Empire for Liberty: America in the Long Nineteenth Century

[volksmarschall]

Er... well without getting too political I think it is probably safe to say the general perception of Ulster Presbyterians is decidedly more mixed in Ireland than that of the Scots Irish in America. Granted much of that is down to 19th/20th century (so post dating the emigration wave) but even before that the Plantations cast a long shadow over Irish history.

I would only naturally presume. Hence I vaguely hinted at that with "different locations wield different results." Although I realize that I had a spelling/word mistake there and wield should have been yield! LOL.

Yes, it is something I was only vaguely familiar with myself, as you say they were never a large community here!

I honestly didn't know until you linked that, that Quakers were in Ireland! See, I'm writing an AAR imparting historical knowledge to the readers while including what's going on in a game, but the readers are also imparting knowledge to me! It's true, we all grow in knowledge together!

Speaking as someone who grew up in the American South and is a bona fide Southern Appalachian Mongrel with a little bit of Scots-Irish somewhere in me, I can vouch that classical Borderer norms and practices still influence a great deal of Southern culture, though often in subtle or unexpected ways. Of course, often "Southern values" are more honored in the breach or by way of nostalgia, but the ideas are still paid lip-service to at least.

I sometimes feel so "isolated" at times, not just because of what I'm doing for "a life", but just because I'm not "American" in the sense I don't fall into any group that "left a mark" and became adopted Americans as it were. But all my studies and inherent romanticism makes me want to cry that America has lost the knowledge of its own heritage and culture. Not that it's a culture(s) or tradition(s) I belong to or anything, but, well, I suppose my philosophical and historical studies are to blame for that. You can say I feel like a stranger in a strange land.

You must have read Shelby Foote growing up or in college? Be still my heart and soul!

 

[Idhrendur]

It's really become short-hand for both. Although if we wanted to be really really specific. It's the latter and not the former. But America's "the melting pot," is it not? Generally refers to anyone of "Ulster" Irish and Scottish Protestant heritage from a dissenting Protestant sect (generally Presbyterian in the 1600s), and then later in Scotland, schismatic Presbyterian sects that broke with the Church of Scotland (in the mid 1700s).

I have a heavy romanticist view of the Scotch-Irish. Would love to be linked to them like you. But alas, I'm not!

It's funny how they can be romanticised. On my mother's side, the main line is from clan MacGregor, and as far as I understand the borderers, MacGregor was the epitome of the bad side of it. On my father's side the main line descends from either an indentured servant or a criminal transport (until someone has the chance to do some research in Virginia, that's the best were know).

On either side, that's not a good background, and yet we all think it's pretty cool.

And for what it's worth, it seems it's the relatively recent Dutch-descended ancestors who really brought the crazy into the family.

 

[volksmarschall]

It's funny how they can be romanticised. On my mother's side, the main line is from clan MacGregor, and as far as I understand the borderers, MacGregor was the epitome of the bad side of it. On my father's side the main line descends from either an indentured servant or a criminal transport (until someone has the chance to do some research in Virginia, that's the best were know).

On either side, that's not a good background, and yet we all think it's pretty cool.

And for what it's worth, it seems it's the relatively recent Dutch-descended ancestors who really brought the crazy into the family.

See, I find that kind of neat. Plus, there's that long-standing attachment/foundation to the country too. (Or "adopted" I suppose.) I dunno, I think that's neat anyway.

I mean, I have German-Irish heritage, but that's so relatively minuscule it's not altogether that important. Mostly Filipino (the "perpetual foreigner") mixed with Slovak and Hungarian, two obscure east/central Europeanism (the German comes in from being part of invited Saxon communities when the Habsburg retook the territories) whose only waves of "major" immigration really came after WW1 (Slovak) and also to escape the Stalinist crackdowns in '48 and '56 (the big one). I guess the Slovak and Hungarian won out since we still speak both languages. But, well, see my cultural history is definitely not "American", and none of the three major ethnic groups are "adopted Americans" either!

But born and raised in America, student of American history, and philosophy more generally. No wonder I'm all messed up...

