Absolutely. As of the Lee Resolution, the colonies were declared to be "free and independent States," but there hadn't yet been the adoption of anything like the constitution to glue them together as a formal entity. Even under the articles of confederation, there was very little centralisation of power and the states operated quite independently. Many people at the time argued very strongly against adopting the constitution including Sam Adams. Indeed, the delegates to the Constitutional Convention were generally only authorized to work on ammendments to the existing Articles of Confederation, and the delegates strongly disagreed about how exactly to implement changes. The articles also required unanimous agreement to make changes, but the Constution was declared to go into effect with only 9 states. If the constitution had required unanimous agreement, it probably would not have passed. Voters in Rhode Island, for example voted against it. In hindsight, it sometimes seems like history "must have" been following a straight line to the present state of affairs. But in reality, a few minor changes to the delegate roster at the convention could have resulted in a complete breakdown of the negotiations there. It's hard to say what would have resulted. Probably more modest reforms that created more central authority than existed under the Articles, but less than under the Constitution. Given that there was widespread frustration with the limits of the Articles (in reality, this led to the adoption of the Constitution), if such reforms never did get enacted as a result of disagreements about implementation details, a complete eventual dissolution is entirely plausible. Without even a common currency, even if the Articles had remained intact the modern United States might be less centralised that Europe is today.