What If The Articles of Confederation Were Never Replaced?

The Actual History

The Articles of Confederation, drafted during the American Revolution and ratified in 1781, served as the United States' first constitution. Created by the Second Continental Congress, this document established a "firm league of friendship" among the thirteen sovereign states that had declared independence from Great Britain. Deliberately designed to prevent the concentration of power in a central authority—a reaction to the colonists' experience with the British monarchy—the Articles created a notably weak national government.

Under the Articles, the national government consisted primarily of a unicameral Congress in which each state had a single vote regardless of population. This Congress had limited powers: it could declare war, conduct foreign affairs, and settle disputes between states. However, it lacked crucial authority in several areas. Congress could not regulate commerce between states or with foreign nations, nor could it levy taxes directly on citizens—instead, it had to request funds from state governments, which frequently ignored these requisitions. The Articles required unanimous consent from all thirteen states for any amendments, making structural reforms nearly impossible.

These weaknesses became increasingly apparent in the mid-1780s. The federal government accrued significant debt during the Revolutionary War but lacked effective means to repay it. States engaged in economic competition with one another, imposing tariffs on goods from neighboring states and issuing their own currencies, creating economic chaos. The government's inability to coordinate a unified response to Shays' Rebellion in Massachusetts (1786-1787), where indebted farmers rose up against tax collection and foreclosures, alarmed many political leaders.

In 1787, delegates gathered in Philadelphia ostensibly to revise the Articles. However, led by figures like James Madison, Alexander Hamilton, and George Washington, the convention instead drafted an entirely new constitution establishing a much stronger federal government. This Constitution created a bicameral legislature, an executive branch led by a president, and a federal judiciary. It gave the federal government power to tax, regulate commerce, and raise armies. The document also included mechanisms for amendment that were less stringent than the Articles' requirement of unanimity.

After intense debate and the addition of the Bill of Rights (the first ten amendments guaranteeing individual liberties), the Constitution was ratified by the required nine states by June 1788. The new government began operations in 1789 with George Washington as the first president. This transition from the Articles to the Constitution represented a profound shift from a loose confederation of sovereign states to a federal republic with meaningful central authority.

Over the subsequent centuries, this Constitution—though amended twenty-seven times—has remained the foundation of American governance, making it the oldest written national constitution still in use. The federal system it established has proven remarkably durable, balancing central authority with state sovereignty in ways the Articles of Confederation failed to achieve.

The Point of Divergence

What if the Constitutional Convention of 1787 had failed to produce a new framework of government? In this alternate timeline, we explore a scenario where the United States continued to operate under the Articles of Confederation, never adopting the Constitution that has defined American governance for over two centuries.

Several plausible turning points might have prevented the creation of a stronger central government:

First, the Constitutional Convention itself might have collapsed due to irreconcilable differences between delegates. The convention witnessed significant tensions between small and large states over representation, between northern and southern states over slavery, and between those favoring strong central authority and those preferring state sovereignty. Had compromises like the Great Compromise (creating a bicameral legislature with proportional representation in the House and equal representation in the Senate) failed to materialize, delegates might have abandoned the project entirely.

Alternatively, the convention might have produced a Constitution, but ratification could have failed. In our timeline, ratification was far from guaranteed—several key states including Virginia, New York, and Massachusetts ratified only by narrow margins after intense debate. Anti-Federalists like Patrick Henry, George Clinton, and Richard Henry Lee mounted powerful opposition against what they viewed as dangerous centralization of power. Had just a few more influential figures joined their ranks or had the Federalists been less effective in their advocacy (particularly through the Federalist Papers), the Constitution might have failed to secure the necessary nine states for ratification.

A third possibility involves the absence of key figures. Had George Washington—whose prestige and reputation were instrumental in legitimizing both the convention and the resulting Constitution—declined to participate, the effort might have lacked the credibility needed to succeed. Similarly, the intellectual contributions of James Madison in designing the new government and Alexander Hamilton in advocating for its ratification were crucial; their absence might have doomed the project.

