This has been explored to a deal even in my TL, however that is only one avenue. For the sake of the thread lets say NE secedes in the war of 1812, and again for the sake of the thread, other than NE, the Wo1812 remains largely the same. What will be the political ramifications of the secession in the leftover USA?
Political Ramifications/Consequences of New English Secession in War of 1812?
- Thread starter Sarthak
- Start date
The Federalists lost power in New England because of their opposition to the war. The war wasn't popular in New England, but neither was the Hartford Convention or the practice among New England governors of not having the militia go on the counterattack (for example in Maine). They won elections when people saw them as doves, but their subsequent actions went too far for the public in New England, and as a result, they were seen more as traitors. Anyways assuming you somehow get the general public to go along with this, the leftover USA would be much more dominated by slaveholding states.
IMO, the ramifications of secession would probably not be apparent until well after it took place. While the radicals might be the loudest about talking openly secession, the reality is that it would be the moderates, both Federalist and even (Democratic-)Republican, that would be responsible for handling the divorce papers. The type of secession they would go for, in effect, would be nothing like what the radicals would want; instead, the moderates would probably go for what could be called a "skinny" secession with a minimum amount of bloodshed. Which would make New England seem a bit hypocritical when it comes to the slavery issue, but that's because in all reality the nature of the secession would, to me, be more of a "don't rock the boat" minimum secession that wouldn't really change all that much. There would still be enough fluidity to have New Englanders be as prominent in US affairs as the US would be in New England affairs. Only several decades later would people come to the actual realization that New England is an independent country that can do whatever it wants, and hence the ramifications/consequences would kick in, although westward expansion would be the first fly in the ointment of a gradual separation.
That's only half true, the Federalists were growing in popularity right up until the war ended because they were effectively right about the damage being done to trade and the economy. If they leave before the war ends they won't see the wholesale collapse of the party because the trade boom will lift the New England economy out of the toilet and they'll be praised as heroes.
The Federalists gained early in the war. They did not gain after the Hartford Convention.
New England seceding would be kind of the mirror image of the South seceding. The border states and the Midwest would REALLY not enjoy being locked in with the deep South, without New England as a counterweight---just like they would hate to be locked to New England without the Deep South as a counterweight. Likely the whole union fragments if New England goes.
Because the war was winding down and ended. The British were slackening the blockade and the economy was improving. Even the guys on the ground were pretty sure the war was over. there was only a month between the ratification of the treaty and the end of the Hartford Convention.
It might later, but not in 1815. If New England leaves during the War of 1812 it'll just be New England, with a low probability of New York joining too (but only if Tompkins loses to van Renselaer in 1813). New England was super homogenous and extremely insular during the era and wasn't really interested in what happened with the rest of the country.
The end of the war by itself would not have resulted in the collapse of the federalist party for opposing the decision to go to war. But the Hartford Convention (which stopped short of threatening secession), the refusal to defend Maine, under the table attempts to secure a separate peace (they were under the table because even the federalists knew that doing so would be unpopular), doomed the federalist party. Opposing the decision to go to war is one thing; undermining the war effort while enemy troops are on your country's soil is another.
I agree about the low probability of NY. If there was a possibility of NY joining in, it would only be in pieces and IMO only a few areas that felt isolated enough from Albany to give it a try - and even then, only if they are somewhat adjacent to existing territory in Vermont (so probably anywhere on the other side of Lake Champlain), Massachusetts, or Connecticut (Fisher's Island primarily, but maybe also eastern Long Island). It would be a ruinous exercise, though, that not many would be interested in.
New York's War of 1812: Politics, Society, and Combat (2021) by Barbuto paints governor Tompkins as absolutely vital to the American government's protection of the war. If van Renselaer wins the entire war changes and there's a very real chance he pushes the Federalist ideology harder and aligns himself more along the lines of the New England governors and might send delegates to Hartford as observers. And if New York does secede along with New England, I foresee it as more of a civil war than an outright secession. New York was both extremely loyal to the Union but had extreme Federalist sympathies too, it really was a divided society during the conflict that only Tompkins strength of character and skill as governor could navigate.
But this goes against the OP, because I can't see New England seceding without the war going worse.
