How realistic is DoD's New England secession?

I've read a bit about the OTL secessionist movement in New England during the presidencies of Jefferson and Madison. In DoD, Jefferson dies of a stroke before he oversaw the repealing of the Embargo Act. When Madison becomes president, he refuses to endorse its repeal and so it stays in place. This leads to the New England secession movement getting a shot in the arm and the Hartford Convention calling for secession.

My question is, how realistic is this scenario? Was Madison really super pro-embargo? Would he have refused to endorse its repeal? And could this have led to a New England Republic?

Thanks fellas.
 
Jared has stated many times that New England's secession in DoD was a low-probability event. It required numerous events to take place, beyond what was listed in the OP though that was the starting point. It was probably 'more' likely that the US would prevent NE from seceding, and in any case an absolute pre-requisite was a British intervention/conquest. In narrative terms it's a plot device, and in AH terms it is pretty much the same. It does the job, which is to allow the story to be told, but it's not the direction a discussion purely on NE secession would likely take.

So, 'realistic' certainly, 'likely', no.
 
My question is, how realistic is this scenario? Was Madison really super pro-embargo? Would he have refused to endorse its repeal? And could this have led to a New England Republic?
The DoD scenario, if I remember right what the author had in mind, was that Madison didn't feel he had the authority as Acting President to go against Jefferson's wishes. So he kept the Embargo Act in place for longer. Protecting Jefferson's legacy, in other words. Madison did eventually cave and replace the Embargo Act with a version of the Non-Intercourse Act, but by then events had already begun to spin out of control.

In terms of realism, I think that the author at the time himself said that the scenario was low probability but not entirely impossible. Unsurprisingly, I have a similar view today.
 
So, 'realistic' certainly, 'likely', no.
Pretty much this. Too many people here on this Forum seem to think, that anything with a likelyhood or 49% or less means ASB territory. But IMHO anything that had an even 10% or so chance of having happened is still realistic. On an AH Forum anything that could have happened is realistic.
 
New Jersey seceding was the really unrealistic bit, in my mind.

New England and Upstate New York were both very Yankee, so I could see them feasibly breaking away.
 
New Jersey seceding was the really unrealistic bit, in my mind.

New England and Upstate New York were both very Yankee, so I could see them feasibly breaking away.
The scenario had (most of) New York and New Jersey be conquered during the civil war, not voluntarily secede. Distinct difference.
 
Thank you all for your responses. As a follow-up question, what do you all think would bring about a more likely New England secession? Thanks again.
 
Pretty much this. Too many people here on this Forum seem to think, that anything with a likelyhood or 49% or less means ASB territory. But IMHO anything that had an even 10% or so chance of having happened is still realistic. On an AH Forum anything that could have happened is realistic.

I mean just look at the world we live in right now!

And how on Earth do you define probabilities anyway?

Donald Trump in early 2015 was 100-1 or more to become the next president. As the campaign went on, of course, those odds shortened, and by the final week the odds were about even, or maybe 49% as Hilary still seemed to command the popular vote (which she won).

Any event has a probability hurtling towards 1 over a period of time. Five years before it can seem like 1000-1, but as events turn into its favour it gathers its own momentum and by the time it happens is USUALLY the most probable.

But as you can see with Trump, it's not even the case that this is so. Even on the very night of an election, the probabilities can be set in a different alignment. Sometimes this is due to incorrect information (I would argue the 2015 general election in the UK had this), sometimes a last minute change (again arguably the 1992 general election in the UK), and sometimes because the machinations of voting mean that they over-ride probability - Trump 2016, JFK 1960

Best Regards
Grey Wolf
 
Thank you all for your responses. As a follow-up question, what do you all think would bring about a more likely New England secession? Thanks again.
If Lincoln or someone like him is never elected, then together with Dread-Scott effectively repealing the free soil status of the North, continued discontent with the status quo of being unwillingly joined at the hip with the Slavocrats might cause several New England states to decide that if they can't get rid of Slavery in the US, then they are better of not in it before it irrevocably spreads to them.

As for a secession in 1812, the Embargo Act was the big catalyst there AFAIK.
 
If Lincoln or someone like him is never elected, then together with Dread-Scott effectively repealing the free soil status of the North, continued discontent with the status quo of being unwillingly joined at the hip with the Slavocrats might cause several New England states to decide that if they can't get rid of Slavery in the US, then they are better of not in it before it irrevocably spreads to them.

As for a secession in 1812, the Embargo Act was the big catalyst there AFAIK.
That's generally what I think too. Thing with Lincoln not being elected is.... let's just say that the election of 1860 goes to the House and Lincoln loses. I feel like that would just make the abolition movement go into overdrive and they'd win in '64 by a landslide. Whether Lincoln would be their candidate again is another question.
 
I mean just look at the world we live in right now!

And how on Earth do you define probabilities anyway?

Donald Trump in early 2015 was 100-1 or more to become the next president. As the campaign went on, of course, those odds shortened, and by the final week the odds were about even, or maybe 49% as Hilary still seemed to command the popular vote (which she won).

Any event has a probability hurtling towards 1 over a period of time. Five years before it can seem like 1000-1, but as events turn into its favour it gathers its own momentum and by the time it happens is USUALLY the most probable.

But as you can see with Trump, it's not even the case that this is so. Even on the very night of an election, the probabilities can be set in a different alignment. Sometimes this is due to incorrect information (I would argue the 2015 general election in the UK had this), sometimes a last minute change (again arguably the 1992 general election in the UK), and sometimes because the machinations of voting mean that they over-ride probability - Trump 2016, JFK 1960

Best Regards
Grey Wolf
Very true. Many events in actual history can be called ASB, except they're not, because they actually happened.
 
Top