In this alternate timeline, we posit that a combination of these factors—more intractable disagreements among delegates, stronger Anti-Federalist opposition, and perhaps the absence or diminished influence of key Federalist figures—resulted in the continuation of the Articles of Confederation as America's foundational document. The existing Confederation Congress would have continued to function with its limited powers, and the American experiment would have proceeded along a dramatically different path.

Immediate Aftermath

Economic Turbulence

The most immediate consequences of maintaining the Articles of Confederation would have manifested in the economic sphere. Without a federal authority empowered to regulate interstate commerce or establish a uniform currency, the economic chaos of the 1780s would have persisted and likely intensified.

States would have continued to function as separate economic entities, imposing tariffs against one another and protecting their own industries at the expense of interregional trade. New York, with its lucrative port, would have maintained its taxes on goods destined for New Jersey and Connecticut, while other states with geographical advantages would have similarly exploited their positions. This economic balkanization would have severely limited the development of a national market economy.

The federal government's inability to pay Revolutionary War debts would have further undermined economic stability. By 1789-1790, the Confederation would have faced increasingly urgent fiscal pressures as foreign creditors demanded repayment and domestic bondholders lost confidence in ever receiving compensation. Without Alexander Hamilton's financial program that consolidated and funded national debt in our timeline, foreign investment would have remained scarce, and America's credit rating on international markets would have continued to deteriorate.

The currency situation would have remained chaotic, with various state currencies and private bank notes circulating alongside foreign coins. Without a national bank or uniform currency system, commercial transactions across state lines would have remained cumbersome, limiting economic growth and integration.

Political Fragmentation and Foreign Relations

Politically, the continuation of the Articles would have likely accelerated centrifugal forces within the confederation. States with divergent interests would have increasingly pursued independent policies, potentially forming regional blocs or even separate diplomatic relationships with foreign powers.

The federal government's weakness in foreign affairs would have left the young nation vulnerable to external pressures. Spain, still controlling the Mississippi River and New Orleans, would have continued restricting American navigation rights, frustrating western settlers. Without a unified diplomatic front or credible military threat, the Confederation would have struggled to secure favorable terms from European powers.

Great Britain, which maintained forts in the Northwest Territory despite the Treaty of Paris requirements, would have had little incentive to withdraw from American territory. The British would have continued cultivating relationships with Native American tribes in the region, potentially establishing a buffer zone or sphere of influence along America's western frontier.

France, experiencing the early stages of its revolution by 1789, would have viewed the struggling American confederation with diminishing favor, potentially reconsidering its earlier support and alliance. The Confederation's inability to repay French loans would have strained relations between the former allies.

Western Expansion Challenges

The Confederation's weakness would have particularly affected western expansion and territorial governance. The Northwest Ordinance of 1787, which established processes for territorial organization and eventual statehood, might have faced implementation difficulties without a stronger central authority.

States with western land claims, including Virginia, New York, and Massachusetts, might have reasserted control over territories they had previously ceded to the Confederation. This could have led to competing jurisdictions and conflicts over western lands, complicating settlement patterns and land policies.

Native American tribes would have continued engaging with individual states rather than a unified federal government, potentially playing states against each other for more favorable terms. States with frontier borders would have independently negotiated treaties and conducted military campaigns against Native Americans, leading to inconsistent policies and heightened conflicts.

State-Level Constitutional Developments

Without the federal Constitution as a model, state constitutions would have continued evolving along divergent paths. Some states might have strengthened their executive branches to address governance challenges, while others might have maintained more legislative-dominant systems.

States facing internal rebellions similar to Shays' Rebellion would have developed their own approaches to maintaining order. Wealthier states might have established more robust militias, while poorer states might have struggled to maintain domestic tranquility, potentially leading to greater social unrest and class conflict.

By the early 1790s, the limitations of the Articles would have become increasingly apparent to political leaders throughout the confederation. However, the requirement for unanimous consent for amendments would have continued to stymie reform efforts, leaving the American states in an increasingly precarious position as they entered the final decade of the 18th century.

