• 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.

volksmarschall

Chasing Mountains, Brews, Books, and Byron
31 Badges
Nov 29, 2008
5.896
482
voegelinview.com
  • Crusader Kings II
  • Europa Universalis IV: Pre-order
  • Victoria 2: Heart of Darkness
  • Victoria 2: A House Divided
  • Europa Universalis IV: Res Publica
  • March of the Eagles
  • Europa Universalis IV: Art of War
  • Europa Universalis IV
  • Hearts of Iron IV: Cadet
  • Stellaris: Galaxy Edition
  • Hearts of Iron IV: Colonel
  • Europa Universalis IV: Rights of Man
  • Victoria 2
  • Stellaris: Digital Anniversary Edition
  • Stellaris: Leviathans Story Pack
  • Europa Universalis IV: El Dorado
  • Mount & Blade: Warband
  • Europa Universalis IV: Common Sense
  • Europa Universalis IV: Cossacks
  • Europa Universalis IV: Mare Nostrum
  • Stellaris
  • Stellaris: Galaxy Edition
  • Stellaris - Path to Destruction bundle
  • Europa Universalis IV: Call to arms event
  • Europa Universalis IV: Wealth of Nations
  • Darkest Hour
  • Crusader Kings II: Sword of Islam
  • Crusader Kings II: Sunset Invasion
  • Crusader Kings II: The Republic
  • Crusader Kings II: The Old Gods
  • Crusader Kings II: Legacy of Rome
Hello everyone. Many of you may know me, many of you may not. I am volksmarschall, and have been part of these forums since late 2008. In 2009, I undertook my magnum opus on these forums in Victoria, The Presidents: Clay to Smith (1836-1920). During its tenure from 3 August 2009 until final completion on 28 May, 2014, the AAR won 7 AwAARds: Favorite ACA History Book for Victoria, Q4 2009, Q1, Q2, and Q3 2010, Character Writer of the Week, Writer of the Week, and Weekly AAR Showcase and totaled 56 pages with several other accolades. It would have likely been completed sometime in late 2011, if not for a 2 ½ hiatus I had from these forums. And now that I finally finished that AAR (thanks to Enewald egging me on, I can finally start this project, which I intended to start when I returned in 2014).

Some of you may otherwise know me from various other works, possibly from my ongoing EUIV History: The Decline and Fall of Roman Civilization. Having completed the first Presidents AAR, I honestly felt an emptiness inside my soul :p – it was the second AAR I attempted on the forum (I think) and was the long body of work during my time here (quite literally, it was my precious baby since joining the forum). For that reason, it felt like a part of me had died once it ended. So, in light of that, I have decided to take the same concept from that AAR and transplant it here in Victoria II! In real life, I write and lecture, mostly on contemporary economics, Roman/Byzantine history, and Islamic history. Although, as an unspoiled yet spoiled American, American history is my foremost love.

A Note from the Author: First off, I would like to thank all who were a part of the great success of the original Presidents, without your reading and commenting, the journey from 1836-1920 (2009-2014) would not have been possible. You all were equally part of the success of that AAR as the author was, if not more for the moral encouragement you provided. I would also like to note an inspirational acknowledgment to Nathan Madien and his AAR from HoI2, The Presidents: Hoover to Dewey, the direct inspiration for starting my AAR back in Victoria, and also to Estunianzula and his AAR The Footsteps of Illustrious Men, whose work also came to influence mine and has a considerably greater influence upon the envisionment of this AAR. Since this AAR will be part of that tradition, it would seem inappropriate without acknowledging the original inspirations. In addition, this AAR will still follow my usual pattern of historical AARing, meaning that while the history is driven by the game, I will still be providing a historical look into American politics and culture during this time period.

Cheers and Happy hunting!


I made significant political party changes in the game, you can read about my changes: here.


Index found in the next post below!
 
