WI: No push for federal government in US?

[Tsochar]

In OTL, the Colonies originally had the Articles of Confederation, which provided for a single central Congress to coordinate governance between the States, but had no mechanisms for funding or enforcement. When economic pressures came to the forefront, federalists such as Adams and Hamilton came to realize that only a strong central government could protect American interests. However, what if the anti-federalists had won out? What if individuals loyal above all to their own state became the driving force in reforming the Articles? I envision the already-weak Articles to be replaced with a weaker set of guidelines in the form of a pact or gentleman's agreement between the colonies, something like:

-Any attack on one state will be construed as an attack on all states. No state shall make war with, nor support any war against, another state.
-If a state declares war against a foreign nation without reasonable provocation, the other states are not obliged to declare war as well.
-States may freely trade and enter agreements with other nations, excepting those who are at war against another state.
-Each state shall maintain its own militia. In times of war or crisis, the states may decide to temporarily form a unified Continental Army. However, the responsibility for paying the soldiers shall lie with the states in all cases.

Obviously, some states would cozy up with France, others would sign deals with Spain or Portugal, still others would look back to Britain, and so on. Which states would ally themselves with which countries, though? How long would it take before this agreement falls apart? Or would the states grow closer together?

 

[Skallagrim]

It is possible to have the Articles fail and the USA fall apart, of course. Some (perhaps most) states may then even enter into a treaty such as the one you outline. But do note that "the anti-federalists get their way" is not the way to get that result. The federalists wanted to replace the Articles with a much tighter Constitution, but the anti-federalists didn't want to "replace the already-weak Articles with a weaker set of guidelines". They wanted to strengthen the Articles. They just didn't want to replace them with a wholly new Constitution, and they wanted to retain the initial USA's confederal nature, rather than turning it into a federation.

Back in January, I posted about a scenario where this happened, but got no replies (probably because I went into way too much detail in my OP). In that post, I listed the sort of revisions that the Articles might actually undergo if the anti-federalists had won. To be clear, the scenario I envisioned is that some leading federalists and Washington himself die in the ARW, and Jefferson doesn't become minister to France, so he leads the much-more-popular-in-this-ATL anti-federalists to victory. That means that my suggestions include some of Jefferson's specific pet peeves, and don't purely reflect the OTL anti-federalist plans. My post can be found here.

To give you a more useful picture of what would or would/might not be included in a revision of the Articles, I'll split my listed suggestions into stuff that most or all anti-federalists would include, stuff that only some anti-federalists wanted to include, and stuff that is purely based on what Jefferson in particular would include. I'll put that below a spoiler tag so as not to clutter up your thread.

Spoiler

Alterations that are pretty sure to be part of any anti-federalist revision of the Articles:

— Congress attains the authority to maintain a navy and a standing army. States are explicitly forbidden to maintain navies of their own, although any kind of coast guard remains purely a state affair. On the other hand, the size of the national army is limited in the Articles, and the use of the army and/or navy against US citizens is forbidden under all circumstances.

— Congress is exclusively charged with all tasks pertaining to foreign affairs, the national army and navy, the management of US territories, the maintanance of the national treasury, and the arbitration of any legal conflict between two or more US states (in which case Congress will be authorised to issue a binding verdict). Congress gains no other tasks than these, and it is in fact explicitly determined that all other matters are issues for the individual states.

— Congress remains unicameral, and every state retains one single vote, regardless of size/poulations/etc. (States can choose to send one representative, or a delegation; states can give their delegates binding instructions, or leave them free to vote as they see fit; they can have delegates elected, or appoint them— all of this is left to the states individually.)

— Congress (and thus the government) is to be financed via a univeral tarriff levied on all imports. The tarriff is explicitly defined as a percentage of the value of the goods being imported. Congress cannot raise the percentage without ratification by at least two thirds of the state legislatures. On the other hand, states are forbidden to levy any kind of tarriffs of their own. There will be one tarriff, it will be national, and it will not disciminate to the benefit or detriment of particular goods. Finally... Congress is forbidden to ever raise any other kind of tax or levy besides the national tarriff.

— States are explicitly forbidden from raising any obstacles to interstate commerce, except to prevent the importation of goods that are illegal in one state and legal in another. Any form of interstate taxation of trade is universally forbidden. (And notably, the clase states that “...interstate commerce shall be free and unhindered”. Congress receives no power to regulate interstate commerce in any way.)

Alterations that are may or may not be part of any anti-federalist revision of the Articles, or that may just take a wildly different form from the one I outlined:

— There is a President of the United States who wield executive power. He is elected for four years via a first-past-the-post district-based system: whoever wins most districts wins the election. (The Articles dictate that all districts hold roughly the same amount of voters).

