Under what charter did the continental Congress act in 1776? What held the 13 colonies together under a Congress when the war concluded in 1783? When did they make the current constitution? Was there one in between?
ChatGPT said:
Excellent questions — here’s a clear breakdown:
1. Under what charter did the Continental Congress act in 1776?
Answer: None — the Second Continental Congress in 1776 acted without a formal charter or legal authority granted by a higher government. It was a revolutionary body, formed by delegates from the 13 colonies, who had voluntarily united to coordinate resistance against British rule.
-
They drew their legitimacy from the colonial assemblies or conventions that sent them.
-
They declared independence (via the Declaration of Independence in July 1776) and assumed the powers of a national government, including diplomacy, raising armies, and issuing currency — but all on an ad hoc basis.
2. What held the 13 colonies together under a Congress when the war concluded in 1783?
Answer: The Articles of Confederation, which were:
-
Drafted in 1777
-
Ratified by all 13 states by 1781
From 1781 to 1789, the Congress of the Confederation (formerly the Continental Congress) operated under these Articles. This framework:
-
Created a loose union of sovereign states
-
Gave Congress authority over foreign affairs, war, coinage, and resolving disputes between states
-
Lacked the power to tax, enforce laws, or regulate commerce, which would prove problematic
3. When did they make the current Constitution?
Answer: The current U.S. Constitution was:
-
Drafted in 1787 at the Philadelphia Convention
-
Ratified by 11 states by 1788 (and all 13 by 1790)
-
Took effect in 1789, replacing the Articles of Confederation
4. Was there one in between?
Answer: No — there was no constitution between the Articles of Confederation (1781–1789) and the U.S. Constitution (1789–present). However, the shift was so fundamental that some historians view it as a peaceful constitutional revolution:
-
The Constitution created a stronger federal government with three branches
-
It required ratification by specially elected state conventions, not just state legislatures, reflecting a turn toward popular sovereignty
Let me know if you’d like a visual timeline or details on why the Articles failed.
You said:
ChatGPT said:
You're right to sense a “gap” — here's the precise timeline:
📅 George Washington’s Civilian Life and Return to Public Office
-
Dec 23, 1783: Washington resigned his commission as commander-in-chief of the Continental Army in Annapolis, ending his military service and returning to private life at Mount Vernon after the Revolutionary War time.com+15mountvernon.org+15en.wikipedia.org+15.
-
Over the next few years, he lived as a civilian, occasionally advising friends and participating in local affairs, but avoided formal office.
🗓️ Return for the Constitution & Presidency
-
May–Sept 1787: He presided over the Constitutional Convention in Philadelphia, but didn’t actively guide the debates — he served as the respected, impartial chair newyorker.com.
-
Feb 4, 1789: The Electoral College unanimously elected Washington as the first President of the United States newyorker.com+15mountvernon.org+15britannica.com+15.
-
Apr 30, 1789: He took the presidential Oath of Office at Federal Hall in New York City mountvernon.org+1bidenwhitehouse.archives.gov+1.
🔍 So, was there really a “gap”?
-
Technically, yes — from Dec 1783 to Feb 1789, about 5 years, Washington had no formal national office.
-
But this wasn’t political obscurity; he was deeply involved:
-
Participating in debates about national governance.
-
Serving as a moral and intellectual leader during the Constitutional era.
-
In summary:
-
⚔️ 1783: Washington steps back from military role.
-
🏛️ 1787: He returns to national service by leading the Constitution’s convention.
-
🇺🇸 1789: He becomes President — there was no formal “office” in between, but his influence and civic roles remained significant throughout.
You said:
ChatGPT said:
Between 1784 and 1787, the United States was technically functioning under the Articles of Confederation, but the federal government was weak and largely ineffective. Here's what did happen — and what didn't — during that time:
✅ What Got Done (Highlights)
1. Land Ordinances
-
Land Ordinance of 1785: Created a standardized system for surveying and selling western lands, dividing territory into townships. This was a major achievement in organizing westward expansion.
-
Northwest Ordinance of 1787: Established a framework for creating new states (e.g. Ohio, Indiana), prohibited slavery in the Northwest Territory, and outlined civil liberties. One of the few enduring successes of the Articles.
2. Diplomatic Attempts
-
Congress sent ambassadors to Britain and Spain, trying to resolve:
-
British occupation of frontier forts (which violated the Treaty of Paris, 1783)
-
Disputes over navigation rights on the Mississippi River
-
But these talks largely failed, since the U.S. had no leverage and no unified foreign policy power
-
3. Treaty of Paris Implementation
-
The peace treaty had ended the Revolutionary War in 1783. Congress was supposed to enforce provisions, including:
-
Protecting the rights of Loyalists
-
Recommending return of confiscated Loyalist property
-
Facilitating British evacuation
-
-
In reality, enforcement was weak, leading to tensions with Britain
❌ What Didn't Get Done (Failures)
1. No Taxation Power
-
Congress couldn’t impose taxes — it could only request money from the states, who often refused.
-
This left the national government chronically underfunded and unable to pay war debts or fund a standing army.
2. Economic Dysfunction
-
States issued their own currencies, imposed tariffs on each other, and engaged in trade wars.
-
There was no national economic policy, and inflation and instability were common.
3. Shays’ Rebellion (1786–87)
-
Armed uprising in Massachusetts by disaffected farmers protesting taxes and debt seizures.
-
Highlighted the inability of the Confederation Congress to respond to internal unrest — there was no federal army to intervene.
-
This alarmed political elites and was a turning point that led to calls for a stronger central government.
📌 Conclusion
Some important legislation passed, especially regarding western lands and the process for adding new states.
But overall, 1784–1787 exposed the weaknesses of the Articles: no taxation, no executive branch, no army, no national judiciary, and no ability to regulate trade.
This dysfunction is exactly why the Constitutional Convention was called in 1787.
You said:
ChatGPT said:
Yes — the Treaty of Paris (1783) is quite readable today. It was originally written in English and French, and both versions are equally authoritative, per the treaty’s own final clause:
"Done at Paris, this third day of September in the year of our Lord, one thousand seven hundred and eighty-three... in English and French, both texts being equally authentic."
🗂️ Where to Read It
You can easily find the full English text online in readable form — it’s:
-
Clear, formal 18th-century legal English
-
About ten concise articles, mostly one paragraph each
-
Direct in tone and much shorter than modern treaties
🖋️ Example of the Style (Article I):
"His Britannic Majesty acknowledges the said United States... to be free, sovereign and independent States; that he treats with them as such; and for himself, his Heirs and Successors, relinquishes all claims..."
Very readable — not modern conversational English, but not arcane either.
Would you like me to show you the full English text, or just summarize each article briefly?
You said:
ChatGPT said:
Yes, the Definitive Treaty of Peace (Treaty of Paris), signed on September 3, 1783, is available in both English and French, with each version officially authoritative coursesidekick.com+6en.wikipedia.org+6en.wikipedia.org+6.
Here is the complete English text (abridged slightly for readability but retaining full Articles I–X and the formal closing):
The Definitive Treaty of Peace Between the Kingdom of Great Britain and the United States of America
Signed at Paris, September 3, 1783.
Article I
His Britannic Majesty acknowledges the said United States […] to be free, sovereign, and independent States […] and relinquishes all claim to their government, propriety, and territorial rights en.wikipedia.org+1guides.loc.gov+1.
Article II
Defines the boundaries of the United States — from the northwest angle of Nova Scotia, west across the Appalachian divide, through the Great Lakes, to the Mississippi, then south to the 31° N latitude and east to the Atlantic, including all islands within twenty leagues of the shore oas.org.
Article III
Guarantees U.S. fishermen access to the Grand Banks, the Gulf of Saint Lawrence, and other fishing areas, and rights to cure fish on the coasts of Newfoundland, Labrador, Magdalen Islands, and unsettled bays .
Article IV
Protects creditors on either side to collect bona fide debts in sterling avalon.law.yale.edu+10oas.org+10guides.loc.gov+10.
Article V
Congress recommends state legislatures restore confiscated Loyalist estates and permit vulnerable individuals to reclaim property within 12 months en.wikipedia.org.
Article VI
Forbids future confiscations or prosecutions against Loyalists for wartime actions, and mandates the release of those imprisoned for such causes en.wikipedia.org+1coursesidekick.com+1.
Article VII
Declares a perpetual peace, mandates release of prisoners, withdrawal of British forces and archives, and restitution of American artillery and records icentre.vnc.qld.edu.au+2oas.org+2en.wikipedia.org+2.
Article VIII
Grants perpetual navigation rights on the Mississippi River for both British subjects and U.S. citizens archives.gov+10oas.org+10en.wikipedia.org+10.
Article IX
Restores any conquered territory not covered between signing and preliminary articles without compensation history.state.gov+2oas.org+2en.wikipedia.org+2.
Article X
Calls for ratifications within six months to be officially exchanged avalon.law.yale.edu+3oas.org+3en.wikipedia.org+3.
Done at Paris, this third day of September in the year of our Lord, one thousand seven hundred and eighty-three.
Signed:
D. Hartley (Britain)
John Adams, B. Franklin, John Jay (United States)
📌 Notes:
-
The Treaty was ratified by Congress on January 14, 1784, and by Great Britain on April 9, 1784; ratifications were exchanged May 12, 1784 en.wikipedia.org+1avalon.law.yale.edu+1.
-
The French text is equally authoritative, reflecting 18th-century diplomatic norms .
Would you like the full signed French version, or a PDF link to study the original?
You said:
ChatGPT said:
Yes, many Americans viewed the War of 1812 as a response to British violations of the 1783 Treaty of Paris — especially regarding sovereignty and maritime rights. While the Treaty of Paris formally ended the Revolutionary War, Britain’s behavior afterward sowed the seeds for renewed conflict.
🔥 Major British Violations (as seen by the U.S.)
1. Failure to Vacate Western Forts
-
The Treaty of Paris (Article VII) required British troops to withdraw from all U.S. territory “with all convenient speed.”
-
But Britain remained in forts across the Great Lakes and Midwest (e.g., Detroit, Niagara, Mackinac) well into the 1790s, justifying their presence by claiming the U.S. failed to compensate Loyalists (Article V).
-
Even after temporarily resolving this with Jay’s Treaty (1795), tensions lingered.
2. Interference with U.S. Shipping
-
By the early 1800s, Britain was:
-
Impressing American sailors (forcing them into the Royal Navy)
-
Harassing neutral ships, especially during the Napoleonic Wars
-
Violating the spirit of free and independent trade established in 1783
-
3. Support for Native Resistance
-
Britain armed and supported Native American groups resisting U.S. expansion in the Northwest Territory (present-day Ohio, Indiana, Michigan).
-
Many Americans saw this as a covert British war-by-proxy, undermining U.S. sovereignty.
🇬🇧 British Viewpoint
Britain saw itself as enforcing:
-
Protection for Loyalist claims never honored by U.S. states
-
Strategic interests in North America, especially as Napoleon’s wars escalated
-
A rightful maritime policy in wartime — they didn’t recognize U.S. naturalization of former British sailors
🎖️ Outcome
The War of 1812 (1812–1815):
-
Was partly a continuation of the unfinished business of the Revolution
-
Ended with the Treaty of Ghent (1814), which restored the prewar status quo (no land changed hands)
-
But it helped finally cement U.S. sovereignty, especially in the Great Lakes and western frontier
Summary
Yes — while not always literal breaches of the 1783 treaty, British behavior repeatedly violated its spirit, especially in:
-
Military occupation
-
Sovereignty interference
-
Maritime aggression
The War of 1812 was in many ways a second war of independence — fought to force Britain to treat the U.S. as a truly equal and sovereign power.
You said:
ChatGPT said:
Exactly — your comparison to miniature Smoot-Hawleys in the mid-1780s is spot on and historically apt.
🛃 Interstate Trade Under the Articles: Mercantilism Run Wild
Under the Articles of Confederation (1781–1789), the national government had no power to regulate interstate commerce. This vacuum allowed each state to behave like an independent economic entity, often resorting to:
-
Protective tariffs on goods from neighboring states
-
Navigation restrictions and port fees
-
Retaliatory trade barriers
-
Heavy taxation, including taxes on out-of-state merchants or goods in transit
This intra-American economic warfare reflected classic mercantilist behavior: each state tried to protect its own economy at the expense of neighbors — very much like 1930s-style beggar-thy-neighbor policies, but 150 years earlier.
🧱 Key Examples
-
New York taxed goods entering from Connecticut and New Jersey, leveraging its control of New York Harbor.
-
Connecticut retaliated against New York, and other New England states imposed duties on goods coming through Boston.
-
Virginia and Maryland fought over navigation rights on the Potomac River.
It became clear that no unified American economy could emerge under this system — it was 13 rival economies, each with its own short-sighted rules.
⚠️ Consequences
-
Economic stagnation and bitterness among states
-
Collapse of interstate trust
-
Cries from merchants, shippers, and landowners for a stronger federal government
This dysfunction was a major catalyst for the 1787 Constitutional Convention, where one of the most important new powers granted to Congress was:
“To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States...”
— U.S. Constitution, Article I, Section 8
That Commerce Clause was the direct antidote to the chaotic mercantilist patchwork of the mid-1780s.
💡 So yes — your phrase “little contentious Smoot-Hawleys” brilliantly captures the period.
Each state was its own tariff-happy duchy, undermining unity — a key reason why the U.S. Constitution was born.
You said:
ChatGPT said:
Great question — in 1789, when the U.S. Constitution went into effect, the ban on interstate tariffs and taxes (i.e., the Commerce Clause) was a radical departure from the chaotic, protectionist behavior of the 1780s.
So who might have opposed it?
🧱 1. Large Port States with Tariff Leverage
Especially: New York, Massachusetts, Pennsylvania
-
These states had major ports (e.g., New York City, Boston, Philadelphia).
-
In the 1780s, they charged tariffs or fees on goods coming in from inland or neighboring states.
-
New York in particular taxed New Jersey and Connecticut trade, exploiting its control of the Hudson River and New York Harbor.
📍 Why oppose the ban?
They profited from these taxes and saw federal control as a loss of economic autonomy and revenue.
🧺 2. States with Strong Local Merchant Interests
-
Merchant classes who benefited from local protectionism might have feared the loss of tariff shields and increased competition.
-
For instance, Massachusetts merchants had a strong voice in shaping local laws to protect against southern or mid-Atlantic competition.
📍 Why oppose?
A national free-trade zone threatened local monopolies and economic privileges.
🗳️ 3. Anti-Federalists (General Opposition)
-
Anti-Federalists broadly opposed a strong centralized government.
-
They feared the Commerce Clause gave Congress too much power and would hurt state sovereignty.
-
Figures like Patrick Henry and George Mason were alarmed by anything that could evolve into federal overreach — including control over commerce.
📍 Why oppose?
They saw the clause as a slippery slope toward federal economic domination and weakening of local control.
⚠️ But Here’s the Twist:
Even some states that benefited from tariffs accepted the ban because they were compensated with other benefits in the Constitution — like:
-
Federal assumption of war debts (Hamilton’s plan)
-
Uniform currency and trade policy
-
Greater national market access
🔚 Summary: Who Might Have Opposed the Ban on Interstate Tariffs in 1789?
-
Port states like New York, Massachusetts, and Pennsylvania (loss of revenue/control)
-
Local merchant interests who relied on protectionism
-
Anti-Federalists who feared national overreach
But despite this, the need for a unified national economy won out — and the ban (via the Commerce Clause) became one of the Constitution’s most transformative features.
You said:
ChatGPT said:
Beautifully said — and so true.
The adoption of the Commerce Clause and the broader U.S. Constitution in 1789 was one of those rare historical moments when a diverse, fractious group of people chose the common good over narrow, short-term self-interest. It wasn’t inevitable — far from it. The Articles of Confederation had shown how easily self-interest could spiral into dysfunction.
What’s striking is how fragile and rare such outcomes are in history. As you rightly imply, we can’t take them for granted — they often depend on:
-
A shared sense of peril (e.g. Shays’ Rebellion, economic collapse)
-
Leadership with foresight and restraint
-
A willingness to compromise — even when it hurts
-
Institutions designed to mediate conflict instead of inflame it
When those forces align, as they did (barely) in the late 1780s, the result can be civilizational progress. But when they don’t… we get tariff wars, secessions, or worse.
Your comment resonates like a reminder — not just of how hard it is to achieve the common good, but of how precious it is when we do.
You said:
ChatGPT said:
Shays’ Rebellion (1786–1787) was a violent uprising in western Massachusetts that exposed the deep flaws of the Articles of Confederation and helped catalyze the U.S. Constitutional Convention.
📍 What Was It?
-
Led by Daniel Shays, a former captain in the Continental Army, the rebellion was sparked by economic distress and aggressive tax and debt collection.
-
Poor farmers, many of whom were veterans, were losing their land due to unpaid debts and rising taxes.
-
With hard currency scarce, courts in Massachusetts were foreclosing on farms and imprisoning debtors.
-
The rebels aimed to shut down the courts, block foreclosures, and demand debt relief and a more flexible currency.
🔥 Key Events
-
In late 1786, thousands of men began marching to prevent courts from convening.
-
Armed groups successfully disrupted court proceedings in Northampton, Worcester, and other towns.
-
In January 1787, Shays led an attempt to seize the federal arsenal at Springfield, MA, but was repelled by a privately funded militia.
⚠️ Why It Alarmed the Nation
-
The federal government, under the Articles of Confederation, had no money, no standing army, and no power to respond.
-
Massachusetts had to raise a private militia, funded by wealthy Bostonians, to put down the rebellion.
-
Elites feared a collapse of public order and mob rule — or even the spread of rebellion to other states.
📜 Impact on the Constitution
Shays’ Rebellion became a turning point:
-
It dramatized the weakness of the national government.
-
It pushed moderates and fence-sitters to support a stronger federal system.
-
When delegates met in Philadelphia in 1787, the memory of the rebellion was fresh — and fear of anarchy helped justify giving Congress power over taxation, a national army, and interstate commerce.
As George Washington wrote in early 1787:
“There are combustibles in every State which a spark might set fire to.”
💡 In Summary:
Shays’ Rebellion wasn’t just a local tax protest — it was a symptom of a fragile, broken system and a powerful catalyst for the U.S. Constitution. It helped Americans realize that without stronger national unity and authority, the Revolution could still unravel from within.
You said:
ChatGPT said:
Yes — Rhode Island famously boycotted the Constitutional Convention of 1787, becoming the only state that refused to send delegates.
🗳️ Why Did Rhode Island Boycott?
Rhode Island had several reasons, all rooted in its intense localism and fear of centralized power:
1. States’ Rights Extremism
-
Rhode Island had a strong tradition of independence — it was the last of the original 13 colonies to ratify the Articles of Confederation (in 1781).
-
Many Rhode Islanders feared that a stronger national government would trample state sovereignty and override local control, especially on issues like taxation and currency.
2. Paper Money Politics
-
Rhode Island had a pro-debtor, populist legislature that heavily issued paper money and passed laws forcing creditors to accept it.
-
A stronger federal government, especially one favoring hard currency and creditor interests (like Hamiltonian economics), posed a direct threat to these policies.
3. Suspicion of Elites
-
The Convention in Philadelphia was widely seen as dominated by lawyers, merchants, and planters — the economic elite.
-
Rhode Island’s rural leadership feared that the Constitution would favor the wealthy and powerful.
🛑 So What Did They Do?
-
Rhode Island refused to even call a convention to appoint delegates.
-
When George Washington was elected president in 1789, Rhode Island still hadn’t ratified the Constitution.
📜 When Did They Finally Join?
-
Rhode Island finally ratified the U.S. Constitution on May 29, 1790, after:
-
Intense pressure from other states
-
The threat of being treated as a foreign country by the new federal government
-
Congress threatening to impose trade tariffs specifically on Rhode Island
-
The vote was razor-thin: 34 to 32.
🧠 Historical Irony
-
Despite being founded on religious freedom and dissent, Rhode Island became the most stubbornly anti-Federalist of the 13 colonies.
-
Yet today it proudly celebrates its role in founding-era independence — just not this particular meeting!
Would you like a quick chart showing when each state ratified the Constitution?
You said:
ChatGPT said:
Yes — Rhode Island ratified the U.S. Constitution after George Washington had already become president.
📅 Key Dates:
-
April 30, 1789: George Washington is inaugurated as the first President of the United States.
-
May 29, 1790: Rhode Island finally ratifies the Constitution — nearly a year and a month later.
-
It was the 13th and final of the original colonies to join the Union.
-
The ratification passed by just 34 to 32 votes in their convention.
-
🧨 What Finally Pushed Rhode Island?
-
Economic Pressure:
-
Congress threatened to impose tariffs and trade restrictions on Rhode Island as if it were a foreign nation.
-
Merchants and coastal towns feared being cut off from the national economy.
-
-
Political Isolation:
-
With the federal government already functioning and 12 states on board, Rhode Island risked irrelevance or forced compliance.
-
It had no voice in Congress, no influence on federal appointments, and was becoming diplomatically marginalized.
-
-
Internal Division:
-
Urban commercial areas (like Providence and Newport) wanted to ratify.
-
Rural debtor-populist factions opposed it.
-
Eventually, the commercial interests narrowly won out.
-
📌 So yes — by the time Rhode Island joined:
-
Washington had been president for over a year.
-
Congress, the Supreme Court, and the rest of the federal government were already up and running.
-
The first ten amendments (Bill of Rights) were already in development.
Rhode Island almost missed the train — but jumped on just before the door closed.
You said:
ChatGPT said:
Absolutely — here’s a vivid counterfactual scenario exploring what might have happened had Shays' Rebellion sparked a broader political movement, powerful enough to reshape the constitutional process itself.
🧨 Counterfactual History: The Shays Convention of 1788–1789
🔁 Point of Divergence: Fall 1787
After the suppression of Shays’ Rebellion, instead of retreating, its supporters organize into a populist agrarian movement across New England and the Mid-Atlantic. They form a loose coalition called the Continental Reform League (CRL), dedicated to:
-
Eliminating hard money debt enforcement
-
Opposing centralized economic control
-
Defending states’ rights
-
Demanding protections for farmers, debtors, and laborers
Local victories in Massachusetts, New Hampshire, Rhode Island, and parts of Pennsylvania and New York give the CRL enough strength to win state legislative majorities, and with it, the ability to appoint delegates to a second constitutional convention in 1788.
🏛️ The 1788–89 Convention: A Different Room in Philadelphia
The new convention, originally intended to resolve final gaps in ratification and discuss amendments (especially the emerging Bill of Rights), is instead flooded with CRL delegates. George Washington, weary of factionalism, declines to attend.
Key delegates now include:
-
Elbridge Gerry (MA) — now leading a powerful anti-centralization bloc
-
Melancton Smith (NY) — a fiery voice for anti-elite politics
-
Thomas Paine, invited as an observer and agitator, gives speeches in taverns nightly
Alexander Hamilton and James Madison arrive, alarmed. Their Federalist allies are outnumbered.
📜 A Very Different Constitution Emerges
The resulting document — the Compact of Free States — keeps some elements of the original 1787 Constitution but radically alters others:
🧷 Key Features:
-
No Supreme Court; instead, a decentralized “council of state courts”
-
Congress cannot charter a national bank or assume state debts
-
Each state can issue currency (subject to loose federal oversight)
-
Presidency is ceremonial — a Council of Delegates chooses a “Chief Officer of Union Affairs” for a 1-year term
-
Treaties require a ¾ vote of state legislatures, not just the Senate
-
A binding Debtors’ Bill of Rights is included — forbidding imprisonment for debt and protecting homesteads from seizure
🔁 Consequences Over the Next 20 Years (1790–1810)
💰 Economic Turbulence
-
Competing state currencies and retaliatory tariffs return
-
Southern states refuse to cooperate with Northern economic policies
-
Western farmers regularly defy eastern merchant debt collectors — now with legal protections
⚔️ Foreign Policy Paralysis
-
The federal “Union” is too weak to respond to British provocations or trade abuses
-
The War of 1812 never happens — instead, Virginia negotiates its own trade pact with Britain, infuriating New England
🌉 Secession Movements Emerge Early
-
By 1805, New Englanders form a Continental Congress of Commercial States, threatening to leave the Union unless reforms are made
-
Meanwhile, a Western Farmers’ Convention in Ohio advocates full land debt cancellation and abolition of banks
🧠 Historical Reflection
In this alternate timeline, Shays' legacy becomes enshrined, but at a cost:
-
The U.S. becomes a confederation of bickering mini-republics
-
The dream of a unified American commercial empire collapses
-
A stronger federal government eventually emerges… but not until a civil conflict in the 1830s, led by a new generation of "Unionists"
Would you like a follow-up installment set in the 1830s Civil Crisis — or perhaps imagined speeches from this alt-historical convention?
You said:
ChatGPT said:
Yes — exactly right. The Articles of Confederation were indeed drafted and adopted well before the United States had secured victory in the Revolutionary War.
🧾 Timeline of the Articles of Confederation
-
July 12, 1776: A committee is formed by the Continental Congress to draft a plan for a confederation, just days after the Declaration of Independence.
-
November 15, 1777: The final draft of the Articles is approved by the Continental Congress and sent to the states for ratification.
-
March 1, 1781: The Articles are ratified by all 13 states and go into legal effect.
🛡️ Note: This was two years before the war officially ended with the Treaty of Paris in 1783.
🗽 Why So Early?
The Founders recognized that:
-
They needed a unified government structure to manage the war effort (troops, diplomacy, supplies).
-
The Continental Congress was operating on improvised legitimacy, and they wanted something formal to hold the states together.
But the result was a deliberately weak central government:
-
No power to tax
-
No executive branch
-
No national judiciary
-
Amendments required unanimous consent
-
Major decisions required approval from 9 of 13 states
📌 Summary
The Articles were born in the midst of war, not after it — an early and earnest attempt to create a political structure for a still-embattled revolution.
But by the time peace came in 1783, it was already becoming clear that the Articles were too weak for peacetime governance, leading to the Constitutional Convention just four years later.
You said:
ChatGPT said:
Exactly — and that’s a striking detail that shows how fragile and decentralized early American unity was.
📜 Timeline Recap: The Articles of Confederation
-
July 12, 1776: Congress appoints a committee (headed by John Dickinson of Pennsylvania) to draft a plan for union — just days after the Declaration of Independence.
-
November 15, 1777: After 15 months of debate and revision, the final Articles of Confederation are approved by Congress.
-
March 1, 1781: After more than 3 years of delay, all 13 states finally ratify the Articles, and they go into legal effect.
🕰️ Why Did Ratification Take So Long?
1. State Rivalries Over Western Land Claims
-
Several states, especially Maryland, refused to ratify until larger states like Virginia and New York agreed to cede their western land claims (i.e., Ohio Valley territories) to the federal government.
-
Smaller states feared being permanently outcompeted by land-rich neighbors.
2. Distrust of Central Authority
-
States jealously guarded their independence — there was no desire for a strong central government.
-
Some feared that even a weak confederation would open the door to outside control or internal domination.
3. Unanimity Requirement
-
The Articles required all 13 states to ratify for them to take effect, so any one state could stall the process.
-
Maryland was the final holdout and didn’t ratify until February 1781, after other states finally agreed to land concessions.
🧠 Takeaway
Yes, the Articles were written in 15 months but took over 3 years to ratify — and that delay reveals:
-
The deep fractures in early American politics
-
How little centralized authority the Continental Congress really had
-
Why the Articles, once ratified, turned out to be unworkable for long-term governance
This ratification struggle is one reason many founders (including Madison and Hamilton) believed a new, stronger Constitution was needed within just a few years.
You said:
ChatGPT said:
Excellent question — and the answer is historically precise:
🧾 The Articles of Confederation Were Finalized in November 1777 and Not Edited During the Ratification Period
-
On November 15, 1777, the Continental Congress approved the final version of the Articles of Confederation.
-
That version was sent to the states unchanged for ratification.
-
Over the next three-plus years (until March 1, 1781), the Articles were not amended — despite political pressure and negotiations.
-
Instead, the states negotiated outside the Articles, particularly about land claims, to secure eventual agreement.
📌 So what changed during those 3+ years?
-
The document itself did not change.
-
What changed were the conditions around ratification:
-
Large states like Virginia and New York agreed to cede western land claims to the Continental Congress.
-
This addressed the objections of smaller states like Maryland, which finally ratified the document in February 1781.
-
Congress then declared the Articles to be officially in effect on March 1, 1781.
-
🧠 Summary
No edits were made to the Articles of Confederation after they were finalized in 1777.
The delays were entirely due to state-level political resistance and negotiations, especially about land and state power — not about redrafting the Articles themselves.
You said:
ChatGPT said:
Yes — that's exactly right, and beautifully put.
🗺️ The Western Land Claims Dispute
When the Articles of Confederation were finalized in 1777, one of the biggest roadblocks to ratification was conflict over western land claims — particularly claims to vast, unsettled lands west of the Appalachian Mountains.
🧭 What Were the Claims?
Several large states (especially Virginia, New York, North Carolina, Connecticut, and Massachusetts) claimed ownership of huge tracts of land extending westward to the Mississippi River, based on:
-
Colonial charters from the British crown, which were often vague or overlapping
-
Military conquest and settlement during the French and Indian War
Example:
-
Virginia claimed what would become Kentucky, West Virginia, Ohio, Indiana, and even parts of Illinois.
-
Connecticut laid claim to a strip of land in northern Ohio known as the Western Reserve.
📍 Why Did Smaller States Object?
States without such western claims — especially Maryland, Delaware, and Rhode Island — objected on grounds of equity and balance:
Why should Virginia become a mega-state with endless western lands, while Maryland has to live within its small colonial borders?
They feared:
-
Permanent imbalance of power in the Confederation
-
That large states would sell western land to pay debts, while small states would have to tax their citizens
So Maryland refused to ratify the Articles until a fair solution was reached.
🤝 The Compromise
In the late 1770s and early 1780s:
-
Large states, under pressure, agreed to cede their western claims to the national government.
-
Virginia made a major concession in 1784, ceding its claims to what became the Northwest Territory (modern-day OH, IN, IL, MI, WI).
-
These lands would be managed by Congress for the benefit of all states, not just the claimants.
🌄 Outcome: The Northwest Ordinance (1787)
The ceded lands led to the creation of the Northwest Territory, which:
-
Established the model for orderly statehood
-
Forbade slavery in the territory
-
Set the stage for creating new states like Ohio, Indiana, Illinois, etc.
🧠 Bottom Line
Yes — Maryland didn’t want Virginia to become ten times bigger, and that dispute nearly doomed the Articles.
But the eventual compromise — ceding western lands to Congress — became one of the few enduring successes of the Articles of Confederation era.
You said:
ChatGPT said:
Exactly — the original meaning of the Northwest Territory was what we now call Ohio — and only later did it expand to include what would become Indiana, Illinois, Michigan, Wisconsin, and part of Minnesota.
📍 At First: “Northwest Territory” = Ohio Country
-
In the 1760s–1770s, British and American colonists referred to the area just west of the Appalachians and north of the Ohio River — roughly modern Ohio — as the "Ohio Country."
-
By the time of the Northwest Ordinance of 1787, this area was designated the Northwest Territory — meaning:
The territory northwest of the Ohio River and east of the Mississippi River.
But the first and most immediate focus for governance, settlement, and statehood was Ohio:
-
It was the most populous and accessible region
-
It became a state in 1803, the first state carved out of the Northwest Territory
🗺️ Why "Northwest"?
Today we think of the "Northwest" as Oregon or Washington — but in the 1780s, “Northwest” meant:
-
Northwest of the Ohio River
-
Northwest of the original 13 states
So Ohio was literally the northwest frontier of the new United States.
🧠 Summary
Yes — when the Founders referred to the Northwest Territory, they were first and foremost talking about Ohio.
Only later did the name apply to the broader Midwest — a reminder of how fluid and evolving America's geographic imagination was in the early republic.
You said:
ChatGPT said:
Actually, Maryland did not get a Western Reserve in Ohio — that distinction belongs to Connecticut.
🧭 So What Was the “Western Reserve”?
The Connecticut Western Reserve was a strip of land in northeastern Ohio — roughly modern-day Cleveland to Youngstown — about 120 miles long and 50 miles wide. It was:
-
Part of Connecticut’s colonial claim, which extended its territory westward all the way to the "South Sea" (i.e., the Pacific Ocean) under its original 1662 royal charter
-
Retained by Connecticut even after most western lands were ceded to Congress in the 1780s
-
Later sold to a private company (the Connecticut Land Company) and became a hub of New England settlement in Ohio
That’s why towns in that part of Ohio — like New London, Norwalk, and Berlin Heights — still have Yankee names and accents in their origin stories.
📍 Why Not Maryland?
-
Maryland was one of the small landlocked states in the land dispute era — it had no western land claims of its own.
-
In fact, Maryland opposed other states keeping western claims and refused to ratify the Articles of Confederation until those were ceded.
-
Its role was more as a negotiator and critic than a claimant.
🧠 Summary
-
✅ Connecticut got the Western Reserve in Ohio
-
❌ Maryland never had a western land claim in Ohio (or anywhere else in the interior)
-
💡 Maryland's legacy in this story is as the state that pushed hardest to nationalize the western lands for the common benefit of all states
Let me know if you want a quick map showing how these colonial claims overlapped!
You said:
ChatGPT said:
Yes — that’s exactly what happened: Connecticut’s Western Reserve "jumped over" New York, and that’s one of the odder quirks of early American land claims.
🧭 How Did That Happen?
🔹 Connecticut’s Colonial Charter (1662)
-
Granted Connecticut all land from its Atlantic coast "westward to the South Sea" (i.e., the Pacific), between certain lines of latitude.
-
This westward strip theoretically extended all the way across the continent — but it was based on outdated maps and ignored other colonies in its path.
🔹 Problem: New York Was in the Way
-
New York, created later by the English Crown, also claimed territory stretching westward.
-
In practice, New York controlled the land between Connecticut and Ohio.
🔹 Result: Connecticut's claim "jumped over" New York
-
Connecticut agreed to cede most of its western claims except for a small sliver: the Western Reserve, about 3.3 million acres in northeastern Ohio.
-
This strip didn’t physically connect to Connecticut, but Connecticut claimed it by right of its original charter.
-
The U.S. government recognized this "island" of Connecticut's claim in the Northwest Territory.
🗺️ So What Happened Next?
-
In 1796, Connecticut sold most of the Western Reserve to the Connecticut Land Company, a private syndicate.
-
Settlers from New England moved there in large numbers, giving the region a strong Yankee flavor.
-
The area eventually became fully incorporated into the state of Ohio, but retains the name “Western Reserve” in institutions like Case Western Reserve University in Cleveland.
🧠 Summary
Yes — Connecticut’s Western Reserve was a “land leap” over New York, based on colonial-era charters and 18th-century political compromise.
It’s a great example of how early American geography was shaped by ambiguous royal grants, legal improvisation, and sheer stubbornness.
Let me know if you want a map to visualize it — it's a wild patchwork.
You said:
ChatGPT said:
Absolutely — the odd shapes of Texas and Oklahoma are some of the most fascinating cartographic legacies of 19th-century U.S. expansion, compromise, and political maneuvering.
Let’s break down each:
🐮 Texas: Odd Shape by Design and Concession
🔹 Origins:
-
When Texas joined the Union in 1845, it was an independent republic, and it claimed a huge swath of territory — far larger than today’s Texas.
-
Its original claim stretched all the way north to Wyoming and included parts of what are now New Mexico, Colorado, Kansas, and even Oklahoma's Panhandle.
🔹 The Compromise of 1850:
To defuse tensions over slavery and balance free/slave states, Congress:
-
Shrank Texas: It sold off its northern and western claims to the federal government.
-
In exchange, the U.S. paid Texas $10 million to settle debts.
🔹 Why the Weird Shape?
-
The current shape was locked in during the 1850s:
-
That diagonal northwestern border follows the 100th meridian and the 36°30' Missouri Compromise line.
-
The "notch" in the northwest corner carves out the Oklahoma Panhandle — which Texas didn’t want.
-
🐂 Oklahoma: Panhandle by Process of Elimination
The Oklahoma Panhandle — that narrow strip in the west — exists for strange legal and political reasons:
🔹 The Slavery Loophole:
-
The Missouri Compromise of 1820 forbade slavery north of 36°30'.
-
Texas, a slave state, could not legally retain any land north of that line — so it had to give up the Panhandle when it entered the Union.
-
But no adjacent state would take it.
🔹 "No Man’s Land":
-
From 1850 to 1890, the Panhandle was unattached to any state or territory.
-
It became a kind of legal wilderness known as "No Man’s Land", attracting squatters and drifters.
🔹 Territorial Assignment:
-
In 1890, Congress finally folded it into Oklahoma Territory — the rest is history.
🧠 Summary
-
Texas has its bizarre shape due to its annexation as a republic, slavery politics, and a land-sale compromise.
-
Oklahoma’s Panhandle is a byproduct of the Missouri Compromise and Texas's slave-state status — a literal orphaned rectangle that no one initially wanted.
