• We have updated our Community Code of Conduct. Please read through the new rules for the forum that are an integral part of Paradox Interactive’s User Agreement.
Jackson: Watching Texas

Jackson’s Bills, known as the “Westward Package” by certain senators, passed with flying colors. Only the Texas Act gained any noticeable resistance, with 20 outright nays and as many as 10 abstains. Yet Jackson’s will had been done, and so he moved on in January to a more peaceful subject. Upon his drafting of the Colonization Bill and Texas Act, Jackson was apparently struck with an abject fear of being remembered as simply a warmonger who used military might willy-nilly.
The result of Jackson’s fear was the Ashburton-Forsyth Treaty [1], signed on January 14th, which transferred the contested British territory of Northern Maine to the control of the United States. The treaty however, contained one clause in favour of the British. It confirmed America’s commitment against the Atlantic Slave Trade, and with its signing US officials were now threatened with penalties for failing to act against slave traders.
This clause was expected to see uproar in the Senate, as it was said by one Whig to be the British forcing laws on Americans. Yet it did not. Apparently the fact that the question of Maine had been solved for good absolved Jackson’s sin of bending to the whims of a foreign power. Within days Maine had confirmed its anti-slavery laws in accordance with the pleas Senator Archibald Cartwright had been sending for the last decade.

us18362.jpg

1. The internationally recognized borders of the United States on January 14th 1836.​

Jackson then once more shifted his attention to Texas. His “Enforcers” had left for Oregon and Washington the day the Colonization Bill had been passed, and at that time were supposedly passing the northern border of Texas. To the south of their position, the Mexican 3rd Army was laying waste to the area round Amarillo. Santa Anna’s plan was to break the back of Texan resistance by “turning the republic into a graveyard”. The general himself witnessed none of the destruction caused to Northern Texas. He took command of the 2nd Army personally and headed for San Antonio.
The commander of the Texan Armed Forces, General Sam Houston, knew that his army only stood a chance if they caught Santa Anna off guard. So on the night of February 16th 1836, after the Mexicans had settled down in and around a small town about 12 miles from San Antonio, Houston attacked with his cavalry. Santa Anna’s force was thrown into disarray by the charge, and was unable to recover properly before Houston had already gone back to his original positions, and ordered his artillery to fire on the town.
The Mexican attempt at counterattack against the Texan force, which was on higher ground, turned into a three-day bloodbath. Santa Anna’s men were unable to get past the improvised trenches of the Texan infantry, and suffered intolerable casualties every time Houston’s cavalry sallied down the hill. The Mexicans withdrew from the San Antonio area on February 20th, having lost 2541 dead. Houston had lost 1640 men, but unlike Santa Anna, he could not afford it.

sanantonio.jpg

2. A highly romanticized painting of the battle from the late 1840’s.​

Houston’s army had used up most of its ammunition at San Antonio [2], and so he asked the government for more. The fledgling republic’s representatives knew they had no stockpile in Texas, so they turned to the United States, or more specifically, Jackson. The president immediately set up a system with which to get the ammunition and weapons the Texans needed, without having to ask the Senate for permission. He simply told the American units on the Texan border to sign all of their shipments of materiel as having arrived, when in fact almost two thirds of it would cross the border and travel to Houston’s army. Jackson’s Underground Railway [3] was born.
Having filled the ranks of the dead by recruiting any able-bodied Texan man he could find, and received the American materiel, Houston moved north. As Houston did this, Santa Anna gathered the Mexican armies into one unified force. He then marched on the Texan capital of Austin. Upon receiving news of Santa Anna’s movements, Houston, already halfway between Amarillo and Austin, made a full turn.
The Texans caught up to Santa Anna’s grand army on July 6th. Houston declined a full on assault, knowing that they would lose in a test of manpower. Instead he opted to send a messenger to Austin, telling the government to evacuate as a precaution [4]. The following week was spent in a continuous running battle toward Austin.
The Texans harassed the Mexican column non-stop, destroying many of Santa Anna’s personal belongings in the process, so that by the time the column reached the outskirts of the city, it was exhausted from marching and having to stay awake day and night in order to guard against Houston’s raids. The vast majority of the Texans on the other hand, were well rested, having made a dash for Austin and let the cavalry do the damage. Even so, Houston’s horses were in much better health than Santa Anna’s most high ranking officers on July 14th.
The battle of Austin’s outcome was thus never in any real doubt. Santa Anna’s troops were completely incapable of fighting as determinedly as the Texans. The battle turned into a five day a bloodbath like San Antonio, the only difference being the streams of Austin citizens delivering what food and drink they had to their soldiers during lulls in the fighting.