"Give me your tired, your poor, Your huddled masses yearning to breathe free." *Raises hand*

 

[Specialist290]

I sometimes feel so "isolated" at times, not just because of what I'm doing for "a life", but just because I'm not "American" in the sense I don't fall into any group that "left a mark" and became adopted Americans as it were. But all my studies and inherent romanticism makes me want to cry that America has lost the knowledge of its own heritage and culture. Not that it's a culture(s) or tradition(s) I belong to or anything, but, well, I suppose my philosophical and historical studies are to blame for that. You can say I feel like a stranger in a strange land.

Honestly, I was never really aware of the deeper trends that affected my own upbringing until well into my college years, when I sat down and really thought about how what I was learning applied to me in the here-and-now -- ironically, after a Church History class where it was pointed out to us that a lot of "grand traditions" that many traditionalists hold to often aren't really that old at all (the specific example being "classic" hymns that aren't really that much older than some of the people that sing them). I suspect the "heritage disconnect" you perceive is itself one of the benefits of being an "outsider looking in" -- most people aren't used to thinking of the culture they grew up in as a thing unto itself rather than just "what we always know." I'm reminded of the old proverb about a fish going its whole life without ever knowing what water is because it's never encountered anything different.

You must have read Shelby Foote growing up or in college? Be still my heart and soul!

Funny you should mention that, as it's really the damnedest thing. I must have read him at some point -- the books are in my parents' house, I was a precocious reader with an early interest in the Civil War -- but I can't actually remember any of it if I did.

 

[volksmarschall]

Honestly, I was never really aware of the deeper trends that affected my own upbringing until well into my college years, when I sat down and really thought about how what I was learning applied to me in the here-and-now -- ironically, after a Church History class where it was pointed out to us that a lot of "grand traditions" that many traditionalists hold to often aren't really that old at all (the specific example being "classic" hymns that aren't really that much older than some of the people that sing them). I suspect the "heritage disconnect" you perceive is itself one of the benefits of being an "outsider looking in" -- most people aren't used to thinking of the culture they grew up in as a thing unto itself rather than just "what we always know." I'm reminded of the old proverb about a fish going its whole life without ever knowing what water is because it's never encountered anything different.

Like the Latin-riters only having a tradition that goes back to the Council of Trent!

The heritage disconnect I feel is a combination of my philosophical studies (I'm romantic to some extent) and also just my familial history. We fled persecution and oppression, not so much to "adopt" Americanism, but to preserve our own traditions. That's really important to us. Through academic studies, and romanticism, I weep for you Americans because in my discussions of American history, it seemed to me that none of the Americans knew their culture, history, and lineages.

And obviously, there's a certain debt both sides of my family have for the generosity of America, although we were probably more "the lucky ones" if you take the cynical position.

Funny you should mention that, as it's really the damnedest thing. I must have read him at some point -- the books are in my parents' house, I was a precocious reader with an early interest in the Civil War -- but I can't actually remember any of it if I did.

We'll be seeing his name in the Suggested Readings when we get to the Civil War!

I think most Americans gravitate to the Civil War first before anything else. I know it's true for me. Thus it holds a special place in my heart.

 

[Tankman987]

Wow. This is an amazing AAR so far and I really learned a lot about early American history. But one question, will you show certain screenshots from the game or will this be strictly a History book AAR?

 

[volksmarschall]

Wow. This is an amazing AAR so far and I really learned a lot about early American history. But one question, will you show certain screenshots from the game or will this be strictly a History book AAR?

Thanks! Glad that you've found it informative and enjoyable!

This will be developed like most of my other AARs. There will be selected screenshots, ones that are relevant to the topical posts. Also an occasional map from time to time. Otherwise it will be predominately as you've experienced, text-based with historical images, paintings, etc. that correspond with the text.

 

[Idhrendur]

See, I find that kind of neat. Plus, there's that long-standing attachment/foundation to the country too. (Or "adopted" I suppose.) I dunno, I think that's neat anyway.

