How did the War of 1812 cause internal problems in the US?

Question

in additon, how did the war of 1812 end and what were the terms of the Treaty of Ghent?

Answer 1

Formal negotiations opened in Ghent, Belgium, in August 1814 between the United States and Great Britain. At first Great Britain was pushing for tough treaty results but as negotiations continued, news of the British losses at Lake Champlain, Lake Erie and Baltimore arrived, changing the British outlook. They promptly came to agreement to essentially return to the pre-war status quo, and signed the Treaty of Ghent on December 24, 1814.

When President Madison (June 1812) recommended a Declaration of war upon Great Britain it passed the Congress by only very narrow margins in both Houses reflecting the lack of commitment and sectionalism throughout the country. In general, the Northeast was not in favor of the war while the South and West were supporting it to gain Florida and Canada by conquest and receive redress British violations of American rights on the high seas. However, it can be argued that the more serious fracture within the United States was Constitutional. That is, the nature and extent of federal power over State militia. The Constitution gave Congress the power “To provide for the calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress insurrections, and repel Invasions” And, “To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining the Militia, and for governing such Part of them as may be employed in the Service of the United States.” (re: Article I, Section 8, Clauses 15 & 16).

While it seems apparent that this gave full control to the federal government over State militias where necessary, several New England States refused to permit their militia to be commanded by federal officers or to become an integral part of the army of the United States. Events occurred such as:
The State Supreme Court of Massachusetts ruling that neither the President nor Congress had the authority to determine ‘when’ the militia should be called out, since this right was not specifically mentioned in the Constitution.
The Connecticut legislature resolved that the Constitution did not authorize the use of State militia to support an offensive war.
All New England States attempted to ban service of their militia outside of their respective States and in effect built up separate State armies for their own defense against British attack.

Several years after the war closed, the Supreme Court in Martin v. Mott [1827] upheld the President’s right, under authority of Congress, to be the sole judge of the existence of those contingencies specified in the Constitution upon which the militia might be called out. The court added that the President’s decision was binding upon State authorities and that the State militia in federal service was subject to the authority of officers appointed by the President.

A related issue was the States of Connecticut and Massachusetts practically nullifying the so called “Enlistment of Minors Act,” passed in 1814.

There were other issues but the preceding demonstrates that the United States was still developing in the context of testing and stretching as to what the Constitution of the United States meant. .

Answer 2

The US was split over this war. The War Hawks, led by Henry Clay of Kentucky, wanted to annex Canada; the mercantile classes, mainly from New England, did not want to disrupt trade with England, which was the source of many an American livelihood.

Furthermore, the war provided additional British support to Native Americans resisting the westward expansion of the U.S. When the war ended, so did this support.