amarillo.jpg

3. William Henry Huddle’s painting, “Field of Dreams”, also known as “Austin”.​

Santa Anna was forced to flee the field of battle yet again, having wasted the lives of a further 9823 Mexicans. Houston’s forces had lost 3498 men, but the fighting for Austin had effectively crushed Mexican hopes of victory in Texas. The next day, Houston wrote Jackson a letter, personally thanking him for the materiel, without which the outcome of the battle may well have been in Santa Anna’s favor.
When Santa Anna returned to Mexico City, he was stripped of his rank and forced to resign. Houston was officially made General of the Armies of Texas around the same time, an irony which he undoubtedly appreciated. Jackson on the other hand, was subjected to a session in the senate which was seemingly devoted purely to the indignation felt by various senators that the president’s Underground Railroad had bypassed them.
This was all forgotten by December 1st, when the Whigs and Democrats gathered in Washington for their respective National Conventions, and the Mexicans sent out the first feelers of a possible peace with the republic of Texas. For the United States and its new ally, the sky seemed filled with opportunity.

[1] - The Treaty received its name from its two signatories, US Secretary of State John Forsyth and British diplomat Alexander Baring, 1st Baron Ashburton.

[2] – The battle was actually fought around the town of Devine, but Houston miscalculated, and believed the town to be San Antonio, which he had never been to.

[3] – It was given this name mostly by abolitionists in the late 1830’s, who wanted to compare the ”Underground Railroads”, used by escaping Southern slaves, to Jackson’s act of generosity, which was well-received by the public despite the Senate’s indignation.

[4] – There are those who argue that Houston’s plan was to do the same to Austin as the Russians did to Moscow in 1812, further demoralizing Santa Anna’s army by leaving it a completely useless city, despite overwhelming evidence that Houston’s intent was always to fight outside the city.

-----------------

Exceptional Situation(s):

None that I could think of right now. Senators McAttack and King, send me those policies.
 
Last edited:
I intended to put funds aside for an expansion of the military. I shall also ensure that both Yankees and Dixies are called upon to serve their country. However, worried as I am about placing too high a burden on taxation, tariffs and borrowing (at these times the international credit markets are not as loose as usual ((at the start of V2 games there is a big risk of bankruptcy if you over borrow - much more so than later in the game)) ) I fear that there will not be enough money left over to fund a largescale naval expansion. Such a move may also be slightly imrudent when our greatest dangers lie in continental America.

I will do what I can to promote the emegeance of industry in the South. If any private individuals create fatories then the government will support their expansion. ((I plan on having interventionism as my economic policy))

Thank You Senator, I myself lack the stoumach for politics and prefer battle and am glad to know that men in power still serve the needs of thier voters. I was beggining to worry under the jackson administration that there was no honour left, considering his handling of the south carolinians. The electors of Georgia will greatly appreciate your contributions to thier state and Indeed the South in general. You sir are garunteed all Georgia and the South. Please continue to protect us from mexican opression and whig radicalism.

Thomas J.L. Davis
 
((by the way, very nice storytelling, BigBadBob. Yet another reason to keep up with this AAR))

And Mr. Gallatin ((Gloa)), the interests of Oregon that you have mentioned will also be done by the Democrat Party. We too shall care for the protection of the west through a garrison and Pacific fleet, and help to promote growth through a transcontinental railroad and also through Gov't subsidized ((dont know if thats corect spelling)) factories until such a time when sustained growth is ensured for civilian take over. I call upon Mr. McAttack to verify that these things will be done in time, by our party and not just through a Whig-elected President.
Then why vote Democrat? In what respect do our actually stated concrete policies differ, that Democrats are the only cure to*? We need reasonable policymakers and diplomats, such as those which founded the nation - people who can take those similar declared policies and shape them based on American principles and sound judgement into effective laws and decisions. We do not need brash and well known generals and other inexpert candidates going into office with fine policies but no great ethical political background for those ideas, and no wise expertise to intelligently deal with a complicated office. We do not need presidents who go in with rash decisions and deadly wars, only to hastily aim for good actions later, after businesses and armies have been destroyed. Let us do the noble first, and the foolish never.


