| January 4 |  |
Editor says, what if New England had seceded from the Union during the War of 1812? muses Jeff Provine on the This Day in Alternate History web site. Please note that the opinions expressed in this post do not necessarily reflect the views of the author(s). This story was published in the January 2011 edition of Changing the Times Magazine.
| Share this Article on: |  Facebook |  Twitter |
In 1815, not yet thirty years after declaring independence from Britain, New England declared independence again at the Hartford Convention during the latter days of the War of 1812.
New England SecedesWith the exception of John Adams, the United States had been dominated by Virginia planters, almost to the point of tyranny. While no one could speak ill of George Washington, the hero of the young country, the policies of Thomas Jefferson and his protege James Madison infuriated New England.
The political differences were not completely geographical, but the societies of the North and South formed a great rift. In the South, Jeffersonian Democratic-Republicans held to the ideal "gentleman farmer", men who could last on their own thanks to rich soil and, of course, slaves in his employ. Great wealth was held by the elites, who spoke of representing each man with natural rights while not giving the slave votes, but counting them as three-fifths for census to bolster their numbers in representation. Small states such as Rhode Island and New Hampshire were practically overlooked. They also spoke of minimal government influence on trade, refusing money for canals or highways, but seemingly all too happy to promote embargoes that forced up agrarian prices while decimating commerce.
A new story by Jeff ProvineTrade was New England's lifeblood. While the majority of people were small landowners and cottage-industrialists, the economy of the region still tied to harbors. The Federalists favored strong government for improvement and defense, but economic tampering and declaring war went too far. When Madison won his second term, the War of 1812 raged, and Canada became victim to American campaigns. Militias had worked in the Revolutionary War, and Massachusetts and Connecticut had refused to fall under the orders of an aggressive War Department, prompting Madison to refuse payment for defenses. They raised their own funds, prompted by Harrison Gray Otis, who would be a leading member of the Hartford Convention to discuss the grievances New England held. It was an obvious example that New England was prepared to stand on its own.
Secession had been brought up in years past, but the idea had always withered. Dr. Franklin himself had said repeatedly, "Join or die". However, they now had great reason to see what became of joining with war-hawks and expansionists making war on Canada. The Constitution brought forth by Madison himself read, "...establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare..". The War of 1812 with its invasion was unjust in the eyes of New England, interrupted tranquility with its embargoes, brought about great danger with British naval raids, and retarded the general welfare overall. Otis led the call for secession, and New England voted to do just that.
The news shocked the rest of the nation. They had sneered at "Blue Light Federalists" who stood as pro-Britain and supposedly flashed blue-light signals in warning of blockade runners and known of New England opposition to the war in Congress, but this had gone too far. After news came to Washington about the signing of the Treaty of Ghent and the end of the war in December, the Federalists became embarrassed, but word of fights still continuing at New Orleans and in the frontier gave them a point to rally behind. Secession was made official, and all but a few representatives left the burned-out Washington, D.C. War-weariness dragged down efforts from the South to force New England back into the fold, though General Andrew Jackson repeatedly volunteered to lead a campaign. As Napoleon escaped from his exile and began anew his wars in France, New England took up alliance with Britain, which prompted the South to begrudgingly step back.
Tensions between the United States of America and the Federated States of America continued. Jackson became elected on a platform of invading the Federation, which had grown wealthy with its investments in canals, favored trade with Canada and Britain, as well as its improved banking system, and the War Between the States began in 1830. After four brutal years of New England's defense through militias and support from Britain, the United States answered New England's continual offer of armistice if they could just be free. Jackson proved to tear apart the Union rather than preserve it, sending the Democratic-Republicans into two parties that would break up the country further over the issue of slavery. The Confederate States of America from Virginia to Louisiana broke away in 1860, buffering up against the Republic of Texas. The old ideal of Manifest Destiny with the pioneers conquering the frontier from sea to shining sea would eventually be seen, but in the form of six differing nations after the formation of the California Republic and Deseret.
