WI: Current US constitution was proposed in 1787?

[Rhymehouse]

When James Madison drafts the first US constitution. It presents with it all 27 current US amendments along with it as well. The 18th Amendment & 21st Amendment are left out since they neutralize each other. Framers are still free to argue over and add/remove additional amendments to the US constitution.

The 13th and 15th Amendment (abolish slavery and voting for all races) are going to be very controversial. The southern states won't ratify unless those are removed. The 19th amendment (voting for all sexes) will also be very controversial. The 16th amendment is going to have many people up in arms of a too strong central government receiving income tax. The 26th amendment (voting age) might also be debated. The rest of the future amendments should pass with little fanfare.

Edit: I just realized that if slavery is abolished, there is no need for the fugitive slave clause, 3/5th compromise, or prohibition against banning the slave trade in the constitution. Those can just be left out if the 13th amendment passes. Of course, there is almost no chance the 13th amendment will pass in 1787 unless the founding fathers are okay with the USA only consisting of New England.

 

[Helaena I Targaryen]

Pretty clearly ASB, as you've mentioned. The 1700s was a heavily patriarchal and racist era, so no way women and blacks are getting the vote. Many framers would also object to DC getting electoral votes, first off because it didn't exist yet, and 3 electoral votes for like 15k people is excessive. Popular election of senators would also be controversial, as the Senate was supposed to be an elite body instead of the rabble of the HoR.

Needless to say, the Constitution would be watered down, or the US remains as a loose confederation and likely dissolves in the future.

 

[Mildtryth]

For the first ten amendments, it might be doable, or not - remember that Madison only started drafting these first amendments based on Anti-Federalist objections to the Constitution as it stood.

The eleventh was made as a reaction to a 1793 Supreme Court decision, and to clarify some things that were vague in the original text, so falls into the same problem as the first - problems with the original text that only become apparent with time.

The twelfth only became necessary after the emergence of political parties exposed the problems with the procedure for electing the president and vice president. Same as the previous ones.

The thirteenth is a non-starter. First, not only slavery is legal in most states in 1787, in at least five of them, the economy is largely dependant on slave labour, so there's no way that they'd ever agree to something like that (at least not without compensation, which would require funds the government doesn't have). We can also discard the fourteenth and the fifteenth, given that the impetus for their existence won't be there without the thirteenth.

The sixteenth would be horribly unpopular in 1787. if a excise tax on whiskey in 1794 already sparked a minor rebellion, what will a federal income tax (without any emergencies that might require it) do?

The seventeenth wouldn't fly either. Quite simply, the prevailing mood in 1787 was of a certain wariness of too much popular involvement on politics, and voting requirements often were meant to represent property instead of people. it was only after over a hundred years of these attitudes being eroded that you could get that amendment.

Nobody would see much need for the nineteenth for the same reasons above - not too many women would be holding property independently, but some states might allow those who did to vote - New Jersey actually did allow unmarried women or widows who met the property qualification to vote, but put an end to that in 1807.

The twentieth - again, people probably wouldn't see the problem until it went into practice.

The twentieth-second would be plausible - the matter of duration of the presidency and term limits was heavily debated in the Constitutional Convention, so things might have gone differently on that front.

The twenty-third couldn't be done because there was no Washington DC in 1787. Hell, where the future District of Columbia was going to be hadn't even been decided yet.

The twenty-fourth was also dependent on political developments arising from the thirteenth, so...

The twenty-fifth also runs into the same problem as the first twelve.

The twenty-sixth would also run against the prevailing mood of the time - the Constitution was a acknowledgment that the government on the framework of the Articles of Confederation was way too limited, but however, people were wary of a overly-centralizing government, so a lot of things were left up to the individual states to decide, and voting age and requirements would be some of these. Also, that's another reason why the nineteenth couldn't be done.

The twenty-seventh also falls in the same category as the first twelve.

 

[Rhymehouse]

For the first ten amendments, it might be doable, or not - remember that Madison only started drafting these first amendments based on Anti-Federalist objections to the Constitution as it stood.

The eleventh was made as a reaction to a 1793 Supreme Court decision, and to clarify some things that were vague in the original text, so falls into the same problem as the first - problems with the original text that only become apparent with time.

The twelfth only became necessary after the emergence of political parties exposed the problems with the procedure for electing the president and vice president. Same as the previous ones.

The thirteenth is a non-starter. First, not only slavery is legal in most states in 1787, in at least five of them, the economy is largely dependant on slave labour, so there's no way that they'd ever agree to something like that (at least not without compensation, which would require funds the government doesn't have). We can also discard the fourteenth and the fifteenth, given that the impetus for their existence won't be there without the thirteenth.

The sixteenth would be horribly unpopular in 1787. if a excise tax on whiskey in 1794 already sparked a minor rebellion, what will a federal income tax (without any emergencies that might require it) do?

The seventeenth wouldn't fly either. Quite simply, the prevailing mood in 1787 was of a certain wariness of too much popular involvement on politics, and voting requirements often were meant to represent property instead of people. it was only after over a hundred years of these attitudes being eroded that you could get that amendment.

