Would America Split if we lost the War of 1812?

Rhand

Banned
I know that Decades of Darkness, as well as Napoleon's Legacy, argue this point. However, let's assume that the USA loses some battles and is forced to the bargaining table.

In OTL, the British wanted Northern Maine and the Northwest Territory. Do you think that, if we lost the war and were forced to surrender those lands to them, the northeastern states would have left the union?
 
No. The Hartford Convention didn't actually take secession seriously, and was overblown in any event. Besides, when a European Great Power has basically made clear that it wants to pick you apart, how often is the response to give up mutual defense?
 

TFSmith121

Banned
The British wanted more than that in

I know that Decades of Darkness, as well as Napoleon's Legacy, argue this point. However, let's assume that the USA loses some battles and is forced to the bargaining table.

In OTL, the British wanted Northern Maine and the Northwest Territory. Do you think that, if we lost the war and were forced to surrender those lands to them, the northeastern states would have left the union?

The British wanted more than that in 1775-83 and 1806-07 ... They didn't get what they wanted in either case, any more than the French and Spanish got what they wanted in the Western Hemisphere in the 1860s.;)

There's this big blue thing between Europe and the Americas that tends to frustrate many a want - along with the fact that nothing in the Western Hemisphere was ever more important to the European powers than Europe and the Mediterranean littoral.

Best,
 
No. The Hartford Convention didn't actually take secession seriously, and was overblown in any event. Besides, when a European Great Power has basically made clear that it wants to pick you apart, how often is the response to give up mutual defense?

The Hartford Convention took secession VERY seriously. That's precisely why the leading secessionists were specifically not invited. The convention didn't advocate secssion, but had the war not ended exactly when it did I can see a lot more acrimony between the north and south post-war.

And Connecticut was on the verge of making a separate peace with the UK, so the response seems to be 'every man for himself' when things get tough in that war.
 
Well the U.S. didn't win the war historically and didn't split. I'm fairly certain that if they got a shorter end of the stick they wouldn't see it as a compelling reason to make themselves more vulnerable.
 

TFSmith121

Banned
You know who lost the 1812-15 war?

Well the U.S. didn't win the war historically and didn't split. I'm fairly certain that if they got a shorter end of the stick they wouldn't see it as a compelling reason to make themselves more vulnerable.

You know who lost the 1812-15 war?

Historically, the same people who had been Britain's strongest military allies on the continent...

Best,
 
The British wanted more than that in 1775-83 and 1806-07 ... They didn't get what they wanted in either case, any more than the French and Spanish got what they wanted in the Western Hemisphere in the 1860s.;)

There's this big blue thing between Europe and the Americas that tends to frustrate many a want - along with the fact that nothing in the Western Hemisphere was ever more important to the European powers than Europe and the Mediterranean littoral.

Best,

I know we don't agree on this, but I think if the British are winning they'll push for territorial adjustments at Ghent (northern/eastern Maine, northern New York state, the East bank of the Niagara) and they could probably get it it. The only reason it was a wash OTL is because the war was a wash.
 
The Hartford Convention took secession VERY seriously. That's precisely why the leading secessionists were specifically not invited. The convention didn't advocate secssion, but had the war not ended exactly when it did I can see a lot more acrimony between the north and south post-war.

Well, okay, I could have been more clear. I meant that the Convention itself wasn't advocating secession, that's all. There might be more north-south acrimony post-war, but re-read the OP. If the Northwest Territory were somehow lost, so much of OTL's slavery debate would get tabled that a civil war seems pretty unlikely.

And Connecticut was on the verge of making a separate peace with the UK, so the response seems to be 'every man for himself' when things get tough in that war.

The OP also seems to focus on post-war, so the impetus to bolt is gone once there's peace.
 

TFSmith121

Banned
Yeah but...

I know we don't agree on this, but I think if the British are winning they'll push for territorial adjustments at Ghent (northern/eastern Maine, northern New York state, the East bank of the Niagara) and they could probably get it it. The only reason it was a wash OTL is because the war was a wash.

Yeah but...

They have to win something first...;)

And, as always, they have this guy named Napoleon to worry about.

Best,
 
Last edited:
The OP also seems to focus on post-war, so the impetus to bolt is gone once there's peace.