Last edited:
The Presidents: Redux, Volume I: The Impending Crisis
From Jackson to the Mexican War

TABLE OF CONTENTS:


INTRODUCTION
Andrew Jackson, Democrat, 1829-1837
I. The United States in 1836
II. The Democratization of American Democracy
III. The Election of 1836


The STRUGGLE IN THE FIRST REPUBLIC
1. THE CONQUEST OF EMPIRE, 1836-1848
Richard Mentor Johnson, Democrat, 1837-1841
TEXAS AND THE TEXAS WAR
The Texas War of Independence
The Texas War and the Rise of Abolitionism
Texas Joins the Union and the Texas-New Mexico Compromise
DOMESTIC ISSUES AND TRIUMPHS OF THE JOHNSON PRESIDENCY
The Panic of 1837-1838
Congressional Battles of the 25th and 26th Congresses
The End of the Seminole Wars
THE ELECTION OF 1840
The Whig and Democratic Conventions
The Presidential Election of 1840, White vs. Van Buren

INTERLUDE:
Antebellum Religion in America prior to the Civil War
The Boston Liberators, Part 1, Abolitionist Politics in America
The Boston Liberators, Part 2


Hugh Lawson White, Whig, 1841-present
THE WHITE PRESIDENCY
Tariffs and Railroads
Tariffs and Abolitionism, the Rise of the Conscience Whigs
Domestic Conflict and the Admission of Wisconsin and Minnesota into the Union.


2. THE COMING CRISIS, 1848-1856​
 
Last edited:
The United States in 1836

The United States in 1836:

We live in a new and exceptional age. America is another name for Opportunity. Our whole history appears like a last effort of the Divine Providence in behalf of the human race.
Ralph Waldo Emerson, American poet, philosopher, and educator.



Andrew Jackson, the seventh President of the United States, 1829-1837

The United States in 1836 was a very young nation by any measurable standard, having only recently declared independence in 1776, the nation was but 60 years old and her place on the international stage was mute at best. Despite the words of the Monroe Doctrine, the Western Hemisphere was not America’s backyard. The Mexican Empire stretched north passed the Rio Grande and into prospective American territories. Texas, a newly declared republic was desperately fighting a war against their Mexican overlords, and was pleading with their brother Americans for help. Northward in Canada, a land that Thomas Jefferson opined should become part of the American “Empire of Liberty,” was firmly held by the British as a shield to their empire on which the sun never set.

As a nation, America was experiencing a high degree of democratization during the Second Party System [1], which was principally the result of the Second Great Awakening – a political revival as much as it was a religious revival. Protestantism and republicanism have strong histories together; the first modern republic was founded among the Seven United Provinces of the Netherlands – a direct influence over the forming of the American Republic in 1776. The fire-brand preachers, mostly Methodist and Baptist in affiliation, preached a unique gospel of Protestantism and Americanism [2] that swept through the American frontier and south, although it was less pronounced in the Middle Atlantic states and New England where traditional Protestant religions like Congregationalism and Episcopalianism had strong footholds and where Unitarianism, as an offshoot of Congregationalism, was growing in popularity among the American intellectual elite. The newly politically charged Americans swept to political parties in droves, creating a new rise of political print media, political machines in urbanized areas, and intense partisan loyalty.


A Methodist revivalist meeting, such scenes were common during the Second Great Awakening, which was important in starting the social reform movements of the Antebellum period.

The sitting President of the United States, Andrew Jackson, was also a polarizing figure. His ascendency to the Presidency unified his opponents to create the Whig Party, the lead oppositional party to the Democrats and the first prominent secondary party since the collapse of the Federalist Party after the War of 1812 and the Hartford Convention [3]. Jackson was the first great populist, a champion of the “common man” who frightened his opponents, mostly American Brahmin who have their roots with the original settlers in the seventeenth century and had amassed large fortunes as a result. Politically, the Whigs were a conservative party in the Hamiltonian tradition, [4] promoting economic nationalism and modernization, supported protective tariffs, a strong federal government, and hoped to reestablish a National Bank following Andrew Jackson’s abolishment of the American National Banking System. The Democrats could best be described as a two-tier party of Northern liberals and Southern conservatives and populists. The Jacksonian wing of the Democratic Party promoted anti-federalism, populism, states’ rights, free trade, and were generally perceived as being protectors and expanders of institutional slavery. The anti-Jacksonian wing of the Democratic Party (mostly Northern Democrats) still supported populism, free trade, and generally had an anti-elitist rhetoric in support of the Jeffersonian ideal of an American yeomanry which bound them with their Southern Democratic brethren, but were more supportive of a strong federal government, opposed secessionist and nullification elements found in states’ rights, and were divided on the issue of slavery – it was an uneasy alliance between the two factions that were nevertheless united in their opposition to the economic programs of the Whigs.