Nobody would see much need for the nineteenth for the same reasons above - not too many women would be holding property independently, but some states might allow those who did to vote - New Jersey actually did allow unmarried women or widows who met the property qualification to vote, but put an end to that in 1807.

The twentieth - again, people probably wouldn't see the problem until it went into practice.

The twentieth-second would be plausible - the matter of duration of the presidency and term limits was heavily debated in the Constitutional Convention, so things might have gone differently on that front.

The twenty-third couldn't be done because there was no Washington DC in 1787. Hell, where the future District of Columbia was going to be hadn't even been decided yet.

The twenty-fourth was also dependent on political developments arising from the thirteenth, so...

The twenty-fifth also runs into the same problem as the first twelve.

The twenty-sixth would also run against the prevailing mood of the time - the Constitution was a acknowledgment that the government on the framework of the Articles of Confederation was way too limited, but however, people were wary of a overly-centralizing government, so a lot of things were left up to the individual states to decide, and voting age and requirements would be some of these. Also, that's another reason why the nineteenth couldn't be done.

The twenty-seventh also falls in the same category as the first twelve.

It is safe to assume that any amendment that was proposed in the 1700s can also pass in this timeline. Ironically, that also includes the 27th amendment which was proposed all the way back in 1789 but wasn't ratified until two centuries later.

Even though many of the Founding Fathers were idealists who believed that the USA can succeed without political parties, there could easily be realists who realize that political parties are an inevitability and the constitution should be more comprehensive to deal with dealing statesmen. That could lead to the 11th, 12th, 17th, and 20th amendment being ratified during the 18th Century. As for Washington D.C. not existing yet, it was founded in 1790, it wouldn't be inconceivable for James Madison to recommend it or a similar site 3 years early.

I do agree that the Reformation Amendments and other voting rights amendment probably won't pass. The amendments regarding women and taxes are also non-starters. The 26th amendment might pass considering that young men weren't discriminated like women and non-Whites were. I'm not sure if section 1 of the 14th Amendment would pass, but if it did, that would be huge.

 

[Dancing Fool]

the founding fathers are okay with the USA only consisting of New England.

I say, go with it.

Now, the immediate issue would be— Heck, black persons are going to be treated terribly in an early Confederacy of the South only. But turn this around. Since the North is not providing cover, the South has to worry about its own reputation.

In particular, the South has to worry about its rep with Great Britain.

Just maybe . . .

Black persons end up being treated better, which is a very pleasant surprise.

 

[Mildtryth]

I say, go with it.

Now, the immediate issue would be— Heck, black persons are going to be treated terribly in an early Confederacy of the South only. But turn this around. Since the North is not providing cover, the South has to worry about its own reputation.

In particular, the South has to worry about its rep with Great Britain.

Just maybe . . .

Black persons end up being treated better, which is a very pleasant surprise.

And besides, as much as slavery was essential to the South's economy, on this scenario, abolitionism doesn't become tied to a northern sectional interest on southern minds, and doesn't create the vicious cycle that led both sides to radicalize over the 19th century, and thus, a bigger chance of them abolishing slavery on their own accord (although British pressure will probably play a part) somewhere in the 19th century.

 

[Rhymehouse]

I say, go with it.

Now, the immediate issue would be— Heck, black persons are going to be treated terribly in an early Confederacy of the South only. But turn this around. Since the North is not providing cover, the South has to worry about its own reputation.

In particular, the South has to worry about its rep with Great Britain.

Just maybe . . .

Black persons end up being treated better, which is a very pleasant surprise.

The British Empire didn't abolish slavery until 1833. And even after it abolished slavery, it still engaged in indentured servitude and colonial exploitation; not to mention trading with many empires that did the same and worse. So needless to say, I doubt foreign pressure alone will lead to abolition in an independent southern United States.

Well that, and I doubt an independent southern USA will even last that long due to internal bickering and and a potential UK/France invasion. Not to even mention the fact that half of the founding fathers themselves were slave owners (including James Madison himself)! The 13th amendment and 15th amendment are the least likely amendments to be ratified in 1787. It is hard to think of a legitimate amendment that would be more disliked than those (excluding the defunct 18th amendment).

 

[Evan]

As @Rhymehouse says, the Bill of Rights, Eleventh Amendment, and Twenty-Seventh Amendment can pretty definitely pass without any problems beyond those the OTL Constitution had.

The Twelfth Amendment would require a new view of the Vice-Presidency, but I think it could get through too.

The Thirteenth Amendment will sink the Constitution's chances in a whole lot of states. Ditto Section Two of the Fourteenth (which extends suffrage to all male citizens over age 21, except on the grounds of "rebellion, or other crime", on penalty of decreased representation), and the Fifteenth (suffrage for all races). Section 3 of the Fourteenth (ineligibility for oathbreaking insurrectionists) will be OK, though; and Section 4 (validity of the public debt) will sail through on the grounds of protecting Revolutionary War creditors (a lot of whom were soldiers who received their pay in public bonds, or the people they sold the bonds to).

