WI The Hartford Convention led to New England Secesion

How much of a major seaport was New York City in 1812? It's my understanding (and I could be misinformed) that Boston, Philadelphia and Charleston were all more important. I have heard that the fortunes of NYC didn't really take off untill the completion of the Erie Canal some fifteen years later.

It was still pretty damn important at that point, although you're right in saying that it really took off with the Erie Canal. Prior to the construction of the Erie Canal, NYC's major rival was Montreal, IIRC, not the other American cities. Here's an 1810 quote from a French consul reflecting views towards NYC at that time period:

"its inhabitants, who are for the most part foreigners and made up of every nation except Americans so to speak, have in general no mind for anything but business. New York might be described as a permanent fair in which two-thirds of the population is always being replaced; where huge business deals are being made, almost always with fictitious capital, and where luxury has reached alarming heights... It is in the countryside and in the inland towns that one must look for the American population of New York State."

(The Perspective of the World, by Fernand Braudel)
 
I'm not sure the maritimes would join New England. As a matter of fact, it's really kinda unlikely.

Hmm, well (except for the Loyalists that settled in what is now New Brunswick, formerly Nova Scotia's Sunbury County) for the most part, Nova Scotia DID have some sympathies for New England, even with the heavy British military presence in Halifax. After all, if one examines the history of the Maritimes and the history of New England, side by side, one would see many parallels in the history, and there are many similarities between the Maritimes and New England. (Just ask Garreau when he wrote the Nine Nations of North America.) I agree that it might seem a bit unlikely in the immediate period after secession, but once that dies down, it would probably make a bit of sense. After all, after northern Maine, Vermont, and other rural areas of New England, the Maritimes would be the next place to expand (especially the interior of New Brunswick), though it would be funny to see what the end-result of that would be. :D Maybe the Maritimes-New England end result could be a counter-balance to Lower/Upper Canada to the west?

The other thing to consider is that, like in Dod, the rump US is now very slave-state-dominated.

Even if that were probably true, until the period after the War of 1812, slavery was on the decline and it was possible that the practice of slavery could be abolished.

It would depend on what NE does in relations with Britain after seceeding - presumably they would forge closer ties since their threatened trade was the reason for wanting to split. But to go far enough to eventually unite with the Maritimes? Maybe, if they were admitted as member of the Commonwealth. But the flipside is that NE is a republic, the Martimes still under the crown. How to reconcile peacefully?

Well, history does work in mysterious ways. :D:cool: Most likely, the Maritimes and New England would be separate nations (in the case of the Maritimes, it would still be divided into the colonies of New Brunswick, Nova Scotia, and PEI - if you want, Cape Breton Island could be a separate colony, and Newfoundland does not count as being part of the Maritimes). If one wanted to go as far as to do a union of the Maritimes and New England, it would require a balancing act that would be equivalent to a federal Commonwealth realm or even a Commonwealth republic much sooner.

The flip-side to the south being slave-dominated is that NE would be heavily theocratic, at least socially/culturally. This is the land of Puritans and Salem Witch Trials after all. Without New York City as the melting pot of ideas, cultures and mores to influence them [I can reccommend Island at the Center of the World for a treatise on how Dutch Manhattan imprinted cultural openess on American culture], you might end up with an equally repressive regime in NE - econmically open, culturally closed. Just a thought...

Not really - as Imajin already noted, Puritanism was on the decline, which was accelerated by industrialization. If anything, the New England region will probably be more cosmopolitan in the coastal areas (i.e. Boston, Providence, Newport, New Haven), which might be diffused to the interior.

Eh, Puritan influence was on the decline in New England before the Revolution- it's certainly not gone and Puritan ideas still ring with some of the elite, but unless independence leads to a major revival I don't think you're going to see a Puritan-dominated New England.

Which I agree with.

I wonder about the New York-New England relationship, really... I mean, if New York is still a major city (and why wouldn't it be?) What does that mean for the country's relationship?

Probably due to the loss of Boston, that could happen (but, at the time, could it really rival Philadelphia and Charleston?). It's possible that the New York-New England relationship might be, shall we say, a bit interesting.

Alliance with the British I can see (as it's almost definite, I think), but why would they want to rejoin the British Empire? The Revolutionary War is still going to feature prominently in this country's national "myth", as it were.

