What if New England seceded in the War of 1812?
video description
Date: 2022-07-15
Related videos
Comments and reviews: 9
JRJohnson1701
At 4: 23, a Civil War could come about for the same reasons it did in our timeline. Have northerners pass a protectionist tariff that South Carolina threatens secession over. Then Virginia will vote again in 1831 or so to abolish slavery, and have it fail still due to a slave revolt making fears of being killed run around the south. Then the north will try to get back at the south, hitting the south back via attacking slavery (their pocketbooks) because the south hit the north in the pocketbook (protectionist tariffs. Let this slightly smaller North continue to hurl vitriol and invective at the south and send people similar to John Brown to massacre whites to start slave rebellions, and the south will again feel as if the North wants to kill them and will want to leave. Then, have a man like Abraham Lincoln who wants to deport all blacks get elected who refuses to give the South assurances that he won't help another John Brown come south or enact protectionist tariffs, and the south will secede; this alternate not-Lincoln could then support the Corwin Amendment like Lincoln to try to lure the south back into the Union by protecting slavery, the south refuses because they didn't leave to 'keep slavery. ' This north can still claim it's about slavery even though the facts on the ground don't really support it - it wouldn't be seceding to continue slavery. It would've been to rule themselves and decide how they end slavery without the north fomenting problems in their states.
reply
At 4: 23, a Civil War could come about for the same reasons it did in our timeline. Have northerners pass a protectionist tariff that South Carolina threatens secession over. Then Virginia will vote again in 1831 or so to abolish slavery, and have it fail still due to a slave revolt making fears of being killed run around the south. Then the north will try to get back at the south, hitting the south back via attacking slavery (their pocketbooks) because the south hit the north in the pocketbook (protectionist tariffs. Let this slightly smaller North continue to hurl vitriol and invective at the south and send people similar to John Brown to massacre whites to start slave rebellions, and the south will again feel as if the North wants to kill them and will want to leave. Then, have a man like Abraham Lincoln who wants to deport all blacks get elected who refuses to give the South assurances that he won't help another John Brown come south or enact protectionist tariffs, and the south will secede; this alternate not-Lincoln could then support the Corwin Amendment like Lincoln to try to lure the south back into the Union by protecting slavery, the south refuses because they didn't leave to 'keep slavery. ' This north can still claim it's about slavery even though the facts on the ground don't really support it - it wouldn't be seceding to continue slavery. It would've been to rule themselves and decide how they end slavery without the north fomenting problems in their states.
reply
maninredhelm
For the people saying New England would become a province of Canada, it's just as likely the other way around. Even by 1870, Canada and New England were equals in population (each around 3. 5 million, with New England having the larger economy as well as the largest city, Boston. Then factor in that in this alternate history New England would have been bolstered by being able to skip the American Civil War of the 1860s, and the numbers tilt more in New England's favor. If the two nations were nevertheless joined, New England would have been the dominant political entity, with Nova Scotia voting alongside it in most matters and Quebec pursuing its own agenda separate from the rest of English Canada. Burlington, Vermont likely replaces Ottawa as Alternate-Canada's capital due to the border between Quebec and New England becoming more important than the border between Quebec and Ontario. It wouldn't be until deep into the 1900s before westward migration added enough voters for Western Canada to out-vote Atlantic Canada, with Quebec still just barely having enough voters to tilt the balance in either side's favor as of 2018. (2018 numbers put Western Canada at 49%, Atlantic Canada at 34% and Quebec 17%)
reply
For the people saying New England would become a province of Canada, it's just as likely the other way around. Even by 1870, Canada and New England were equals in population (each around 3. 5 million, with New England having the larger economy as well as the largest city, Boston. Then factor in that in this alternate history New England would have been bolstered by being able to skip the American Civil War of the 1860s, and the numbers tilt more in New England's favor. If the two nations were nevertheless joined, New England would have been the dominant political entity, with Nova Scotia voting alongside it in most matters and Quebec pursuing its own agenda separate from the rest of English Canada. Burlington, Vermont likely replaces Ottawa as Alternate-Canada's capital due to the border between Quebec and New England becoming more important than the border between Quebec and Ontario. It wouldn't be until deep into the 1900s before westward migration added enough voters for Western Canada to out-vote Atlantic Canada, with Quebec still just barely having enough voters to tilt the balance in either side's favor as of 2018. (2018 numbers put Western Canada at 49%, Atlantic Canada at 34% and Quebec 17%)
reply
Pepp
The Central powers had so much against them, the US was so barely involved in that war that Teddy Roosevelt argued for not even sending a diplomat to the Peace Conferences. They helped end the war quicker by majorly swinging the balence of manpower on the trenches but without them Britain and France could easily still beat Germany. The 2nd Reich was on the brink of a full revolution by November 1918, if they hadn't surrendered, they'd be forced to take troops out of the trenches to fight rebellions, providing the Entente with the the same advantage that was given by the US in our timeline, allowing them to push forward and occupy Alsace and maybe even liberate Belgium.
