The Pete Quiñones Show - Episode 1356: The Road to Civil War Pt. 6 - The War of 1812 - w/ George Bagby

Episode Date: April 14, 2026

82 MinutesSafe for WorkGeorge Bagby is a content creator and publisher of long-forgotten books. George joins Pete to continue a series detailing the long lead up to America's Civil War.George's Twitter AccountGeorge's Pinned Tweet w/ Links George's YouTube ChannelPete and Thomas777 'At the Movies'Support Pete on His WebsitePete's PatreonPete's Substack Pete's SubscribestarPete's GUMROADPete's VenmoPete's Buy Me a CoffeePete on FacebookPete on TwitterBecome a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-pete-quinones-show--6071361/support.

What is a heat pump? How do I get the ground? Are they noisy? Is it really sustainable? What is R290? Hi, Dermapannon here. Got questions about home heating and making your home more comfortable and sustainable? Well, we've got answers.

Working with Mitsubishi Electric, we have created the heating hub to answer all your questions. Eco Dan from Mitsubishi Electric. Trust the team behind your comfort. I did. Visit theheatinghub.com.i to find out more. I'll be at the Ideal Home Show on Friday where I'll be answering all your questions. Royal London Ireland, award winning, year after year after year after year. For the fourth consecutive year, Royal London Ireland has won the overall financial services excellence award by Brokers Ireland.

Because real excellence isn't a one-off. It's something you deliver again and again. When it comes to life insurance and pension products, choose a provider you can trust. talk to a financial broker or visit royal london.com forward slash fine broker Royal London Insurance Act Trading is Royal London, Ireland is regulated by the Central Bank of Ireland

In life, you've around 29,000 days and those days can be full of what ifs like what if it doesn't work but what if it does what if you really went after it because life is measured in those moments so go after everyone Talk to AIB today and let's see how we can turn your what ifs into what's next.

AIB for the life you're after. Allied Irish Bank's PLC is regulated by the Central Bank of Ireland. If you want to get the show early and ad free, head on over to thepec Kenyoneys Show.com. I'm going to say this slow because I know a lot of you are doing this at one and a half speed or two times speed. if you want an RSS feed. It is only available if you subscribe through Substack or Patreon. You will get the audio file

if you subscribe through my website, subscribe star, or Gumroad. And the links are all there at the Piquinez Show.com. I just want to give thanks, continued thanks, to all of you who support me and allow me to do this

and be able to put out the amount of content I can do and hopefully the kind of quality that keeps you coming back. So I'm only able to do this because of you. So head on over to the Pekingona Show.com and you will get the episodes early and ad free. Thank you. I want to welcome everyone back to the Pekignana show. George Bagby is back and we are going to continue our series of the lead up to America's Civil War. How are you doing this evening, Mr. Bagby? I'm doing well. I have a very happy cat next to me. So if his, if his rumble comes through, that's what's going on.

He just won't leave me alone. I'm his favorite person. Oh, second person I've recorded with today who, the first one had a cat on his lap while we were recording. Very nice. Yeah, cats are good companions for this kind of work. All right, sir. I love to hear tales of Andrew Jackson. And yeah, so let's do it. Okay. Well, I've got a precursor.

We're on our way to Jackson. But first we're going to take a diversion to New England and talk about sectionalism leading up to the drama during the Jackson administration. So during the Jackson administration, we have a trio of great. giants in the Senate. Historians have called them the great triumvirate. We have Henry Clay of Kentucky, the great Whig, really a magnificent statesman, and I like him for many reasons. We have John C. Calhoun, who is the greatest political scientist statesman of the South, and is still studied today. And we have have Daniel Webster, who we've talked about in his context contending cases before the Supreme Court. But he goes into the Senate, and there are some very interesting debates that result in the Jackson

administration. But they do much concern the era of 1812 and the demise of our first and oldest political party, the federalist party that we've talked a lot about up until now. So these federalists, they find themselves on the outs after their first two administrations. Washington and Adams are both federalists, and they are a very noble bunch, you know, a tremendous number of prominent statesmen of the era, the most famous that we ever had in a group. Washington, Adams, Madison, Hamilton, John Jay. They're all Federalists. John Marshall, a Federalist. So the decline of this party and its final collapse is kind of an unforced error. It's kind of a self-inflicted decline. But it's also extremely interesting in our approach to the

sectionalism before the Civil War. So you recall that the federalists are very opposed to the French Revolution. This determines many things, including the Alien and Sedition Acts, which we were talking about earlier. They are relating Jefferson's Republicans who are actually the precursors to the Democratic Party. I know this is kind of confusing and hard to keep track of, but if I say the Republicans in this context, I'm talking about the Jeffersonians. They're relating the Republicans to the Jacobins in France. So the Republicans are not helping themselves on this line. Thomas Jefferson is an outspoken supporter in the early.

stages of the French Revolution. He eventually gets disillusioned with it, but you have other associates of the Republicans, Tom Payne, the great radical propagandist, atheist pamphleteer and the rest. He is actually a member of the revolutionary French legislature. He leaves America and serves in France until like many others he gets disavowed by that radical body and they seek to have his head and so he has to flee France but he does become citizen pain of France for a time it's important to note that Hamilton John Adams and many of these later Federalists are very outspoken against the French Revolution in the same capacity that they're outspoken against the Republicans, and they relate them to each other. This is not unwarranted. We have

great Republican leaders and future presidents, James Monroe, for instance, who is a close associate of Tom Payne. He actually has Tom Payne come and live with him for a time. That's how close they are. So when John Adams says, well, these Jacobins, they are, they're wanting to seize property. They're wanted to abrogate property rights. And then the Republicans turn, and they accuse the federalists of monarchist attributes, centralized power. They say that the federalists are elitist. They criticize federalist inventions like the electoral college and the Senate as elitist institutions. And the Republicans kind of run the gamut on this.