— In the context of elections... each state decides for itself who gets to vote. In certain states, all freemen get to vote. In others... not so much.

— The President heads a cabinet, supported by a very modest bureacracy. The Articles explicitly (and exhaustively) lists the cabinet positions: a Secretary of War, a Secretary of the Navy, a Secretary of State, a Secretary of the Treasury and a Secretary of the Interior. All these are appointed by the President.

— Regarding the issue of war: Congress maintains the national army and navy, the President is Command-in-Chief, and a declaration of war demands a majority in Congress, ratification by a majority of state legislatures, and the assent of the President.

— Seperate associations of US states (such as a "union within the union") are explicitly forbidden, except with the express permission of Congress, in which cases such permission can also be retracted afterwards.

Alterations that are based on Jefferson's various ideas and pet peeves, and that will most likely be included only if he's the leader of the anti-federalists:

— Regarding the national treasury: this is the only institution allowed to mint the national currency (the US Dollar). In keeping with the spirit of the times, and with drastic wartime inflation in recent memory, it is dictated in the Articles that the Dollar must be fully backed by gold. (The Articles state that the Dollar is legal tender that must be accepted as currency throughout the USA... but it does not state that states and private parties are forbidsden from using their own secondary currencies besides the Dollar.)

— Congress is only allowed to run a deficit and build up a national debt during wartime. It is stipulated that any such wartime debt must be paid off as soon as can be managed after the war’s end.

— States are not allowed to run a deficit or to build up a public debt under any circumstances. In fact, unlike OTL, the national government does not assume the remaining state debts, and states still in debt are instructed to make haste in paying them off.

— Finally, the issue of secession is explicitly tackled: a state legislature must agree to it with a two thirds majority (in both houses if it’s a bicameral legislature) and after that, a (regular majority) state-wide pleibiscite must confirm the decision.

Bottom line: a revision of the Articles will get you a confederal USA, but not the loose alliance you envision. If you want to discuss a realistic outcome of revising the Articles, I'm up for that. If you want to ditch that specific premise and discuss ways to end up with that loose alliance, I'm up for that, too.

 

[Tsochar]

Bottom line: a revision of the Articles will get you a confederal USA, but not the loose alliance you envision. If you want to discuss a realistic outcome of revising the Articles, I'm up for that. If you want to ditch that specific premise and discuss ways to end up with that loose alliance, I'm up for that, too.

When I talk of anti-federalists, I'm not really talking about Jefferson's OTL faction, but an alternate faction that has a more extreme states' rights stance. This would probably require stronger state divisions and weaker national cohesion, which would likely necessitate a different ARW. In any case, I'd really like to explore a US where each state can conduct its own foreign policy, but they (initially) agree not to step on each other's toes.

 

[Skallagrim]

When I talk of anti-federalists, I'm not really talking about Jefferson's OTL faction, but an alternate faction that has a more extreme states' rights stance. This would probably require stronger state divisions and weaker national cohesion, which would likely necessitate a different ARW. In any case, I'd really like to explore a US where each state can conduct its own foreign policy, but they (initially) agree not to step on each other's toes.

A key issue here is that a common foreign policy was a cornerstone of the Articles (which got drafted soon after independence was declared) and with very good reason: the states knew they'd have to stand together. Taking that element out of the Articles is very difficult, but you can have the ARW and the subsequent period go differently, and end up with a scenario where a number of important states want to go their own way. "We're independent now, we don't need to 'join or die' anymore." That kind of thinking. On that basis, the Articles can simply fail. As a compromise, it is possible to have all states agree to a 'treaty of mutual amity and military support', instead. Sovereign nations, bound by a trade-and-defence pact. Something like that.

That should get you what you're looking for.

 

[Alex Zetsu]

I don't see why the anti0federalists winning might not get what you want... except that I think even many anti-federalists simply wanted to take the Articles and add a way for Congress to raise funds (whose dumb idea was it to have a central government that had no way to get money from the states or the citizens?).

I don't see the altered America going past the Mississippi.

 

[Dathi THorfinnsson]

Also, since the AoC required unanimity for changes, any significant changes will be very, very tough to implement. Yes, I'm looking at you, Rhode Island. (Although they were the worst offender, but far from the only one.)

 

[Lord Atlas]

What if more British colonies sent delegates to the First Continental Congress (they did plan to send invitations to Quebec, Prince Edward Island, Nova Scotia, Georgia, East Florida, and West Florida plus you could throw in the Bahamas) and join the Revolution (doesn't have to be all of them)? The ones that do join could try to keep their individual character and oppose being dominated by the Original Thirteen which could lead to a harder victory for the Federalists.