There’s a wiki article on the Hartford Convention. I’m not familiar with a New York secessionist movement, however New England at various times in the very early republic had some moments where they weren’t too happy with being parts of the country as a whole. The Hartford Convention and the backlash towards it pretty much ended that line of thought.
This whole scenario is honestly just too far fetched. For one, you can’t just take a guy from the 21tst century and drop him into the 19th century. He’d be so out of place culturally and socially he’d probably be locked in an insane asylum in the 19th century. So, we would have to assume then that Bush was born and raised in that time period. And, change the time period you’re raised in by hundreds of years and that will fundamentally change you as a person, so even if some of Bush’s claimed negative qualities were present in 19th century Bush they would have manifested in far different ways.
Some other points:
-We are an all volunteer military now, however we are also a far different country and it is a far different country. Joining the U.S. Army is a big deal, now. It’s not something to be done lightly, you obey orders, you do what you’re told, you go where you’re told. Not doing so has serious consequences, and it typically doesn’t even happen because you are in an organization that tries to make sure people who are likely to do that don’t get in.
In the 19th century it was very common throughout the Western world for militia forces or reserve military forces to more or less refuse to fight. Government and society in general was so less structured back then, you could as a member of a State militia refuse to go fight and unless you were one of a small handful to do so you’d get off scot free. If the entire militia refused to fight the State government in question would probably not attempt to try anyone for it.
-There was definitely dirty business relations between government and politics hundreds of years ago. The Bank of the United States was riddled with graft and corruption. The British East India Company is pretty much a clear example of the most extreme and unrealistic types of scaremongering conspiracy theorist stories you hear about bad corporations today.
-The War of 1812 has been won and lost so many times since 1815 it is sad. At a certain time period history books in the United States generally said the U.S. won that war. That was mostly jingoism at work, but just because the United States didn’t win I think it is incorrect to say we were “pathetic” or that we “lost.”
That was, firstly, a complex war, and a different war from most any we have ever fought. Militarily the United States was ill prepared for the war in the early stages and we lost several major battles. We lost the capital, however in the 19th century that effectively meant nothing (the British took Philadelphia in the Revolution and that wasn’t a big deal, nor was the taking of Boston or New York) back then major cities weren’t as important.
In the later stages of the war, the U.S. won several important battles on the border with Canada, and prevented British attempts to push south along that border from being very successful. Militarily and politically I’d say the war of 1812 was a clear stalemate on both sides. Neither side really accomplished their major objectives, nothing was really settled. One benefit for the United States may have been it helped us as a nation decide to stay out of foreign affairs for many decades to come, which was a good thing in our nation’s infancy. Another benefit for the United States would be it was sort of a stamp of approval on the revolution. We didn’t do that great in the War of 1812, but when it was over, we were still standing, and it was made apparent to all we were here to stay for a long time.