During the war of 1812 the New England States declined to contribute any significant force to the war, which they protested because of its negative effects on the region. This was significant in that the Yankee states were some of the highest populated states in the country at the time. What would happen if New England had contributed to their full ability to the war effort.
New England supports the war of 1812
- Thread starter Demothenes
- Start date
On which side?
Seriously, the war devastated New England shipping and commercial interests. Why SHOULD they support the war?
On which side?
Seriously, the war devastated New England shipping and commercial interests. Why SHOULD they support the war?
This is pretty much the only answer you're going to get, New England didn't get anything out of the war except for an absolutely devastated economy. I assume you're familiar with the Hartford Convention? That was basically the New England states getting together to agree on an ultimatum to make to DC because the economy was so devastated by the war. An ultimatum which got laughed off the floor of Congress because the war had just ended at that point, but nevermind that.
Basically, there is absolutely no reason that New England has to support the war other than nationalism, which wasn't very strong at the time. I mean, most people identified as a citizen of their state rather than as Americans.
EDIT: I'm going to tell you what would happen if the NEw ENgland states contributed fully to the war effort anyway, even though I think that New England supporting the war as it was OTL is pretty implausible. New England made up a much larger portion of the US population than it does now, and it was home to a large portion of AMerican industry as well, so if New England gets behind the war completely then I could see the US being much more successful in the war, maybe so much so that modern historians would consider the war an American victory. I also feel that the British offensive in the Chesapeake would have been much less successful, possibly without the burning of Washington occurring and Baltimore not happening as a result, which would lead to some interesting consequences since Baltimore is where the Star Spangled Banner was written, so we'd definitely have a different anthem. I'm not sure how the American offensive into Canada would go, though, I could see the US having much more success in taking Montreal, but I feel as though Britain would be able to retake it.
Last edited:
Building on what Dustin said, I would imagine:
-Upper Canada actually being held. Perhaps given back to Britain for stronger negotiating hands at Ghent.
-No clue on Montreal.
-British naval forces raiding New England at least spreads out ships from the Chesapeake campaign, so as Dustin said Washington possibly being defended and Baltimore not happening.
-Conversely, maybe raids on the Maritimes from Yankees as happened during the Revolution?
-Surprisingly, nationalism coming out well as it did OTL. ALL Americans contributed and if the war becomes an American victory, then you have the good feelings that came out of not just surviving but winning a 'Second War of Independence'.
-Upper Canada actually being held. Perhaps given back to Britain for stronger negotiating hands at Ghent.
-No clue on Montreal.
-British naval forces raiding New England at least spreads out ships from the Chesapeake campaign, so as Dustin said Washington possibly being defended and Baltimore not happening.
-Conversely, maybe raids on the Maritimes from Yankees as happened during the Revolution?
-Surprisingly, nationalism coming out well as it did OTL. ALL Americans contributed and if the war becomes an American victory, then you have the good feelings that came out of not just surviving but winning a 'Second War of Independence'.
GeographyDude
Gone Fishin'
This kind of blows me out of the water. I didn't know there was this kind of regionalism this early.
I heard an anthropologist speak around 2005. In Burlington, Vermont, due to a road expansion, some soldier graves from the War of 1812 were uncovered. I think they did a basic survey of each and then respectfully moved the graves. They were trying to do the right thing, keeping in mind that it seems to be very difficult for a municipality or any other governmental unit to abandon a road project.
The anthropologist also presented early maps and records of the military base. Most of the soldiers had actually died of contagious disease, which is quite common for war back then.
You have to have the British specifically provoke them somehow so they feel threatened or insulted enough to look beyond their material interest.On which side?
Seriously, the war devastated New England shipping and commercial interests. Why SHOULD they support the war?
Maybe have the French do a bit better in the naval war so that the British impress a lot more New England sailors, confiscate some ships and act more high handed in general on the high seas?
Or maybe early in the war they commit an atrocity that shows they don't distinguish between NE and the rest of the country, maybe shell Boston Harbor or something?
TFSmith121
Banned
Or go the historical route;
Or go the historical route; the threatened invasion by Prevost and Downie's forces (defeated at Lake Champlain/Plattsburgh) is widely credited as having "brought Vermont into the war" - have that occur in 1813, rather than in 1814, and combine it with the (historical) operations in Maine, and the likelihood is there would be a significant increase in support for the war 12-18 months earlier than as historically in New England.
Best,
Or go the historical route; the threatened invasion by Prevost and Downie's forces (defeated at Lake Champlain/Plattsburgh) is widely credited as having "brought Vermont into the war" - have that occur in 1813, rather than in 1814, and combine it with the (historical) operations in Maine, and the likelihood is there would be a significant increase in support for the war 12-18 months earlier than as historically in New England.
Best,