Both parties however were pondering the “Texas Question.” The Texan War of Independence had seen significant waves of famous Americans migrate into Texas to take up arms for the cause of liberty and freedom against the Mexicans. The American Military Department of the West, totaling around 12,000 men, were stationed close to the border to ward off the potentiality of a Mexican incursion into the United States, as Santa Anna seemed to have the Texan Army on the run and defeated. The Whigs and Democrats were both seen as being pro-military; both parties had famous military heroes from the War of 1812 as their political front men. President Andrew Jackson was of course, the national hero of the war having defeated the British at the otherwise unimportant Battle of New Orleans. Senator Henry Clay of Kentucky, a champion of a nationalist economic system was one of the prominent War Hawks in Congress that pressed President Madison to declare war on the British. William Henry Harrison, the former Governor of the Ohio Territory and Ohio Senator, was the American commander at the Battle of Tippecanoe and the Thames (War of 1812), the battle in which the famous Indian Chief Tecumseh was killed.

However, neither of the parties openly talked of going to war with Mexico to protect Texas, even though the American Congress had just passed a resolution that allowed for the free flow of American volunteers and weapons into Texas, and allowed for Texans to freely cross into the United States. Privately, the Democratic Party saw Texas as a great opportunity for their political causes, as well as a marker to hold their hats over the Whigs. The Whigs, more concerned with economics than foreign policy, did not want to be perceived as overly jingoistic on the issue. Plus, some anti-slavery activists openly deplored American involvement in Texas for the fear of slavery expanding there once Texas would presumably join the Union.


A painting of a battle between Texians and Mexicans during the Texas War of Independence, which was a major concern in American politics in 1836.

In an address to the Congress, President Jackson opined, “It is my solemn duty, that as long as I am President of the United States of America – that I shall keep our nation out of a petty conflict between the Texians and Mexicans.” Naturally, President Jackson did not want to start a war in an election year in which the prospects of the Democratic Party seemed solid, seeing that the Whig Party was only recently founded and were deeply factionalized geographically rather than having a unified leadership and centralized political apparatus as the Democratic Party had achieved being the only major party in American politics for nearly two decades.

As the parties convened to nominate candidates for the 1836 election, Texas was on everyone’s mind. The delegates and leading candidates had to assure the American public, which was divided over the issue, of what their prospective policies would be regarding the War in Texas which had already seen American icons like Davy Crockett take up his arms and lead a band of Kentuckians into Texas to fight for Texian independence. The Election of 1836 had just gotten underway!



[1] American political history is divided into “Party Systems,” by political historians. The First Party System began in 1789 and ended in 1828. The Second Party System began in 1828, and historically ended in 1854 with the founding of the Republican Party, which began the Third Party System.

[2] It is a longstanding fact among American cultural and political historians that Protestantism greatly influenced American political ideology and behavioral partisan politics. A good book looking into the Protestant political world of the time is Nathan Hatch’s The Democratization of American Christianity (1991) and how an essentially democratic Protestant religion in the United States then created the vibrant social and political movements that dominated nineteenth century American politics. You can also read a decent article on this intro US history website, "The Benevolent Empire."

[3] The Hartford Convention was a gathering of Federalist politicians, mostly from New England (the Federalist stronghold) and debated possible secession from the Union during the War of 1812 to protect New England business interests (New England had strong business ties with Britain). When the war ended in 1814/1815, the attendees were seen as traitors and turncoats, and the Federalist Party quickly evaporated, fronting its last candidate in 1816. This ushered in the Era of Good Feelings in which the Democratic-Republican Party (the Democratic Party) was the only major political force in America until the rise of the Anti-Jacksonians in 1828, who principally coalesced into the Whig Party by 1833.

