WI: New York rejects the Constitution?

ThePest179

Banned
The vote to ratify the US Constitution in New York was pretty close IOTL (30 in favor, 27 against). What if the vote had went the other way?
 
New York was 11th state to ratify the US Const.

The constitution went into effect after #9, New Hampshire ratified. So it really does not matter too much, the Articles of Confederation was replaced by US Const after New Hampshire ratifies it.

So would have New York participated in the new government? Is that the what if? Could New York survive on its own? And what would it be like to have New England and then the rest of the mid-atlantic and southern states?
 
New York was 11th state to ratify the US Const.

The constitution went into effect after #9, New Hampshire ratified. So it really does not matter too much, the Articles of Confederation was replaced by US Const after New Hampshire ratifies it.

So would have New York participated in the new government? Is that the what if? Could New York survive on its own? And what would it be like to have New England and then the rest of the mid-atlantic and southern states?
Wow. New England separated from the rest? This makes secession of New England incredibly easy.
 
I imagine there would be a political crisis followed by a slew of attempts by the new Congress to address the concerns of whatever portion of the New York political scene is necessary to ratify. Eventually they will succeed and New York will ratify. The interesting question is exactly what changes are made to the Constitution before then.
 
I should think New York loses big in the long run if they don't eventually ratify. The Erie Canal that made NYC the second greatest city in the world today (after London ;) ) was federally funded. Without that the city is just another port on the Atlantic Seaboard.
 
I imagine there would be a political crisis followed by a slew of attempts by the new Congress to address the concerns of whatever portion of the New York political scene is necessary to ratify. Eventually they will succeed and New York will ratify. The interesting question is exactly what changes are made to the Constitution before then.

More weight for big states in the Senate?
 
IIRC the canal was built with state, not federal funding. It would be interesting to see how successful an independent New York would be if the American Midwest had to use it as a middleman to get its goods to market.
 

B-29_Bomber

Banned
I read somewhere that if Albany had refused to ratify the Constitution that New York City would secede from New York State and ratify the Constitution itself.
 
I should think New York loses big in the long run if they don't eventually ratify. The Erie Canal that made NYC the second greatest city in the world today (after London ;) ) was federally funded. Without that the city is just another port on the Atlantic Seaboard.

I'm told by a friend of mine who studied the development of the Eastern Seaboard that a lot of New York's prominence also came from Boston being completely dominated by a small group of fairly conservative families, and he claims that New York started rising even before the Erie Canal as entrepreneurs moved basically to the nearest big city to get away from the Boston Brahmins. Of course, if New York had been a different country, this also may not have happened...
 
See my post at https://groups.google.com/d/msg/soc.history.what-if/DVFHOjOu7sM/WP1vBdjwDxwJ

***

"So the vote in New York was extremely close *but* I don't think that it
follows that it would have been a disaster for the Constitution (which
already had gotten the requisite nine states) if the Nays had prevailed.
For remember that by the time the vote was taken by the New York
convention, the real issue was no longer ratification versus unconditonal
rejection of the new Constitution but uncondtional ratification versus
ratification conditioned on the adoption of a Bill of Rights.

"Now, to be sure, Madison rejected such conditional ratification as
amounting to rejection. But it seems to me that once Congress passed the
Bill of Rights the issue would be moot. Congress could save face by
refusing to accept a conditional ratification--while at the same time
fulfilling the proposed conditions. The New Yorkers could save face
by saying "We won. They adopted our conditions and therefore we hereby
unconditionally ratify this Constitution." As McLaughlin notes, "the
localists were playing a dangerous game; New York, as yet not one of the
most populous states, could not safely play a lone hand. There was a
considerable sense of self-sufficiency, a reliance on the state's own
strength, but its frontiers were open to attack; it was not safe, either
as a member of a distracted and incompetent Confederation or standing
quite alone, to face with its own feeble strength a world hungry for
power." Under such circumstances, it seems to me that with the adoption of
the Bill of Rights giving the New Yorkers a chance to claim victory,
ultimate ratification by the state was very probable, at least assuming
that not only the nine necessary states but also Virginia had ratified.
Virginia also witnessed a furious battle but the vote was not quite as
close as in New York..."
 
I should think New York loses big in the long run if they don't eventually ratify. The Erie Canal that made NYC the second greatest city in the world today (after London ;) ) was federally funded. Without that the city is just another port on the Atlantic Seaboard.

The canal was state-funded, all $7 million of it.
 
I imagine there would be a political crisis followed by a slew of attempts by the new Congress to address the concerns of whatever portion of the New York political scene is necessary to ratify. Eventually they will succeed and New York will ratify. The interesting question is exactly what changes are made to the Constitution before then.

The only changes they would have to make to get New York to ratify would be the ones they made in OTL--the enactment of a Bill of Rights.
 
I should think New York loses big in the long run if they don't eventually ratify. The Erie Canal that made NYC the second greatest city in the world today (after London ;) ) was federally funded. Without that the city is just another port on the Atlantic Seaboard.

Would an ATL be possible where New York (state and city) eventually begrudgingly ratifies the fourth draft of the Constitution -the one with the many special provisions and clauses to deal with the cities special wishes- but still remains a 'difficult' place to deal with for the rest of the country? Could federal projects like the Eerie Canal bypass the notoriously difficult New York in favor of more supporting cities like Boston or Philadelphia? (or Baltimore, Charleston and Savannah?) I would like to see an alternative USA where Nantucket is a 10+ milion city leading the world in finance and industry while New York is just a tourist stop on the way to Atlantic City
 
Would an ATL be possible where New York (state and city) eventually begrudgingly ratifies the fourth draft of the Constitution -the one with the many special provisions and clauses to deal with the cities special wishes- but still remains a 'difficult' place to deal with for the rest of the country?


The special provision was the Bill of Rights. Someone has already pointed that out in this thread!
 
The only changes they would have to make to get New York to ratify would be the ones they made in OTL--the enactment of a Bill of Rights.

Exactly what amendments are made is a little more intricate than that. A bill of rights (as in, an actual bill of rights, at the top of the document, not the series of rights oriented amendments we got) is definitely one of the possibilities, but others will be pushed for and, depending on how exactly they're negotiated, we could end up with some drastically different from what Madison was willing to part with IOTL.
 
Would an ATL be possible where New York (state and city) eventually begrudgingly ratifies the fourth draft of the Constitution -the one with the many special provisions and clauses to deal with the cities special wishes- but still remains a 'difficult' place to deal with for the rest of the country? Could federal projects like the Eerie Canal bypass the notoriously difficult New York in favor of more supporting cities like Boston or Philadelphia? (or Baltimore, Charleston and Savannah?) I would like to see an alternative USA where Nantucket is a 10+ milion city leading the world in finance and industry while New York is just a tourist stop on the way to Atlantic City

As has already been posted, the erie canal was state-funded. New York was destined to become huge.
 
Top