There are many examples of this. but American politics kind of get framed during the Washington and Adams administrations along the same lines as the politics of Revolutionary France. So Hamilton, John Adams, and other federalists, they write extensively against the French Revolution, and the Republicans are ascendant in America. but are also rather chagrined to find themselves in a defensive position concerning the French Revolution, which is kind of burning itself out at this stage, and Napoleon is ascendant and dissolving, you know, the Committee of Public Safety and things like that. But Thomas Jefferson gets elected in 1800.

we have this really curious set of bitter arguments on both sides. So like the radicals on the Republican side are saying that the New England federalists, this is where the federalists remain strong, is in the Northeast. They say that they are aristocratic elitists trying to centralize power. The federalists on their part criticize the aristocratic Democrats of the South and accuse them of tyrannizing tendencies, trying to remove federal judges from office, trying to remove civil servants, tax collectors, and stuff based on their political allegiance. So Thomas Jefferson really wants to have a spoils system. He wants to put his own people into these offices of the civil service. And so he's trying to clear out the administrators from the Adams and Washington regimes,

especially judges. The main focus is on the judiciary. This is during the Jefferson period where they're trying to impeach federal judges who have really crossed a line with the enforcement of the Sedition Act. So the federalists are very apprehensive about Jefferson, and then the Louisiana purchase takes place in 1803. This causes the federalists to really start speaking out, and we see a radical faction of the federalists form in New England.

This is called the Essex Hoonto. So this is a faction of the Federalists. It's led by people like Timothy Pickering and George Cabot and Mr. Griswold from Connecticut. I think it's Oliver Griswold of Connecticut. So there are a number of congressmen from the New England states that join this group. they are interested pretty early on, even before the Essex-Hunto forms, like as a named faction, these radical federalists, if we might characterize them so, they're very interested in working behind the scenes, perhaps to separate the sections of the union. And this is a fascinating thing.

We have an associated congressman named Rufus King of New York, which is kind of interesting to me. It's kind of an unusual name. There is a current congressman named Rufus King. Is he from Maine? Is that where he's from? Do you recognize? I don't, I'm not, let me see. Look it up, but it's a curiosity.

There just happens to be a congressman of the same name that was recently active anyway. No, I'm not seeing anyone. Oh, really? Well, maybe I'm mistaken. I thought there was a congressman of that name. Maybe it was, maybe it was in recent history or something. But back in 1794, Rufus King encounters John Taylor of Caroline, who we were. have already talked about. They're both in the Senate and Rufus King calls Taylor aside with Senator Ellsworth

of Connecticut. And according to Taylor, Taylor actually writes a memorandum of this. Taylor says King approaches him and says the Southern and Eastern people in this context, In this context, Eastern means northeast. New England. The southern and eastern people think quite differently, and the South has clogged and counteracted every operation of government. So they're referring to the Republicans and their rise. At this point, the Republicans are not in power.

So that's interesting. This is during the Federalist administration. Tells Taylor, a dissolution of the union by mutual consent was preferable to a certainty of the same by a less desirable mode. So he says, the union's going to split eventually because the North and the South think so differently. And they want to run the general government in such radically different ways. This is 1794, and this is a northern senator from New York that's approaching John Taylor of Caroline, who is on the far side of the other side, right? John Taylor is the old Republican is the term for it, the paleo Republican, if you will.

So there's this interesting connection and conversation. John Taylor writes a memorandum and sends it to James Madison. And that's the context in which we have the information. So James Madison actually corresponds with Taylor about this. They ask each other interesting questions. They're like, is this effort to intimidate us? What exactly does this mean? And Taylor, funny enough, is advocating the union.

in this instance. Of course, this is when the Republicans are on the rise to federal power. And so they're going to be attempting the reforms. Well, anyway, Pickering is one of the firebrands of the Essex Honto. Pickering writes his associate, George Cabot, of Massachusetts, in 1804. So this is right after the Louisiana purchase. The federal Federalists really don't like the Louisiana purchase. Recall Federalist paper number two that Providence has been pleased to give this one united people or one, this one united country to one united people, a people descended from the same ancestors, practicing the same religion, very similar in manners and customs, and so on. The federalists did not imagine the union would get big. They certainly did not imagine members of the government. states of the union of French stock, of Roman Catholic faith, and they are very adamant against the Louisiana purchase. And they are very concerned about financing it.