I'm assumed you mean in the long run (it would start with an alliance first, obviously), where it could be that New England becomes so dependent on the Maritimes and the rest of the British Empire that New England might as well rejoin the Empire, but as an equivalent to a Commonwealth republic.

Or New England industrialises (and doubtless becomes somewhat protectionist), and Britain decides to swap the decreasingly important NE traders for the resource exporting (and much lower tariff) US, and rebuilds a relationship with the latter?

Well, it does make a bit of sense, but I doubt that the tariffs would be higher than the US because of New England's dependence on Britain. After all, New England did become the most-industrialized region of the US in OTL.

Well the region has always depended on outside foodstuffs... That's why the Intolerable Acts were so intolerable, by closing the port they were quite literally starving the City of Boston. Hm... I wonder if this will lead to an earlier growth in the Maine potato industry. (Though, if you give New Brunswick Aroostock County, as is so common in these scenarios, that's not going to help the Maine potato)

True, but could Maine diversify in its agricultural products?

The United States outlawed the slave trade in 1808- I'm not so sure it would come back. There is the possibility of Nantucket whalers taking small islands for bases, but I'm not sure whether this would lead to any formal overseas expansion.

Or even Block Island.

Indeed so. Another factor is the waves of immigrants coming to the continent around this time. Where will they all go? Will they come at all? New England might hold the jobs due to manufacturing, but could they hold such an influx of people?

In the cities, yes. The analogue here, if the rural areas were not avaliable, would be Argentina, where the immigrants mainly settled in the urban areas, i.e. Buenos Aires.

I suppose after leaving the Union, New England states might reclaim their territory from their charters that they gave up upon joining the US in the beginning, but not sure they have much shot at most of it.

It's possible, but I don't know if that could work except without British help.

If the Middle and Southern states end up getting a majority of the populations coming abroad then does that ensure they expand west and slowly develop into the power house they could?

Not necessarily - Britain and/or Mexico could easily act on their claims to the West beyond Louisiana, to block further expansion of the US.
 
As regards the Maritimes and New England, the Maritimes are economically tied to New England. The only reason they joined confederation IOTL was via a large and ongoing bribe (which rather backfired, leading to a century and a half of decline until free trade was restored).


If the Maritimes, without a large bribe from Canada or the UK, don't have free trade with New England they will literally do anything to get it. Without that free trade the Maritimes will be even worse of than OTL. If the New England price is formally joining New England, they will probably do so.
 
If the Maritimes, without a large bribe from Canada or the UK, don't have free trade with New England they will literally do anything to get it. Without that free trade the Maritimes will be even worse of than OTL. If the New England price is formally joining New England, they will probably do so.

No they won't, because the British would never agree to it. The population of the Maritimes weren't free to decide who their rulers were at this point. And let's not forget that Canada got stocked up with lots of United Empire Loyalists barely a generation or two ago. Besides, if the Maritimes are economically tied to NE then NE was economically tied to the UK. This especially goes if NE produce declines in value and importance, since it's likely that the New Englanders would find resistance to the ideas of free trade across their southern border, as the resentment over secession fosters unwillingness to do business on a large scale. NE wouldn't be able to just demand the Maritimes. No chance.
 
As regards the Maritimes and New England, the Maritimes are economically tied to New England. The only reason they joined confederation IOTL was via a large and ongoing bribe (which rather backfired, leading to a century and a half of decline until free trade was restored).

That actually makes a bit of sense, since the political culture of the Maritimes and New England are similar, and both went through a period of industrialization (which Confederation, in OTL, destroyed the industrial base of the Maritimes in favour of Toronto and Montréal - well, except for the coal-mining on Cape Breton, but that's another story).

If the Maritimes, without a large bribe from Canada or the UK, don't have free trade with New England they will literally do anything to get it. Without that free trade the Maritimes will be even worse of than OTL. If the New England price is formally joining New England, they will probably do so.

If New England was de facto part of the British Empire, would that also happen?

No they won't, because the British would never agree to it. The population of the Maritimes weren't free to decide who their rulers were at this point. And let's not forget that Canada got stocked up with lots of United Empire Loyalists barely a generation or two ago.