[4] Alexander Hamilton is considered the founder of American conservatism, sometimes considered Unionism in the United States. He supported a nationalist economic system that promoted business and heavy industry over agrarianism, he also supported a strong federal government, pro-British relationships, an internationalist foreign policy, and was an ardent opponent of states’ rights and secession. Many scholars consider Hamilton the architect of modern American and the created the foundations of the modern American government. The game labelling of the American Whig Party as being “liberal” is misleading and incorrect. The Whigs were historically a diverse coalition of anti-federalist liberals who opposed the perceived growing power of the Presidency under Andrew Jackson (mostly southern and some western Whigs), conservative unionists and nationalists, and strong-government federalists united in the opposition to the Democratic Party and generally unified on the economic agenda of modernization and industrialization. Ron Chernow's biography Alexander Hamilton (2005) is the single greatest biography on Hamilton and of any of the American Founding Fathers, whom Chernow writes prolifically on.
 
Last edited:
Well, I'd be a fool to not sign up as soon as is humanly possible. A great introduction, volksmarschall. Having read the final few chapters of the original, my appetite is suitably whetted. I'm eager for more.
 
You sir, are crazy! I am extremely impressed at how you are able to keep so many great AARs running at once, to reboot an AAR that took five years to complete seems a bold move! I've started reading the original Presidents at least half a dozen times - although never got all the way through (as you obviously know, its extremely long!) so look forward to following this from the start. :)
 
subbed

Good luck :)
 
Subbed! I can't wait for more installments, the early nineteenth century in America is incredibly fascinating especially the man himself Andrew Jackson.

I love nineteenth century American history, probably my favorite era (extending into the first decade of the twentieth as well). Andrew Jackson really was the man who polarized America, and although he clearly won't have much room in the AAR, he will be in the background for many of the early updates as the Democratic Party stands in his footsteps...

Excellent start, glad to see you back to your old tricks.

Ah yes, now you don't have to read "ancient" history in EU4 anymore! :p And now that you mention it, since having picked up and read Robert W. Merry's A Country of Vast Designs (about Polk and the Mexican War), I need to do some soul searching about the history PhD whether I will do American or Classical once I'm done with the Seminary (even though my written work is all with Rome and Byzantium).

Well, I'd be a fool to not sign up as soon as is humanly possible. A great introduction, volksmarschall. Having read the final few chapters of the original, my appetite is suitably whetted. I'm eager for more.

Glad to see you here DB.

You sir, are crazy! I am extremely impressed at how you are able to keep so many great AARs running at once, to reboot an AAR that took five years to complete seems a bold move! I've started reading the original Presidents at least half a dozen times - although never got all the way through (as you obviously know, its extremely long!) so look forward to following this from the start. :)

Bah, thank you! :) Well, when you read probably 20,000 pages of written material every year to maybe write about 100 pages of research work you get used to spanning multiple genres and works. 56 pages isn't incredibly long, you should know - you have a nice long AAR back in HoI2! ;)

Very excited, been reading through your Vicky 1 AAR so I'm expecting great things.

I'm genuinely surprised by how many people still read that old AAR. Quite frankly, I didn't intend to complete it when I returned and was ready to just start this instead, but Enewald convinced me otherwise...

Glad to have you here.

subbed

Good luck :)

Many thanks! :)
 
Last edited:
Excellent timing you have there Volksmarschall: almost as soon as I develop a desire to improve my knowledge of US history, you decide to write another AAR on that very subject! (So naturally, I'll be paying even more heed to your bibliographical notes than usual!) I certainly hope that your AAR can do for the United States what Densley was able to do for Victorian Britain.
 
Excellent timing you have there Volksmarschall: almost as soon as I develop a desire to improve my knowledge of US history, you decide to write another AAR on that very subject! (So naturally, I'll be paying even more heed to your bibliographical notes than usual!) I certainly hope that your AAR can do for the United States what Densley was able to do for Victorian Britain.