So many things were against Germany in the Great War that it takes a crazy situatio like that of Kaiserreich for them to win.
If they don't surrender in 1918; they surrender in 1919
If they don't surrender in 1919; they face a full rebellion of people starving from a British maritime blockade.
By 1920, if they haven't surrendered, it's likely that Germany wouldn't even be allowed to stay united in the peace conferences.
America was a help in the first world war, but frankly they weren't the reason for the Entente victory.
reply
The Central powers had so much against them, the US was so barely involved in that war that Teddy Roosevelt argued for not even sending a diplomat to the Peace Conferences. They helped end the war quicker by majorly swinging the balence of manpower on the trenches but without them Britain and France could easily still beat Germany. The 2nd Reich was on the brink of a full revolution by November 1918, if they hadn't surrendered, they'd be forced to take troops out of the trenches to fight rebellions, providing the Entente with the the same advantage that was given by the US in our timeline, allowing them to push forward and occupy Alsace and maybe even liberate Belgium.
So many things were against Germany in the Great War that it takes a crazy situatio like that of Kaiserreich for them to win.
If they don't surrender in 1918; they surrender in 1919
If they don't surrender in 1919; they face a full rebellion of people starving from a British maritime blockade.
By 1920, if they haven't surrendered, it's likely that Germany wouldn't even be allowed to stay united in the peace conferences.
America was a help in the first world war, but frankly they weren't the reason for the Entente victory.
reply
GypsySprite
For people saying the Central powers would lose
1: Britain was partially able to keep fighting for so long in our timeline due to American support/loans. but in this timeline with the USA hating Britain and whatnot that the British wouldn't be able to get said loans to continue such a bloody war
2: The USA would also probably support Germany instead due to hating the British, and possibly Join the central power's side. this would likely force Britain to divert Boats to the new world to be able to transport troops to the New world and thus sufficiently weaken the blockade or possibly break it, meaning Germany would likely be able to obtain food supplies.
3: not to mention the Morale boost from having the USA join would be Similar to the Boost the French morale got when we join in our timeline. couple this with the fact the French were already in mutiny, and a loss at the second Battle of Marne, the French army would just collapse, leaving the british to either having to pull a miracle victory or flee, since without the french army i don't think the stalemate would be able to continue being a stalemate, since they Germany could just push with it's military supremacy
reply
For people saying the Central powers would lose
1: Britain was partially able to keep fighting for so long in our timeline due to American support/loans. but in this timeline with the USA hating Britain and whatnot that the British wouldn't be able to get said loans to continue such a bloody war
2: The USA would also probably support Germany instead due to hating the British, and possibly Join the central power's side. this would likely force Britain to divert Boats to the new world to be able to transport troops to the New world and thus sufficiently weaken the blockade or possibly break it, meaning Germany would likely be able to obtain food supplies.
3: not to mention the Morale boost from having the USA join would be Similar to the Boost the French morale got when we join in our timeline. couple this with the fact the French were already in mutiny, and a loss at the second Battle of Marne, the French army would just collapse, leaving the british to either having to pull a miracle victory or flee, since without the french army i don't think the stalemate would be able to continue being a stalemate, since they Germany could just push with it's military supremacy
reply
Alexander
I must disagree with the states you have leaving the union. I believe New York would leave with the new Englanders as upstate NY didn't want to necessarily join the union in the first place and mainly joined in part by a threat of NYC succeeding and joining the union. This being still very close to the turbulent beginning of the republic I believe a sizable minority of upstate New Yorkers would want to secede with there new English neighbors and soon after the start would likely join them like many border states in the civil war. NYC also would be hit hard with the trade embargo and likely would follow the rest of NY out of the union. But even still this is a video based on speculation of a what if question so it's not to important and many things would remain the same in your timeline, but it just makes more sense for NY to follow there new English neighbors.
reply
I must disagree with the states you have leaving the union. I believe New York would leave with the new Englanders as upstate NY didn't want to necessarily join the union in the first place and mainly joined in part by a threat of NYC succeeding and joining the union. This being still very close to the turbulent beginning of the republic I believe a sizable minority of upstate New Yorkers would want to secede with there new English neighbors and soon after the start would likely join them like many border states in the civil war. NYC also would be hit hard with the trade embargo and likely would follow the rest of NY out of the union. But even still this is a video based on speculation of a what if question so it's not to important and many things would remain the same in your timeline, but it just makes more sense for NY to follow there new English neighbors.
reply
Chris
Wonder if New England would have joined Canada leading to a much stronger Canada. Newfoundland was once a separate country form Canada and they joined and the Atlantic Provinces have a lot in common with New England. So the idea is not far off. If so, I the implications could be:
1) In our timeline the US is mostly unchallenged in North America. If New England was as important as the video states, Canada would have been strong competition for land and power in NA. The US expansion may have been curtailed if not stopped by Canada.
