# data[].attributes.body
Artists back Kaepernick

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
On Sunday, February 3, more than 100 million Americans are expected to watch Super Bowl 53 and its halftime show. That kind of viewership means that most years, the halftime show is a coveted performance slot - but this year, it's shrouded in controversy.

Maroon 5 are set to perform, with Travis Scott and Big Boi making guest appearances. But all three acts were added to the slate late in the process, after multiple stars reportedly turned down the opportunity to appear during the halftime show. And both Maroon 5 and Travis Scott have fielded major backlash after announcing their performances.

Here's how the Super Bowl halftime show, an institution that was once the biggest showcase in American music, ended up begging for performers in 2019.

The controversy over this year's Super Bowl begins with Colin Kaepernick

In 2016, Colin Kaepernick was a backup quarterback for the San Francisco 49ers. After speaking with a former NFL player who had served as a Green Beret, he decided that he would no longer stand during the singing of the national anthem before games. Instead, in a silent act of protest against police shootings of unarmed black Americans, he would kneel. "I am not going to stand up to show pride in a flag for a country that oppresses black people and people of color," he said.

Slowly, other NFL players joined the protest, and conservative outrage mounted in response. Kneeling athletes, argued some on the right, were disrespecting the American flag, and by extension American veterans. Some conservatives urged a general NFL boycott.

President Trump chimed in, with rhetoric that amplified the already charged racial politics surrounding the protest. "You know what's hurting the game: when people like yourselves turn on television," he said at a rally with mostly white attendees in September 2017, "and you see those people" - meaning the mostly black athletes of the NFL - "taking the knee when they are playing our great national anthem."That October, Vice President Mike Pence walked out of a game when players knelt during the anthem.

The NFL at first supported its players, saying that they were encouraged but not required to stand during the playing of the national anthem. But as outrage mounted, the league changed its tune.

After becoming a free agent in the spring of 2017, Colin Kaepernick was not offered a contract from any team in the league. ( He has since filed an official grievance against the NFL, saying it colluded to keep him from working.) And in May2018, the NFL announced a new policy. Now players would be expected to stand for the anthem if they were on the sidelines but were given the option of remaining in the locker room instead. If they protested, they would be fined.

The policy was wildly unpopular, and last fall, the NFL announced that it would no longer enforce it. (Athletes have knelt in protest this season without consequence.) Kaepernick, however, remains off the field.

Rihanna, always a trendsetter, reportedly turned down the Super Bowl halftime gig. Others followed suit.

Rumblings that the 2019 Super Bowl halftime show would be unusual first began to surface in the fall, when reports emerged that the NFL had offered the headlining spot to Rihanna and she declined. Reportedly, she cited Kaepernick in her reasoning.

"The NFL and CBS really wanted Rihanna to be next year's performer in Atlanta," a source told Us Weekly in October. "They offered it to her, but she said no because of the kneeling controversy. She doesn't agree with the NFL's stance."

According to Entertainment Tonight, the NFL also reached out to Pink, but she turned them down too, when contract negotiations dragged on too long.

Eventually, reports emerged that Maroon 5 would perform at the Super Bowl. And before the story was ever confirmed by either the NFL or Maroon 5, thousands of people signed a Change.org petition calling on the group to drop out.

"Kaepernick risked his career to take a knee for equality, and the NFL punished him for it," wrote petition starter Vic Oyedeji. "Until the league changes their policy and support players' constitutional right to protest, no artists should agree to work with the NFL. Join me in asking Maroon 5 to drop out of the 2019 Super Bowl halftime show." The petition currently has over 110,000 signatures.

"I think it would be cool if [Maroon 5] backed out of super bowl like [Rihanna] Did," wrote comedian Amy Schumer on Instagram. She added that she was refusing to appear in any Super Bowl commercials for 2019. (Schumer did not say whether she was offered any commercials this year, but she's done Super Bowl commercials in the past, including a Bud Light commercial with Seth Rogen in 2016.) "I know opposing the nfl is like opposing the nra," she wrote. "Very tough, but don't you want to be proud of how you're living?"

"You know, I think that when you look back at every single halftime show, people just can't - it's this like insatiable urge to hate a little bit," Maroon 5 frontman Adam Levine told Entertainment Tonight of the controversy. "I'm not in the right profession if I can't handle a little bit of controversy. It's what it is. We expected it. We'd like to move on from it."