I mean, I have German-Irish heritage, but that's so relatively minuscule it's not altogether that important. Mostly Filipino (the "perpetual foreigner") mixed with Slovak and Hungarian, two obscure east/central Europeanism (the German comes in from being part of invited Saxon communities when the Habsburg retook the territories) whose only waves of "major" immigration really came after WW1 (Slovak) and also to escape the Stalinist crackdowns in '48 and '56 (the big one). I guess the Slovak and Hungarian won out since we still speak both languages. But, well, see my cultural history is definitely not "American", and none of the three major ethnic groups are "adopted Americans" either!

But born and raised in America, student of American history, and philosophy more generally. No wonder I'm all messed up...

"Give me your tired, your poor, Your huddled masses yearning to breathe free." *Raises hand*

Whereas I find that a fascinating background!

And I should note that much of my family background was rediscovered in the last few generations. Especially my father's side, everything there was researched just a few years ago. Though I guess I do feel pretty American if only from the length of time. Of coarse, the trade off is having nothing to offer when a potluck calls for me to bring something from my ethnic background. There's nothing left in our family memory of 'ethnic stuff'.

 

[volksmarschall]

CHAPTER III: THE ORIGINS OF SECTIONALISM


WAR! The First Mexican War​

What I hope I’ve conveyed is that sectional tension and plurality (religious) has been a central feature of American life and culture since its settlement. But these confessional allegiances and conflicts eventually ensured the very Protestant idea of the Separation of Church and State to keep confessional conflict at a minimum. The problem, however, was that without unified religion like in Europe, there was no central glue in America to unite the people. What, then, could unify Americans as one? For Jefferson and Jackson, the Democratic Party, it was political nationalism. (Ironically the Democrats were generally dominated by the strands of Scotch-Irish and Cavaliers segments of American culture and society.) For the Puritans, to Hamilton, to Clay, it was far more complicated.

On one hand, the Whigs too pushed a certain political American nationalist unionism that borrowed from the Puritan Covenantal Contract. Once American, always American. At the same time, from Hamilton to Clay, a strong economic nationalism was in the best interest of the covenant community as a corporate body, but clearly only a select segment of the population would benefit—materially—from this. At the same time, Protestant nativism and moralism in the north and, and New England especially, also infused into northern culture a certain Protestant nationalism unique among the Puritans and their heirs. The American Union, if it was an eternally contracted community, ought to be a moral one with the goals of justice and liberty for all—obviously this was going to come into conflict with that immoral and peculiar institution down south called slavery. Likewise, this Pan-Protestant nationalism was nevertheless regarded with the upmost suspicion from Episcopalians, Catholics, Presbyterians, Baptists, Methodists, and everyone who were not of a Puritan-Congregationalist lineage since they all viewed it as an attempt to universalize Puritan idealism upon all persons. Hadn’t so many fled Europe to escape such pretensions of Catholic and Anglican (and Lutheran) universality? America was unique in that she became the home of all the dissenting Protestant religions that crossed the wilderness of the Atlantic and arrived on America’s happy shores (but often at the expense of the Native Americans, much like the original Canaanites when the Israelites crossed the Jordan). “Identity politics” has been at the heart of the American political project and culture since at least 1620, and runs deep in America’s DNA.

***​

This identity based politics, and restless Protestant character of the United States, eventually led to conflict with Mexico. As mentioned, the stunning Texan victories at Crystal Lake and along the Rio Guadalupe had put the Mexican armies to flight. It would be some time before Mexico could reasonably threaten Texas again. In the lull, both sides were slowly negotiating for peace. Martin van Buren, however, had different plans.

Van Buren was elected president by comfortable margins in 1836. This was the direct result of Jackson’s genius to form a national party infrastructure while his opponents were slow to catch up. Van Buren was seen as his faithful heir, even if from New York and having more partiality to emergent middle-class businesses than yeoman farmers and laborers. While the Democrats ran a national campaign, the newly formed Whig Party launched a sectional campaign to try and prevent van Buren from garnering enough popular votes. Four Whigs were nominated in respective regions: Henry Clay in the middle frontier, William Henry Harrison in the west northwest, Daniel Webster in New England, and Hugh Lawson White in the south. The result was a fragmented Whig ticket that paved the way for a landslide for van Buren, who only lost only six states: Massachusetts, Vermont, Ohio, Indiana, Kentucky, and Tennessee.