Long-term Impact

The Confederation's Evolution

As the 19th century dawned, the inherent weaknesses of the Articles of Confederation would have forced some adaptations, though full-scale replacement would have remained difficult due to the unanimity requirement. Most likely, the Confederation would have developed a series of workarounds and interstate compacts to address its most glaring deficiencies.

By 1800-1810, we might have seen the emergence of regional economic unions among states with aligned interests. The New England states might have formed a commercial alliance standardizing trade regulations and currency, while the Mid-Atlantic states could have created their own economic bloc. Southern states, with their plantation economies, would likely have established arrangements facilitating agricultural exports and preserving the institution of slavery.

Necessity would have driven innovations in governance. Interstate commissions might have emerged to manage shared waterways, coordinate infrastructure development, and harmonize conflicting state policies. These mechanisms, while cumbersome compared to a federal system, would have provided limited coordination without requiring constitutional amendments.

Economic Divergence

Without a unified national economy, regional economic specialization would have intensified. New England would have accelerated its transition to manufacturing earlier than in our timeline, developing stronger trade connections with Europe directly rather than through a national economic system. The Mid-Atlantic states, with their robust agricultural sectors and growing commercial centers, might have developed a diversified economy serving as an intermediary between regions.

The South would have doubled down on its plantation economy, with slavery becoming even more entrenched without federal pressure or compromise requirements. Cotton production would still have expanded with the invention of the cotton gin (1793 in our timeline), but international pressures against the slave trade might have affected different southern states differently based on their individual foreign policies.

Without Alexander Hamilton's financial system and national industrial policies, American industrial development would have progressed more slowly and unevenly. States would have competed for foreign investment, potentially offering favorable terms to European investors and manufacturers to establish operations within their borders. This might have led to earlier European industrial presence in North America but slower development of native American industrial capacity.

Territorial Fragmentation

The territorial integrity of the Confederation would have faced severe challenges throughout the 19th century. Western expansion would have occurred in a piecemeal fashion, with individual states or consortiums of states establishing their own western territories rather than proceeding under a unified federal policy.

The Louisiana Purchase, which doubled U.S. territory in 1803 under President Jefferson, would not have occurred in the same manner. Instead, Napoleon might have sold portions of the territory to different states or state consortiums, or potentially maintained French control longer, established a client state, or sold the territory to another European power like Britain or Spain.

By the 1820s-1830s, the original Confederation might have fragmented into several distinct political entities:

A New England Confederation, potentially including New York, focused on commerce and early industrialization
A Mid-Atlantic Union centered on Pennsylvania and including New Jersey and Delaware
A Southern Confederation built around Virginia, the Carolinas, and Georgia, committed to maintaining the plantation system
Various western republics or territories established by settlers with loose affiliations to the eastern states

These entities might have maintained the Articles of Confederation as a limited diplomatic framework while functioning essentially as independent nations with their own constitutions, currencies, and foreign policies.

Slavery and Regional Conflict

Without the constitutional compromises that temporarily papered over sectional differences regarding slavery, the divergence between slave and free regions would have manifested earlier and differently. Northern states, which began abolishing slavery in the 1780s and 1790s, would have continued this process, while southern states would have faced less external pressure to consider emancipation.

The absence of a federal fugitive slave law would have made escape from slavery more viable where slaves could reach free states. This might have led slave states to form their own agreements for returning escaped slaves, while creating greater tensions with non-slave states that refused to cooperate with such arrangements.

By the 1830s-1840s, as abolitionist sentiment grew stronger internationally and in the northern regions, diplomatic and economic pressure against slave-holding states would have increased. Great Britain's abolition of slavery throughout its empire in 1833 would have particularly affected relations with southern states dependent on British textile markets for their cotton.

Rather than a single Civil War as occurred in our timeline, the alternate America might have experienced a series of smaller conflicts and border skirmishes between free and slave territories, potentially drawing in European powers as allies on different sides.