Well, I'm glad to know that someone apparently reads my footnotes! :p I certainly hope that this AAR is able to honor my original while not deviating too extensively from it more than have a hidden competition with Densley on whether or not it does justice to the politics and climate of nineteenth century America - although I hope to achieve that as well! ;)
 
The Conventions

Introduction Part II: The Conventions

The tyranny of a prince in an oligarchy is not so dangerous to the public welfare as the apathy of a citizen in a democracy.
-Charles de Montesquieu, French Enlightenment philosopher and historian.


The democratic-republicanism of the United States was limited, at best, in 1836. Initially, voting was only allotted to White men who owned property or taxable income. The ascendency of Andrew Jackson and the populist reforms he enacted, which frightened the American establishment, was the abolition of the property requirement to vote. Thus, by 1836, any and all White men in America had the right to vote. Coupled with the passion and zeal of radical Protestantism sweeping across the country proclaiming it was everyone’s duty to be baptized and engage in the proliferation of God’s democracy across the globe (the United States),[1] Americans signed up in droves to vote, the major political beneficiary being the Democratic Party so closely associated and identified with Andrew Jackson.

Naturally, the Democratic Party benefitted as scores of working class yeomen who had catapulted Andrew Jackson into the Presidency and saw him take on and presumably kill the “oppressive” banking system pledged their loyalties to the Democratic Party. The upperclasses, long opponents to populist rhetoric and politics had coalesced around prominent Northern Democrats or the newly founded Whig Party, who defended the National Bank as essential to the future of the American System and industrialization of the United States.


A political cartoon showing President Andrew Jackson fighting the "monstrous" National Bank of the United States.

In addition, nineteenth century American politics did not see the familiar primaries of today. The American political process was much more meaningful and political as men from different factions of the party essentially vied with one another to secure nominating votes from party members (delegates) and the first to achieve a majority of supporting delegates was nominated for the Presidency. This manner of more “secretive” nominating, if you will, would continue into the twentieth century before democratic reforms expanded outward to allow voter input in primaries to give the parties a respective gauge as to whom the people may have a preference in voting for, meaning that party leaders and bosses, often aligned to support their personal friends held control over the nominating process. Conventions themselves were subject to being overridden by a tidal wave of momentum if favor of dark horse or compromise candidates regularly throughout the nineteenth century to keep the fragile party alliances united.

That said, national party conventions were the political craze in America after the beginning of Jacksonian Democracy. Supporters of their respective party would line the streets and have literal parties, drinking far passed any safe limit and firing off their rifles and muskets in the air as primitive fireworks to celebrate the gathering of the party delegates to begin the nominating process. The Whig Party had yet achieved a nationalized political infrastructure, rather, anti-Jackson politicians were slowly coalescing into the new party with some anti-Jacksonian populists remaining in the Democratic Party to try and wrestle political control away from the Jacksonians. In 1836, the only political party that held a formal national convention was the Democratic Party.

In May, at the Fourth Presbyterian Church in Baltimore Maryland, the Democrats convened to choose a presumptive successor to Andrew Jackson in the election cycle [2]. In a private letter written to party leaders, Andrew Jackson wrote of his ideal successor:

The next nominee should be an individual most likely to win over the vast body of republicans [3]. The continuation and permeation of democracy should be a primary concern, and only such an individual with the backing of the republican class will be able to achieve this.

Many believed that Vice President Martin van Buren, the presumptive hand-picked successor to Andrew Jackson, to be nominated for the Presidency. Logically, it made sense. Van Buren was a key organizer of the Jacksonian Revolution, and an early supporter of Andrew Jackson. He even stated that it was his plan to, “Follow in the footsteps of his illustrious predecessor” (Andrew Jackson). However, the Texas War for Independence loomed over the Democratic Party. Believing a strong military figure was also necessary to secure the votes of the Western states and assure the population that any and all necessary measures were being taken to secure America’s future against her hegemonic rivals, a former Senator from Kentucky and War of 1812 veteran was rapidly gaining traction among the Hawks in the Democratic Party.

