Opposition to the War of 1812 was widespread in theUnited States, especially inNew England. Many New Englanders opposedthe conflict on political, economic, and religious grounds. When theEmbargo Act of 1807 failed to remedy the situation with theUnited Kingdom, with Britain refusing to rescind theOrders in Council (1807) and the French continuing their decrees, certainDemocratic-Republicans known aswar hawks felt compelled to persuade the United States government to declare war on the British. A number of contemporaries called it, "The second war for independence."[1]Henry Clay andJohn Calhoun pushed a declaration of war throughCongress, stressing the need to uphold American honor and independence. Speaking of the impact of the depressed cotton trade upon his fellowSoutherners, Calhoun told Congress that:
They see, in the low price of their produce, the hand of foreign injustice; they know well without the market to the continent, the deep and steady current of supply will glut that of Great Britain; they are not prepared for the colonial state to which again that Power [Great Britain] is endeavoring to reduce us. The manly spirit of that section of our country will not submit to be regulated by any foreign Power.[2]
Vehement protests against "Mr. Madison's War" erupted in those parts of the country where the opposition party, theFederalists, held sway, especially inConnecticut andMassachusetts. The governors of these two states, along withRhode Island, refused to place theirstate militias underfederal control for duty outside the territory of their respective states. In the ensuing1812 and 1813 United States House of Representatives elections, some members of Congress who voted for the war paid the price. Eight sitting New England congressmen were rejected by the voters, and several others saw the writing on the wall and declined to seek re-election. There was a complete turnover of theNew Hampshire delegation.[3]
Federalists were opposed to war with the United Kingdom before 1812, which can be seen in their opposition to theEmbargo of 1807. While many Democratic-Republicans thought of the war as a "test of the Republic", Federalists denounced calls for war, withJohn Randolph advisingMadison to abandon the thought of war, as it would threaten United States commerce.[4] All members of Congress that voted for war were Republicans, while twenty-two opposed declaring war, along with forty Federalists.[5] Following Madison's declaration of war, the Federalist minority in the House of Representatives released "An Address...to their constituents on the war with Great Britain", which identified the Federalists as the party of peace, rebuffing many of the points Madison made in his declaration of war.[6] As the war continued, New England Federalists maintained their opposition.
This is not to say the region as a whole opposed the national war effort. Much of the financing and a substantial portion of the army and navy came from the region. In the number of recruits furnished the regular army, only New York supplied more.Elbridge Gerry, the Vice President, andWilliam Eustis, the secretary of war, hailed from Massachusetts. A distinguished U.S. general,Henry Dearborn, came from New Hampshire, and talented naval officers such asIsaac Hull,Charles Morris, andOliver Perry were New Englanders. Just as importantly, New England sent more officially sanctioned privateers to sea than other states in the war.[7]
Opposition extended beyond financial obstruction and manifested in military noncooperation as well. Some state leaders insisted that militia forces were strictly for local defense and not to be deployed outside state borders. This state-centered interpretation of military authority led to direct conflict with federal war efforts.
A prime example occurred in November 1813, when Vermont Federalist GovernorMartin Chittenden ordered a brigade ofVermont militia stationed inPlattsburgh, New York, to return home.[8] He argued that Vermont’s troops were being misused for national defense rather than the protection of their own state—a stance grounded in the belief that the President did not have the authority to deploy state militias beyond state borders.[9] Though some officers refused to obey Chittenden’s orders, the incident underscored the extent to which New England Federalists were willing to resist federal authority.[10]
While the British blockade intensified around the southern coast in 1812–1813, New England ports remained open, allowing trade to continue. This economic advantage enabled New England to increase its manufacturing output, supplying goods to other regions cut off from British imports. However, New England’s Federalist-controlled banks largely refused to lend financial support to the war. By 1814, the federal government had borrowed over $40 million, yet less than $3 million came from New England, despite it being one of the wealthiest regions in the country.[11]
Throughout the war, Federalists in Congress stifled bills that levied more funding for the war, and in September 1814, when Madison issued a conscription bill to increase the number of men within the professional army, Federalists publicly opposed the bill and likened it toNapoleon'slevée-en-masse, once again associating Republicans with the French emperor.[12][page needed] The Federalists had no control of national policy, however. As the war dragged on, they grew increasingly frustrated. Eventually, some in New England began to advocate constitutional changes that would increase their diminished influence at the national level. TheHartford Convention, with 26 delegates fromMassachusetts,Connecticut,Rhode Island, and dissident counties inVermont andNew Hampshire, was held in December 1814 to consider remedies. It was called to discuss proposed constitutional amendments. Many Federalists within Massachusetts believed that the Hartford Convention was the only way to save the Union from Republicans, and from civil war.[13] Its final report called for several Constitutional amendments. However, when convention representatives arrived inWashington to advocate their changes, they were greeted with news of a peace treaty with the United Kingdom, theTreaty of Ghent, which essentially restored the pre-war status quo. This undercut their position, leaving them with little support. They returned home, and the decline of the Federalist Party continued.
