The War of 1812 lasts longer

[Kotromanic]

Wellington did not refuse to go.
He wrote a letter to the PM detailing the vast amount of resources he thought was needed to decisively defeat the USA and his view that the conflict would not be worth the effort.
He also suggested that he might be of more value in Europe due to the threat of war breaking out between the former Allies, but that if ordered he would go to America and lead the campaign against the USA.

Appreciate that clarification.

 

[duncanness]

Nothing happens. New England might seccede and Britain will support them but that's about it. The British were not enthusiastic about launching an invasion and Wellington was not going to America as he thought that he was more needed in Europe and he refused to go beforehand. Otherwise the British just keep blockading the U.S. coast and launch raids to take coastal cities. Eventually, the war ends worse off for the U.S. in one way or another with New England possibly secceding.

New England was split--both geographically and philosophically. While it is rather possible that Massachusetts and Connecticut--with their commercial interests--would have joined with the British, there is no way that the District of Maine would have and it is unlikely that Vermont and New Hampshire would have. These three northern territories (right on the Canadian border) had serious disputes with their northern neighbor both before, after and during the War of 1812 (Maine is still involved in a land dispute with Canada).

 

[Futurist]

New England was split--both geographically and philosophically. While it is rather possible that Massachusetts and Connecticut--with their commercial interests--would have joined with the British, there is no way that the District of Maine would have and it is unlikely that Vermont and New Hampshire would have. These three northern territories (right on the Canadian border) had serious disputes with their northern neighbor both before, after and during the War of 1812 (Maine is still involved in a land dispute with Canada).

What about Rhode Island?

 

[Futurist]

Had it not been for the negative treatment of Massachusetts and Britain toward Maine, Maine's statehood in 1820 might not have come about. Britain occupied and plundered part of Maine but when the District appealed to Massachusetts, the General Court in Boston refused. Boston even refused to lend the federal govt. funds to drive the British out (and Maine was then part of Massachusetts). I doubt that Maine would have seceded; it took a pretty dim view of Britain and of Massachusetts. In those days, Maine was a far wealthier and important area than it is today.

Largely rural Maine looks like it's better off on its own than being attached to the heavily urban Massachusetts. Granted, things might have been a bit different back in 1820, though Massachusetts achieved majority urbanization as early as the 1840s.

 

[duncanness]

What about Rhode Island?

Rhode Island was totally opposed to the War and refused to participate in it--perhaps because it feared for what would happen to it in a naval war with Britain but (IMO) more likely because its commercial interests--like those of its neighbors Conn. and Mass.--depended on being on good terms with the British. It should be noted however that Oliver Hazard Perry was from Rhode Island.

 

[duncanness]

Largely rural Maine looks like it's better off on its own than being attached to the heavily urban Massachusetts. Granted, things might have been a bit different back in 1820, though Massachusetts achieved majority urbanization as early as the 1840s.

Today, Maine is largely rural but in 1814 the commercial interests of Portland and southern Maine were considerable. There was a split (dating back to the Revolution) between coastal Maine (which initially held that its prosperity benefited from association with Mass.) and interior Maine (which had no dependence on "flatlanders"--as Mass. people are still called today--and saw no gain from being yoked to them). The British invasion--and Massachusetts' dismissal of Maine's plight--united the two factions and made the 1820 divorce inevitable.

 

[Futurist]

Today, Maine is largely rural but in 1814 the commercial interests of Portland and southern Maine were considerable. There was a split (dating back to the Revolution) between coastal Maine (which initially held that its prosperity benefited from association with Mass.) and interior Maine (which had no dependence on "flatlanders"--as Mass. people are still called today--and saw no gain from being yoked to them). The British invasion--and Massachusetts' dismissal of Maine's plight--united the two factions and made the 1820 divorce inevitable.

I'll have to trust your judgment here.

Rhode Island was totally opposed to the War and refused to participate in it--perhaps because it feared for what would happen to it in a naval war with Britain but (IMO) more likely because its commercial interests--like those of its neighbors Conn. and Mass.--depended on being on good terms with the British. It should be noted however that Oliver Hazard Perry was from Rhode Island.

Interesting; thanks!

 

[duncanness]

I'll have to trust your judgment here.

In truth, this isn't my judgment. 2020 is the 200th anniversary of Maine's split from Massachusetts and its subsequent statehood. It is a big deal here and, like others associated with heritage groups, I've been researching 1820. The tie-in with the War of 1812 was new to me but I've managed to find a work on that subject that was written by a Mainer who is teaching at the University of California in Davis: The Civil War of 1812 by Alan Taylor.

 

[Niobe]

Not really. While both sides thought the peace might not last, neither thought restarting it was a good idea.

None of the main American objectives had been met in the Treaty of Ghent (in particular press ganging/impressment of Americans and trade restrictions). From what I gather, both sides fortified the Canada/U.S. border in preparation for another fight.

I think it was lucky that the Americans seemed to be distracted by the crash of the Federal party and the defeat of the Creek (opening up new land)... they even broke some of the terms of the treaty - but Britain didn't act upon it.

 

[Futurist]

None of the main American objectives had been met in the Treaty of Ghent (in particular press ganging/impressment of Americans and trade restrictions). From what I gather, both sides fortified the Canada/U.S. border in preparation for another fight.

I think it was lucky that the Americans seemed to be distracted by the crash of the Federal party and the defeat of the Creek (opening up new land)... they even broke some of the terms of the treaty - but Britain didn't act upon it.

What terms did they break?

As for impressment, I thought that it became a moot point after the end of the Napoleonic Wars in Europe since Britain no longer needed all of the manpower that it could get?