In the wake of the controversy, Maroon 5 were reportedly desperate for an artist of color to perform with

As the Super Bowl approached with no sign of a guest performer, rumors emerged that Maroon 5 were desperate to find someone, ideally an artist of color, to perform with them, and they couldn't get anyone to say yes.

In December, Variety reported that the band had reached out to "more than a half-dozen stars" to join them for the halftime show, including André Benjamin (a.k.a. André 3000 of Outkast), Mary J. Blige, Usher, Lauryn Hill, and Nicki Minaj. But every last one, Variety reported, said no.

The obvious choice to fill the featured guest artist slot would have been Cardi B. Cardi collaborated with Maroon 5 on a remix of "Girls Like Us" in 2018, and her star is only rising; her name had been in the mix for featured guest artist starting in September, well before Maroon 5 was even confirmed. But in December, she reportedly declined the offer.

Reports vary as to why Cardi said no. One source told Page Six that she would only do it if the NFL offered her $1 million (halftime performers are typically unpaid). But another said that Cardi, like Rihanna, was standing in solidarity with Colin Kaepernick, and that she would only consider performing "when they hire Colin Kaepernick back."

Cardi has long been vocal in her support of Kaepernick. At the 2017 MTVVideo Music Awards, she used her acceptance speech for Best New Artist as an opportunity to shout him out, saying, "Colin Kaepernick: As long as you kneel with us, we gonna be standing for you, baby."

A rep for Cardi B told Page Six that the reports she was demanding $1 million are false, and that while "she was not particularly interested in participating because of how she feels about Colin Kaepernick and the whole movement," she didn't actually turn down the Super Bowl because "there was never a solid offer for her to say yes or no to."

Travis Scott has tried to avoid backlash for taking the halftime gig. It might have backfired.

Shortly after news leaked that Cardi B would not be performing, two new names took center stage: Outkast rapper Big Boi and rapper Travis Scott.

Big Boi has largely avoided making too much noise about his appearance, and considering that Super Bowl 53 is taking place at Atlanta's Mercedes-Benz Stadium, his status as a representative of the Atlanta music scene at an Atlanta-hosted Super Bowl may have softened the criticism against him. ( A sub-controversy of sorts, hidden beneath the Kaepernick protests, centered on outrage over the idea that a Super Bowl halftime show in a city with a rich hip-hop history like Atlanta would spotlight primarily white artists.)

But Scott, who told Rolling Stone in December that he was beginning to get involved with progressive politics, and who stumped for Texas Senate candidate and Ted Cruz challenger Beto O'Rourke in last fall's midterm elections, immediately drew heavy criticism. Jay-Z reportedly tried to talk him out of taking the job.

"I think he should do what a lot of other major artists have done: say 'I'm not going to participate," said Rev. Al Sharpton. "You can't fight against Jim Crow and then go sit in the back of the bus."

In an apparent move to neutralize the criticism against him, Scott announced in January that he will donate $500,000 in partnership with the NFL to the nonprofit organization Dream Corps, along with "other initiatives that he will work with the League on."

"I back anyone who takes a stand for what they believe in," said Scott. "I know being an artist that it's in my power to inspire."

Almost immediately after he announced his donation, Scott officially confirmed that he would be performing with Maroon 5 at the Super Bowl halftime show. A "source close to Scott" told Variety that Scott spoke with Kaepernick before he made his decision and that the two had reached a place of "mutual respect," but Kaepernick later retweeted a statement from his girlfriend that declared that "there is NO mutual respect" between them.

"Colin doesn't tell Travis what he can and can't do," fired back a Scott source. "That's Travis' decision."

Meanwhile, Gladys Knight, the Empress of Soul, announced in January that she would be singing the national anthem to open the game. She defended her choice strongly.

"I understand that Mr. Kaepernick is protesting two things and they are police violence and injustice. It is unfortunate that our National Anthem has been dragged into this debate when the distinctive senses of the National Anthem and fighting for justice should each stand alone," Knight said in a statement to E! News. "I am here today and on Sunday, Feb. 3 to give the Anthem back its voice, to stand for that historic choice of words, the way it unites us when we hear it and to free it from the same prejudices and struggles I have fought long and hard for all my life."

For his part, Kaepernick has declined to comment directly on the controversy. He occasionally retweets others' statements about the issue, but he doesn't tweet about ithimself, and he never grants interviews. "He has grown wise to the power of his silence," said a GQ profile in 2017.