((*Actually, how do we differ? At the moment, I think the parties are basically the same. There's not been a lot of player activities and policies to cement party lines, and with the benefit of hindsight and experience playing the U.S. or Vic 2 in general we agree on many concepts that divided politics then. We're generally Interventionist, want Texas, support the West, support industrializing, and support increased spending in military and education. We haven't yet seen a lot of personalities and management skills in candidates (save for Jackson himself, which is irrelevant) either so far. Some of that will develop in time - maybe a bit more could be done to emphasize party lines (not set in stone just as the game has them, but at least general leanings and combinations)?))
 
((*Actually, how do we differ? At the moment, I think the parties are basically the same. There's not been a lot of player activities and policies to cement party lines, and with the benefit of hindsight and experience playing the U.S. or Vic 2 in general we agree on many concepts that divided politics then. We're generally Interventionist, want Texas, support the West, support industrializing, and support increased spending in military and education. We haven't yet seen a lot of personalities and management skills in candidates (save for Jackson himself, which is irrelevant) either so far. Some of that will develop in time - maybe a bit more could be done to emphasize party lines (not set in stone just as the game has them, but at least general leanings and combinations)?))

((Well at the Time the Whig party lacked a Unified platform and since the real issues were unsavory (Slavery, Expansionism, The treatment of the Natives) the elections between 1836 and 1860 actually tended to be popularity contests featuring candidates with very similar platforms. so this AAR's election isnt far off.))
 
Last edited:
Then why vote Democrat? In what respect do our actually stated concrete policies differ, that Democrats are the only cure to*? We need reasonable policymakers and diplomats, such as those which founded the nation - people who can take those similar declared policies and shape them based on American principles and sound judgement into effective laws and decisions. We do not need brash and well known generals and other inexpert candidates going into office with fine policies but no great ethical political background for those ideas, and no wise expertise to intelligently deal with a complicated office. We do not need presidents who go in with rash decisions and deadly wars, only to hastily aim for good actions later, after businesses and armies have been destroyed. Let us do the noble first, and the foolish never.


((*Actually, how do we differ? At the moment, I think the parties are basically the same. There's not been a lot of player activities and policies to cement party lines, and with the benefit of hindsight and experience playing the U.S. or Vic 2 in general we agree on many concepts that divided politics then. We're generally Interventionist, want Texas, support the West, support industrializing, and support increased spending in military and education. We haven't yet seen a lot of personalities and management skills in candidates (save for Jackson himself, which is irrelevant) either so far. Some of that will develop in time - maybe a bit more could be done to emphasize party lines (not set in stone just as the game has them, but at least general leanings and combinations)?))

And what is to say that Mr. McAttack or any other Democrat will not be a reasonable policymaker and diplomat? From my experiences, McAttack is far from brash and seems to have a fine ethical background. A man's character is not shown through what he says, no matter how noble his words, but through his actions. He may seem wise and capable on the platform but may turn into a spineless jellyfish when put in office. We must put our faith into who we believe to be the strongest in this and hope we are right, as thouse before us have. Only through that can we truly creat sound decisions and uphold our American principals.

((and really we are quite the same except for our views on immigration and how our industry must be expanded, whigs for laize-fair while democrats for interventionism, or khur for state capitalism))
 
And what is to say that Mr. McAttack or any other Democrat will not be a reasonable policymaker and diplomat? From my experiences, McAttack is far from brash and seems to have a fine ethical background. A man's character is not shown through what he says, no matter how noble his words, but through his actions. He may seem wise and capable on the platform but may turn into a spineless jellyfish when put in office. We must put our faith into who we believe to be the strongest in this and hope we are right, as thouse before us have. Only through that can we truly creat sound decisions and uphold our American principals.