Now, these are the same people that are interested in financing big national schemes, but they don't like financing doubling the size of American territory, especially because the new member states in that territory, the populous areas of Louisiana, or Louisiana, Arkansas, and Missouri, all slave areas. They see new slave states, new agrarian states, new states that are going to be opposed to them politically, but also states with a different ethnic composition, different religious heritage, the Roman Catholic. all of them are in 1803. There are no Protestant churches in that area because it was all Spanish territory. Previous just to Napoleon basically taking it and selling it as soon as he had possession of it. The French governor had not even arrived in Louisiana when Napoleon had sold the place.

So Pickering writes to George Cabot. He says, I do not believe in the practicability of a long-continued union. The people of the East cannot reconcile their habits, views, and interests with those of the South and West. The latter one, beginning to rule with the rod of iron. So he's referring to the new Western states. He's referring to Ohio, Kentucky, Tennessee, who have constituted a very distinct

interest. Very agrarian and also rapidly changing. So to identify his concerns here, it's not entirely fair. The Western states do change very quickly in what they are wanting politically. But Pickering says, a Northern Confederacy would unite congenial characters and present a fairer prospect for public happiness. The last refuge is New England, but New York must be associated. So Pickering says we're scheming to form a northern confederacy. We're interested in severing the union with these Republicans who are now running it under Jefferson. We do not trust them. They have different manners, different political ideals, a different way of life, a different vision for the country. So we need to separate from them, but we need New York involved. And this becomes very

important. Pickering writes to Rufus King, again in 1804, the Federalists here anxiously desire the election of Aaron Burr to the chair of New York. So this is the upcoming governor's election in the state of New York. Mr. Burr alone, we think, can break your Democratic flanks. And we anticipate much good from his success. Griswold of Connecticut also writes to an associate, the election of Colonel Burr is the only hope of rallying a defense of the northern states. So this is interesting because Aaron Burr was a vice presidential candidate in 1800. The way that the electoral college works at this time is a little confusing. The electors are asked to vote for two.

the president and vice presidential candidates. And then they take a tally of the total. So because of a lot of favorite sons from different regions, like Charles Pinckney is running from South Carolina as the Federalist Vice Presidential candidate, what happens is it splits the votes both for president and vice president because they're all tallied together. And the way that it works is that the number one vote recipient becomes president.

The second place is the vice president. So Jefferson did not get his preferred vice presidential candidate. There was a Republican vice presidential candidate, but he didn't get him. Instead, he got Aaron Burr. But the vote was so close, it actually went to a House vote. the House of Representatives actually had to break the tie in the Electoral College. So Aaron Burr becomes vice president. He's not an associate of Thomas Jefferson.

He's actually a very independent kind of figure, but he was in one vote's breadth from winning the presidency himself, though he wasn't even running for the office. He was that much of a popular candidate for the vice presidential seat. He almost won the presidency. in the House because they were voting on the top candidates. So it's kind of a complicated situation. But Aaron Burr is actually vice president. Aaron Burr runs for the governor's office in New York while he's vice president. And he is in association with the federalist faction in New England.

The idea is that Aaron Burr will conspire with the federalist secessionists who are opposed at this stage to the Louisiana purchase primarily. That's all very interesting because of Burr's own history in the Louisiana territory. This is the subject of his treason trial and such later on. But nevertheless, this is really curious. Burr later goes to Louisiana, presumably he was charged. with trying to form territories somewhere in the northern reaches of Spanish, Mexico, or some such thing. He's tried for treason and acquitted by John Marshall, actually.

That's beside the point here. But anyway, the federalists are very interested in getting Burr elected because he is in association with them. We have a lot of the members of the Essex Honto who are writing about Burr's relation with them. They're campaigning for Burr for the office of governor of New York. We have another federalist senator. This is William Plummer of New Hampshire, who says, in correspondence, This isn't said publicly, but he's organizing and he's campaigning for Burr. He says, the eastern states, this is the northeast, must and will dissolve the union and form a separate government.

And the sooner, the better. So this comes to a head famously with Hamilton contending for DeWittenden. Clinton for the governor's office in New York over Aaron Dore. Now, Hamilton is also a federalist, but we must remember the Essex Federalists, the so-called Essex Honto, they are a distinct faction of New England federalists. Many of them come from Essex County, Massachusetts, which is where the name comes from. But it also includes these figures from New Hampshire, Connecticut, and other places. Hamilton goes to Federalist meetings in New York, and in the context of a party meeting,

excoriates Burr's character, says that Burr is untrustworthy. According to one William Cooper of New York, who publishes a letter in a New York, paper concerning Hamilton's campaigning for Clinton and against Burr, attacking Burr's character. Cooper says Hamilton and his friends look upon Mr. Burr as a dangerous man and one who ought not be trusted with the reins of government. So this is a public letter of Cooper saying what Hamilton has. said in a more private context. Burr then loses the election to Clinton in New York, and Burr is quite chagrined with Hamilton. He blames Hamilton's public attacks, well,

in the context of these meetings, and then the publication of the contents of his attacks by this Mr. Cooper as instrumental in his loss. So he says that Hamilton has defamed his character, calling him a dangerous man, an untrustworthy leader. So he challenges Hamilton to a duel. Or he first asked for clarification. Hamilton kind of dissimulates, and he says, well, Cooper was not really specific about this.