In many ways, that's fitting. This Super Bowl 53 halftime show controversy is one that, like Kaepernick's activism, is defined by silence. It is defined by artists declining to raise their voices in service of the NFL - despite the 100 million viewers the NFL can offer them.

Correction: An earlier version of this story credited reports that the NFL had approached Pink to Entertainment Weekly. The outlet was actually Entertainment Tonight.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
The Super Bowl halftime show controversies, explained

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
On Sunday, February 3, more than 100 million Americans are expected to watch Super Bowl 53 and its halftime show. That kind of viewership means that most years, the halftime show is a coveted performance slot - but this year, it's shrouded in controversy.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Top 10 American National Anthem Performance Fails

# data[].attributes.body
Star Spangled Lyrics + Meaning

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Francis Scott Key - Star Spangled Banner

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
O say can you see by the dawn's early light / What so proudly we hailed at the twilight's last gleaming? / Whose broad stripes and bright stars through the perilous fight / O'er

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Refusing to Stand for the National Anthem: Top 3 Pros and Cons

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Article about the pros and cons of refusing to stand for the National Anthem.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Nike is leaning into the National Football League national anthem debate by putting the man who started it all in a new "Just Do It" campaign. Colin Kaepernick-who began sitting out the anthem in 2016 as a way to protest social inequalities-stars in a new ad Nike released on Monday via Kaepernick's Twitter handle.

The tweet shows the former San Francisco 49er staring straight ahead with the following copy beneath his eyes: "Believe in something. Even if it means sacrificing everything." The tweet includes the Nike swoosh and the "Just Do It" slogan.

Believe in something, even if it means sacrificing everything. #JustDoIt pic.twitter.com/SRWkMIDdaO
- Colin Kaepernick (@Kaepernick7) September 3, 2018

A Nike spokeswoman stated in an email that the ad is part of a broader campaign by Wieden & Kennedy that commemorates the 30th anniversary of the "Just Do It" tagline and includes other athletes. One ad shows Serena Williams, stating: "Girls from Compton don't play tennis. They own it." A Nike TV ad starring Williams has aired during the U.S. Open.

But the Kaepernick ad will likely steal most of the attention because of the emotional nature of the anthem debate.

Kaepernick began his protest in 2016 by sitting during the anthem in a pre-season game. In subsequent games, he knelt, sparking a movement that other players joined to protest police brutality and social inequities. It started a national debate that continues today, luring in President Donald Trump, who has criticized players who kneel. It would not be surprising if the tweeter-in-chief weighs in on the Nike ad.

The NFL could not be reached for comment at press time.

Plenty of other people already have commented. Just a couple hours after it was posted, Kaepernick's tweet had already drawn more than 56,000 retweets, 127,740 likes and plenty of comments. It sparked the predictable amount of backlash and support for an issue that divided the nation. Some people claimed they would boycott Nike, while others praised the company for taking a stand.

Fuck. Yes. @Nike, you've kept my business for decades and I don't see myself going anywhere for a long time. @Kaepernick7, keep going. We're cheering you on. @realDonaldTrump When do we get to read your Twitter tirade about this????????? https://t.co/RM1Jg4venR
- Jamie Neal (@TheJamieNeal) September 3, 2018

Yes. I will just do it. #BoycottNike pic.twitter.com/iG8bWbBAVp
- Superman (@Catholic2011) September 3, 2018

Kaepernick in 2016 explained his protest this way: "I'm going to continue to stand with the people that are being oppressed. To me, this is something that has to change. When there's significant change and I feel that flag represents what it's supposed to represent, and this country is representing people the way that it's supposed to, I'll stand."

Kaepernick entered free agency in 2017 and has not played since. He has accused team owners of keeping him off the field because of hs role in the protest. He claimed a legal victory last week when an arbitrator ruled that his grievance should proceed. The NFL had sought to dismiss the case. His lawyer, Mark Geragos, released the finding on Twitter.