That's how I read it. Theoretically if the US illogically chose to continue the war in 1815 then you might see individual states decide to make a separate peace, but I don't think that necessarily means splitting from Washington entirely.
 
That's how I read it. Theoretically if the US illogically chose to continue the war in 1815 then you might see individual states decide to make a separate peace, but I don't think that necessarily means splitting from Washington entirely.

I agree that they won't leave the Union. I wonder if there wouldn't be a constitutional amendment in the works post war to prevent this sort of behaviour.
 
I agree that they won't leave the Union. I wonder if there wouldn't be a constitutional amendment in the works post war to prevent this sort of behaviour.

Would the politics post war allow for such a thing though? I'm no expert on American politics in the period, but would a case where the Federal government had made a bad call make pushing such an amendment feasible?
 
Would the politics post war allow for such a thing though? I'm no expert on American politics in the period, but would a case where the Federal government had made a bad call make pushing such an amendment feasible?

That's what I'd like to find out. If the Federalists get a chance to openly disparage the 3/5ths rule about slaves, demand an end to the Virginian dynasty I wonder how the rest of Madison's presidency plays out.

I suspect the 1820s won't be the 'Era of Good Feelings' but the 'Era of Mutual Antagonism' where the south blames the north for losing the war and the north blames the south for fighting it in the first place.

I imagine that any free/slave state disputes are going to be a lot more heated in the coming years.

Maybe once Jackson gets into power then things will calm down. But Monroe is in for a rough term, assuming he runs at all.
 
That's what I'd like to find out. If the Federalists get a chance to openly disparage the 3/5ths rule about slaves, demand an end to the Virginian dynasty I wonder how the rest of Madison's presidency plays out.

I suspect the 1820s won't be the 'Era of Good Feelings' but the 'Era of Mutual Antagonism' where the south blames the north for losing the war and the north blames the south for fighting it in the first place.

I imagine that any free/slave state disputes are going to be a lot more heated in the coming years.

Maybe once Jackson gets into power then things will calm down. But Monroe is in for a rough term, assuming he runs at all.

It's an interesting question. Though the 'Era of Mutual Antagonism' has a nice ring to it I have to say :p

The war did bring out many regional differences in politics IIRC, losing it worse would definitely not help.
 

jahenders

Banned
I don't think a decisive loss in the war of 1812 would necessarily have led to a split, but it would slow/impede US expansion and might force some re-evaluation of how our government operated (coming as it did so soon after the constitution was instituted).
 

Rhand

Banned
Another thing is that, with America losing 5-6 Free States worth of land and power, but no loss at all for the Slave States, there probably won't be a Missouri Compromise. Why would the stronger side throw its advantage away?

Given the increased prominence of slave power in politics (especially the Senate), I can see more institutional support for the American filibusteros, as well as more expansive wars against Mexico and Spain.

So basically it would be a DoD-lite USA, but I can see them going the route of OTL Brazil and eventually manumitting more and more slaves before peacefully ending slavery.

In any case, the more interesting thing is: how will this affect Europe? I imagine the butterflies would get pretty severe after about 70 years.
 

Anaxagoras

Banned
Do you think that, if we lost the war and were forced to surrender those lands to them, the northeastern states would have left the union?

Little nitpick. . . why do you use the term "we"? There are many more people than just Americans on AH.com, you know.
 
I know that Decades of Darkness, as well as Napoleon's Legacy, argue this point. However, let's assume that the USA loses some battles and is forced to the bargaining table.

In OTL, the British wanted Northern Maine and the Northwest Territory. Do you think that, if we lost the war and were forced to surrender those lands to them, the northeastern states would have left the union?

To nitpick, Decades of Darkness does not have the US splitting because of the War of 1812. It has the US splitting for other reasons before the War of 1812 ever happened, and Britain getting involved once the USA had already split.

This is an important distinction. As others in this thread have pointed out, the Hartford Convention did not seriously consider secession in OTL - but even the rumour of it was enough to destroy the Federalist Party in the aftermath of the War of 1812. Of course, the Federalists were on the way out anyway, but it gives you an idea of the problems when secession is equated to treason. The idea of secession had enough problems anyway without it being seen as giving aid and comfort to the Evul British (tm) and thus more or less ending any serious prospects of it happening.

To get New England to secede, I think you really need a pre-War of 1812 divergence. There were some radical voices calling for New England secession, but more is needed to make them a majority.
 
Top