((and really we are quite the same except for our views on immigration and how our industry must be expanded, whigs for laize-fair while democrats for interventionism, or khur for state capitalism))
I have nothing against the esteemed Senator McAttack, and indeed the Democratic party needs more men like him, if he is what he seems. Yet still he is a Democrat, and Jackson's party of patronage and the resulting inexperience is still systemically lacking in that regard. McAttack may be a good man, but even when a good man enters a house in the storm, all kinds of snow and winds come in. What has Jackson done?
- Consolidated power in the presidency, so as to rule as a sort of chief.
- Brought in inexperienced and incompetent persons into positions of importance, as he himself took his position of importance. Some indeed developed well, but the government and the responsibilities of the prosperity and happiness of a nation is not a good testing ground for this.
- Spoiled economic growth by creating banking turmoil and neglecting infrastructure and development.
- Driven out those natives who had inhabited lands for thousands of years, and who themselves had begun to form civilization and progress that none could contest. Driven them out for the special interests of a few.
Why stay in such a sinking boat of a party, trying to reform? The Whigs, though a young party, have done all this work for you - we are not that party of injustice and negligence.

((Hmm, so have we somewhat switched from real life in industrial policy (with Whigs being Interventionist and Jackson at least supporting fairly Lassiez Faire techniques)? Well, anyway, I trust that the platforms will develop with time. ))

((Well at the Time the Whig party lacked a Unified platform and since the real issues were unsavory (Slavery, Expansionism, The treatment of the Natives) the elections between 1836 and 1860 actually tended to be popularity contests featuring candidates with very similar platforms. so this AAR's election isnt far off.))
((AARt imitates life. So does that mean that the Whigs will win the election after this, only to have the that character die in office, and then the position will revert back to the Democrats with a dark horse candidate?))
 
if AARt imitates life, none of my characters are running for the 1864 election ;-).
 
if AARt imitates life, none of my characters are running for the 1864 election ;-).

and mine in 1864 will be Leading the last stand at Atlanta. For he will not abandon the city to sherman and its fate, as he knows the south is doomed with or without his army.

((Projekt 919 just watched Gone with the Wind and is feeling like he should defend atlanta to the last))
 
Well it seems that everything I wanted for Texas has gone to plan. Our troops never even needed to cross the border nor did we go to war with Mexico. we must now take steps to ensure that Texas remains free of Mexico and also ourselves
 
The Presidential Election of 1836


The National Conventions showed Americans what their parties’ lines really were. The Democrats for example, had seemingly become bitterly divided during Jackson’s second term. The general consensus was that there was a smaller anti-slavery [1] Democratic party, and the main Democratic Party that was, if not outright pro-slavery, a moderate party. This was proven wrong on December 1st – 3rd 1836.
The Convention began as a race between three men for the Presidential nomination. Yet on December 2nd, after the initial ballot showed he had the least support, Congressman Archibald Cartwright withdrew from the race. He threw his support, and with it votes, behind Senator Thomas McAttack from Virginia. This act made him McAttack’s running mate after the second remaining candidate, Nicolas Khur [2], withdrew in order to avoid polarizing the party.
The Whig Convention on the other hand, was a show of force between the three candidates. Each was much more radical than the Democrat candidates, but Caesar Vinograd, a Whig from New York, was radical enough to scare even the liberal party of American politics. The results of the first ballot left Senators King and Fender in the fight for the Whig nomination. In the second ballot, King won by a narrow margin, enough for Fender to demand a third one, but instead he elected to concede victory to King.

