Was the War of 1812 the closest thing the United States had to an existential war after independence?
?
>>18701421The Confederacy wasn't going to annex the Union or take significant Union territory if the Union lost. There were real fears that the Brits could re-annex the United States or at least take over large swathes of it if they won 1812.
>>18701654>existentialThe fact that the Confederacy existed meant the Union was dissoluble. If states could successfully leave the Union, the 'United States' as an entity would not exist.>at least take over large swathes of itAnd the Confederacy would not take large swathes of what had been the United States if they won?
>>18701663>The fact that the Confederacy existed meant the Union was dissoluble. If states could successfully leave the Union, the 'United States' as an entity would not exist.States always could and always can successfully leave the Union. The Tenth Amendment makes this very clear; secession is not in the constitution, so therefore it is up to individual states to decide it's legality.If you are to claim Texas v. White refutes this, then Texas v. White was what decided the indissolubility of the Union and not the Civil War.>And the Confederacy would not take large swathes of what had been the United States if they won?The fact that the majority of those sections of the United States had voted to secede before the war meant the United States had already lost those territories prior to war.It was existential for the Confederacy, but the Confederacy was no longer part of the United States.
>>18701403Probably, but "closest thing" is doing a lot of heavy lifting there. Between Neptune and pluto, Neptune is also the "closest thing" to earth.
>>18701671>States always could and always can successfully leave the Union.If the 'United Staes,' as mentioned in the OP, can become the 'Disunited States,' then that is the definition of an existential threat.>the majority of those sections of the United States had voted to secede before the war So the states that seceded after the war started counted as lost territory to the Union. What would have happened if Maryland seceded? Between the riots, the destruction of the rails, and the strong pro Confederate sentiment, it was not implausible. What would have happened if, after both Virginia and Maryland seceded, the capital of the Union was firmly positioned in, as you say, the geographical borders of a hostile nation?
>>18701706>If the 'United Staes,' as mentioned in the OP, can become the 'Disunited States,' then that is the definition of an existential threat.How is it an existential threat if the option for disunion had been baked into the constitution since 1791?If the Union is doing what had always been permitted by it's foundational documents and principles (that being dissolving), then it isn't an existential threat but an aspect of it's existence.>So the states that seceded after the war started counted as lost territory to the Union.There's an argument for that being the case given the direct cause of their secession was the war, but there's an argument against it since the right of states to secede was still baked into the constitution. I'm undecided and don't see it as particularly important since the territory the United States stood to lose in 1812 dwarfed Virginia, Arkansas, North Carolina and Tennessee by comparison.>What would have happened if Maryland seceded?Now we're getting into hypotheticals. By that logic WWI would have been an existential war because of the Zimmermann telegram, or WWII because of the Nazi nuclear program.
>>18701403well it was certainly our first existential crisis.we could very well have lost much of our independence.
>>18701778>If the Union's existence permits its non existence, then a war forcing its non existence is not existential.It does not matter if the Union permits its own dissolution. If the Union is at risk of being dissolved, then the war is existential. By analogy, you are arguing 'because the body can trigger its own death, it running a too-high fever is not threatening its life.'> I'm undecided and don't see it as particularly important since the territory the United States stood to lose in 1812 dwarfed Virginia, Arkansas, North Carolina and Tennessee by comparison.I calculate those four states as 17.5% of the landmass of the Union on April 15, 1861, excluding of course the Confederate states since you treat them as a separate entity. What states in the 1812 map did Britain threaten to annex, such that the total area was greater than 17.5%?>hypotheticalsNo less hypothetical than your 'there were real fears that the Brits could re-annex the United States or at least take over large swathes of it if they won 1812.'
>>18701836>By analogy, you are arguing 'because the body can trigger its own death, it running a too-high fever is not threatening its life.'Incorrect analogy. It's more like a lizard dropping it's tail.A lizard accidentally dropping it's tail and then fighting it's own severed tail to try to force it back in the joint isn't an existential fight for the lizard.>What states in the 1812 map did Britain threaten to annex, such that the total area was greater than 17.5%?Aside from the threat of them annexing the entirety of the United States, they claimed northern Maine, and Missouri, Illinois, Michigan, Indiana and Mississippi territories could have all been up for grabs.>No less hypothetical than your 'there were real fears that the Brits could re-annex the United States or at least take over large swathes of it if they won 1812.'You are correct that it is "no less hypothetical," because it is far more hypothetical.Britain re-annexing the United States was a very real fear at the time, unlike Maryland seceding or Mexico actually taking the southwestern United States.
>>18701836>>18701850I should add; Britain marched on D.C. and burnt the White House. Maryland never proposed a vote for secession and Mexico declined Germany's offer of allegiance.
>>18701850>You are correct that it is "no less hypothetical," because it is far more hypothetical.touche>annexing the entirety of the United StatesPlease source this. Saying there were fears of this happening does not make it an existential threat.>territoriesIrrelevant. Territories are not part of the Union.Also, you are bouncing between existential threat meaning 'taking a bunch of territory' and 'breaking the political identity of the nation (eg annexation),' as it suits you. What do you consider to be 'existential?'
>>18701862>burnt the White HouseSo the destruction of a building is an existential threat?>Maryland never proposed a vote for secession They held such a vote on April 29.
>>18701862You do realize the burning of the White House was more of a symbolic thing right? Real life isn't an RTS videogame where taking down the enemies head of state building is the only win condition
>>18701864>Saying there were fears of this happening does not make it an existential threat.Fair point, but we're talking about the "closest thing [...] to an existential war," rather than exclusively actual existential wars. Americans fearing for their own existence during the war of 1812, even if unreasonable, would fit that bill, albeit I now see how that could also apply to the Civil War.>Also, you are bouncing between existential threat meaning 'taking a bunch of territory' and 'breaking the political identity of the nation (eg annexation),' as it suits you. What do you consider to be 'existential?'Again, since we had been talking about the "closest thing [...] to an existential war," I had felt it encompassed both to some extent.>>18701867>So the destruction of a building is an existential threat?The actual sacking of a nation's capital is a more reasonable existential fear than the possibility of a vote or possibility of an alliance between enemies.>They held such a vote on April 29.Fair. Sort of does away with the argument about a potential secession of Maryland, though.
>>18701403the so-called "Patriot War" of 1837-1838 brought on an unusual series of challenges, and show the limit of any government to exercise control against the will of the people. The short version:> With hard feelings left over after the War of 1812, a bunch of random Americans and Candians get together and decide to have a US-style revolution in Canada> The loyalists who left American during the revolution had been given power/control in Canada, and their close inter-married group (called the "family compact"), held all power, money and land. The revolution was also about overturning them> meeting in secret groups they called 'hunters lodges", they planned armed attacks in CanadaThe interesting thing here is that both the US and Canadian government were against any revolution; but both were almost powerless to stop anything before it happened. In Detroit, the government captured and seized weapons from the "patriots"; but the 'patriots' simply broke into the jail and stole the weapons back.The final 'battle' happened across from Detroit in Windsor, and there over the frozen river there was an odd showdown in the middle between the American and Canadian officials, with each waiting to either arrest or kill any revolutionaries who tried to cross back into the US.
>>18701891>Sort of does away with the argument about a potential secession of Maryland, though.Not for the first two weeks of the war.>Spends the whole thread saying the Civil War was not an existential war for the Union.>we're talking about the "closest thing [...] to an existential war," rather than exclusively actual existential warsAlright, I'm done.
>>18701904>Alright, I'm done.I mean, I imagine you would be. That was my concession after all.>I now see how that could also apply to the Civil War.