When Van Buren was inaugurated, he honored Jackson’s closet alliance with Texas. As peace talks still lingered between the two, the United States pressured Mexico into making a peace with Texas that they knew Mexico would reject. Texas would be recognized as an independent republic and have possession of all Texan lands north of the Rio Grande. Additionally, the territory of New Mexico and Arizona would be surrendered to Texas. The rest of Mexican territory north of the Rio Grande: Utah, Nevada, and California would have open access to American settlers and pioneers. Mexico would also pay off Texas’ war debt over the next decade.

President Martin van Buren, the hand-picked successor of Andrew Jackson. From New York, van Buren had closer connections to the northeastern business-oriented Democrats, while maintaining populist ties with the Jacksonian-wing of the party.​

Mexico, understandably, refused. Van Buren then secured a declaration of war from the majority-Democratic Congress to “come to the aid of our fellow Americans in Texas.” A general mobilization of 50,000 men was called, with another 40,000 or so soldiers sent west to battle a defiant Mexico. This, of course, was precisely what America always wanted but was previously tepid to undertake. In 1836, the United States was already eyeing Texas as a future state. They refused to put any pressure on Texas or Mexico to avoid a war with Mexico. However, the defeat of Santa Anna’s armies in Texas swung the pendulum of strength in America’s favor, and it was an opportunity to good not to pass on.

***​

William Clayton, an American icon and hero, began his storied career in the First Mexican War. The personal aide-de-camp of Winfield Scott, when war broke out Scott tapped the 39 year old colonel had graduated top of his class at West Point. Born in 1798, he served as a volunteer of the Kentucky Militia during the War of 1812 before demobilization which led to his eventual entry into West Point to continue a career in the military.

At 6’3” he was a tall and imposing figure. Studious and intelligent, he had quickly risen through the ranks as a chief of staff of Duncan Clinch, the commandant of American forces during the first 20 years of the Seminole Wars before being personally recommended to Scott for the position of chief of staff and aide-de-camp. When the Mexican War broke out and Scott assembled an army to invade Veracruz, he personally recommended Clayton to receive the temporary promotion to Brevet Major General and take command of the “Army of the West”: a composite force of mobilized militia and 9,000 regulars.

Some critics of the hagiography of Clayton have claimed that he advanced because of his networking skills. As a militiaman at age 15, then fighting through the war through New Orleans, he personally met Andrew Jackson when he was hailed for heroism during the Battle of New Orleans. After graduating West Point, he used his graduation status to land an appointment at the front during the Seminole Wars where he distinguished himself under Clinch’s command, who recommended his talent to Scott. By sheer luck, having come to know Scott before the outbreak of war, Scott would subsequently recommend his promotion to lead the army of the West where he won notable fame for his conduct during the war.

As the rag-tag army of the West moved through Texas, Clayton’s forces met a smaller Mexican army that had garrisoned El Paso to halt the American advance. Believing the army to be mostly militia—and they were right—the Mexican army believed they could hold the Americans to a bloody draw. However, American forces won a decisive victory that expelled Mexico’s only military force north of the Rio Grande. From his brown stallion, Clayton presented himself like a new George Washington—unfazed by the combat and artillery fire all around him.

Again, his critics target his orders during the battle—claiming he merely inaugurated the engagement and froze as the battle unfolded. Thus, the success should be credited to the junior officers who exploited the breakthroughs during the battle. While it is a truism that junior officers deserve credit over their higher ups, it is also important for higher ups to draft—with the help of their aides—the plan and order of battle. Regardless, Clayton was credited with a stunning victory that expelled Mexican forces from Texas and he penetrated the deep inlands of Mexico.