chartistconvention1839.jpg

1. The Democratic National Convention of 1836.​

The candidates immediately set out on campaign, but their movements were overshadowed by whispers coming from Texas, which was in the middle of peace talks with Mexico, talks that would undoubtedly end in the Texans’ favor. The rumor was that Texas wished to become a state in the Union. A vote in late December confirmed that as much as 76% of Texans wished to become part of the US. With support like that, admission of statehood was almost guaranteed.
The major stumbling block was slavery. One of the reasons for war had been the Texan insistence on being allowed to keep their slaves, but the war itself had changed this. The amount of soldiers the Mexicans had brought to bear made Texans doubtful of their chances should Mexico ever invade again. This fueled their desire to be admitted as a state, so much so that they announced they were willing to become a free state should that be the term for their admittance.
Jackson was eager to admit Texas as a free state, since his reputation had suffered seriously in the North, and he did not want to be remembered as a man who pandered to the South. This attitude very much summed up his late presidency, which consisted of Jackson bowing everywhere in order to be remembered well. The complaints of Southern senators frustrated his efforts, and he was finally forced to put Texas’ admittance as a Slave or Free State to a vote in the Senate.
The President was busy formulating a pro-free speech on election day, and thus missed out on both the election and the signing of the peace treaty between Texas and Mexico. Jackson was criticized for this by his political opponents, but this was all forgotten on January 19th, when the Senate voted. As a response to Jackson’s stance on Texas, the Southern senators ensured that Texas would be admitted as a state by Jackson’s successor. Jackson’s presidency had been robbed of its grand finale, which had now become a grand opening for the next President.

[1] – There was a marked difference between anti-slavery, which was an objection to its spread, and abolitionism, which was a call for making the practice completely illegal.

[2] – Khur returned to the military, and would serve with much distinction.


The Candidates

The Election Manifesto of the Democratic Party

mcattack.jpg

Presidential Candidate: Thomas McAttack


Vice Presidential Candidate: Archibald Cartwright

My Fellow Americans, we stand at the dawn of an era that on one hand could provide these lands with untold prosperity and glory or on the other could throw us into an era of instability and poverty. The Democratic Party is the party for the entire American people, we do not abandon our countrymen in far off lands, we do not force the dictatorial will of one part of the country another and we do not threaten the economic prosperity of the American people – whether they work in a Northern factory or an Oregon homestead.

Our fundamental beliefs are in the unity, strength and prosperity of the Republic and her people. I love this country and that is why I cannot stand by and let her be ravaged by Whig rule.

Policies

Economic:
We should use an interventionist economic policy.
We should encourage craftsmen in our largest industrial state – New York. We should use our economic policies to expand the most profitable factories so that all the newly promoted workers can continue to find jobs. This action shall help power our industrial growth and overall prosperity.
If factories are at risk of closing and their closure would result in unemployment then subsidies are to be used to keep them open. This may be an especially important tool for protecting infant industries. I am hopeful that our investors shall see it fit to spend on building new factories in the un-industrial South. If they do so then we shall support them with subsidies and if need be (if the factories start to become full) funds to expand the factories themselves.
Taxes are to be flexible and should move in line with the requirements of the budget. Likewise we may use tariffs flexibly but they should not be set above 15% unless there is a real risk of bankruptcy. Ideally they will be at 10% or lower. This tariff policy will help protect our industries – both agricultural and manufacturing as well as allowing taxes to remain lower.
If it were to ever become possible, I would also encourage capitalists in the proud state of Virginia – investors who can expand that state’s industries and allow for progress on the road to industrialization.
Employment and a modern economy are the keys to progress.
I would call for military spending to rise to 55%.
Administrative spending and education spending should be flexible but should be placed at the optimum rate for reaching the 2% target for each group (it is especially important that education is encouraged).

Military:
I would encourage the prudent expansion of the standing army with both infantry and cavalry (although with a much greater focus on infantry). Make sure that both Dixie and Yankee men are recruited to fight for their country. This is a privilege and honor deserved by all Americans!

Colonization:
We should go on with Jackson’s plan, one state at a time, and when we have gathered the necessary means, two states at a time.

Influence:

Abroad I believe that Colombia, Brazil and Haiti should be our most immediate targets for influencing. We should create a sphere of aligned states, and open markets, in the Americas under the banner of the continent’s first liberated and now most advanced people.


The Whigs’ policies were vaguer, but this helped them capture the imaginations of many Northerners.

The Election Manifesto of the Whig Party

kingik.jpg

Presidential Candidate: Arthur King​

Vice-Presidential Candidate: John Fender.

Policies:

Economic:
The economy should not be meddled in by the Government. Free enterprise thrives when nobody is there poking it.
The budget and taxes shall be adjusted according to the nation’s needs.

Military:
The military is our first and best bulwark against foreign oppression, and should be treated as such. More money to the soldiers.