At the outbreak of war, there was widespread resistance by many Americans, with many militias refusing to go to war, and bankers even refusing to back a Federal currency and relieve the government of its debt.[14] A Massachusetts paper, theSalem Gazette, reprinted Madison'sFederalist No. 46, in which Madison made the argument for defending states' rights against a national government, in response to the national government trying to press the state militia into national service.[15]
While a sense of patriotism offered support for the war, outside Federalist strongholds, as the war dragged on and the U.S. suffered frequent reversals on land, opposition to the war extended beyond Federalist leaders. As a result, the pool of army volunteers dried up. For example, after the Britishcaptured Fort Niagara, General George McClure tried to call up the local militia to drive them back but found that most would not respond, tired of repeated drafts and his earlier failures. Even those who did appear, McClure wrote, were more interested "in taking care of their families and property by carrying them into the interior, than helping us to fight."[16] There were many examples of other militias refusing to enter Canada, and either disobeying or simply refusing orders to move into Canadian territory.
Political opinions even interfered with communication between officers at the beginning of the war.[17][page needed] This was shown in national recruitment efforts as well: while Congress authorized theWar Department to recruit 50,000 one-year volunteers, only 10,000 could be found, and the Army never reached half of its authorized strength. A national conscription plan was proposed in Congress, but defeated with the aid ofDaniel Webster, though several states passed conscription policies. EvenKentucky, the home state of the best-known war hawkHenry Clay, was the source of only 400 recruits in 1812. It was not until the war was concluded that its retrospective popularity shot up again.[18]
Many members of the Democratic-Republican Party viewed opposition as treasonous or near-treasonous once the war was declared. TheWashington National Intelligencer wrote that, "WAR IS DECLARED, and every patriot heart must unite in its support... or die without due cause." TheAugusta Chronicle wrote that "he who is not for us is against us."[19]
This sentiment was especially strong inBaltimore, at the time a boomtown with a large population of recentFrench,Irish, andGermanimmigrants who were eager to prove theirpatriotism. In early 1812,several riots took place, centering on the anti-war Federalist newspaper theFederal Republican. Its offices were destroyed by a mob. Local and city officials, all war hawks, expressed disapproval of the violence but did little to stop it.[20] When the editors ofFederal Republican tried to return, they were removed from protective custody in jail by a mob, on the night of July 27, and tortured; oneRevolutionary War veteran,James Lingan, died of his injuries. Opponents of the war then largely ceased to openly express their opposition in Baltimore.[21] However, Federalists did take advantage of the incident to publicize Lingan's funeral in stories that were widely printed about around the country.[22]
The Baltimore riots were the height of violent backlash during the war, whose popularity dropped through 1813 and 1814. However, after the war, when theHartford Convention's proceedings became public just after a peace treaty was signed with Britain, there was a longer-term backlash against the Federalist Party, which became associated with secession and treason. The party never regained national predominance, fielding its last presidential candidate in 1816 and fading away entirely by the end of the 1820s.
The War of 1812 was the first war declared by the United States, and some historians see it as the first to develop widespread antiwar sentiment. (However, there was also anti-war sentiment during theQuasi-War and theFirst Barbary War.)[citation needed] There is little direct continuity between the opponents of the War of 1812 and later antiwar movements, as the Federalist party's objections weren't based on pacifism, and as this same "antiwar" party effectually disappeared soon after peace was concluded. The end of the war also influenced the growing unpopularity of the Federalist party, as the Hartford Convention was quickly condemned by Republicans, especially in light of the Americanvictory at New Orleans.[23][page needed]
However, the war did result in the formation of theNew York Peace Society in 1815 in an effort to prevent similar future wars. The New York Peace Society was the firstpeace organization in the United States, lasting in various incarnations until 1940. A number of other peace societies soon formed, including eventually theAmerican Peace Society, a national organization that exists to the present day. The American Peace Society was formed in 1828 by the merger of theMassachusetts Peace Society and similar societies in New York, Maine, and New Hampshire.[24]
The War of 1812 is less well known than 20th-century U.S. wars, but no other war had the degree of opposition by elected officials. Nevertheless, historianDonald R. Hickey has argued that "The War of 1812 was America's most unpopular war. It generated more intense opposition than any other war in the nation's history, including the war in Vietnam."[25]