International Position and Influence

Without the strength that came from unification under the Constitution, the American states would have wielded significantly less international influence throughout the 19th century. European powers would have maintained stronger positions in North America, potentially retaining or expanding their colonial holdings.

The British would likely have consolidated control over Canada and possibly expanded southward into territories that became northern U.S. states in our timeline. Spain (and later Mexico) might have maintained control over territories in the Southwest longer, while Russian interests in the Pacific Northwest might have resulted in a more permanent presence rather than the sale of Alaska that occurred in our timeline.

The Monroe Doctrine of 1823, which declared the Americas closed to further European colonization, would never have been issued or enforced without a unified American government. This would have left Latin America more vulnerable to European intervention and potentially slowed independence movements throughout the hemisphere.

By the dawn of the 20th century, the geopolitical map of North America would have looked drastically different—a patchwork of smaller republics, European colonial holdings, and territories still controlled by Native American confederations that might have balanced European powers against American states to maintain their independence.

Technological and Cultural Development

The fragmentation of North America would have affected technological development and innovation. Without a continental market and federal investments in infrastructure, technologies like the telegraph, railroads, and later telecommunications would have developed more unevenly, with incompatible standards across different regions.

Cultural development would have followed more regionally distinct paths as well. Without the national mythos that developed in the United States, regional identities would have strengthened. New England might have maintained stronger cultural ties to Britain while developing its distinct intellectual traditions, the South would have evolved its plantation culture with even less northern influence, and western regions might have developed hybrid cultures incorporating stronger Native American, Mexican, and European elements.

By 2025, North America would likely feature multiple sovereign nations with distinct political systems, economies, and cultural identities—a continent more similar to Europe than to the united republic that emerged in our timeline. The grand experiment of a constitutional federal republic spanning continental scale would remain unrealized, replaced by a more fragmented but perhaps more diverse political landscape.

Expert Opinions

Dr. Jonathan Mercer, Professor of Early American Political Development at Columbia University, offers this perspective: "The failure of the Constitution would have dramatically altered not just American history but global political development. The Articles of Confederation represented a governmental structure incapable of managing the tensions inherent in a diverse, expanding republic. Without the flexible federalism established by the Constitution, I believe we would have seen fragmentation rather than consolidation as the defining process of North American political development. This would have deprived the world of a powerful model of stable democratic federalism that influenced constitutional development globally. The 'great republican experiment' would likely have been remembered as a cautionary tale rather than a template for modern democracy."

Dr. Eliza Washington-Brown, Chair of Economic History at the University of Virginia, suggests: "The economic consequences of continuing under the Articles would have been profound and largely negative for American development. The lack of a unified currency, inability to service Revolutionary War debts, and barriers to interstate commerce would have severely hampered capital formation and industrial development. I suspect American industrialization would have occurred in regional pockets, perhaps decades later than in our timeline, and with greater European ownership and influence. The continental-scale economy that gave American capitalism such dynamism in the 19th and 20th centuries would never have materialized. Instead, we might have seen an economic landscape more resembling Latin America, with uneven development, greater vulnerability to European economic domination, and more extractive economic institutions in some regions."

Dr. Marcus Johnson, Distinguished Professor of Comparative Constitutional Systems at Stanford University, provides this analysis: "What fascinates me about this counterfactual is how it would have affected global constitutional development. The U.S. Constitution pioneered innovations like written constitutionalism, judicial review, and federalism that influenced democratic development worldwide. Without this model, I believe global constitutional evolution would have followed different patterns. Latin American constitutions might have drawn more from European parliamentary models rather than American presidentialism. The concept of judicial review might have developed more gradually and less robustly. Perhaps most significantly, federalism as a solution for governing diverse, large-scale republics might never have gained the prominence it did. The 'Philadelphia model' of constitution-making—bringing together delegates to draft a comprehensive constitutional document—might never have become the template for constitutional development that it became in our history."