Entry posted by
Jeff Provine
© Jeff Provine, 2010-.Story Tags
Permalinks: Post, Day. Browse Thread: Jeff Provine Blog Source: Jeff Provine’s Blog Labels: New England, Secession, United States, Union, America. Editor says, in reality secession was discussed but never taken to vote. Otis considered the War of 1812 to be the death knell for the Democratic-Republicans and Madison's regime. Instead, the Hartford Convention called for a series of amendments mandating greater separation of powers among the states as presidents could not follow one another from the same one (and only one term per president), limiting embargoes and the ability to declare offensive war, and repealing the three-fifths count for slaves. The commissions arrived in Washington to find the victory of New Orleans and the favorable Treaty of Ghent utterly demolishing their stand, and the Federalist Party would never recover the political misstep.
~ Among the most plausible.
~ It does sound plausible. However, I wonder about that "alliance" with Britain. I can't help suspecting that London would have seen New England's secession as an opportunity to work toward reconquest of the no longer united states of America. And secession prior to the end of the War of 1812 would only make matters worse: not only would it weaken America's resistance to what was still an enemy England, it would risk civil war even within New England by allowing opponents of secession (surely New Englanders would be anything but unanimous on the subject) to cast supporters as pro-British and un-American.
In later years, rather than growing wealthy from trade with Britain, the FSA might well have become first an economic dependent and then a political one--and the independence of what was left of the USA would be a lot shakier, too, especially with the further fragmentation envisioned here.
Comment from Brian Mitchell on Facebook: The Civil War would have been interesting...
Comment from Adrian Cook on Facebook: Indeed, no 20th Maine to make the charge down Little Roundtop for a start!
~ A welcome hypothesis to mull over... if only to highlight the contrast between the complaints & ultimate actions of New England Federalists and those of the Deep South in defense of slavery a generation later... perhaps also to underscore how the South actually DID for so long dominate the federal govt far beyond their numbers... and when they saw that they no longer could do so, they wanted to quit, not so much because of REAL complaints, but from fear of no longer ]calling most of the shots in the national govt. // Minor correction: they almost never called themselves "Democratic-Republicans" - it was mostly simply "Republicans". The use of the longer title seems mostly to be a device of historians to easily distinguish Jefferson's party from the later GOP // One question - having trouble making sense of just who made up the various later entities, how New England by itself made it big with canals, etc. (these were a bigger deal in the Middle states & Midwest).... I also have trouble conceiving of a U.S. sans New England splitting over slavery in 1860 (wouldn't have been as strongly opposed to slavery, nor been regarded as a such a strong threat to Southerners on this point).
~ There'd eventually have been war. And not all New Englanders would have willingly gone along
~ Will have to check US elections without New England-assume you mean Mass,NH,Conn,Maine,Vermont, RI?Suspect they'd have wound up joining Canada.
~ I sometimes think that if the History Channel could get over its fascination with ice road truckers and pawn shops, they'd maybe discover the gold mine in alternate history. This would let them teach what really happened in OTL, while also exploring the what-ifs.
This earlier succession is really tough, because the USA was so young, and so fractured, that almost anything could have happened.
~ Possibly a British-leaning New England, while the US would be even more thoroughly dominated by the South and now resentful against the english- a perpetuation of slavery which also leads to friction with England. Resulting in a United States that, in 1914, see's it's chance to get new england back and canada into the bargain, while allied with Germany....The History channel really SHOULD do something like this- totally hate ice road truckers, etc, what is reality programming doing on a "History" channel?
~ I'm a little bit confused here. In this timeline, the Battle of New Orleans came *after* news o fthe signing of the Treaty of Ghent? How dd that happen? In OTL, the battle happened after the treaty was signed, and the *news* of the treaty only reached the U.S. after. It's kind of a big deal, because the treaty took the wind out of the Federalists' sails.
I also agree with Eric Lipps: The British would've jumped all over the chance to conquer the U.S. I think one of two things would've happened:
1) The U.S. would be reconquered in its entirety.
2) The U.S. would've reunited to fight off the British.
As for the History Channel: I don't think alternate history would be an appropriate topic there. The channel has enough problems separating history from fiction as it is (e.g., Nostradamus, "Brad Meltzer's Decoded", etc.). And that's not even counting the shows that have no business being on the History Channel, like Ice Road Truckers and Modern Marvels (which always seems to talk more about process than history).
Personally, I think "Pawn Stars" is a *good* fit for the History Channel. At least on "Pawn Stars", they talk about the historical context of the items.
© Today in Alternate History, 2013-. All characters appearing in this work are fictitious. Any resemblance to real persons, living or dead, is purely coincidental.