2) Canada join both WW1 and WW2 early in the battle. Despite American and British ignorance of Canada's contribution. Canada was pivotal in many battles. A stronger Canada could have helped end the wars sooner.
reply
Wonder if New England would have joined Canada leading to a much stronger Canada. Newfoundland was once a separate country form Canada and they joined and the Atlantic Provinces have a lot in common with New England. So the idea is not far off. If so, I the implications could be:
1) In our timeline the US is mostly unchallenged in North America. If New England was as important as the video states, Canada would have been strong competition for land and power in NA. The US expansion may have been curtailed if not stopped by Canada.
2) Canada join both WW1 and WW2 early in the battle. Despite American and British ignorance of Canada's contribution. Canada was pivotal in many battles. A stronger Canada could have helped end the wars sooner.
reply
Massachusetts
Here's a fact I bet most people don't know. If New England left the US, the US would lose the Springfield, Massachusetts Armory. Because the Confederacy destroyed Harper's Ferry, it was the only major weapon producers for the Union during that war, until Rock Island opened in 1862. The Springfield armory gave the Union a very significant number of arms during the war, basically by itself giving the Union a high technological advantage over the Confederacy in the first years of the war. Without this armory, the Union for it's first year during the war would have no armory, and after 1862 would only have 1. The Confederacy had 7 armories. Whether that would change the war, I have no clue, but it's good to note.
reply
Here's a fact I bet most people don't know. If New England left the US, the US would lose the Springfield, Massachusetts Armory. Because the Confederacy destroyed Harper's Ferry, it was the only major weapon producers for the Union during that war, until Rock Island opened in 1862. The Springfield armory gave the Union a very significant number of arms during the war, basically by itself giving the Union a high technological advantage over the Confederacy in the first years of the war. Without this armory, the Union for it's first year during the war would have no armory, and after 1862 would only have 1. The Confederacy had 7 armories. Whether that would change the war, I have no clue, but it's good to note.
reply
JRJohnson1701
At 4: 45 or so. Slavery would collapse much earlier than WW1. Cyrus McCormick's reapers would be popular in the 1870s, and it's cheaper to use a reaper than use manual labor. Southerners were required by custom to care for their bonded servants cradle to grave, and it would be cheaper to use fewer people with reapers than teams of people without. That's kind of like what the north did. The north didn't free slaves out of the kindness of their hearts, they did it because it wasn't as profitable, so they sold their northern slaves to the south, rather than emancipate and take the economic hit. Check out the book Complicity: How the North Promoted, Prolonged, and Profited from Slavery.
reply
At 4: 45 or so. Slavery would collapse much earlier than WW1. Cyrus McCormick's reapers would be popular in the 1870s, and it's cheaper to use a reaper than use manual labor. Southerners were required by custom to care for their bonded servants cradle to grave, and it would be cheaper to use fewer people with reapers than teams of people without. That's kind of like what the north did. The north didn't free slaves out of the kindness of their hearts, they did it because it wasn't as profitable, so they sold their northern slaves to the south, rather than emancipate and take the economic hit. Check out the book Complicity: How the North Promoted, Prolonged, and Profited from Slavery.
reply
Micael
I dunno about the economical success of the great lake industrial states. I'm a geographer, and I always think of the land. If the US had bad diplomatic relations with the idenpendent South and the independent New England states, that would mean that the great lake industrial states would not be able to export their goods through the Mississippi river or through the Hudson River. It would be in effect strangled by both independent nations. This strangulation would severely hurt their economy, and they would not be able, i think, to finance westwards expansion. No capital, no railroad, no railroad, no California
reply
I dunno about the economical success of the great lake industrial states. I'm a geographer, and I always think of the land. If the US had bad diplomatic relations with the idenpendent South and the independent New England states, that would mean that the great lake industrial states would not be able to export their goods through the Mississippi river or through the Hudson River. It would be in effect strangled by both independent nations. This strangulation would severely hurt their economy, and they would not be able, i think, to finance westwards expansion. No capital, no railroad, no railroad, no California
reply
Add a review, comment
Other channel videos