Breaking news @Kaepernick7 pic.twitter.com/mAYhkRKwB9
- Mark Geragos (@markgeragos) August 30, 2018

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Nike enters NFL anthem debate with Kaepernick ad

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Nike is leaning into the National Football League national anthem debate by putting the man who started it all in a new "Just Do It" campaign. Colin Kaepernick-who began sitting out the anthem in 2016 as a way to protest social inequalities-stars in a new ad Nike released on Monday via Kaepernick's Twitter handle.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
The War of 1812 is generally thought to have been provoked by American outrage over the impressment of American sailors by the Britain's Royal Navy. And while impressment was a major factor behind the declaration of war by the United States against Britain, there were other significant issues fueling the American march toward war.

During the first three decades of American independence there was a general feeling that the British government had very little respect for the young United States.

And during the Napoleonic Wars the British government actively sought to meddle with - or completely suppress - American trade with European nations.

British arrogance and hostility went so far as to include a deadly attack by the British frigate HMS Leopard upon USS Chesapeake in 1807. The Chesapeake and Leopard affair, which began when the British officer boarded the American ship demanding to seize sailors believed to be deserters from British ships, nearly triggered a war.

In late 1807, President Thomas Jefferson, seeking to avoid war while calming public outcry against British insults to American sovereignty, had enacted the Embargo Act of 1807. The law succeeded in avoiding a war with Britain at the time.

However, the Embargo Act was generally seen as a failed policy, as turned out to be more harmful to the United States than to its intended targets, Britain and France.

When James Madison became president in early 1809 he also sought to avoid war with Britain.

But British actions, and a continuing drumbeat for war in the U.S. Congress, seemed destined to make make a new war with Britain unavoidable.

The slogan "Free Trade and Sailor's Rights" became a rallying cry.

Madison, Congress, and the Move Toward War

In early June 1812 President James Madison sent a message to Congress in which he listed complaints about British behavior toward America.

Madison raised several issues:

Impressment

Continual harassment of American commerce by British warships

British laws, known as Orders in Council, declaring blockades against American ships bound for European ports

Attacks by "savages" on "one of our extensive frontiers" believed to be instigated by British troops in Canada

The U.S. Congress was being steered at the time by an aggressive faction of young legislators in the House of Representatives known as the War Hawks.

Henry Clay, a leader of the War Hawks, was a young member of Congress from Kentucky. Representing the views of Americans living in the West, Clay believed that war with Britain would not only restore American prestige, it would also provide a great benefit in territory.

An openly stated goal of the western War Hawks was for the United States to invade and seize Canada. And there was a common, though deeply misguided, belief that it would be easy to achieve. (Once the war began, American actions along the Canadian border tended to be frustrating at best, and Americans never came close to conquering the British territory.)

The War of 1812 has often been called "America's Second War for Independence," and that title is appropriate.

The young United States government was determined to make Britain respect it.

The United States Declared War In June 1812

Following the message sent by President Madison, the United States Senate and the House of Representatives held votes on whether to go to war.

The vote in the House of Representatives was held on June 4, 1812, and members voted 79 to 49 to go to war.

In the House vote, the members of Congress supporting the war tended to be from the South and West, and those opposed from the Northeast.

The U.S. Senate, on June 17, 1812, voted 19 to 13 to go to war.

In the Senate the vote also tended to be along regional lines, with most of the votes against the war coming from the Northeast.

With so many members of Congress voting against going to war, the War of 1812 was always controversial.

The official Declaration of War was signed by President James Madison on June 18, 1812. It read as follows:

Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, That war be and is hereby declared to exist between the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland and the dependencies thereof, and the United States of America and their territories; and the President of the United States is hereby authorized to use the whole land and naval force of the United States, to carry the same into effect, and to issue private armed vessels of the United States commissions or letters of marque and general reprisal, in such form as he shall think proper, and under the seal of the United States, against the vessels, goods, and effects of the government of the said United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland, and the subjects thereof.

American Preparations

While the war not declared until late June 1812, the United States government had been actively making preparations for the outbreak of war. In early 1812 the Congress had passed a law actively calling for volunteers for the U.S. Army, which had remained fairly small in the years following independence.

American forces under the command of General William Hull had started marching from Ohio toward Fort Detroit (site of present day Detroit, Michigan) in late May 1812. The plan was for Hull's forces to invade Canada, and the proposed invasion force was already in position by the time war was declared.

(The invasion proved to be a disaster, however, when Hull surrendered Fort Detroit to the British that summer.)

American naval forces had also been prepared for the outbreak of war. And given the slowness of communication, some American ships in the early summer of 1812 attacked British ships whose commanders had not yet learned of the official outbreak of the war.