Brevet Major General William Clayton, sometime in the late 1840s or early 1850s. He was a young and dashing American military commander with a historic career. Top of his career, aide-de-camp, and Chief of Staff. His career included fighting with the Kentucky volunteers during the War of 1812, before being commissioned a lieutenant in 1821. He served from 1813-1815 (volunteer), and from 1821-1859 (general officer), and again from 1862-1864 after being forced out of retirement to lead Union forces in the Civil War. He was a principal field commander in four wars during his career. Confederate General Robert E. Lee served under Clayton's command during the Second Mexican War, as did many future heroes of that conflict. Despite a "flawless career," modern historians have begun to tarnish his reputation by giving greater credit for his connections and selecting good junior officers while he was often "absent" during the actual fighting.​

In what was undoubtedly a campaign of firm command, great genius, and visionary use of modern tactics, Clayton single-handedly salvaged Scott’s too ambitious plan of a sea-based invasion of Veracruz. Clayton, utilizing Napoleon’s corps tactics, had divided his army into three principal groups, each headed by a brigade of regulars who supported the more numerous mobilized militia and pioneering individuals who had come along for the fight without the promise of government pay. These three cohorts moved south and disrupted Mexican communications and forced Mexican forces that had gathered at Veracruz to swing northwest to contend with Clayton. Each cohort stayed within a 12 hour march of each other in case of danger, and Clayton utilized light infantry as screening forces and scouts to prevent a full engagement until he could concentrate his forces. At Pachuca, north of Mexico City, a hastily assembled Mexican army that was comprised of former Veracruz defenders were routed after three days of minor skirmishing that prevented a full-scale battle until Clayton had gathered his full strength and punched through the Mexican forces with superior numbers and speed.

At the same time, Scott had landed the principal American army at Veracruz and suffered stiff resistance for several weeks before breaking out in the countryside. But most historians concur that Clayton’s deep penetration into Mexico had made Scott’s “heroic” victory at Veracruz possible because about a third of Mexican defenders were redirected to halt Clayton’s perceived march on Mexico City. Both men, Scott and Clayton, were now marching on Mexico City. There was, some observers recall, a quint fire in Clayton’s eyes as he came to understand the importance of these events transpiring before him—especially for his career. A series of smaller engagements were fought as he marched south, eventually linking up with Scott outside of the city on October 21, 1837. The Mexican defenders dug in along the hills and various mission citadels that flanked the city. However, the combination of over 40,000 American soldiers against, at most, 6,000 rabbled defenders wasn’t going to amount to much.

Nevertheless, the Mexicans fought valiantly and punched back for the first few days of the Siege of Mexico City. But by the 25th, with a few thousand soldiers left—despite inflicting serious casualties on the leading regiments of the American Army, a parley was reached. Melchor Guerrero, one of Santa Anna’s favored subordinates, agreed to surrender the city after negotiated the terms of the capitulation. As American forces entered the city in a victorious parade, Clayton rode to the right hand of Scott—a symbolic position both militarily and religiously.

The storming of the last citadel guarding Mexico City by American forces. The American victory in the First Mexican War secured the independence of the Republic of Texas (for the time being until she was later admitted as a state in the Union in 1839) and was claimed to be a textbook example of the "empire of liberty" or "Benevolent Empire."
​

In just a few short months, American forces had penetrated deep into Mexico and seized the capital. Over the next four months, deliberations were had that were eventually finalized with the granted peace desired by the Americans: Texas won its independence, the territory of New Mexico was ceded to the United States, and the southern Rio Grande state of Nuevo Leon was also ceded to the United States as a sort of “demilitarized” zone. The extension of American territory and power south of the Rio Grande was meant to force the hand of Texas to becoming a state of the American Union. With Mexico still holding territory to the west, and America now holding territory south of Texas's border (as well as east and north), it became clear that America wasn't coming to the aid of Texas for purely benevolent reasons. Less than two years later, in October 1839, Texas was admitted into the Union.

But with the war ending, Martin van Buren had new problems on his hand. A small recession had been stymied by the war itself. But with the war over, the small boost to the war economy was now receding. The Panic of 1838 was to set in, to terrible effect to mostly western and southwestern states. As all good politicians now, one should never let a good crisis go to waste. And the Whigs were prepared to pounce over the crisis the week after the ceremonious parade of victory in Washington had ended.

 

[Idhrendur]

So you went a little ahistorical for your peace terms with that land grab south of the Rio Grande, huh? Or did I miss something in my former understanding of that war?

 

[volksmarschall]

So you went a little ahistorical for your peace terms with that land grab south of the Rio Grande, huh? Or did I miss something in my former understanding of that war?