Senator Richard Mentor Johnson had a long history in Kentucky politics. One of the original war hawks with fellow Kentuckian Henry Clay, he was commissioned a colonel in the US Army and served under General William Henry Harrison in the War of 1812. During the Battle of the Thames, Johnson was credited with killing the infamous Indian Chief Tecumseh [4]. As a frontiersmen and man of the people, Johnson also fit the ideal figure promoted by Andrew Jackson, although van Buren seemed the more responsible choice having served as Vice President and having a good repertoire with Jackson’s cabinet members.


Senator Richard Mentor Johnson (left) and Vice President Martin van Buren (right), the two major contenders for the Democratic nomination in 1836.

As the delegates and representatives jockeyed for position and political power, controversy erupted when a man from New York, Martin van Buren’s home state which he was formerly governor of, cast all of New York’s votes behind Johnson. Although the man was not sent as a voting delegate from New York, New York’s votes were tallied for Johnson. Some speculate that the man had a grudge against van Buren, and rightly speculated so. In such a venue, it is doubtful that someone without political motives while simultaneously not being a voting delegate would make such a bold political move that could have easily had ended with his death had been caught in act. After he was caught, an opportunity to recast New York’s votes was offered but none of the New York delegates wanted to interrupt the unfolding process. After New York’s votes went behind Johnson, several other states followed suit. The delegates of Indiana and Kentucky all voted unanimously in support of Johnson – likely following the lead of New York. Tennessee, which had not sent any delegates to venue, had someone change the 15 entitled votes from the state from van Buren to Johnson.

When the smoke and dust had settled Johnson had secured 139 delegates, of the needed 133 delegate to secure the nomination (265 total delegate votes). Vice President van Buren had only managed to secure 103 of the delegates, while 23 delegates (all from Illinois, Alabama, and South Carolina) scattered (did not vote). The controversy over the New York man’s actions to cast all of New York’s votes for Johnson had effectively decided to nomination. New York’s 42 delegates had, either rightfully or not, been pushed into the Johnson camp, thus giving him the edge he needed by 6 votes. Had New York’s delegates voted for van Buren, as everyone expected, van Buren would have secured the nomination.

Unlike the rapid mass media and proliferation of information and breaking news of today, information spread much more slowly in the nineteenth century, and in many instances, the nominees of the party were not even at the conventions. The surprise and stunning victory of Johnson over van Buren eventually made headway across the nation, and Johnson was dubbed, “The next Hickory!” At his farm in Kentucky, eight days after the convention had convened, Johnson was informed that he had been nominated for the Presidency, and Martin van Buren, the defeated favorite, would be the Vice Presidential nominee. Almost immediately afterward, congratulatory letters from party members, including one from Vice President van Buren made their way to Johnson’s home.

The Whigs however were in a more divided state than even the Democrats. The lack of a national political infrastructure prevented the Whigs from gathering a national convention to nominate a single candidate. This, however, is understandable seeing that the party formed but three years ago. The Whig strategy therefore was one of the more unique strategies during a Presidential election. Capitalizing on the belief that anti-Jackson voters would unite in the election, the Whigs would nominate regional candidates in the west, east, and south. The hope was that these regional candidates would be able to siphon away enough votes from the Democratic nominee to force a vote in the House of Representatives, where the Whigs would then solidify behind a single candidate and lobby for the anti-Jackson members of the Democratic Party to vote for the Whig candidate rather than a “Jacksonian stooge.”

Senator Hugh Lawson White of Tennessee was tapped as the Whigs southern regional candidate. The more famous Senator from Kentucky, Henry Clay, was fronted as the western regional candidate for the election. In the north, Massachusetts Senator Daniel Webster was picked to be the north’s regional Whig candidate. The decision to nominate Clay in the west was the most strategic decision on part of the Whig Party. The Whigs were strongest in the northeast, the traditional home of the Federalist Party, but following the establishment of the party in 1833 the Whigs had gathered sizeable strengths in the western frontier states which had been sharply divided into pro-Jackson and anti-Jackson camps. Relying on the belief that Webster would deliver the northeast; the Whigs hoped the second most famous politician in America – Henry Clay, would deliver enough votes from the west to prevent Johnson from reaching a majority in the Electoral College while White siphoned just enough votes away to break the Democratic Party’s hold on the south.