Colonization:
Jackson’s Bill was approved, and it is not our right to throw it out the moment he leaves office.

Slavery:
The Whigs call for a gradual abolition, but abolition nonetheless of slavery. Also, a law should be implemented which bans the inhumane separation of families caused by being sold to another slave-owner, until the practice has been abolished.

Foreign affairs:
The French supported us where no one else dared to do so. The people then created their own government based after us. We should have become close allies. However, we just abandoned them when the rest of Europe decided that republics are bad. We will not abandon them again. Our European foreign policy shall be generally supportive of France. We will not follow them into a war unless they are attacked or have a justified reason, but if a European war is to start, money should be given to them.
Liberia is a nation formed to allow free blacks to return to Africa. However, Liberia remains small and sparsely populated. Perhaps if we give some money to help them, and gave incentives for free blacks to move there, we could get a relatively powerful ally.
British India has made the Empire the most powerful nation on Earth. They can easily get any goods they want from India and export them to all the other markets. If America is to increase her power, we must create a monopoly of ourselves. China would be a perfect place. We do not suggest creating a colony, but we are suggesting creating a propaganda campaign. Make it look like America is helping them fight the Europeans, and show them what happened to India. Increase our support over there, and our merchants may receive special treatment.

-------------------

Exceptional Situation(s):

Vote for president, and then for Texas’ status as a free or slave state.
Sample ballot:

President: John Doe.
Texas: Free.

 
Last edited:
Not sure if we can still register cantidates but;
Name: Nicholas Gafferty
Position: Senator of Montana
History: Born in upstate New York in 1794 before moving west andworking to establish the towns of Missoula, Helena, and Billings. It is currently the largest state by area although the territories of California, Texas, and Alaska may suceed it in that position.
 
Last edited:
Not sure if we can still register cantidates but;
Name: Nicholas Gafferty
Position: Senator of Montana
History: Born in upstate New York in 1994 before moving west andworking to establish the towns of Missoula, Helena, and Billings. It is currently the largest state by area although the territories of California, Texas, and Alaska may suceed it in that position.

Candidates, yes, but you can always sign up and vote.
Shhh, we don't have any of those territories, yet.

PS. I think you mean 1794. :D
 
Although King's ideas are radical, I believe that he shows the foresight to, together with Congress and the American people, come to sound policy. The economy, people, and prestige of America cannot stand another son of the party of Jackson unless there is significant signs of reform in that party.

On Texas, they are already a slave nation. Although I do not support the unchecked spread of the unnecessary practice (nor do I support the wanton struggle to remove it from the people of the South without their consent), I do not feel that it is just or lawful to force them to be a free state in order to be admitted (for how are they different than all the slave states we already have?).

President: Arthur King
Texas: Slave
 
President: McAttack
Texas: Abstain. I shall no vote for something I cannot morally support but the lands of Texas already have slaves and we cannot take those away from them.
 
As his running mate ((if allowed at all)) I cast my vote for Thomas McAttack of course. I feel that economically it is a sound plan, aiding both the north and the south simultaneously. Diplomatically we should not overextend ourselves across the Atlantic just yet, and given our closer relations to the British than the French, I am appalled by mr. King's proposal towards only aspiring French relations.

On the issue of slavery, I will not go into much detail, but I shall vote yay towards it being a slave state, preserving their own ideals.


Ballot:

President: Thomas McAttack
Texas: Slave state



-Archibald Cartwright
 
As my last act as a Senator before I return to the Army, I, Nicolas Khur, vote for Mr. Thomas McAttack. His policy is the only one, that I can see, that will truely lead to a strengthening of the Nation as a whole. I shall also vote for Texas to remain as a slave holding state, for if not for their rights to hold slaves, why would they have gone through the trouble of fighting for independence?

Ballot:
President: McAttack
Texas: Slave
 
My vote goes to the sound policies of Arthur King. Also, I believe that, if the Texans are so willing, they should enter the Union as a free-state. Some may say that the Texans fought against Mexico in order to maintain the institution of slavery, but I say, not so! That was only one small part out of a whole series of mistreatments and abuses by the Mexican government that forced the Texans to the point of independence.

President: Arthur King
Texas: Free