Widespread Opposition to the War

The fact that the war was not universally popular proved to be a problem, especially when the early phases of the war, such as the military fiasco at Fort Detroit, went badly.

Even before the fighting began, opposition to the war caused major problems. In Baltimore a riot broke out when a vocal anti-war faction was attacked. In other cities speeches against the war were popular. A young lawyer in New England, Daniel Webster, delivered an eloquent address about the war on July 4, 1812. Webster noted that he opposed the war, but as it was now national policy, he was obligated to support it.

Though patriotism often ran high, and was boosted by some of the successes of the underdog U.S. Navy, the general feeling in some parts of the country, particularly New England, was that the war had been a bad idea.

As it became obvious that the war would be costly and may prove to be impossible to win militarily, the desire to find a peaceful end to the conflict intensified. American officials were eventually dispatched to Europe to work toward a negotiated settlement, the result of which was the Treaty of Ghent.

When the war officially ended with the signing of the treaty, there was no clear winner. And, on paper, both sides admitted that things would return to how they had been before hostilities began.

However, in a realistic sense, the United States had proven itself to be an independent nation capable of defending itself. And Britain, perhaps from having noticed that the American forces seemed to become stronger as the war went on, made no further attempts to undermine American sovereignty.

And one result of the war, which was noted by Albert Gallatin, the secretary of the treasury, was that the controversy around it, and the way the nation came together, had essentially united the nation.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
It Wasn't Just About Impressment: Cause of the War of 1812

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
The War of 1812 is generally thought to have been provoked by American outrage over the impressment of American sailors by the Britain's Royal Navy. And while impressment was a major factor behind the declaration of war by the United States against Britain, there were other significant issues fueling the American march toward war.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
When the United States declared war against Britain in June 1812, the vote on the declaration of war in the Congress was fairly close, reflecting how unpopular the war was to large segments of the American public.

Though one of the main reasons for the war had to do with the rights of sailors on the high seas and the protection of American shipping, the senators and representatives from the maritine states of New England tended to vote against the war.

Sentiment for war was perhaps strongest in the western states and territories, where a faction known as the War Hawks believed that the United States could invade present day Canada and seize territory from the British.

The debate about the war had been going on for many months, with newspapers, which tended to be highly partisan in that era, proclaiming pro-war or anti-war positions.

The declaration of war was signed by President James Madison on June 18, 1812, but for many that did not settle the matter.

Opposition to the war continued. Newspapers blasted the Madison administration, and some state governments went so far as to essentially obstruct the war effort.

In some cases opponents to the war engaged in protests, and in one noteworthy incident, a mob in Baltimore attacked a group which opposed the war. One of the victims of the mob violence in Baltimore, who suffered serious injuries from which he never fully recovered, was the father of Robert E.

Lee.

Newspapers Attacked the Madison Administration Move Toward War

The War of 1812 began against a backdrop of intense political battling within the United States. The Federalists of New England were opposed to the idea of war, and the Jeffersonian Republicans, including President James Madison, were very suspicious of them.

A huge controversy broke out when it was revealed that the Madison administration had paid a former British agent for information on Federalists and their suspected connections to the British government.

The information provided by the spy, a shady character named John Henry, never amounted to anything that could be proven. But the bad feelings engendered by Madison and members of his administration influenced partisan newspapers early in 1812.

Northeastern newspapers regularly denounced Madison as corrupt and venal. There was a strong suspicion among the Federalists that Madison and his political allies wanted to go to war with Britain to bring the United States closer to the France of Napoleon Bonaparte.

Newspapers on the other side of the argument argued that the Federalists were an "English party" in the United States that wanted to splinter the nation and somehow return it to British rule.

Debate over the war - even after it had been declared - dominated the summer of 1812. At a public gathering for the Fourth of July in New Hampshire, a young New England attorney, Daniel Webster, gave an oration which was quickly printed and circulated.

Webster, who had not yet run for public office, denounced the war, but made a legal point: "It is now the law of the land, and as such we are bound to regard it."

State Governments Opposed the War Effort

One of the arguments against the war was that the United States was simply not prepared, as it had a very small army. There was an assumption that state militias would bolster the regular forces, but as the war began the governors of Connecticut, Rhode Island, and Massachusetts refused to comply with the federal request for militia troops.