From left to right: Senator Henry Clay, Senator Hugh Lawson White, and Senator Daniel Webster, the three (regional) Whig nominees for President. Each man hoped to siphon enough votes away from the Democratic Party to force a vote in the House, where the Whigs pinned their electoral dreams of uniting with Northern Democrats (anti-Jacksonians) to catapult, presumably Henry Clay, into the White House.

[1] Ever since the landing of the Pilgrims and Puritans (Calvinists in America), the United States long saw itself as “the New Israel,” the chosen people of God destined to be the “shining city upon a hill for all to see.” This belief was rooted in the idea that God works through nations (like Israel in the Old Testament) instead of a visible and physical Church (often associated with the Roman Catholic Church). Thus, the idea that the United States was God’s chosen country to lead the world to liberty and Christianization (the fusion of American democratic politics with Protestantism) has deep roots in the country. Many sociologists believe that these ideas have come to constitute American civil religion. There is some debate among Christian theologians today whether this ideology can be accepted as Christian or not. A good book on Puritan and Jewish influences and interaction in America is Michael Hoberman’s New Israel/New England (2011).

[2] Historically, the Democratic Convention for the 1836 Presidential Election was actually held in 1835, but since I am starting a new alternative historical timeline, the Democratic Convention is being held in 1836 to allow for a re-write of the candidates and nominees for the purpose of this AAR.

[3] Direct quote from Andrew Jackson. By republican he doesn’t mean Republican (a la the Republican Party). Little r republicanism, or republican, was an American political term used to describe populist working class Americans, mostly farmers, who had supported the expansion of Jacksonian Democracy to include the right to vote to extend to all White males regardless of property status. Also, the term was used to denote original supporters of the Democratic Party. The Democratic Party was actually founded as the Republican Party by Thomas Jefferson (Jefferson’s republicans vs. Hamilton’s federalists) but with the expansion of Jacksonian populism, the word Democrat (supporter of greater democratic reforms) began to be applied to Andrew Jackson and thus the modern terminology of the Democratic Party came into existence. Historians often designate the pre-evolution of the Democratic Party as the Democratic-Republican Party to differentiate from the later Republican Party of Abraham Lincoln, even though the term “Democratic-Republican” never existed.

[4] There has always remained controversy among who killed Tecumseh during the hectic battle. Primary accounts say Tecumseh was killed by a soldier on horseback, and Johnson was one of the few men fighting at the front on horseback (since he was an officer). Traditional stories then gave credit to Johnson for killing the famous Native American chief. Some historians speculate that the story was fabricated to benefit Johnson politically.
 
Last edited:
Oh do continue with the informative author's notes: there's a lot about the five party systems that I know, but so little about the first three which I thoroughly understand. :blush:

Interesting that you've gone with someone other than Van Buren for the Democratic nomination; one assumes - perhaps wrongly - that a united Whig political machine led by a more powerful candidate such as Clay would have wiped the floor with him, as Harrison did in 1840. The fact that Van Buren isn't standing, and that the Whigs are still as decentralised as ever leads me to suspect ever so slightly that we might not be seeing Clay in the White House just yet.
 
With all of this debate about his death, will we be seeing Tecumseh's curse at all in the AAR? It would make for an interesting dynamic. (Not that the AAR would be dull without it, of course.)

That said, a great update, volksmarschall. Interesting, as Tanzhang notes, to see van Buren sidelined for this electoral cycle. One would imagine that, in nanny circumstances, a centralised and popular (or should that be populist?) party would clean up against a decentralised, "unpopular" party. I'd put my money on Johnson at this moment in time – unless, of course, you plan on doing what Jape did and dramatically reverse the political momentum right before the elections. :p
 
Ah Jackson, the last enlightened president. The ones that followed were puppets of the big business. ;)
The fact that the National Bank has been defeated once in the past gives hope that somewhere in the future USA shall once again be free of the menace of a central bank and return to sane monetary policies, that being of course a stable silver or gold currency. :cool:
 
Let's bring down the whigs!
 
