WI: Articles of Confederation remain US constitution.

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 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?

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.
 
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.
Exactly.

And by NOT making it a revised AoC, they got away with it.
 
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?
 
"Because the US only got the states to unanimously ratify the Constitution after cajoling them, a more gradual and less dramatic reform would never happen" seems a stretch.
 
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?

Trust me, Rhode Island would have killed it if they could. Their hand was forced by the refusal of the others to follow AOC procedure.
 
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?

Only after pulling the teeth of reluctant states. I just read the chapter in Chernow's Hamilton biography about the battle for ratification in New York. The confirmation of the Constitution was a complete end run around the Articles. Knowing that any one state can kill reform measures within the pre-existing government, they took their new form of government directly to state conventions so that petty legislature politics wouldn't be involved. This allowed supporters to build up momentum and isolate states that would otherwise have resisted. North Carolina and Rhode Island were dead set against it, Virginia and New York were lean against. Hamilton and Madison intentionally delayed proceedings in their home state to allow the gradual ratification to take form in most states. Eight states had ratified by the time New York had their convention. New Hampshire, the crucial ninth state for nationwide ratification, while they were talking...meaning that Virginia, New York, Rhode Island, and North Carolina would have been isolated if they didn't get on board. Virginia ratified, then tipping the momentum in Hamilton's favor to eek by a ratification vote in New York because they couldn't really exert much influence on the continent if Virginia was going to leave the old system. North Carolina and Rhode Island would then reluctantly join up for fear of being ignored all together. It took a lot of work, that would have been over before it started if attempted through the pre-existing structure.
 
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.
 
Right. So why wouldn't people make an end run around the Confederation Congress in ATL to get reforms through?
 
Right. So why wouldn't people make an end run around the Confederation Congress in ATL to get reforms through?

That would, by definition, mean that the Articles of Confederation would no longer be the government of the land except maybe as De Jure lip service. The switch from the Articles to the Constitution were a soft revolution that swept out the old order and replaced it with a new one.
 
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.
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?
 
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?
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.
 
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.
 
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.

That is the best shot they have IMO, make some of the elites peers of the realm and have more of the elites MPs and you have a good shot at getting most in your pocket. That is a good start at keeping the original 13 colonies inside the empire.
 
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.
 
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.
Sounds plausible but I'll see what folk more knowledgable about that period of US history think.

Would this butterfly away the War of 1812? Since there would be no strong federal government to object to the British impressment of US citizens. Or could that crisis force a revision of the AOC or something closer to a federal constitution? Then again, were the individual states split on the issue iOTL? Would there be a universally approved response anyway with the AOC and thus no consensus on changing them?
 

ben0628

Banned
So if you will never get to reform the AoC, how did we get the Constitution?

From what I understand, your question is why can't we compromise and reform the AoC instead of getting the Constitution. The reason why this can't happen is because the Constitution WAS the compromise. During this time you have federalist's versus anti-federalists (centralized federal government versus decentralized state governments). The compromise between the two was the US Constitution, which is the creation of a unified central government but at the same time a creation of the bill of rights and tenth amendment (these were created by the federalist's solely to appease the anti-federalists).

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.
 
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.

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.

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.

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.
 

ben0628

Banned
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.

I think it is likely. However a permanent fracture of the US like some people suggest probably wouldn't happen. The US would eventually unify together

The War of 1812 would probably reunify the country at which point everyone will finally get their shit together, put aside their differences, and ratify the Constitution. Until though then, expect the AoC to fall apart, followed by almost 3 decades of wars and state rivalries. Hell you could see certain states unify or form their own alliances with one another.
 
Last edited:
Top