The position of the New England state governors was that the president of the United States could only requisition the state militia to defend the nation in the event of an invasion, and no invasion of the country was imminent.

The state legislature in New Jersey passed a resolution condemning the declaration of war, terming it "inexpedient, ill-timed, and most dangerously impolitic, sacrificing at once countless blessings." The legislature in Pennsylvania took the opposite approach, and passed a resolution condemning the New England governors who were opposing the war effort.

Other state governments issued resolutions taking sides. And it is clear that in the summer of 1812 the United States was going to war despite a large split in the country.

A Mob in Baltimore Attacked Opponents of the War

In Baltimore, a thriving seaport at the beginning of the war, public opinion generally tended to favor the declaration of war. In fact, privateers from Baltimore were already setting sail to raid British shipping in the summer of 1812, and the city would eventually become, two years later, the focus of a British attack.

On June 20, 1812, two days after war was declared, a Baltimore newspaper, the Federal Republican, published a blistering editorial denouncing the war and the Madison administration. The article angered many citizens of the city, and two days later, on June 22, a mob descended on the newspaper's office and destroyed its printing press.

The publisher of the Federal Republican, Alexander C. Hanson, fled the city for Rockville, Maryland. But Hanson was determined to return and continue publishing his attacks on the federal government.

With a group of supporters, including two notable veterans of the Revolutionary War, James Lingan and General Henry Lee (the father of Robert E. Lee), Hanson arrived back in Baltimore a month later, on July 26, 1812. Hanson and his associates moved into a brick house in the city. The men were armed, and they essentially fortified the house, fully expecting another visit from an angry mob.

A group of boys gathered outside the house, shouting taunts and throwing stones.

Guns, presumably loaded with blank cartridges, were fired from an upper floor of the house to disperse the growing crowd outside. The stone throwing became more intense, and windows of the house were shattered.

The men in the house began shooting live ammunition, and a number of people in the street were wounded. A local doctor was killed by a musket ball. The mob was driven to a frenzy.

Responding to the scene, the authorities negotiated the surrender of the men in the house. About 20 men were escorted to the local jail, where they were housed for their own protection.

A mob assembled outside the jail on the night of July 28, 1812, forced its way inside, and attacked the prisoners. Most of the men were severely beaten, and James Lingan, an elderly veteran of the American Revolution, was killed, reportedly by being struck in the head with a hammer.

General Henry Lee was beaten senseless, and his injuries probably contributed to his death several years later. Hanson, the publisher of the Federal Republican, survived, but was also severely beaten. One of Hanson's associates, John Thompson, was beaten by the mob, dragged through the streets, and tarred and feathered.

Lurid accounts of the Baltimore riot were printed in American newspapers. People were particularly shocked by the killing of James Lingam, who had been wounded while serving as an officer in the Revolutionary War and had been a friend of George Washington.

Following the riot, tempers cooled in Baltimore. Alexander Hanson moved to Georgetown, on the outskirts of Washington, D.C., where he continued to publish a newspaper denouncing the war and mocking the government.

Opposition to the war continued in some parts of the country. But over time the debate cooled off and more patriotic concerns, and a desire to defeat the British, took precedence.

At the end of the war, Albert Gallatin, the nation's treasury secretary, expressed a belief that the war had unified the nation in many ways, and had lessened a focus on purely local or regional interests. Of the American people at the end of the war, Gallatin wrote:

"They are more Americans; they feel and act more as a nation; and I hope that the permanency of the Union is thereby better secured."

Regional differences, of course, would remain a permanent part of American life. Before the war had officially ended, legislators from the New England states gathered at the Hartford Convention and argued for changes in the U.S. Constitution.

The members of the Hartford Convention were essentially federalists who had opposed the war. Some of them argued that states which had not wanted the war should split from the federal government. The talk of secession, more than four decades before the Civil War, did not lead to any substantial action. The official end of the War of 1812 with the Treaty of Ghent occurred and the ideas of the Hartford Convention faded away.

Later events, events such as the Nullification Crisis, the prolonged debates about slavery in America, the secession crisis, and the Civil War still pointed to regional splits in the nation. But Gallatin's larger point, that the debate over the war ultimately bound the country together, had some validity.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
America Was Deeply Split Over Decision to Go to War in 1812

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
When the United States declared war against Britain in June 1812, the vote on the declaration of war in the Congress was fairly close, reflecting how unpopular the war was to large segments of the American public.