Great job! I'm loving your footnotes. I really enjoy learning American History in the nineteenth century and gaining a deeper understanding of the politics of that era.
 
Oh do continue with the informative author's notes: there's a lot about the five party systems that I know, but so little about the first three which I thoroughly understand. :blush:

Interesting that you've gone with someone other than Van Buren for the Democratic nomination; one assumes - perhaps wrongly - that a united Whig political machine led by a more powerful candidate such as Clay would have wiped the floor with him, as Harrison did in 1840. The fact that Van Buren isn't standing, and that the Whigs are still as decentralised as ever leads me to suspect ever so slightly that we might not be seeing Clay in the White House just yet.

Poor Henry Clay ran for President in the wrong years. Had he run in 1840, just like Harrison, he would have won by default. Then he runs in 1844 and gets defeated by Polk as Polk runs as a miniature version of Andrew Jackson (cf. Robert Merry, A Country of Vast Designs, 2010). In 1848 he is a three time loser so the Whigs choose General Zachary Taylor instead.

Well, the Whigs were highly uncentralized in 1836 having just formed in 1833. Plus, unless I manipulate the election mechanics, I've never seen the Whigs win when I hold elections in 1836 to keep the in-game election cycle on par with the regular election cylce! :p But who said Clay is going to be President? Just because he was in the first? :p

With all of this debate about his death, will we be seeing Tecumseh's curse at all in the AAR? It would make for an interesting dynamic. (Not that the AAR would be dull without it, of course.)

That said, a great update, volksmarschall. Interesting, as Tanzhang notes, to see van Buren sidelined for this electoral cycle. One would imagine that, in nanny circumstances, a centralised and popular (or should that be populist?) party would clean up against a decentralised, "unpopular" party. I'd put my money on Johnson at this moment in time – unless, of course, you plan on doing what Jape did and dramatically reverse the political momentum right before the elections. :p

Who believes in curses? :p

Populist is a political philosophy/ideology that is generally considered to be moderate to conservative on social issues but generally reformist to bordering on socialist in economic policy in American political history. (the historic Progressive Party, 1912-1924 was probably the most successful "populist" party in American history, more-so than the Populist Party, although I think I would more accurately have said they were social reformists but cultural conservatives - many were diehard and ultra religious Christians. When Teddy was nominated in 1912, the convention broke out into singing religious hymns, most famously "Onward Christians Soldiers."). Any party could be popular! :cool:

I will be playing in-line with the parties and Presidents I choose, so going to war with Mexico in 1836 with Jackson was just not going to happen. Even though for the game's purposes, probably is one of the first things many American players do. That will hopefully add a unique dynamic to the game - playing as the party or President would. After all, if it wasn't for this human playing the game - that's what they should be doing anyways! :p

Ah Jackson, the last enlightened president. The ones that followed were puppets of the big business. ;)
The fact that the National Bank has been defeated once in the past gives hope that somewhere in the future USA shall once again be free of the menace of a central bank and return to sane monetary policies, that being of course a stable silver or gold currency. :cool:

The Hamiltonian dream of a central/national bank will never die! :cool: Although, the Gold Standard might die too if a certain Presidential candidate who lost 3 times in real life and I think lost 2 or 3 times in my original AAR finally becomes President in this one! :p

Great job! I'm loving your footnotes. I really enjoy learning American History in the nineteenth century and gaining a deeper understanding of the politics of that era.

Thanks! Political history in nineteenth century America is simply the best (imo). Although, I will be deviating somewhat from the in-game election mechanics. It would just seem wrong to have the Republicans win Georgia or South Carolina in the 1800s, even if the state tab says the Republicans have 52% of the electoral vote. To keep with the general historical voting patterns, whichever party wins the game election will be kept, with an altering of the states to keep with the historical trends (or the trends that may have emerged if a third party gets really popular).

I am going to follow this, looks interesting.

Glad to have you here Forster. Since I've now hit a wall for Decline and Fall, hopefully this will be a little bit more easy reading for the time being! :cool: