|
|
Post by diamondstorm on Aug 6, 2025 20:16:25 GMT
In August 1786, the Grand Committee of the US Confederation Congress proposed seven new amendments to the Articles of Confederation that, if passed, may have helped preserve the Articles of Confederation for a longer period of time if not to this day. The amendments discuss foreign and interstate commerce, congressional requisitions, systems of revenue, treasons and a federal court system, and representation in Congress. Ultimately none of these were discussed in light of the sectional divide between the North and South brought about by the failure of the Jay-Gardoqui Treaty since John Jay proposed that the United States temporarily forgo navigation of the Mississippi River in exchange for commercial advantages with Spain favoring the northeast and causing his popularity to plummet. However, let's say he doesn't propose this and the amendments are discussed. Would any of the seven amendments be passed? I'm not sure but if I had to say anything it's that the seventh one is the least likely because of banning absentees from government altogether. Here's the link to the amendments: csac.history.wisc.edu/wp-content/uploads/sites/281/2024/04/DC1-01-01-08_Amendments-Proposed-by-Committee-of-Congress_7Aug86.pdf |
|
miletus12
Vice admiral
To get yourself lost, just follow the signs.
Posts: 8,003
Likes: 4,500
|
Post by miletus12 on Aug 7, 2025 11:29:15 GMT
In August 1786, the Grand Committee of the US Confederation Congress proposed seven new amendments to the Articles of Confederation that, if passed, may have helped preserve the Articles of Confederation for a longer period of time if not to this day. The amendments discuss foreign and interstate commerce, congressional requisitions, systems of revenue, treasons and a federal court system, and representation in Congress. Ultimately none of these were discussed in light of the sectional divide between the North and South brought about by the failure of the Jay-Gardoqui Treaty since John Jay proposed that the United States temporarily forgo navigation of the Mississippi River in exchange for commercial advantages with Spain favoring the northeast and causing his popularity to plummet. However, let's say he doesn't propose this and the amendments are discussed. Would any of the seven amendments be passed? I'm not sure but if I had to say anything it's that the seventh one is the least likely because of banning absentees from government altogether. Here's the link to the amendments: csac.history.wisc.edu/wp-content/uploads/sites/281/2024/04/DC1-01-01-08_Amendments-Proposed-by-Committee-of-Congress_7Aug86.pdfMy guess is "No." |
|
|
|
Post by diamondstorm on Aug 7, 2025 16:34:24 GMT
In August 1786, the Grand Committee of the US Confederation Congress proposed seven new amendments to the Articles of Confederation that, if passed, may have helped preserve the Articles of Confederation for a longer period of time if not to this day. The amendments discuss foreign and interstate commerce, congressional requisitions, systems of revenue, treasons and a federal court system, and representation in Congress. Ultimately none of these were discussed in light of the sectional divide between the North and South brought about by the failure of the Jay-Gardoqui Treaty since John Jay proposed that the United States temporarily forgo navigation of the Mississippi River in exchange for commercial advantages with Spain favoring the northeast and causing his popularity to plummet. However, let's say he doesn't propose this and the amendments are discussed. Would any of the seven amendments be passed? I'm not sure but if I had to say anything it's that the seventh one is the least likely because of banning absentees from government altogether. Here's the link to the amendments: csac.history.wisc.edu/wp-content/uploads/sites/281/2024/04/DC1-01-01-08_Amendments-Proposed-by-Committee-of-Congress_7Aug86.pdfMy guess is "No." Out of curiosity, may I ask why? If the events aforementioned in the OP played out then I think the Fourteenth Article passing has a lot of hurdles cleared. The big question is how does the impact the other amendments? |
|
miletus12
Vice admiral
To get yourself lost, just follow the signs.
Posts: 8,003
Likes: 4,500
|
Post by miletus12 on Aug 7, 2025 18:19:10 GMT
Out of curiosity, may I ask why? If the events aforementioned in the OP played out then I think the Fourteenth Article passing has a lot of hurdles cleared. The big question is how does the impact the other amendments? Georgia and South Carolina. |
|
|
|
Post by diamondstorm on Aug 7, 2025 19:32:23 GMT
Out of curiosity, may I ask why? If the events aforementioned in the OP played out then I think the Fourteenth Article passing has a lot of hurdles cleared. The big question is how does the impact the other amendments? Georgia and South Carolina. Which of the amendments would Georgia and South Carolina be opposed to? |
|
miletus12
Vice admiral
To get yourself lost, just follow the signs.
Posts: 8,003
Likes: 4,500
|
Post by miletus12 on Aug 8, 2025 13:09:46 GMT
ALL of them.
The apportionment of tariffs and duties would be controlled by the Northern block of states. Georgia and Carolina would reject this. Plus the language is so convoluted and opaque, that you know this amendment was written by shysters.
States like New York would oppose as there is implicit language that allows 9 states to VETO any Tariff it would find nationally equitable.
This idiocy has no national enforcement mechanism aside from the levy of a penalty โtaxโ. Not only was that in effect already, but it was unenforceable unless the states accepted a FEDERAL authority, which the lesser mortals who drafted that text, went out of their way to avoid.
Again, as with the arrears amendment, there is no enforcement mechanism.
Again; no enforcement mechanism.
THIS ONE, which tilts a cumbersome and unworkable judiciary drawn from Congress, would be automatically rejected by the southern states due to northern over-representation. I cannot emphasis how unworkable and illogical these proposals were.