He didn't say exactly where I said this or when I said this. And Burr responds angrily, and he says, you are not denying you said it. So I demand satisfaction. And they agree. Hamilton accepts the charge. It's rather as if Hamilton is accepting responsibility. They go to Weehawken, New Jersey, just across the river. It's right beside Hoboken.

And Hamilton famously turns in the duel and shoots into the air. He does not aim at Burr. Burr shoots Hamilton in the chest. Hamilton returns or his friends return him to his home in Manhattan, and he dies soon afterwards. but not before disavowing, dueling, accepting a deathbed baptism by a Methodist minister. The Methodist minister requires Hamilton to disavow dueling and to proclaim his sin in participating in the duel before he submits to give him baptism. and Hamilton does comply, and Hamilton dies surrounded by his friends. And this is the context.

Curiously, immediately after this infamous combat, Burr returns to Washington, where he is sitting in judgment of Justice William Chase of the Supreme Court. the only impeachment proceedings ever attempted against a Supreme Court justice. And a great many people write about it at the time, they considered it all very discreditable because Burr was presiding. And everyone knew that Burr was even potentially on the run from the law in New York. That's why they did not duel in New York, because they were known to. to prosecute such a thing in the state of New York.

Burr concludes the impeachment trial and then resigns the vice presidency and leaves on his adventure in the Louisiana territory, where eventually he is apprehended and brought back for a treason trial. And that's kind of beside the point right here. But it's a very interesting tale. So the federalists, they lose this attempt. in 1804 to put their associate burr into the office in New York. So now they don't have New York in association as they'd hoped.

So this kind of puts a break on things for them for a few years. In 1807, Jefferson signs into law the trade embargo with France and England. This is yet another attempt to try to avoid war in Europe, to be drawn into the Napoleonic wars. Both France and England have greatly offended the United States. Both of them have acted very hostilely to the United States. They've both apprehended American sailors, impressed them on the high seas. During the Adams administration. The French Navy is actually having minor battles with American frigates on the high seas. This is a phenomenon that's known as the pseudo-war.

And it's also the context of the Alien and Sedition Acts, which is very interesting. We were right on the cusp of war with France on that occasion. And you remember the heavy attempts of the French to lobby to change American foreign policy in favor of the French during that period. So in 1812, we see, well, no, 1807, let me finish the embargo. The trade embargo is very contrary to the interests of New England. New England is a shipbuilding center. They send tens of thousands of their young men to see as sailors. The major investment in New England is in shipping in maritime trade.

One of their major industries is shipbuilding and naval stores. They are one of the few seats of manufacturing for export trade. And the embargo with great disproportion affects them negatively. So the New Englanders protest this. They are extremely upset about it. They say that the Jeffersonians have no consideration for them. Pickering says of this, no act of the national government has ever produced so much solicitude or spread such universal alarm

are our thousands of ships and vessels to rot in our harbor are that are 50,000 seamen to be deprived of employment and their families reduced to want and beggary now we we should also remember the last executive to close the port of boston to trade was King George III in 1775. So this is reminiscent to this generation, the same men who had seen the lead up to the war of independence were instrumental in declaring independence and winning independence from England, are now associating Jefferson, President Jefferson,

with the policies of King George III. Pickering, again, the very verbose leader of the Federalist faction, he says, I am disgusted with the men who now rule us. The coward at the head, that is Jefferson, is like a French revolutionary. So they're relating the embargo to a tax on private property and business. And they're relating this, of course, to the Jacobins, who are in power in France. Pickering says, I therefore say, come out from among them and be ye separate. So he quotes the Bible. he says, without a separation, can our states ever rid themselves of these negative leaders?

What he says is, can we be without Negro presidents and Negro congresses and regain our just weight in the political balance? So we see his association of his political enemies with slavery, which is the import of what he's talking about. And that's his quote. So the result of this is increased tensions. Following 1807 and the embargo, there is a tremendous depression that disproportionately affects England. This is partly because of Jefferson's complete thought process inside of agrarian economy. Jefferson is an agrarian. Jefferson rightly understands that the vast majority of the country is involved in agriculture, that manufacturing and maritime trade, shipbuilding,

and ship owning are all small portions of the economy. Hamilton is emphasizing their great promise in the future, but Jefferson is emphasizing the agrarian component, and Jefferson sees the embargo as worth the cost because it preserves us from war that we were ill-prepared for, and we certainly were ill-prepared for it. He wants to avoid foreign conflicts. So we see that he see that even though Jefferson is associated with the Jacobins, at this point, Jefferson is most concerned with maintaining that policy of neutrality. Jefferson is disillusioned to some degree about the Jacobins, about the whole revolutionary process. He is kind of sobered with the rise of Napoleon and such. The depression that results, the depression that results,

from the embargo is an important aspect to remember here. So the New Englanders are suffering from the trade depression. Many of the ship owners manage to get their ships abroad so that they can maintain business outside of the American Union. Their ships cannot come home to port. New England sailors cannot return home for years as the embargoes. is maintained. And then in 1812, Louisiana is admitted to the Union as a state. So once again, we see the return of this issue. Herbert Agar, who is a great historian on the question, he wrote a book called The Price of Union, which anyone following this series is, is is going to greatly enjoy this book.

