and that was a colossal failure because it was too expensive to enforce and did nothing but piss a lot of people off. If Britain takes Louisiana, the end result is they get a bunch of American settlers who are now loyal to the British crown in exchange for land. Likewise with the Southwest--Spain had extreme difficulties holding the land and Mexico outright couldn't. I could see an independent New Mexico (probably New Mexico plus Arizona and whatever California doesn't grab) submitting to British rule just to deal with the problems they had with natives. Possibly with Texas too, although that would probably end similar to Louisiana. California will end up independent too, but as an Anglo country (only half the people in California in 1848 who weren't natives were even Hispanic), though with significant Hispanic undertones.
How likely is this "Argentina in North America" thing if there is no "compromise"? Because I've been interested in that sort of scenario for years ever since I first read about that part of Argentine history and tried to draw vague parallels to US history. I, for one, would love to see a Rosas-like figure in the early US.