WI: The Constitutional Convention Failed?

[zoomar]

I'd expect a less effective westward expansion, which is fine by me. I wish we'd failed the dream of Manifest Destiny, honestly. Would the interior have been left alone? Unlikely, but a more pluralistic North America will be less bad for the Indians. Indian Removal is less likely, and the Cherokee more likely to get their own state. (With slaves and everything, how civilized!).

Not sure I agree here. Most of the pressure for westward expansion was local. Manifest Destiny was a concept that united anglo-americans regardless of whether or not they were united in a strong centralized federal state. If anything, the effects on native Americans might be worse, since it was often the federal government or the federal courts that inhibited uncontrolled settlement and upheld Indian land claims. On the other hand, absent the federal government and the legal precedent of the Northwest Ordinance, the potential for conflicts between states as each furthered its own version of manifest destiny could create some interesting conflicts Something resembling OTL's Mexican War would be fairly unlikely, but I suspect that ultimately the less-united states of anglo-america would still find a way to expand to the Pacific at the expense of Mexico, either as one lose confederation or as several independent states.

 

[MRig]

I wouldn't happen overnight but it would almost certainly happen eventually. By nature the central government is so weak people start wondering why they are even sending tax money to support it. Why pay taxes to a government that can do virtually nothing?

The confederal government maintains the navy and the Continental Army. The people won't want to pay high taxes, but the economies of scale re: navies will make it in everyone's interest to remain confederal to protect each states' trade, at least for the coastal ones. For the inland states, it may be state militias expected to keep settlers safe from Indian raids, but the same would hold true if the army shared that responsibility.

Not sure I agree here. Most of the pressure for westward expansion was local. Manifest Destiny was a concept that united anglo-americans regardless of whether or not they were united in a strong centralized federal state. If anything, the effects on native Americans might be worse, since it was often the federal government or the federal courts that inhibited uncontrolled settlement and upheld Indian land claims. On the other hand, absent the federal government and the legal precedent of the Northwest Ordinance, the potential for conflicts between states as each furthered its own version of manifest destiny could create some interesting conflicts Something resembling OTL's Mexican War would be fairly unlikely, but I suspect that ultimately the less-united states of anglo-america would still find a way to expand to the Pacific at the expense of Mexico, either as one lose confederation or as several independent states.

There's certainly going to be a lot of local pressure for it, but in OTL the gov't was using the federal army to support the expansion. With a less unified US and a foreign great power sponsor, someone like Red Cloud might be able to maintain their successes. Or not. Bad idea to bet against the United States expanding west. But I do think the Articles are going to slow it down at least a little bit.

 

[Faeelin]

Confederacies are inherently unstable. The most likely scenario is that all the states become completely independent. More likely than not there will be one or more aggressive states that will eventually invade the other states and you have a smaller number of unitary governments.

Indeed. Hence the German Confederation broke apart, the Swiss are a series of warring cantons, and the EU's fate is predetermined.

 

[Shackel]

I wonder if this mass competition on North America would actually BOOST it's technological and economical progress(at Mexico's expense). Even Canada would probably turn into multiple states without a larger US to encourage fusion.

 

[Johnrankins]

Indeed. Hence the German Confederation broke apart, the Swiss are a series of warring cantons, and the EU's fate is predetermined.

The Germans fought each other for centuries. The various feudal lords were at each other's throat during the entire period of the HRE and often ignored whatever the emperor wanted. Switzerland is tiny and can get away with it. I wouldn't bet on the future of the EU myself, sooner or later the Germans are going to get sick of bailing out the over indebted nations of Europe or the indebted nations of Europe will get sick of the austerity measures needed to retain the Euro. Once that happens one or the other will bail on the Euro.

 

[elder.wyrm]

Confederacies are inherently unstable. The most likely scenario is that all the states become completely independent. More likely than not there will be one or more aggressive states that will eventually invade the other states and you have a smaller number of unitary governments.

All states are inherently unstable. All human endeavors period are only 'meta-stable', stable only because of our constant meddling.

Still, the point of a Confederacy versus a Federation is that all the states ARE completely independent. A Confederacy, at its heart, is a military alliance.

I see no reason such a situation couldn't continue indefinitely as long as its raison d'etre, a powerful and belligerent imperial Britain (and Europe), continues along with it, as I said earlier.

 

[Lemont Elwood]

I'm working on a story myself (the goal being to have a large number of American nations going at each other's throats in a non-stop warfest (like Europe when they weren't under the control of 1800s Balance of Power), and my PoD is Roger Sherman dieing before presenting his plan, but I don't know what a good "breaking point" for the Union would be. New York, Vermont, and New Hampshire getting in a three-way over Vermont, maybe?

EDIT: Besides other, more peaceful crises that could be a catalyst for the confederacy's collapse, there's any number of wars that could have begun (before or after)...
New York, Vermont, New Hampshire = control of Vermont
New York, Connecticut = Connecticut's western claims
New York, Massachusetts = Massachusetts' western claims

DOUBLE EDIT: I've gotten the idea for my breaking point written down. What would have been likely governments for independent colonies to choose? At the moment I'm imagining:
Adirondack (New Hampshire, Connecticut, Massachusetts) = Basic republic with a Congress, considers itself direct successor of the United States, embraces Revolutionary ideals and American nationalism, and is very federalized
Vermont = Was created as a buffer state, so it's pretty much just a military dictatorship that's propped up by Adirondack and Hudson.
Adirondack (Hudson, New Jersey) = Oligarchic republic with a constitutional monarchy (that'd be Hamilton!), very federalized and mercantilist.
Pennsylvania (Pennsylvania, Delaware) = Democratic republic based on Quaker ideals, so very enlightened for their time.
Virginia (Virginia, Maryland) = I don't know about this one. Oligarchic republic of slaveholders, British-sympathetic constitutional monarchy like Hudson, or a Jeffersonian democratic republic? Or all three?
Carolina (both Carolinas) = I imagine a mostly normal republic (like Adirondack), developing along aristocratic lines.
Savanna (Georgia) = The same here.