It's an excellent book of themes of sectionalism in American history and the cost of unity in American history. It's a very good survey of these questions. But Agar says, the admission of Louisiana as a state in 1812 was more important than the act of war. So he says that the sectional inflammation of Louisiana admitted as a state in the union was ultimately more important in the crisis of the union than the Declaration of War. But the Declaration of War obviously drives the sections further apart. Here, Josiah Quincy of Massachusetts, another radical federalist in Massachusetts, he gets up a

for Congress, so he's in Washington, he makes a speech against Louisiana statehood. And he says about Louisiana's admission to the union, I am compelled to declare the bonds of this union are virtually dissolved, that the states which compose it are free from their moral obligations and that it will be the right of all and duty of some to prepare definitely for a a separation, amicably if they can, violently if they must. Now, this is said in Congress, this is a very clear threat of secession. And it is about the expansion of the Union to include a Roman Catholic state, which at this time, all of the settled population in Louisiana, since the...

the Louisiana purchase, lots of Anglo-Americans are going to Louisiana. In the first Protestant churches are built there. They are overwhelmingly southerners and overwhelmingly of Republican Jeffersonian persuasion. So Quincy is looking at French Roman Catholics primarily when he is excoriating Louisiana. He is a New England puritan. He's a congregationalist, the Puritan church, and he rather defines himself in opposition to Roman Catholics. This is a regional interest. This is rather confined to New England, and wherever the Puritans have gone afterwards, places like Connecticut and New Hampshire, and then places further west, the upstate area of New York. Northern Ohio and other places where the New England diaspora goes, these kinds of thoughts do resonate there, that America is a Protestant project.

And this is also a very important idea. Just what did people think would compose the union religiously at the time the Constitution is written and debated? It is a Protestant country. It is overwhelmingly Protestant. It must be close to 99% Protestant. Now, they are divergent. You have Protestants like Quakers, and you might ask, well, is it really fair to call them Protestant? Indeed, is it fair to call them Christians? And that is a fairer criticism.

They are not Trinitarian. Okay, so this is quite a way's way. The Calvinist Puritans are certainly Protestants and typify the heritage of protest against Roman things, right? So they fit the bill pretty well. But there's still a lot of variety of Protestants. There are an awful lot more Catholics at this stage. And the federalist faction is certainly thinking of that issue. That is something historically that is extremely important to them and we should take seriously from them.

But 1812, of course, is also very notable because of the outbreak of the War of 1812. So this is something, again, opposed by the federalists. By the election of 1800, the federalists are consigned to be a regional force. they lose to Jefferson twice, then they lose to James Madison twice. So they've been out of power for a long time now. The federalists are proposing their own constitutional reforms at this time. They are proposing, for instance, no state should be admitted to the union or territory expanded in the union without.

a two-thirds congressional majority. So they're proposing this interesting amendment. They propose an amendment to limit presidential administrations to one term, which is certainly a response to Jefferson's two terms and Madison's two terms. They are very upset with what Pickering calls the aristocratic Democrats of the South, which he frequently talks about how much he loathes. And this is this is kind of ironic because he accuses Jefferson and the Republicans of being elitists, that they are this patrician-Virginian set. He saves a lot of bile for the Virginia statesman in particular. And this is kind of ironic because the Republicans, Jefferson and his colleagues, return the same measure to the federalists. The federalists,

they say, are monarchist and advocate for nobility. They say the New England states are so very small. They are disproportionately represented in the Senate, which is true. They point to Adams' administration and characterize him as autocratic. Adams, memorably, wanted to be known as Your Excellency, I believe, a term for the president, a short-lived kind of term, and wanted to have a fancy coat. coach and be introduced by a foot servant and things like that. So there were some trappings that Adams attempted that the Republicans accused of him putting on airs as a monarch.

And of course, John Taylor attacks Adams in that line. The war of 1812 is an extremely important event. The Western congressmen are particularly adamant in favor, and there are lots of southern congressmen in favor. There are some important southerners who are against the war of 1812. John Randolph of Roanoke, who deserves special mention. We could make our own episode on him, rather like we did for John Taylor. a very interesting guy.

Thomas Jefferson was never strict enough in his construction of the Constitution for John Randolph's taste. And it was also amusing they're actually cousins as well. John Randolph is also the nephew of Edmund Randolph, the Attorney General in Washington's administration. But Randolph is opposed to the War of 1812. He says, we should not go to war with the English because we're all related to them. We should cultivate good relations with the mother country, among other things. And he says we aren't adequately prepared for it and so on. And that was true as well.

Nathaniel Macon of North Carolina is also an example of a peace dove in the War of 1812. But most of the doves are actually from New York and New England. They say we do not have an adequate Navy. That is true. They say we do not have adequate coastal defenses. That is true. They say Madison has abolished the Bank of the United States. Where will we get the funding?

That is also true. The first bank of the United States is not rechartered in 1811, right before the War of 1812. We no longer have a large federal bank. So we only can rely on small banks, regional banks. Nevertheless, the War of 1812 is declared the British blockade or begin blockading our ports. Trade is is abrogated with all European powers thanks to this blockade. the New England states, in response to this war, which is very unpopular in New England, they call it Mr. Madison's war, they refuse on the local level to finance the government. So the federal government needs a lot of money to carry out this war with England.