Had the Hartford Convention declared that New England was seceding from the United States, then troops in Albany, who Madison had ordered to be sent there from the New York-Canadian border in preparation for the worst-case scenario, would have put down the insurrection in order to preserve federal authority and whatever public support that secessionist New Englanders did have, would have turned on them after Jackson's victory at New Orleans.
We're back to square one though. If New England is seceding then something changed during the war and those troops at Albany will need to stay home and guard Albany.
But even if they are available, given the dearth of American leadership during the struggle I can't see them having success against New England. The only American commanders with any talent were all on the front, everyone else is largely untested or not very good at their job. Also, if New England does secede during the war you'll probably see the Brits landing troops in New England to help shore up the New Englanders. American success with all this happening is dubious.
Which is precisely the reason why the Hartford Convention never declared or outright supported secession - indeed, IIRC what I know about the Convention, the delegate selection process was designed in such a way to specifically exclude people who would push for secession right away. The last thing the Federalists wanted was to create more trouble than it needed. In that sense, whether or not it was intended, the Hartford Convention helped to save the Union in more ways than one. Now, if it was before the OTL Convention, then it would be a different story, although it would be more of a piecemeal operation and could involve Britain especially exploiting how ruinous the reinforced embargo would be (Dathi THorfinnson used a similar plot point in his Canada-wank TL; if I wanted to work something like that into a New England secession TL, I'd start with Rhode Island first because of its weird relationship to the rest of the region, let alone the rest of the country (sorry, Oliver Hazard Perry) - last one in the Union, first one wanting to find an escape route). There could be an internal civil war here, viz. NH and VT versus the rest of New England, which may or may not be in the secessionists' favor.
All in all, any successful secession during the War of 1812 must take place before the OTL Hartford Convention, IMO. OTOH, since secession would be a nasty affair, an independent New England would want to make it as soft as possible so that it doesn't upset the North American balance of power too much. For example, take New England's portion of the national debt. Even if the currency situation fluctuates towards New England's favor, I could easily see Beacon Hill being obstinate enough to insist on paying all of it in full to the agreed schedule, no more and no less, and even if it means long-term hardship.
If New England seceded during the war, things are going to be so acrimonious that they're taking the debt with them.
It should also be noted the the delegates at Hartford wanted to reconvene again in six months if their demands weren't met, so while secession may not be specifically on the table they definitely left it in the open for the future.
Oh, definitely that would be the case. Even if it means ruining the region's finances and bankrupting it in the process - after all, it was the primary financier of the war that it didn't want.
Hmm, possible repeat of the lead-up to the American Revolution, only with the rest of the country against New England?
Sounds like an occasion for a clambake and plenty of cider to go around, sitting back while the rest of the world burns.
I wasn't adding to anything that you guys said above, I was merely responding to the original post, truthfully I only responded because I saw that no one brought up the troops Madison sent to Albany, so I'm sorry about that.
Obviously if you want to see an independent New England you need a POD that is before the Hartford Convention IOTL, like you said above an earlier Hartford Convention would help, also I would like to add that ITTL have the Hartford Convention not go out of its way to purposely exclude people like John Lowell Jr., Timothy Pickering, and Josiah Quincy who might have pushed for secession IOTL, everything else you guys said I think is pretty solid (not that my opinion matters).
I'll offer a POD, not sure if it's a good one though: Jefferson wins the 1796 election and Democratic-Republicans every election leading up to the War of 1812.
The Decades of Darkness explored this idea. Needless to say it didn't end well...
In the long term, I can see some significant political ramifications for the leftover USA.
- Most critically without the relative moderation on racial issues of the resource-poor New England states, the remainder of the US would have never given nonwhites the right to vote even under the pressure of Imperial Japan and Soviet Russia
- The extreme intransigence towards free blacks of the Midwest and West – even after emancipation – might paradoxically have meant greater desire to solve the slavery problem more quickly, although I doubt the cost of re-settlement in Africa could be paid
- The above intransigence towards free blacks could well have made even the seceding New England intransigent out of fear, although in the long term it might have become more moderate again
- Alliance of New England with Britain might have made the remaining US opposed to Britain and pro-German, even pro-Axis.