Section 1 of the Fourteenth - the one with the due process, privileges and immunities, and equal protection clauses - might be fine, depending on how people interpret those vague phrases. If they're anything like the Reconstruction Congress meant them iOTL, there's a good chance it'd be viewed as an unwarranted intrusion on state power... but without the OTL history and OTL federal judicial tradition, it might not be viewed that way, or it might get through anyway on the grounds of more protection for rights.

The Sixteenth (income tax) sinks - not just because of the Whiskey Rebellion, but because giving Congress any tax power at all was already controversial.

The Seventeenth (popular election of Senators) also sinks, because to most of that generation, too much democracy was a bad thing.

Having both the Eighteenth and Twenty-First Amendments in one document is going to lead to a lot of jokes and questions.

The Nineteenth... as @Mildtryth says, just might get through? But at the least, it - and the Twenty-Fourth and Twenty-Sixth, which don't have the excuses Mildtryth says about the Nineteenth - are going to raise a lot of eyebrows about Federal intrusion into local affairs. The OTL original Constitution left voter eligibility strictly up to the states, for good reason.

The Twentieth will quite possibly raise objections on practical grounds - will January 3rd provide enough time for votes to be counted and the new Congress to arrive at the capital? Will January 20th, even, provide enough time for the new President to be determined? IOTL, this didn't happen until well into the railroad and telegraph age, for very good reason.

The Twenty-Second sails through as a good roadblock against Presidents who would make themselves Kings (a very present fear.)

The Twenty-Third is dead, as @Helaena I Targaryen says, because the District of Columbia didn't have anywhere near enough people for three electoral votes. As they kill it, they'll probably assume it was written by the partisans of some large city like New York or Philadelphia becoming the capital.

The Twenty-Fifth passes with some shrugs. Presidential disability wasn't really considered until it happened (with Wilson) and became urgent (with the nuclear age), but nobody's going to object to dealing with it.

So... yeah, it's dead. But interestingly so, and not so universally as one might think.

 

[Dancing Fool]

I doubt an independent southern USA will even last that long due to internal bickering and and a potential UK/France invasion

Now, if the South perceives it that way, too, the North might be able to play a little poker!

Get the southern states to agree to, No Congressional representation for persons who can’t vote. And maybe the big issue, get the south to agree to some scheme of gradual abolition.

Back then, people weren’t against slavery, but were against slavocracy. That’s a subtle point we might have difficulty understanding in modern times. But I’m guessing it wasn’t so subtle to the people living back then.

 

[Evan]

Now, if the South perceives it that way, too, the North might be able to play a little poker!

A lot of them wouldn't; it was very split.

Back then, people weren’t against slavery, but were against slavocracy. That’s a subtle point we might have difficulty understanding in modern times. But I’m guessing it wasn’t so subtle to the people living back then.

That was true in the 1840's North, but I'm not sure that was the case in the 1780's. Then, a lot of people were ideologically against slavery, because they'd just gained independence on the back of mountains of rhetoric for liberty and against slavery. In a number of states there wasn't a majority behind this enough to turn it into action - but there was in some places (like Massachusetts, Vermont, and Pennsylvania), and even elsewhere (like Virginia) I'd guess you'd be able to get a majority behind eventual abolition in theory.

 

[Dancing Fool]

in the 1780's. Then, a lot of people were ideologically against slavery, because they'd just gained independence on the back of mountains of rhetoric for liberty and against slavery

I wish with all my heart, and that this could have translated to action.

But you know as much as I do that cognitive dissonance is a Big Universe! And that people are very comfortable thinking, yes, liberty for me, and for you, too. But these other people, I’m not so sure about.

For gradual emancipation,

we’re going to have to take a deep breath and make a big stomach,

and we’re going to have to pay financial compensation to slaveowners. There’s just no other way. And the slaves themselves won’t get jack shit other than their freedom. Or, maybe if there’s new farm land, 40 acres and a mule.

We could also do something , and proclaim that the children of slaves will be free. Now, we’ve got to be a little careful so that the masters won’t abuse them.

Now, child labor was the norm back then. So maybe a law that the child can only work 20 hours a week. And that the child has to be in school [at least thru age 12?] and learn how to read, write, do math, and learn basic American history.

+ some kind of feedback mechanism so that this law is largely followed

 

[manitobot]

There were anti-slavery/abolitionist delegates in the Continental Congress, though they were a minority; but none of them supported women’s suffrage.

 

[Dancing Fool]

“George Whitefield conducted regular preaching tours of the colonies from 1738 until his death in 1770. His expressive, extemporaneous preaching style drew in large open-air crowds that routinely numbered as many as 30,000 listeners.”

And this First Great Awakening was only given that name during the Second Great Awakening!

And lest we say religion is always a conservative-moving influence, in the 1800s the Baptists were in favor of such things as prison reform and recognizing the Right of Women to Vote.

 

[Evan]

And lest we say religion is always a conservative-moving influence, in the 1800s the Baptists were in favor of such things as prison reform and recognizing the Right of Women to Vote.

That said, the Baptists were a lower-class, more radical denomination circa 1800.