And the New England banks will not buy government securities. Most New England citizens will not subscribe to minor bonds, to low, low price bonds, to finance the war effort. The war effort is so very unpopular in New England. The federalist authorities make it known to the British. They want no part in this war and have no intention in participating. The British respond by ceasing to blockade courts in New England. And on local authority, extending into the state government to some level, smuggling illicit trade with the British is taking place in New England during the War of 1812. the New England governors refused to send their militias out of New England.

Indeed, when the British come into the Chesapeake Bay in 1814, the New England states reject President Madison's call to rally the militia to defend Washington, D.C. It's mostly the Maryland militia that shows up, and tries to contend with the British outside of Baltimore after the famous bombardment of Fort McHenry. The British land, they march on D.C. The Marylanders get away. They don't have enough to resist this British force. And Washington, D.C. is burned. And Madison and his cabinet are made refugees. He doesn't have a seat of government for the rest of the war. The New England states are openly withdrawing from federal control at this stage.

By late 1814, so this is only months after the burning of Washington, the Federalists convene a convention in Hartford, Connecticut. This is the famous Hartford Convention of the fall of 1814. They are chaired by George Cabot, who is one of Pickering's close associates. Pickering himself does not attend, but he's kind of the instigator of this. He's been contending for just this kind of convention for many years at this point. Something really unexpected takes place when the Hartford Convention convenes. They get two unwelcome pieces of information.

The Hartford Conventioneers are looking at the disasters on the Eastern Seaboard in the War of 1812 with a mixture of horror and satisfaction. The worse that the war goes in the East, the better it is for the Federalists and their ambition of separating from the union. They see the union as dominated by a cultural antagonist, the Republicans of the South. They see their interests curtailed. They are Hamiltonian in conviction. They believe in a broad construction of the Constitution. But they've also drawn back into states' rights thinking, which is very interesting. Now, you've got to remember, this is the same generation that saw the ratification of the

Constitution. They know something about what they thought their state was getting into, of what they thought the reserve powers of the states were. And these are also states where anti-federalism, sentiment was not unknown. There was a plurality of support for the Constitution in Massachusetts, but Massachusetts was also the home of famous anti-federalists, Sam Adams, and John Hancock, which shouldn't be forgotten. These were men who were skeptical of the Constitution and advocated for securities for reserve powers for the states.

You remember, Rhode Island actually rejected the Constitution the first time around. And ironically, for the Republicans, they didn't do it in a convention. They did it with a direct Democratic vote, which was what the Jeffersonian Republicans liked better. and said was more creditable. They wanted more regular plebiscites on things and greater proportion of representation and Congress and things like that. So this opportunity for them at Hartford is extremely interesting. And they get two bits of information that greatly dismay them.

The first is that Henry Clay and John Quincy Adams have negotiated peace with the British at Ghent. The Napoleonic Wars are over, and there is no more reason for the British impressment and conflict with our maritime trade. So the British ministers sign a peace treaty, which is basically status quo antebellum. That is the way that things were before the war began.

This is good. The British are not interested in holding anything that they had taken in the Americas. They occupy Long Island for a time. They invade a very sparsely populated area of Maine. They invade in the Chesapeake, of course, they burn D.C. none of these places do they intend on staying. They are not interested in acquiring territory or carving up the union by invading it. These are just like punitive measures as they understand it.

The British have sent a large force to New Orleans. Now, the federalists know about when they go to Hartford. they anticipate yet another military disaster. They expect, and they actually really, frankly, wish the British would take Louisiana and that it wouldn't be a part of the American Union. But just the same, they have no confidence in the disasters they attribute to the Republicans. the demise of the Bank of the United States, the repudiation of several of the Hamiltonian policies, what they see is the attack on the judiciary.

They don't want to be in the union. This is their position. They go to Hartford. At Hartford, they are anticipating a victory for the Brits at New Orleans. And among other things, they report. court, quote, if the union be destined to dissolution by reason of the multiplied abuses of bad administration, it should, if possible, be the work of peaceable times and deliberate consent. Whenever it shall appear that the causes are radical and permanent, a separation

by equitable agreement will be preferable to an alliance by consulate. restraint among nominal friends, but real enemies. This is how they speak of the federal government of their time, that it claims to represent them. They claim to be friendly, those Virginia statesmen. There actually are real enemies. Well, then the federalists get the second bit of unwelcome news, that Andrew Jackson has won the Battle of New Orleans, and it wasn't narrow either. He overwhelmingly defeats the British. Inflicting over 2,000 casualties, he loses five dead or something. It's extremely small

casualty list. This greatly discredits the Federalists. They were expecting, at least, the British would prevail at New Orleans. Now they look almost treasonous. And ironically, this is how the Republicans characterize them afterwards. And say the federalists were trying to backstab us at the cusp of an equitable peace and a great military victory. And the end of the war and the end of the embargo with the war takes away the main causes of the federalist convention and secession ambitions. It would be akin to the Continental Congress meeting to vote on the Declaration of Independence and a courier from King George showing up assenting to many of their demands on the spot. Their declaration of independence would be seen as utterly discredited.

Like they were willing to risk war when the king was actually amenable to. their demands, the king would have short-circuited the whole thing if he had made major concessions at that point. Of course, here, it's not the federal government that's making concessions to New England. It's the end of the war and a great American victory at New Orleans that really diffuses all of the federalist reasons for what they say they're doing. So the Federalist Convention at Hartford dissolves, they go home and the Federalist party collapses in the wake of this.