Yet in Nova Scotia most of the original settlers (and the Loyalists thereafter in both Nova Scotia and New Brunswick) were from New England. Some of the Loyalists, in the scenario of a successful secession of New England, might potentially go back to New England, whilst some New Englanders might move east, thus making the Maritimes demographically dependent on New England as well.

Also, you're under-estimating politicians in the Maritimes and New England - if they want something, they will get it (eventually).

Besides, if the Maritimes are economically tied to NE then NE was economically tied to the UK.

Which had been the case for most of New England's history up until later on in the 19th century.

This especially goes if NE produce declines in value and importance, since it's likely that the New Englanders would find resistance to the ideas of free trade across their southern border,

Eastern border, not southern border, if you're talking about the Maritimes (if you're talking about the rump US, give it a couple of decades and some of that feeling might die down). In addition, New Englanders at that time were staunchly pro-free trade, so they wouldn't mind trading with individual British colonies and Europe.

as the resentment over secession fosters unwillingness to do business on a large scale. NE wouldn't be able to just demand the Maritimes. No chance.

Even if New England became a 19th-century version of a Commonwealth republic?
 
If New England was de facto part of the British Empire, would that also happen?

No, because de facto isn't good enough. It needs to be de jure. Maritimes politicians were patriots - Queen trumps lots of trade anyday.

Yet in Nova Scotia most of the original settlers (and the Loyalists thereafter in both Nova Scotia and New Brunswick) were from New England. Some of the Loyalists, in the scenario of a successful secession of New England, might potentially go back to New England, whilst some New Englanders might move east, thus making the Maritimes demographically dependent on New England as well.

You do remember why the Loyalists left? I'll give you a hint: it was not because of insufficient trade.

Also, you're under-estimating politicians in the Maritimes and New England - if they want something, they will get it (eventually).

And what the maritimes want is not annexation.

Eastern border, not southern border, if you're talking about the Maritimes (if you're talking about the rump US, give it a couple of decades and some of that feeling might die down). In addition, New Englanders at that time were staunchly pro-free trade, so they wouldn't mind trading with individual British colonies and Europe.

So why amalgamate?

Even if New England became a 19th-century version of a Commonwealth republic?

Explain how that would work. 19th C Commonwealth? No, it was the Empire. Sure, in the 19th C independant New England would be close to Britian. But de facto close is not the same as de jure part of, not by a long shot.
 
It was still pretty damn important at that point, although you're right in saying that it really took off with the Erie Canal. Prior to the construction of the Erie Canal, NYC's major rival was Montreal, IIRC, not the other American cities. Here's an 1810 quote from a French consul reflecting views towards NYC at that time period:

"its inhabitants, who are for the most part foreigners and made up of every nation except Americans so to speak, have in general no mind for anything but business. New York might be described as a permanent fair in which two-thirds of the population is always being replaced; where huge business deals are being made, almost always with fictitious capital, and where luxury has reached alarming heights... It is in the countryside and in the inland towns that one must look for the American population of New York State."

(The Perspective of the World, by Fernand Braudel)

I don't know about Montreal, but the most important American rival to New York (and, in fact, the most important trading city on the Atlantic coast at this time) was Boston. Boston was where the wealth was, Boston was where the commerce was, and Boston was where the bankers were.
 
I don't know about Montreal, but the most important American rival to New York (and, in fact, the most important trading city on the Atlantic coast at this time) was Boston. Boston was where the wealth was, Boston was where the commerce was, and Boston was where the bankers were.

Meh. Montreal might've just been NYC's rival in terms of supplying the Midwest. My point still stands; NYC has always been an incredibly important city.
 
Well, I would say that for this world to have the most anti-DoD fate, it needs to do the following.

1. New York, and New Jersey need to stay in order to preserve the power of the free states.

And of Course,

2. Virgina needs to eliminate slavery as soon possible.
 
Meh. Montreal might've just been NYC's rival in terms of supplying the Midwest. My point still stands; NYC has always been an incredibly important city.

Relative to other cities in North America, anyway.

Back in the day there were three really major cities, each with a population of a few tens of thousands (there were others but none so big and wealthy): New York, Boston, and Philadelphia. Boston and Philadelphia only really passed by the wayside in the middle of the 19th century when New York became the financial capital of the country on account of its freer banking laws than either MA or PA. When the National Banking Act rolled around, the favor it showed New York emphasized this advantage even more.
 
Top