Empire for Liberty: America in the Long Nineteenth Century

[volksmarschall]

IMAGE INTERLUDE

At left: Martin van Buren, the eighth president of the United States from 1837-1841. He was a New York Democrat that was both seen as a friend to Jacksonian democracy and also the Democratic-leaning businesses interests of the Mid-Atlantic. As president, he presided over the First Mexican War, annexation of Nuevo Leon from Mexico, and the entry of the Republic of Texas into the Union. He also presided over the Financial Panic of 1838-1839, which was originally veiled because of the Mexican War. His unpopularity, both within the party and at large, led to his replacement at the 1840 convention with Sam Houston, the hero of the Texas Revolution.

At right: Nicholas Biddle, President of the National Bank from 1822-1836. He was a loyal supporter of Henry Clay’s “American System,” itself a revised vision of Hamilton’s American System favoring a strong central government and system of internal improvements to foster capitalist development on the coasts and between major cities. The Bank came under intense attack during the Jackson Presidency, in which Biddle and Jackson often engaged in attacks in one another. Biddle was instrumental in organizing a network of merchants, bankers, financiers, and Whig Party backers to try and present Jackson’s refusal to prevent a renewal of the Bank. He ultimately failed, and later died in 1844 while serving as Henry Clay's Treasury Secretary. His son, Charles John Biddle, became a famous officer in the American Army and a Union war hero. Following in his father’s footsteps, Charles eventually became Secretary of the Treasury in 1869.​

James Gordon Bennett was a newspaper mogul in New York, having founded the New York Herald, one of the first “Penny Press” newspapers. The penny press papers were cheap, mass-produced, tabloid style papers with strict political agendas on their mind. Most penny press papers were fervently pro-Jefferson and Jackson, maintaining for the expansion of democratic principles and stressing the social equality of American citizens (White citizens, that is). Bennett’s paper was unique in its political autonomy, endorsing both Democrats and Whigs and Republicans during his lifetime. The “Penny Press Revolution” was one of the side effects of the era of Jacksonian Democracy. Pro-Whig newspapers, generally with longstanding lineages going back to the Federalist Party, often snickered at the penny press papers as being rabble papers of no intellectual regimen aimed only at riling up the proletariat masses.​

​

General Winfield Scott, at left. Although sympathetic to the Whig Party, General Scott was a hero of the War of 1812 and hand-picked the young brevet Major General William Clayton to lead the American forces against Mexico in 1837. More importantly, Scott played an instrumental role in quelling the Nullification Crisis. He led the “invasion” of South Carolina with federal troops, bringing a peaceful conclusion to an episode that threatened to tear the Union apart.

To the right, Sam Houston. Politician and general, Sam Houston was a personal ally and friend to Andrew Jackson. He settled in Texas when Mexican officials opened Mexico to American settlers. He became Catholic sometime thereafter in order to qualify for property rights (only Catholics could be rightful owners of land). Houston was appointed general of the Texan forces during the War for Independence. He was cautious and intelligent, scoring a major victory at Crystal Lake then defeating Santa Anna at the town of Seguin along the Rio Guadalupe River. Although wounded, he was considered the George Washington of Texas. Brought to New Orleans to heal from his wounds, he was not only a Texas hero, but an American hero. He was nominated as the Democratic candidate for President in 1840, but the Whigs highlighted his “hidden” Catholic faith. Anti-Catholic prejudice in America led to an astonishing defeat. Houston later re-converted back to Baptist Protestantism, and later elected Senator of Texas—still a hero in the minds of most Americans despite his "Catholic scandal" and defeat in the 1840 election.

Antonio Lopez de Santa Anna, President, General, and “Dictator.” Santa Anna styled himself the “Napoleon of the West.” He considered himself a patriot, fighting to preserve the fragile Mexican Republic in its hour of crisis and need. His handling of the Texas Revolution, and subsequent inability to earn peace that led to an American intervention, is remembered as a sign of poor statesmanship—but it was really a reflection of being put in an untenable position by his military defeats and the impossible American Ultimatum. History remembers Santa Anna as the Mexican leader who lost the lands north of the Rio Grande to America, as well as territory south of the river too!​

Joseph Smith, Prophet and Founder of the Latter Day Saints movement, popularly called Mormonism. Smith emerged in the ecstasy of the Second Great Awakening, and was filled by a spirit of democracy and egalitarianism. The early Mormon movement met few friends, but developed a theology called “United Order” which practiced communalism and egalitarianism—or socialism, in other words. During World War II, Mormon theology was attacked by anti-Communist Protestants, to which Mormon leaders had to defend it as not being Marxist-inspired. (Which, of course, it wasn’t since it predated Marxism.) Mormonism had a frosty relationship with American Protestantism, much like Catholicism. Smith was tarred and feathered on multiple occasions, and finally murdered in 1844. His supporters moved west and eventually settled in Utah, which would remain, to this day, a bastion of the Church of Jesus Christ and Latter Day Saints. Mormons have notable minority presences in many Mountain Western states that border Utah like Idaho, Colorado, Nevada, New Mexico, and Arizona. Despite their persecution, Mormons have always conducted themselves as upstanding citizens of the republic, including 11 Medal of Honor Recipients. The Mormon War of 1849-1850 and Mormon Revolt in 1886 left lingering stains in the minds of “honest” Americans.​

​

Left: Henry Clay, President. Senator from Kentucky. Speaker of the House, and Secretary of State; Clay was an ardent hawk and imperialist. He combined a Hamiltonian vision for a strong and industrious America that would one day rival Britain for hegemony over North America and the Western Hemisphere. But, he showed his Jeffersonian heritage in his inversion of the “Empire of Liberty.” “Wherever liberty is, America is,” he is rumored to have spoken in the halls of the Senate. He clamored for War in 1812, was supportive of the Latin American Revolutions. By throwing off the shackles of Spanish colonialism, Clay viewed the Latin American revolutions as a triumph of anti-imperialism, and also a new market for American goods to help build the infant American economy. However, he was also a realist. The “Monroe Doctrine” was also meant to prevent the drifting of Latin American independence into the hands of the British, which was the last thing American leaders wanted. He also called for intervention during the Greek War of Independence, and was President of the United States from 1841-1845, in which he presided over the Quebec War, making good on his anti-British sentiment. “We must be a continent for liberty” he boasted during his request for war to Congress.