Federalists are interpreted through the radical actions of this faction. People like John Quincy Adams and Daniel Webster have distanced themselves from the Hartford faction. They do not want to have any part of that. John Quincy Adams is actually in Congress at the time. He is a federalist, but Adams is excoriating the Hartford conventioneers, that wing of his party. Now, it could have gone either way, really. No one knows beforehand how things are going to turn out. It could have been that New Orleans was a disaster. It could have been that the British were demanding concessions at Ghent and not status quo antebellum. In fact, the British didn't want anything from the Americans.

They thought of this as a very minor affair and embarrassing for the Americans and really much more in their interest to reopen trade with the Americans. And the Americans were whooped militarily on the East Coast where the vast majority of Americans lived. They didn't have any credible success. They were actually dealing with serious problems of unity with New England. The New England states just blowing off orders, refusing to send the militia out of the region and so on.

So it could have gone very differently. And it was, you might say, bad fortune for the Federalists here, that the whole thing went so radically against them. And they could have bet on one or the other plausibly at this stage, we can see their thought processes and they were not unreasonable in their expectations, but they were extremely embarrassed by the results on both fronts, the treaty and the victory at New Orleans. So the result is that federalists that had disavowed this publicly, they retained their status. they become a different kind of Republican.

We go to a new period, a one-party period, during the James Monroe administration following Madison. We call it the era of good feelings. And it is a peculiar stage in our history. It's the end of our first party system, which saw the Democratic Republicans, which is Jefferson's colleagues and the Federalist Party. So the Federalist Party implodes. In a couple of years, Federalists are not even elected on a local level, and the party organization ceases to exist. One very interesting commentator on this, the great commentator on this, is Henry Adams, one of the greatest of American historians who,

who wrote a huge history of the Jefferson and Madison administrations. It's something like nine volumes in the original. The Library of America has an edition out that has reduced it in size, I believe they might have made it four volumes or something. But Henry Adams concluded that the Federalist became a sectional party. They became associated with a certain section of the union and they had a very negative reaction to the expansion of the union. These characteristics doomed the Federalist Party to a regional character and ultimately to the

collapse of the party. So they start out as nationalist with Hamilton really coming up with their big ideas. Once they're out of power, they are reduced to regionalism and become most strongly associated with regionalism. And then their discreditable stand, which I like them for. I like leaders that stick up for the legitimate interests of their people. And New England was being overlooked at this stage. The decision to go to war in 1812, for instance, was a very bad choice.

We were not at all prepared to fight for it. The Republicans, because of their priors, they believed that an all-volunteer militia would be sufficient not just to defend our own borders, but also to conquer Canada. They were wrong. The militia was not well organized, and the militia was... not available for service very far outside of their home states. And this was true in several regions of the country during the war. Famously, just as an example of this, Andrew Jackson has a ton of problems with the militia in Alabama during the Creek War.

He has to stand up to mutinies among his militia several times. Now, strangely, this does not, does not cause Jackson to question the policy of using the militia as national defense. He is always in favor of that in his whole career. He thinks they make the best soldiers. But it's really the arrival of regular army units in the end of the Creek War that cinches it for Jackson. When he fights at Horseshoe Bend, the great climactic battle of the Greek. Creek War, Jackson has just received regiments of regular infantry, including one officer Sam Houston,

who fights very gallantly at the Battle of Horseshoe Bent, destroying the sacred center, the ceremonial village of Chief Red Eagle. But it was the infantry that carried the day there. We can look at the militia's situation in Maryland in the Washington campaign as another example. It's only the militia that are actually on the spot in their home state that end up doing most of the fighting. And militia that's summoned from nearby states is either very tardy showing up or refused to go. So the Republican stance about militia was wrong. The Republicans not investing in a Navy adequately is also short-sighted.

The Americans do have a few frigates. I believe we have six. We have some other minorships at this stage as well. They do contend very gallantly on the high seas against the British. They have a number of victories. The USS Constitution, for instance, old Ironsides. This is a very noble and gallant ship with a really excellent service. They go into conflict with several British ships on the high seas and carry the day in the battles.

We have the remarkable career of Oliver Hazard Perry on Lake Erie. He builds his own fleet there. He prevails against a fleet of superior numbers. strength at Puddin Bay off of Ohio, and he wins. He famously sends the message to William Henry Harrison. We have met the enemy, and they are ours. He actually captures the British fleet on Lake Erie, and this facilitates a limited invasion of Ontario and the death of Tecumseh. But the militia is not the backbone of our national security here, contrary to the idealism of the Republicans. The federalists say we should have made some investment in national defense.

The federalists say we should use resources in time to build more adequate coastal defenses. Those were certainly needed. We should build up a Navy. New England has the resources. New England has the know-how. they should do this and that would have been a good compromise because they had been disproportionately affected by the embargo. The Republicans do not have the political wisdom to bring in the New England federalists for

these pressing security needs and they should have. President James Monroe has the good sense to do both. And he has a mandate to do both. In the era of good feelings where we see the collapse of the Federalist Party, James Monroe starts building a larger Navy

using New England shipyards and sailors. He also starts building the third system of forts. The big new master-planned coastal defense network built the construction begins

right after the war of 1812. This includes Fort Sumter in South Carolina, Fortress Monroe at Newport News in Virginia, Fort Adams in Newport, Rhode Island, Fort Warren in Boston Harbor, and great many others. The most notable forts, the most famous forts in the country are these third system forts. This is a massive building campaign. This is the biggest outlay for the military defense until the Civil War. And they're using New England brick and New England granite for these forts. They're actually patronizing New England.

And that was political wisdom because they were bringing in the disaffected sectional element. They felt alienated from the Union. They felt like they were being maliciously treated by people that did, if they, if they understood them, they were being malicious. If they did not understand them, they were dangerous to be in association with because they were so cavalier with the necessary basic economics and political interests of of the New England states. I don't think that Thomas Jefferson really understood New England's legitimate political

concerns during his administration. I don't think that he meant to offend New England as much as he did. Pickering characterizes Jefferson as malicious that he's deliberately trying to hurt us and embarrass us. I don't think that that was true. I think Pickering is is blowing things a bit out of proportion, but we can understand as well why Pickering thought the way that he did. It was a

really bad time for New England. And New England was feeling so ignored, so put upon by the federal or by the Republicans that they were driven to this scheme of secession. But I like the federalists for their advocacy for their people. And as they understood it, using the reserve powers of the states to contend for their people's interests, even to the point of bringing up a split in the union. So that's my story for tonight. you can see how important this is for the remainder of our tale of the sectional divide between the north and the south. In the decades that follow the drama of the collapse of the anti or of the federalist party, the Southerners bring up these matters and talk about the tradition of

state sovereignty, of state interposition. They bring up the embargo. They bring up the Hartford Convention. They bring up smuggling during the War of 1812. They bring up the federalist's contention for the reserved powers of the states. And it's the most important element in this argument that this idea of federalism, federalism in the sense that the states do have reserved powers and acclaim to sovereign power, that is very instrumental in the references and rhetoric of the coming conflicts between the North and the South. Ironically, we find the northern factions do not have so long of a memory on these matters, or alternately that the southerners have a more historical frame of reference. But that is my story.

It's considering the theme, just seeing how the tensions, how early, they presented themselves and you know in many cases not only between the north and the south but between you know fractions in the north and the south it's uh it's a wonder it's a wonder it's a wonder it made it's 1861 it really is it's a really interesting drama and this is something that um once again uh herbert agar goes into a lot of detail about It really is an unlikely political federation. And when we look back to 1794, we have this really interesting private conversation between John Taylor of Caroline and Rufus King about the future of the Union. And Rufus King is saying we need to split this thing up.

It's not going to work. we should do it politically before it becomes violent because Rufus King anticipated this. He anticipated unpleasant disunion, unpleasant modes of splitting up the union of the states. So it comes to a head soon after that. We see it in 1803, 1804 with the Louisiana purchase and gets diffused by the victory in 1812. But these essential differences, especially the construction of the Constitution, are very important. And obviously, we're going to talk about lots of other differences in the near term. I'm putting together information about cultural differences and ethnic differences between the North and the South.

We'll have a whole episode on that in the near future. But we'll document all the different ways that the North and the South found themselves antagonistic to one another. It's not just these constitutional matters, though this is an occasion for serious disagreement. So there are two, there are really two big interpretations about how the union would work with such big differences between regions or between individual states. There is not to confuse things, but this is the political term used to describe this. This is not a specific historical reference. The federalist solution. So federalism is supposed to be greater state autonomy.

All right. That's what federalism is supposed to mean in political science. I've talked about the federalists so much in this stream. Let's not confuse federalism with the federalist party. This is what they claimed they stood for. And we see, with the Hartford Convention, that really did have teeth. We should take them seriously when they were claiming that. The anti-federalists, in spite of their name, are more federalists, more emphasizing state sovereignty than the federalists were.

And they actually object to the federalists calling themselves federalists when they say, no, they're. They actually like central government more. They want to accumulate more central power. So you either unite all these different political communities with more state and local autonomy, or you unite them through overwhelming central power by a strong union, by a national policy, by a strong central government. So you either have to tighten your hold on them to keep them from escaping or asserting their own essential differences, or you let them do more on their own if you want to keep a union. Like there has to be some balance between those two. You have to have a union government that does some things, and you have to have the state governments that are doing other things.

but this could all spin out of control in either direction. So it's a very precarious balance. And we even see Timothy Pickering saying that very thing. He's saying, we need to assert our own regional priorities and regain our place in the political balance. those are the words he uses to describe their situation. And that is the delicacy of the American Union. All right. Mr. Bagby, tell people where they can find your work, support your work.

Yes, indeed. You can find me at www. tall menbooks.com. released a book about the Creek War in Alabama. It's called Red Eagle and the Wars of the Creek Indians. That is a very interesting biography. It has much do with Jackson in Alabama. I also have another great title that I was referencing material from this evening to Kumsa and the Quest. No, no, let's see. I forget the subtitle. It's a book about Tecumse, a biography of Tecumza by Eggleston.

And those are both available on Tallmanbooks.com. Thank you. And until the next time. Thank you very much.