No wonder Washington, Adams, Hamilton, Franklin et al. wanted that Constitutional Convention.
|
|
|
|
Post by diamondstorm on Aug 9, 2025 3:14:37 GMT
ALL of them. The apportionment of tariffs and duties would be controlled by the Northern block of states. Georgia and Carolina would reject this. Plus the language is so convoluted and opaque, that you know this amendment was written by shysters. States like New York would oppose as there is implicit language that allows 9 states to VETO any Tariff it would find nationally equitable. This idiocy has no national enforcement mechanism aside from the levy of a penalty โtaxโ. Not only was that in effect already, but it was unenforceable unless the states accepted a FEDERAL authority, which the lesser mortals who drafted that text, went out of their way to avoid. Again, as with the arrears amendment, there is no enforcement mechanism. Again; no enforcement mechanism. THIS ONE, which tilts a cumbersome and unworkable judiciary drawn from Congress, would be automatically rejected by the southern states due to northern over-representation. I cannot emphasis how unworkable and illogical these proposals were. No wonder Washington, Adams, Hamilton, Franklin et al. wanted that Constitutional Convention. For the 14th Article, the Impost of 1783 was approved by all states other than New York, even Rhode Island, South Carolina, and Georgia. And like I said before, New York even approved it but was Congress that rejected it. So if all 13 states had their ratifications approved I could see the 14th being approved. And the amendments were drafted by the Grand Committee with representatives from all 13 states. |
|
miletus12
Vice admiral
To get yourself lost, just follow the signs.
Posts: 8,003
Likes: 4,500
|
Post by miletus12 on Aug 9, 2025 3:24:36 GMT
ALL of them. The apportionment of tariffs and duties would be controlled by the Northern block of states. Georgia and Carolina would reject this. Plus the language is so convoluted and opaque, that you know this amendment was written by shysters. States like New York would oppose as there is implicit language that allows 9 states to VETO any Tariff it would find nationally equitable. This idiocy has no national enforcement mechanism aside from the levy of a penalty โtaxโ. Not only was that in effect already, but it was unenforceable unless the states accepted a FEDERAL authority, which the lesser mortals who drafted that text, went out of their way to avoid. Again, as with the arrears amendment, there is no enforcement mechanism. Again; no enforcement mechanism. THIS ONE, which tilts a cumbersome and unworkable judiciary drawn from Congress, would be automatically rejected by the southern states due to northern over-representation. I cannot emphasis how unworkable and illogical these proposals were. No wonder Washington, Adams, Hamilton, Franklin et al. wanted that Constitutional Convention. For the 14th Article, the Impost of 1783 was approved by all states other than New York, even Rhode Island, South Carolina, and Georgia. And like I said before, New York even approved it but was Congress that rejected it. So if all 13 states had their ratifications approved I could see the 14th being approved. And the amendments were drafted by the Grand Committee with representatives from all 13 states. And? The fact that Congress disapproved, shows that that body recognized: Guess who joined the Southern Block? |
|
|
|
Post by diamondstorm on Aug 12, 2025 2:24:56 GMT
For the 14th Article, the Impost of 1783 was approved by all states other than New York, even Rhode Island, South Carolina, and Georgia. And like I said before, New York even approved it but was Congress that rejected it. So if all 13 states had their ratifications approved I could see the 14th being approved. And the amendments were drafted by the Grand Committee with representatives from all 13 states. And? The fact that Congress disapproved, shows that that body recognized: Guess who joined the Southern Block? If every state except New York had their ratification approved then there is no southern block on this issue. Heck Virginia, the biggest southern state by far, urged for New York's ratification to be approved. Plus if the amendments were discussed in earnest there probably would be enforcement mechanisms added to the 15th-17th Articles. And the population amendment of 1783 (where slaves were counted as three-fifths of a person) was de facto utilized despite New Hampshire and Rhode Island not ratifying it. |
|
miletus12
Vice admiral
To get yourself lost, just follow the signs.
Posts: 8,003
Likes: 4,500
|
Post by miletus12 on Aug 12, 2025 7:44:44 GMT
And? The fact that Congress disapproved, shows that that body recognized: Guess who joined the Southern Block? If every state except New York had their ratification approved then there is no southern block on this issue. Heck Virginia, the biggest southern state by far, urged for New York's ratification to be approved. Plus if the amendments were discussed in earnest there probably would be enforcement mechanisms added to the 15th-17th Articles. And the population amendment of 1783 (where slaves were counted as three-fifths of a person) was de facto utilized despite New Hampshire and Rhode Island not ratifying it. That is not the historical record. |
|
|
|
Post by diamondstorm on Aug 13, 2025 2:07:37 GMT
If every state except New York had their ratification approved then there is no southern block on this issue. Heck Virginia, the biggest southern state by far, urged for New York's ratification to be approved. Plus if the amendments were discussed in earnest there probably would be enforcement mechanisms added to the 15th-17th Articles. And the population amendment of 1783 (where slaves were counted as three-fifths of a person) was de facto utilized despite New Hampshire and Rhode Island not ratifying it. That is not the historical record. I think we're gonna have to agree to disagree here since we aren't on the same page. As for where I'm getting my info from, it's mostly from the Center for the Study of the American Constitution at the University of Wisconsin, which I recommend checking out. |
|
miletus12
Vice admiral
To get yourself lost, just follow the signs.
Posts: 8,003
Likes: 4,500
|
Post by miletus12 on Aug 13, 2025 2:16:18 GMT
University of Wisconsin? You need to check with a more credible source base, like Notre Dame or Georgetown. Moving on...
|
|