At right: The Most Reverend Samuel Eccleston, archbishop of Baltimore, 1834-1851. Archbishop Eccleston was among the most prominent faces of American Catholicism. Because Baltimore, in Maryland, was a major hub of Catholicism from colonial times to present, Baltimore became the center of American Catholicism in the early republic. Archbishop Eccleston was fighting against anti-Catholic prejudices during most his career. He was targeted as an Agent of Rome and demeaned by the Whigs when rumors broke that Sam Houston met with him after the Democratic Convention in Baltimore which nominated Houston. Eccleston famously re-stated the 1839 Papal Bull by Pope Gregory XVI which condemned American slavery and the treatment of Native Americans. He earned further animosity by nativist Protestants, for being a "Papist spy", and by slave holding interests for his anti-slavery speeches. He died in 1851 a defender of Catholic Americans, Catholic-American patriotism, and widely respected by America’s Catholic population. He is also credited with the “Catholic Revival” among America’s native-born Catholic population that was rejuvenated by waves of German and Irish Catholic immigration from the 1830s-1850s.

 

[Specialist290]

Certainly an intriguing lineup there. I look forward to seeing how each of them makes their indelible mark on history in the coming chapters.

I'm also a bit chuffed to see Henry Clay get a crack at the Presidency. Always been a favorite figure of mine.

 

[Director]

I don't know if you've read it, but I found "The Cousins' Wars" by Kevin Phillips very helpful. Somewhat dry, but it does trace the common elements of the English Civil War, American Revolution and American Civil War. Part of his work is tracing the migratory patterns to and through the US.

Very interesting. As usual, you write well and I'm enjoying following along.

 

[volksmarschall]

Certainly an intriguing lineup there. I look forward to seeing how each of them makes their indelible mark on history in the coming chapters.

I'm also a bit chuffed to see Henry Clay get a crack at the Presidency. Always been a favorite figure of mine.

Well, I feel bad to tell you Specialist that the Image Interlude (which we'll have more per those history books that have sections with pictures and descriptions) is so I can bypass "the great men" and focus on what is driving this AAR write-up: the culture of nationalism and liberty in the U.S.A. I mean, we're basically moving into 1840 and I didn't care to write much concerning Van Buren's presidency. Clay will be name-dropped more simply because 1841-1845 in game has 2 really big events for the AAR write up since they're related to the undercurrent guide of the AAR.

I've treaded on a 57 page AAR that was about the great men. I want to do something different.

I don't know if you've read it, but I found "The Cousins' Wars" by Kevin Phillips very helpful. Somewhat dry, but it does trace the common elements of the English Civil War, American Revolution and American Civil War. Part of his work is tracing the migratory patterns to and through the US.

Very interesting. As usual, you write well and I'm enjoying following along.

Thanks Director! Nice to see you again, long time no see. Phillips' work is wonderful. Basically continues the Puritans' Empire thesis beyond early America (although technically we might say Coulombe's work is a more in-depth look at Phillips' early commentary on the importance of the anti-Catholic Protestant nationalist dynamic that is ripe throughout Anglo-American culture, and remains so to this day, since Phillips published before Coulombe). I also like Fred Anderson's Crucible of Empire. Fills in some time-gap in Philips' narrative.

I should probably go back and read Phillips in his entirety, since, I admit to having sped read and glossed over a decent portion as an undergrad for the sake of time. I had basically forgotten about it until you brought it up, even had to go check, it is sitting in my bottom shelf (the American History shelf) collecting dust for a good 4 years now...

I think we'll recourse to it when we get to TTL's Civil War since it is, as you note, very relevant to some of themes we're exploring in this mostly History lesson masquerading as an AAR using a Victoria GC as the medium to explore such wonderful questions and themes about our history. hahaha.

 

[Idhrendur]

Van Buren's sideburns are the worst.

Also, Quebec War? That's gonna be interesting, I'm sure.

 

[volksmarschall]

Van Buren's sideburns are the worst.

Also, Quebec War? That's gonna be interesting, I'm sure.

I agree. Van Buren should have chopped them off. When we get to the Quebec War, we might need more than one post because it was a ferocious struggle... I admit I may have had a lapse in oversight that made the war have to go a bit longer than normal...

 

[volksmarschall]

CHAPTER III: THE ORIGINS OF SECTIONALISM


The Texas Election of 1839​

The decisive and swift American victory in the First Mexican War was also a major watershed moment in the origins of sectionalism, especially in the American West. The victory secured temporary Texan independence from 1837-1839, whereby Texas entered the Union. The Mexican territory of Nuevo Leon, south of the Rio Grande, served as a sort of buffer zone between Mexico and Texas. The American “occupation”, so-called, was designed for three things: secure Texan independence from a possible Mexican reconquest, pressure Texas into the American Union, and serve as a future base of operation for conflict with Mexico—since American forces would not have to cross the natural obstacle of the Rio Grande. It achieved all three goals.

The Texas War of Independence was a heroic struggle for the Texans, but is now considered part of American lore and history for the reasons of Pan-American nationalism and the fact that Texas eventually joined the Union quickly after securing her independence. Initially, Texas did seek its own imperial security, but the American presence in Nuevo Leon and Mexican territory to the west, push Texas into a box that it could not escape from. In 1837, Mirabeau Lamar was elected President for a one year term.[1] He pushed an aggressive expansionist foreign policy, claiming that the territory as far as California was proper Texas territory. He increased the size of the Texan military, engaged in internal development projects, but bankrupted the republic in the process. His dream of empire is what, ironically, drove Texas into the arms of the United States.

The first President of a independently recognized Texas. Lamar was instrumental in forming a distinctive Texan nationalism.​

The new Texan army, about 15,000 strong, had nowhere to go. Mexico was to the west. America to the north, south, and east. Lamar’s diplomacy in Washington cracked when David G. Burnett, the Texan ambassador to the United States, was unable to maintain the American alliance that would have permitted westward Texan expansion. Secretary of State John Forsyth, a fellow Georgian, stalled Burnett as long as possible. Obviously the United States eyed the same territory that Texas was eyeing, and the fear in Washington was that if Texas seized the westerly lands to California, Texas would become strong enough to ward off American pressure to enter the Union. It was a deliberate ploy to give false hope that America was on Texas’ side, Texas would bankrupt itself in preparation for conquest, then be forced into the Union as economic reality set it. It worked like a charm.

Lamar’s quest for empire had badly backfired. He lost in the 1838 election to Texan hero Sam Houston. Houston, long considered a lackey for Andrew Jackson, declared a platform calling for an economic recovery to protect Texan independence. Of course, Houston later reversed face and asked to join the Union before his reelection. It was put to a popular vote heading into the election of 1839, Houston’s candidacy being the pro-Union candidacy and Lamar being the Texas sovereignty candidacy. Houston won a slim re-election against Lamar, who was aggressively nationalist in his campaign. The 1839 election marked the end of Texan independence, but showed cracked in westerly American politics of sectional loyalty and American Unionism.

Lamar and his supporters formed the Texas Independence Party, a nationalist, expansionist, and Jeffersonian (agrarian republicanism) party that sought to secure Texan independence from both Mexico and the United States. (Despite Lamar having previously been a Democratic Party politician for the State of Georgia.) Houston formed the Texas Democratic Party, which promoted pan-American nationalism, union with America, and economic recovery. The split marked a major problem, internally, for the heirs of the Jeffersonian-Jacksonian tradition.

The painting marking the entry of Texas into the Union as the newest state of the United States of America. The political "fiasco" that led to Texas' entry into the Union left a new visible strand of sectionalism between Unionist nationalism and regional nationalism, along with the older strands of political and economic nationalism that characterized American cultural politics in search for unity among a country of many religions, cultures, and philosophies.​

Both parties were nominally Jeffersonian agrarian and ecstatically democratic. This was the core of Jeffersonian-Jacksonian ideology. Jefferson had believed, from the long tradition of agrarian democracy that went back to the ancient Greeks and Hebrews, that agrarianism was the foundational for an egalitarian and democratic society. The virtue of land work and labor, yeomanry, produced a virtuous and hardworking people. Democracy could only flourish with such virtue and relative equality. Hamilton’s vision, by contrast, was what Karl Marx would call “bourgeois democracy.” Democracy would be essentially controlled by the moneyed-interests of the country. Capitalism and industry would reign supreme. For Hamilton, only through a strong economy and central government, could America emerge out of the shadow of the British Empire. The Whig Party was nominally Hamiltonian, although it had a strong agrarian and rural wing in the upper Midwest—reflected in the person of William Henry Harrison. The Democratic Party was nominally Jeffersonian-Jacksonian, but had a strong Hamiltonian-esque wing situated in the Mid-Atlantic, especially Pennsylvania and New York.

The Jeffersonian-Jacksonian nationalism was a political nationalism which valued liberty as being tied to the politics of democracy. Hamiltonian nationalism, to which the Whigs were largely indebted to, was economic—tied to the ideology of economic progress and industrialization that would secure American hegemony through a strong centralized economy.

In Texas, there emerged the seeds of a split in the Jeffersonian-Jacksonian tradition to which both Lamar and Houston were equally part of. Houston backed an American nationalism that was tied to the politics of Unionism (Unionism, ultimately, was very conservative in the sense that Unionism would never allow secession—Houston himself rejected the secessionist movement in Texas as the states’ governor in 1859 and 1860. When the Civil War broke out in April 1860, he was forcibly removed from office by secessionists.) Lamar sought a quasi-secessionist nationalism that put the interests of Texas above the larger American Union. (Some speculate his defeat for the U.S. Congress in 1833 left a bad taste in his mouth and ruined his love for “America” which drove him to seek his fortune in Texas.)

Thus, in the Texas election of 1839, we see sectional tensions reaching a boiling point that should have alarmed any politician who did not see the Missouri Compromise of 1820 as a point of sectional tension. Houston’s victory, 7,167 votes against Lamar’s 6,913 votes (50.9-49.1) not only ensured Houston’s reelection, it eventually brought the Texas into the Union.

In the Shadow of the Missouri Compromise​

The Missouri Compromise of 1820 looms large in any coverage of sectional tension. While I have made an effort to highlight how cultural and philosophical issues were also at play, the problem of Missouri now reared its ugly head following Texas’ entry into the Union. The Missouri Territory, part of the Louisiana Purchase, was granted special status as a slave-holding territory, while the Arkansas territory was also legally able to be a slave territory based on the provisions of the compromise. Territories north of Missouri were to be free territories, while any territory south could be slave.

The irony is it was Thomas Jefferson’s party that sought the compromise for the extension of slavery. Its founder, Jefferson, had spent his entire political career fighting against the expansion of slavery. From the Northwest Ordinance to banning the Atlantic Slave Trade, to noting how the newfound Missouri Compromise would lead to a conflict between slave and free state, one can certainly appreciate the irony that it was in Jefferson’s name slavery expanding while Jefferson himself was the most anti-slavery politician in the first 60 years of the American republic’s history.

Here, I need to note a special designation in terminology: anti-slavery vs. abolitionism. The eminent Civil War historian James McPherson[2] notes anti-slavery and abolitionist politics were not the same. Anti-slavery politics was concerned with stopping the expansion of slavery, but was otherwise somewhat neutral regarding the issue of abolition. While anti-slavery politics probably foresaw a time when abolition (or self-exhaustion in Jefferson’s ideology) would eventually come, they were not clamoring over the immediate abolition of slavery. Abolitionism, by contrast, was more radical. Not only did it seek to prevent the expansion of slavery, it also called for the immediate and binding abolition of the entire institution of slavery altogether. The future Republican Party was anti-slavery, with abolitionist elements, but its most famous early leaders were not abolitionists.

Meanwhile, the Democratic Party was torn between pro-slavery and anti-slavery factions; by pro-slavery I mean expansionist. The Whig Party was not as morally pure as some like to claim. In New England, for instance—especially in Massachusetts—a strong faction of pro-slavery Whigs (the “Cotton Whigs”) defended southern slavery because the New England textile industry was dependent on the cheap flow of cotton to New England factories. However, pro-slavery factions in the Whig Party could be considered anti-slavery insofar that they did not seek slavery’s expansion to new lands, but were decidedly anti-abolitionist.

Following the Quebec War which consumed much of the Clay Administration, the 1844 election pitted the ardent Jacksonian James K. Polk—who was also Speaker of the House—against the modestly popular Henry Clay. Polk ran on a Democratic Platform calling for the expansion of American territory to California. Many of the Whigs, rightly or wrongly, thought that such expansionism—a continuation of the ethos of Manifest Destiny begun by Jackson—would bring tension on the Missouri Compromise. Some of the Mexican territory, after all, was south of the 36/30’ parallel which meant any such carved territories from westward conquest could become slave territories and therefore slave states.

The election of 1844 pitted economic nationalism (Clay) against democratic nationalism (Polk). It also pitted Westward Expansion and Manifest Destiny (Polk) against “Consolidation” and “Unionist” nationalism (Clay). Despite the American victory in the Quebec War, and a general health to the American economy following the 1838-1839 Panic, Clay came across as hypocritical. He had, after all, just presided over a war of expansionism in British Canada—but was now claiming to be the “peace candidate.” Southern slavery partisans accused the north of revisionist expansionism. Expansion in northern territories guaranteed free territories, and eventually free states. These southern agitators claimed it was a northern, Puritan, and Yankee ploy to tip the balance of Senate politics in favor of the “North” against the “South.”

Polk swept the American South and West, including Texas (except for Clay’s home-state of Kentucky). Clay won all of New England, including New York and Pennsylvania. Nevertheless, Polk won a tight victory both in popular vote and electoral college: 1,498,117 votes for Polk (50.8%) and 1,301,003 votes for Clay (44.1%), with 150,021 votes to various other parties. The 280 electoral votes[3] were dispersed 145 (Polk) to 135 (Clay). The victory granted Polk the presidency, and the path to the Second Mexican War was now on the horizon.

The Second Mexican War, unlike the First Mexican War, sharply divided the country between Manifest Destiny advocates and anti-slavery advocates; Whigs and Democrats; political nationalists and economic nationalists. The division between north and south, however, is bit more misleading; in part because many in the Midwest (which Polk carried, including Ohio) favored westward expansion. Many northern proponents of Manifest Destiny argued that it was America’s destiny to rule over North America—to be the “empire of liberty” per Jefferson. The noise of slavery’s expansion, they believed, to be hallow. How wrong they were.

The Presidential portrait of James K. Polk, Democratic President from 1845-1849, and former Speaker of the House. He was an ardent Jacksonian, and ran on a platform of westward expansion and the consummation of Manifest Destiny. He won a narrow election against Henry Clay.​

[1] Historically, the presidents served two year terms. In this timeline, I’m re-writing it for one year terms to fit the outcome of game events.

[2] Real historian, McPherson is considered one of the finest historians of the American Civil War alive today.

[3] The historical election of 1844 had 275, the additional 5 is my addition of Texas to the Union. Quebec was officially a territory in-game at this time, so is not counted as an electorally eligible state. I will bring into the electoral college any state that had its in-game triggering of “Granted Statehood” regardless of its population (the historical way states were admitted OTL).

NOTE: The pattern of this AAR, by now, should be seen to be thematic and not necessarily chronological. We’ll return to Clay and the Quebec War, as well as some other important domestic events from 1841-1845, in the proper thematic section of the AAR. The election results are also a-historical. Clay won Ohio in the real 1844 election, but a razor thin margin. Hence the reverse in TTL. I will keep a reflection of historically accurate politics, e.g. the Whigs and Republicans being very strong in New England (lest we forget that Vermont, of all states, voted against FDR all four times!)

SUGGESTED READING

Robert Pierce Forbes, The Missouri Compromise and Its Aftermath: Slavery and the Meaning of America

David S. Heidler, Henry Clay: The Essential American

Harry Watson, Liberty and Power: The Politics of Jacksonian America
Note, I greatly recommend this book for anyone interested in Antebellum politics and the various interpretations/meanings of “republicanism” and “democracy” in antebellum American thought.​

 

[RossN]

Very interesting work. I have to admit the contrarian in me was rooting for Lamar to defeat Houston.

I'm surprised you willing to confirm future events like an (apparently very successful) war against Britain in the 1840s largely in asides.

 

[volksmarschall]

Very interesting work. I have to admit the contrarian in me was rooting for Lamar to defeat Houston.

I'm surprised you willing to confirm future events like an (apparently very successful) war against Britain in the 1840s largely in asides.

Yeah. The romantic in me had to make the election super close. The only way Lamar would win is if Texas didn't join the Union, obviously that's didn't happen.

I've hinted a lot that's tucked away in the text; you all know when to expect the start of the Civil War now (and even its ending date if you're super attentive to detail). I'm all the way up to 1895. Victoria I love, love, love. Plus, the limited length (comparatively speaking) allows for more completed GCs than the other titles. The problem is my "history book" is meant to read like it is real history, i.e. you wonderful readers already know what happened. I write that way. Hence why I play a lot ahead then I just have to catch up with the text, and the advanced play let's me to allude to future events. Of course, not giving too much away during those allusions--I hope.

 

[Specialist290]

I view it as something like a puzzle; you can see all the pieces in front of you, but the trick is in trying to see how they all fit together. All in all, an enjoyable exercise

 

[volksmarschall]

I view it as something like a puzzle; you can see all the pieces in front of you, but the trick is in trying to see how they all fit together. All in all, an enjoyable exercise

If they're comparable, I do enjoy puzzle games.

Plus, our first screenshots will be coming up in the next 2 updates.

 

[volksmarschall]

CHAPTER III: THE ORIGINS OF SECTIONALISM



THE SECOND MEXICAN WAR, I

Polk’s Character​

Polk’s victory in the 1844 election marked the apogee of westward expansion and the fulfillment of Manifest Destiny’s ideological program. While the earliest iterations of Manifest Destiny and westward expansion were visible from the earliest days of the colonial period, that was motivated more for non-ideological purposes as the rise of Destinarian ideology following the American Revolution. By 1800, with the election of Thomas Jefferson, the American west was always eyed as the prime land for Jefferson’s agrarian empire of liberty. The Democratic-Republican, to Democratic Party, retained its most Jeffersonian foundation in its adamant insistence on westward expansion as part of the fulfillment of “God’s chosen people, if he ever had one” (the yeoman farmer and laborer).[1]

Polk was a Jacksonian, but also a strong Jeffersonian. Hailing from Tennessee, he embodied the rough-neck, laboring, and restless Scotch-Irish ethos so important to the Appalachian and central west American culture. In fact, most of the fervent exponents of the Manifest Destiny ideology were Scotch-Irish Presbyterians.

Like Jackson, Polk was born in a log cabin in the hill country; one of ten children. His father was a slaveholder, but this didn’t seem to motivate Polk’s westward conquest as some detractors claim. Instead, like the good Presbyterian he was, Polk believed it was God’s preordained destiny for the United States to stretch across the North American continent. Polk was probably the most committed believer in Manifest Destiny’s ideological program; perhaps part of his determinist theological inheritance. The problem with this over and against slavery was Polk’s opponents, namely the Whigs, believed Polk was ironically “enslaved” to “Slave Power Politics” which dominated southern state legislatures and the majority of most Southern Democrats. Again, Polk seemed ambiguous over the issue of slavery itself—his reticence problematic for his actual thoughts—but his expansionist policy made it easy to link him to slavery’s more radical expansionist wing rather than the more conservative containment wing that could, by McPherson’s definition, be considered anti-slavery only insofar that they weren’t working to expand slavery (although they equally didn’t advocate its abolition or foresee future abolition as northern anti-slavery activists did).

Polk was a slender and modestly sized man, standing a slender 5’8”. His relatively gangly arms and appearance were not necessarily the most pleasing; but it would be wrong to describe him as anything but average. Average height, weight, and looks. He equally lacked the charisma of Clay and Jackson, or Jefferson and Hamilton; although he was charismatic and a vocal speaker when he had to be. But he was a diligent and hardworking man. Moreover, he was the most intellectual president since Thomas Jefferson. Polk, in his youth, belonged to the Dialectic Society—a learned society that debated literature and philosophy. Polk was extremely well-read, having even been rumored to have read the eminent German philosopher Georg W.F. Hegel, who may have inspired a certain element of Polk’s theological determinism with a more rigorous intellectual foundation than Calvinism could provide. In fact, it was during Polk’s Presidency that a cadre of Prussian and German intellectuals would arrive in America and move westward, establishing the foundation of the “St. Louis Hegelians” who would come to prominence in American philosophy in the late 1850s through 1870s.

President Polk. Polk was the quintessential silent workhorse. A learned man and intellectual in his youth, he retained a healthy love of philosophy and rhetoric. Next to Thomas Jefferson, he was probably the closest individual to a "philosopher king" in American history. He was committed to fulfilling the Jacksonian promise in politics: Manifest Destiny, Westward Expansion, and lower tariffs. He would achieve all his goals by the end of his first term, and decided to stand down after a single term. He would later be succeeding by Levi Woodbury, another staunch Jacksonian Presbyterian and Polk's Supreme Court nominee.​

In many respects, Polk seemed to be the quintessential embodiment of the old Scotch-Irish Presbyterian character, mixed with a blend of Calvinist determinism and Enlightenment evolutionary historicism. Polk had campaigned on a platform calling for westward expansion, but also to dismantle the internal improvements program established by the preceding Clay Administration—especially anything that was promoted by Nicholas Biddle, Clay’s Treasury Secretary. Polk’s first act as president was to lower the protective tariffs established by Clay. He also altered tax funds that were going to canals and road construction (mainly in the Midwest) and redirected it to funds for military expansion and a 12-ship naval armaments program; the establishment of the American Caribbean Squadron.

As Polk walked around the White House, he had a quiet work ethic to him—the very Calvinist ethic that Max Weber would later note of in his work The Protestant Ethic and Spirit of Capitalism. In many ways, Polk was a silent intellectual. His youthful days of debating now superseded by the responsibilities of running a growing and emergent nation. The Mexicans, however, sensing the American eyes lurching toward the Pacific, attempted to buy time for their own military reorganization program. But by June of 1846, tensions between the two countries were headed toward war.

The Power of the Penny Press and the Declaration of War​

On May 13, 1846, a small detachment of American soldiers in Texas (Nuevo Leon)[2] meandered toward the Mexican border. The attachment was commanded by Lt. Colonel Lucas Abercrombie, who would soon become promoted to brigadier general and play a much larger role in the war that followed. Abercrombie’s men, it is said by conspiracy theorists, were deliberately ordered to cross the border and be fired upon by the Mexicans. The truth is far more confusing. American forces had been patrolling and conducting reconnaissance exercises for the past three or four months. This was nothing less than that. The Mexicans that fired upon them were not regulars, but irregulars—peasants and farmers defending their territory. It was not already uncommon for small detachments of American soldiers to cross the border for scouting purposes.

Abercrombie and his men were fired upon from the hills. The soldiers returned fire. Three American soldiers died, and it is unknown the number of casualties from the Mexican farmers who eventually fled after about ten minutes of fighting. The Americans retired back into Texas.

This was not the first time this had happened though. Further to the west, American forces under the commander of General Michael Banks had constructed a fort on “disputed” territory. The action was rather clear for both sides. Mexican forces moved to the fort and fired upon it, beginning a week long primitive siege that was ended on April 19 when Banks relieved the fort with a column of 1,000 men; negotiating the peaceful withdrawal and burning of the fort.

But the skirmish of May 13 marked the power of the penny presses in America. Throughout Texas, then spreading within a week like wildfire throughout the south and west, pro-Democratic and Manifest Destiny newspapers reported the incidents and stoked the flames of American emotion and passion. The 13 American soldiers who had been killed in the two incidents marked a point of no return. For the next two weeks, even the New York penny presses called for retribution and war. One Georgia newspaper characterized the issue as such:

The Papist Mexicans are of the lowest order of humans. True agents of Babylon, witches and fire-eaters who desire to pillage our land, steal our women, and make war against the gatekeepers of God’s democracy. The recent attacks against our soldiers mark the arrival of the seven-headed serpent. If we do not strike back and safeguard what God had promised to us, we have no right to exist and deserve to become slaves like the Jews of Old—thereby forfeiting our covenant with the Lord.

A newspaper engraving and pamphlet reporting on the Mexican War, highlighting "Mexican treachery and cruelty." The role of the media was extremely important and power in the age of Jacksonian politics. Sensationalism sells, and sell it they did. Most penny press newspapers were strongly aligned with the Democratic Party. News of minor actions along the U.S.-Mexico border were re-reported in the newspapers as titanic events, a call for war for any rational man. The press played a major role during the war too. Journalists journeyed with American forces to provide first-hand accounts of the battles and exploits back to their newspapers at home.​

The religious-soaked imagery and writing was altogether common. As mentioned, from the days of the Puritans, to which Scotch-Irish Presbyterians were related as another sect of Calvinism, there was an intense anti-Catholicism and marriage of democratic politics with Protestant revivalism. The Second Great Awakening was still ongoing in the west. Methodist and Presbyterian riders and open air preachers were tirelessly going from town to town to spread not just the gospel of Christ, but the gospel of American democracy. The ideology of Manifest Destiny was no doubt steeped in a puritanical and powerful Johannine Missiology that saw it the true Christian’s (Protestant) responsibility to liberate the souls of the New Canaan from the New Babylon (Catholic Mexico). This motivated the siren calls for war, which finally broke out on June 11, 1846 when Polk successfully asked Congress for a declaration of war. It was a vote that was initially very partisan. The majority of Whigs were sharply opposed, nearly all Democrats in favor.

However, the Cotton Whigs brokered a compromise that promised slavery would not expand to the new territories with “free soil” Democrats.[3] Congressman David Wilmot became the face of the bill, although it did originate with him. The Wilmot Proviso, as it became known later, was modeled after the language of the Northwest Ordinance. As a Democrat who opposed slavery’s expansion, and with the blessing of President Polk, the successful incorporation of the Proviso into the declaration of war secured a majority of Whig support. Less than 20 Whigs opposed the formal declaration of war because of the promise of the Wilmot Proviso and the proto-Wilmot Proviso language added to the declaration of war text. For his role, Wilmot would later become Speaker of the House at the start of 1849 on a cross election between the actual Free Soil Party, which saw an enormous rise in popularity because of the Second Mexican War, Whigs, and free soil Democrats. We’ll return to Wilmot’s rocky Speakership later, where he would eventually be forced to resign his post when he switched parties.

The language of the Wilmot Proviso was drawn from the compromise text added as the last section of the declaration of war: Sec. 10: And be it further enacted, That whatever territory be acquired in the war is not for expansion of slaveholding politics…

The problem was that the “Wilmot Proviso amendment”, in being drafted into the declaration of war and not being the actual policy bill, was that it was non-binding. It was re-drafted in fuller detail after the war had begun. It passed the House of Representatives, but was killed in the Senate by Southern Democrats who well knew that there was no reason to pass a bill that would restrict the expansion of slavery. Nevertheless, the Wilmot Proviso marked new tension within the Democratic Party between “free soilers” who still considered themselves party loyalists against the equally loyalist pro-slavery expansion wing. The June 11 declaration of war marked another moment in sectional tension in the years prior to the outbreak of the Civil War.

Left, David Wilmot, Democratic Congressman from Pennsylvania. Right, the firing of the Wilmot Proviso in-game. David Wilmot was seen as a staunch Jacksonian party loyalist despite his anti-slavery politics (which were not seen as mutually exclusive). He was not the author of the Wilmot Proviso, but its public face to which it bore his name. Wilmot and a coalition of "free soil" Democrats and Cotton Whigs brokered a compromise in the declaration of war language that would become the basis for the future Wilmot Proviso that would pass the House of Representatives but fail in the Senate. For his action, however, the Whigs conspired with the newly formed Free Soil Party and free soil Democrats to elect David Wilmot Speaker of the House for the 1849-1851 Congressional session. Wilmot was subsequently shunned by his former friends and Democratic Party colleagues. He subsequently changed party affiliation and joined the Free Soil Party in June of 1849. The pressure of Speakership and having few friends led to his resignation in September. The Democrats regained proper control of the Speakership afterward. Wilmot would lose re-election in 1850 against his former Democratic Party. He subsequently became an influential leader in Pennsylvania Free Soil politics, standing for Senate election in 1855 after Senator James Cooper's retirement. With the backing of Free Soil Democrats, the Free Soil Party, the Whigs, and the newly formed Republican Party, he won election. He became the joint Free-Soil and Republican Party nominee for president in 1856.​

Among the few opponents of the war declaration from start to finish was former President John Quincy Adams. Now a congressman, he vocally opposed the war on the grounds that it was immoral and would allow for the spread of slavery despite the war declarations proto-Wilmot Proviso attachments. For many, Adams represented the legacy of the moralistic Puritanism of New England once again butting heads with the deadly combination of restless Scotch-Irish expansionism (Polk) and pro-slavery Cavalierism (most Southern Democratic Senators). Despite his best efforts, he, gain, managed to rally only 17 Whigs and 2 Democrats to oppose to war declaration.

With the declaration of war secured, American forces mobilized into three major armies. The Army of California, the Army of the West, and the Army of Mexico. Some 75,000 soldiers and volunteers were pushing into Mexican territory by July. A series of small encounters and skirmishes dominated the first month of the war before the American Army of California drove into the heart of westerly Mexico.

Things were partly compounded by the news of the declaration of war. A coalition of indigenous and American settlers, pioneers, and native populations that were all willingly open to throw off the shackles of the Mexican government declared their independence in what became known as the “Bear Flag Revolt.” Like the Texans a decade earlier, tens of thousands of Americans had been either invited in, or simply forced their way across the border to seek a new life. Even before the main Gold Rushes of the late 1840s, news of gold mines throughout the west coast drew entrepreneurs and prospectors from afar.

These “Americans”, mostly Scotch-Irish, enthusiastically declared their independence. Again, this was a problematic cultural issue in the far west. Many of these “Americans” did not feel much attachment to the American government in Washington, but the American government in Washington certainly used the pretext of pan-American nationalism and Manifest Destiny to claim these revolutionary patriots as their own. Even before the arrival of American forces, hundreds, if not thousands, of these rebellious individuals engaged in small brush fire combat with the Mexican garrisons—sapping their morale in advance of the American army.

The California Campaign was a swift and decisive victory for American forces. The Battle of San Francisco and Los Angeles crippled the Mexican armies. The securing of the Pacific Ocean by October of 1846 was heralded as a great sign of success for the American war effort. Captain John C. Fremont, an American officer and future Republican Party Vice Presidential nominee in 1856, was awarded the Medal of Honor for his leading the charge up the old Spanish Mission during the battle of Los Angeles.

The Battle of San Francisco, one of the early battles of the war that ended in a decisive American victory. The swift victory of the California Campaign marked good fortune for America's westward campaign. The war in Mexico was far more brutal. American soldiers suffered from heat, exhaustion, and desertion during the long trek to Mexico City. 1856 Republican Party Vice Presidential nominee John C. Fremont took part of the California Campaign, and became one of the many "heroes" of the conflict at closure.​

The California Campaign marked the success of the two-pronged attack of American forces, 15,000 marching on San Francisco and 9,000 on Los Angeles. The Mexicans, who numbered only 18,000, were split between the entirety of the state. The campaign was a rousing display of American maneuver against Mexican static defense tactics. Superior American maneuver cut off Mexican supplies, drowned the Mexicans in distance artillery fire, and was consummated in the storming of the Mexican defenses. The California Campaign was also unique in the Bear Flag Revolt, where numerous farmers and settlers, pioneers and even gold prospectors, rose up and declared their independence from Mexico. It was, of course, short-lived and the Bear Flag Republic was superseded by advancing American forces. The rebels folded into the ranks of the American army. The fighting, although intense, was short.

While the California and Pacific Campaign was a dazzling success, the Mexican Campaign was far more brutal. The hills, scorching heat, and poor decision making by General John Sullivan, a general with a mixed reputation from the Quebec War, made the Mexican Campaign of 1846-1847 a long, drawn out, and tiresome campaign that pushed both sides to the limit. Furthermore, embedded American journalists overly dramatized the events of the Californian campaign with a splendid gloss of red, white, and blue. Long before the formal “Yellow Journalism” and “Sensationalism” that would characterize the Progressive Era, the seedlings of yellow journalism and patriotic sensationalism were laid in the Second Mexican War. In fact, the war featured a new innovation in the history of the American press: foreign military correspondents whose sole job it was to cover the war (with a pro-war slant too).


[1] From Jefferson’s Notes on the State of Virginia.

[2] From hereafter the “state” of Nuevo Leon is considered part of the state of Texas.

[3] The history of the “Free Soil movement” is complex and complicated compared to cursory and textbook readings of it. It is true that the movement opposed the expansion of slavery to new westward territories, but this did not make it an “abolitionist” movement. In fact, it could be read as a very “conservative” movement that was ferociously maintaining the old status-quos of the Northwest Ordinances and Missouri Compromise which had guaranteed the new western and northern territories be free territories rather than possibly slave. The Free Soil Movement attracted non-abolitionist Democrats who fought against slavery’s expansion, but also had no interest in abolishing slavery. (Whose politics would fit the "anti-slavery" definition, but not the abolitionist definition.) I plan to explain the Free Soil Movement more, especially in a future chapter concerning the politics of sectionalism; and since the party is briefly represented in-game. The preceding Liberty Party, in fact, was the more “radical” party that insisted on the politics of abolition rather than anti-slavery expansionism. Both movements were also rooted in the moralist, rather than political, side of the Second Great Awakening, with strong support from northern Methodists (especially in New York State).

SUGGESTED READING

Walter Borneman, Polk: The Man who Transformed the Presidency and America

Tom Chaffin, Met His Every Goal? James K. Polk and the Legends of Manifest Destiny

Cecilia Holland, The Bear Flag: A Novel

John C. Pinherio, Missionaries of Republicanism: A Religious History of the Mexican-American War

Tom Reilly, War with Mexico! America’s Reporters Cover the Battlefront

Barbara Warner, The Men of the California Bear Flag Revolt​

 

[Idhrendur]

Yay Bear Flag revolt! Though yours is less comical than the original, which consisted of one to three dozen men capturing a couple undefended forts, and only one battle, itself of miniscule scale. The 'capture' of Sonoma is especially great. The 30 or so rebels show up and knock on the governor's door, and he invites the leaders in to talk everything out over drinks! Sure, they arrested him in the end, but it's certainly not the scale you tend to think of when you hear the word 'rebellion'.

 

[Director]

Idhrendur, please check the forum rules - discussion or even mention of that topic is prohibited, and I don't want you to get in trouble.


I was hoping for "Harry of the West" to carry the Presidency. Never did care for Polk. But in keeping with American tradition, great men rarely ascend to the Presidency. Some discover greatness while there, which is a different matter. Neither Clay, Webster or Calhoun - arguably the three greatest intellects and speakers of the post-founder generation - ever became President.

I, too, love Victoria. One of my little pastimes is to load up as Haiti and study world affairs with amused detachment while developing my literacy and industry. I've played as the US a number of times, and the modeling of the Civil War leaves a great bit to be desired. Rather than fight out the Civil War you can just let the CSA go. Once you make it a member of your sphere, it will rejoin,

 

[volksmarschall]

Yay Bear Flag revolt! Though yours is less comical than the original, which consisted of one to three dozen men capturing a couple undefended forts, and only one battle, itself of miniscule scale. The 'capture' of Sonoma is especially great. The 30 or so rebels show up and knock on the governor's door, and he invites the leaders in to talk everything out over drinks! Sure, they arrested him in the end, but it's certainly not the scale you tend to think of when you hear the word 'rebellion'.

Comical indeed. Although I didn't want to "taint" the AAR's, hopefully, erudite style. It's important to understanding some of the sectional tension in the west that's for sure. But it was otherwise somewhat not too terribly important so we don't need to get into the finer details. Too bad Fremont basically forcibly took control in real life. The might of the sword is powerful...

I was hoping for "Harry of the West" to carry the Presidency. Never did care for Polk. But in keeping with American tradition, great men rarely ascend to the Presidency. Some discover greatness while there, which is a different matter. Neither Clay, Webster or Calhoun - arguably the three greatest intellects and speakers of the post-founder generation - ever became President.

I, too, love Victoria. One of my little pastimes is to load up as Haiti and study world affairs with amused detachment while developing my literacy and industry. I've played as the US a number of times, and the modeling of the Civil War leaves a great bit to be desired. Rather than fight out the Civil War you can just let the CSA go. Once you make it a member of your sphere, it will rejoin,

Well Harry was president in this timeline, although he's not terribly important to our themes; hence we'll revisit his administration and the Quebec War and Rise of Temperance/Prohibition since that event fired during his presidency. I couldn't bring a Clay Presidency to be so jingoistic in the west where issues of slavery and Catholic vs. Protestant tension reigns supreme. Polk fits just fine as a filler as he did in real life. I'm not the biggest Polk fan either. Too much mythology over his "accomplished everything" mentality without delving into the finer details of what the ramifications and motivations are.

Sure, Polk didn't seem to be a slavery hawk like Pierre Soulé and the pro-slavery expansionists, but he was no fan of anti-slavery or abolitionist movements either. Regardless of his diaries stating he didn't think it was wise for slavery to be expanded westward, he clearly had short-sighted vision for not seeing how pro-slavery expansionists would use the conquest for their goals. And his biggest legacy, westward expansion, only heightened the tension over slavery that leads to the Kansas-Nebraska Act, Bleeding Kansas, and ultimately the Civil War itself as a result. It's funny that his successors are continuously ranked poorly while they got shafted with the hand dealt to them by Polk's one-term 'successful' administration. Sure, he accomplished everything he set out to do, and granted the acquisition of the westcoast would later come to benefit the U.S. (many decades after the fact), but surely all the baggage and problems created by his administration doesn't deserve the merit of constantly being ranked in the top quarter of presidents as he consistently does. Well, I shouldn't write anymore since we'll be covering this in the coming chapters... (And as you well know, I despise the "textbook" histories of the U.S. since they serve, imo, to restrict critical thought rather than expand it; how these textbooks proclaim to teach American history without proper discourse of the Puritans, their identity and consciousness, the anti-Catholic sentiment of America's Protestant culture that saw westward expansion as a fight between Protestantism and Catholicism, the various different cultural and philosophical understandings of liberty and freedom, is beyond me...)

I'm equally conflicted over the Civil War dynamic in Victoria. It's one of my favorite Paradox games (along with EU4) just because of the historical time period. But the CW is either go Union and blow the Confederacy out of the water in a year, let them refold back in, or play as the Confederates for a more fun and engaging CW. And such a transformative event in our history deserves better. As such, when it fires in TTL, I might be doing things as player to make it more dramatic as it well deserves.

 

[Director]

Sorry - I thought if Clay didn't win against Polk he'd be too old to run again. Or if he was president earlier and I missed it - I apologize.

Americans may deplore the Mexican-American War but we like the results of it sure enough - not the first or last ethical lapse in our history.

I've played out the ACW by deliberately not building up a large standing army (difficult if, say, Britain comes calling) or by generating an event to give the South more regiments in their force pool. Neither of those work particularly well but they do help some.

 

[volksmarschall]

Sorry - I thought if Clay didn't win against Polk he'd be too old to run again. Or if he was president earlier and I missed it - I apologize.

Americans may deplore the Mexican-American War but we like the results of it sure enough - not the first or last ethical lapse in our history.

I've played out the ACW by deliberately not building up a large standing army (difficult if, say, Britain comes calling) or by generating an event to give the South more regiments in their force pool. Neither of those work particularly well but they do help some.

No worries. It's embedded in the text. I think I have three references now to Clay being president. As @Specialist290 chimed in, the thematic writing means we do have some puzzle pieces. I even made reference to a future president of the populist/progressive era already!

We might not get Harry to the West (as much as I would love that too), but we'll get Harry to the North! Admittedly, the only reason I have Polk as a place-holding president is I didn't want to tar Clay's reputation with the fallout of westward expansion. I'm okay with tearing Polk down from his pedestal, or at least presenting a far more nuanced understanding of his legacy in the "age of sectionalism" which truly exploded because of his "accomplishments." It's true that "the country" benefited from his fulfillment of Manifest Destiny, but the payoff was long after the fact. As you and I both know, it really comes down to perspectivism. Yes, Polk was a success in one sense. But his success came with serious ramifications. And, of course, it's not just him; there's much more to the story too as I hope to be conveying. This is true of almost all "great men" in history. As such, this AAR is presenting some of the counter perspectives for general edification. Just like my future post concluding the Mexican War, which should be a lot of fun for all you kind readers.

It's okay for me to stomp the Confederacy as the Union in less than a year in a regular game. But for an AAR that is presenting itself as alt-history (since it reflects the in-game outcomes) but an alt-history deeply tied to historicity (just a re-write of real history to correspond with the game's timeline of events) I can't have an AAR of nineteenth century America not have a devastating and important civil war. That'd be heresy!

 

[AvatarOfKhaine]

I'm curious, and because I might be missing the hints, but at during which years were the Quebec War/Crisis meant to happen in this?

And alternately, is such a crisis/war based on a chain of events for the US or is it a "normal" war or crisis?

Oh, and I've been lurking and this is a great AAR like I have come to enjoy considering your interesting and engaging style of AAR.

 

[Idhrendur]

Comical indeed. Although I didn't want to "taint" the AAR's, hopefully, erudite style. It's important to understanding some of the sectional tension in the west that's for sure. But it was otherwise somewhat not too terribly important so we don't need to get into the finer details. Too bad Fremont basically forcibly took control in real life. The might of the sword is powerful...

Until I was rereading the easily searchable sources, I had forgotten about Fremont (that state history unit fades after a a couple decades, after all). I kinda like the theory that he was actually out to foment a revolt, as unlikely that it is. If anything, the very low population counts* kinda point out the inevitability. The American-descended Californios may have been spread out, but the thirty who took over Sonoma sound like they were on-par or close enough to the existing population. When there were 200 it was crowded. At those kind of numbers, any disconnect between the governing body and the people on the ground would lead to an easy revolt.

And then, shoot, Fremont's party probably matched that group in numbers, plus had actual military training. So they really did have the force of arms. But hey, we got a flag out of it all! Then again, if the Californians at hand had really been upset at the idea, I'd doubt the USA could have done much to bring them under control. The Sierra Nevadas and the Mojave Desert are pretty significant barriers. Though, for that matter, without the USA's assistance, the Bear Flag revolt would likely have failed in the end. Mexico's ability to send 300 or so soldiers probably would have done the trick.

* I don't know if you've ever had a chance to visit any of the California Missions, but they're surprisingly small. Given their purpose to missionize the region, you'd think they'd have bigger baracks, let alone fields or industrial sections, but no. There was definitely nothing urban about California at that point (unless there's something I've really missed about the Native Americans here), which is kinda weird given the current nature of the state.

 

[Idhrendur]

Also, I'm curious to see what you'll say about Bleeding Kansas, as that involves my one real holdback in my personal John Brown fandom.