Maybe a loose confederated USA would have gone straight to privateering against the English. According to Fletcher Pratt it was US privateers trashing the British merchant marine that convinced the Brits to call off the war when they were winning by all other standards.

And it was mostly the South that wanted to conquer Canada. A looser confederation might have prevented either the South’s patriotic bloodlust or the northern states from allowing the Tennessee militia anywhere near civilization.

The war of 1812 would not have happened under the Articles.

There may have been other wars, maybe not.

The Articles were far less a document for national aggrandizement than the Constitution.

No, because New England would have seceded in the War of 1812, and the disunited States would have been gobbled up by the British by the 1820s. Maybe Greater Kaintuck still hanging on through the 1860s, harassing Victoria’s Railroad from New Orleans to Santa Fe to Los Angeles.

The Northern states were wealth poor and people rich while the Southern states were wealth rich and people poor. Neither wanted to pay more than it had to. The 3/5ths compromise, equal representation in the Senate, and the apportionment of direct or property taxes drew on pre-Convention proposals to attempt to balance the competing demands. Only two Federal property taxes were enacted in 1798 and 1814-1816 where apportionment came into play. The 3/5ths compromise gave the South more political clout than otherwise but not as much as they gained in the post-Civil War period when former slaves were counted as full individuals yet disenfranchised by Jim Crow measures. The South would have had more clout in the period 1865-1965 except if it wasn’t a solid Democratic lock.