You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly. You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
alternatehistory.com
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;
Prohibiting any trade embargo lasting over 60 days.
Requiring a two-thirds Congressional majority for declaration of offensive war, admission of a new state, or interdiction of foreign commerce.
Removing the three-fifths representation advantage of the South.
Limiting future Presidents to one term.
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?
Might we see a revival of the Anti-war Federalist Party? If so, for how long?
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.
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?
Out of the proposed amendments, might we see any some to fruition?