Effects of a Crushing British Victory in the War of 1812 on American Politics

After researching a bit more into the war of 1812, I discovered that the Northern states were quite anti-war because they were aligned with the federalist party, who were also anti-war. When they had met in the Hartford Convention, their plan was to go the federal government with a list of proposed amendments to the constitution;
  1. Prohibiting any trade embargo lasting over 60 days.
  2. Requiring a two-thirds Congressional majority for declaration of offensive war, admission of a new state, or interdiction of foreign commerce.
  3. Removing the three-fifths representation advantage of the South.
  4. Limiting future Presidents to one term.
  5. Requiring each President to be from a different state than his predecessor. (This provision was aimed directly at the dominance of Virginia in the presidency since 1800.)
However, IOTL the victory in the Battle of New Orleans (US lost 70 vs the over 2000 Brits killed) turned the status quo peace treaty into a moral victory. This allowed the Democratic-Republicans to paint the Federalists in a bad light, which was the final blow to a sick man. Additionally, the victory in that specific battle caused Andrew Jackson to become quite popular, allowing his victory in 1828.

What might the effects of a crushing British Victory (taking the Michigan Territory, Maine, and parts of the Illinois Territory (modern Wisconsin)) have on American Politics?

  1. Might we see a revival of the Anti-war Federalist Party? If so, for how long?
  2. Would we still see the Democratic-Republican party split? IOTL Andrew Jackson was a key figure in this, but the problems people had might still cause a split with a different figurehead.
  3. With an unpopular (and possibly dead) Andrew Jackson, will we still see some form of Indian Removal Act? Might we actually see a more moderate one?
  4. Out of the proposed amendments, might we see any some to fruition?
 
I think that the federal government, which was then a fairly new idea, would collapse and the nation would split. At minimum, New England would be an independent nation. The South, too, might set up its own confederation, assuming that the individual states don't just go their own way. The UK would be well-motivated to encourage fragmentation by diplomatic recognition and favorable trade agreements with breakaway nations.

Vermont, which was considering joining Canada, might well proceed with doing so.
 

Philip

Donor
This allowed the Democratic-Republicans to paint the Federalists in a bad light, which was the final blow to a sick man. ... Might we see a revival of the Anti-war Federalist Party? If so, for how long

In DR dominated areas a scapegoating of the Federalist Party is at least as likely. I think this ends with the US splitting.
 
I think that the federal government, which was then a fairly new idea, would collapse and the nation would split. At minimum, New England would be an independent nation. The South, too, might set up its own confederation, assuming that the individual states don't just go their own way. The UK would be well-motivated to encourage fragmentation by diplomatic recognition and favorable trade agreements with breakaway nations.

Vermont, which was considering joining Canada, might well proceed with doing so.

In DR dominated areas a scapegoating of the Federalist Party is at least as likely. I think this ends with the US splitting.

I'm going to have to disagree with you both. While the US was in a sore shape during this years, I just cannot see the US slitting up from this; even in the Hartford Convention, secession was only considered a drastic measure. If the federalists were proven right, then I doubt they would want to secede. Though we might actually see the Nullification Crisis escalate into an early civil war.
 
The biggest changes will be the north-south divide will be deepened considerably. The era of good feeling will be over before it even began and you're going to see a lot of teeth gnashing over the 3/5 compromise much earlier. You might see a push for single term presidents, but I think you'll get a compromise with presidents being barred from hailing from the same state consecutively (this would have wide traction everywhere but Virginia).
 
The biggest changes will be the north-south divide will be deepened considerably. The era of good feeling will be over before it even began and you're going to see a lot of teeth gnashing over the 3/5 compromise much earlier. You might see a push for single term presidents, but I think you'll get a compromise with presidents being barred from hailing from the same state consecutively (this would have wide traction everywhere but Virginia).

So we likely will see an earlier civil war; any ideas what political parties might form from the Federalist and Democratic-Republican Parties?
 
So we likely will see an earlier civil war; any ideas what political parties might form from the Federalist and Democratic-Republican Parties?

I think the Federalists get blamed for the war regardless of the fact they were essentially right about it being a bondoggle. I'd say there would be less Democratic-Republican dominance with more Federalist holdouts but an earlier Whig party.
 

Marc

Donor
An orthogonal note: The Southern slave states may face a lot more pressure from a, predominant in North America, British Empire.
 
I think the Federalists get blamed for the war regardless of the fact they were essentially right about it being a bondoggle. I'd say there would be less Democratic-Republican dominance with more Federalist holdouts but an earlier Whig party.

Interestingly, we might also see a longer lasting Whig party, especially if the Federalist Amendments get passed through.
 
My timeline Glory: an alternate War of 1812
Bad a pretty crushing defeat that sees the Americans sliding towards revanchest and the beginning of abolition in the upper south by the 1830s.
 
Top