You got it. I never said I wasn't going to deviate from the historical borders. Just no U.S. North America Super State and stuff like that. What I consider to be the realm of the plausible will be taken advantage of. I mean, Europe is different since I can't manipulate what happens over there but in North America, and maybe the Caribbean and Latin America, I'll be using my hemispheric dominance to keep a moderately historical reality.

As you well know, it's what I like to do for AAR purposes. Allows me to keep to historical source material and I find it generally to be fun to play like that. Like EU4, Austria as whack-a-mole balance of power guardian is quite fun imo.

 

[Specialist290]

Interesting to see an early Mexican War there (with the implication of another in the future), and the United States grabbing territory south of the Rio Grande. I do have to wonder if -- while you've said that you won't try to form a "super state" yourself -- earlier and more aggressive expansion will end up stoking the fires of the All of Mexico and Golden Circle movements in-universe, as well as more support for filibustering expeditions like those mounted by William Walker and his ilk.

 

[volksmarschall]

Interesting to see an early Mexican War there (with the implication of another in the future), and the United States grabbing territory south of the Rio Grande. I do have to wonder if -- while you've said that you won't try to form a "super state" yourself -- earlier and more aggressive expansion will end up stoking the fires of the All of Mexico and Golden Circle movements in-universe, as well as more support for filibustering expeditions like those mounted by William Walker and his ilk.

Is this another case of the fellow magician in the audience knowing the inner workings of a fellow traveler?

 

[Specialist290]

Call it a lucky guess

But seriously, it's part of my AAR commenting style. I like to speculate a little on possible routes the narrative might take, often to see if I can get a little discussion going. I find it helps keep me engaged if I'm trying to guess future paths from little cues in the update.

It's usually a win-win situation: Either I'm right, or I'm pleasantly surprised when the narrative takes an unexpected but equally entertaining turn in another direction.

 

[volksmarschall]

Call it a lucky guess

But seriously, it's part of my AAR commenting style. I like to speculate a little on possible routes the narrative might take, often to see if I can get a little discussion going. I find it helps keep me engaged if I'm trying to guess future paths from little cues in the update.

It's usually a win-win situation: Either I'm right, or I'm pleasantly surprised when the narrative takes an unexpected but equally entertaining turn in another direction.

Speculation is the best part of AAR viewing, unless you might be following a gameplay to pick up tips.

Admittedly there's a lot of don't want to "write up" otherwise this would be a never ending project like what most of my sorry attempts of AARs become. Although the next post I have planned should fill in some gaps and allude to plenty. Yeah, a careful reader will note a lot of "game" information being disclosed in little places. Gives people something to look forward to.

You're welcome to become co-author!

 

[Specialist290]

Heh, that's mighty tempting. I don't think I could keep pace with you, though, not enough to merit a co-authorship. I've dabbled with writing an AAR before, but I've never actually stuck with a non-school writing project long enough to write more than a few scraps

One of these days, though...

 

[RossN]

I demand a map to see this new border!

How heavily populated are the new territories? Has this significantly increased the proportion of Roman Catholics in the United States?

 

[99KingHigh]

Consider me ashamed that J.R of Roanoke has failed to procure the position of Princeps Civitatis over the American masses. This AAR is therefore a serious failure.

 

[volksmarschall]

Heh, that's mighty tempting. I don't think I could keep pace with you, though, not enough to merit a co-authorship. I've dabbled with writing an AAR before, but I've never actually stuck with a non-school writing project long enough to write more than a few scraps

One of these days, though...

All I do is write.

I demand a map to see this new border!

How heavily populated are the new territories? Has this significantly increased the proportion of Roman Catholics in the United States?

Perhaps you could wait a little bit? I've played ahead of my posting schedule. I have a few screenshot maps saved after some future events we'll be getting into. Therefore, I don't want to post a screenshot of an advanced date, it might give away more than I've already hinted at in the text.

The population is rather small. It's bit a minor uptick in the RC population. The big boom will come later.

Consider me ashamed that J.R of Roanoke has failed to procure the position of Princeps Civitatis over the American masses. This AAR is therefore a serious failure.

Well, I'm sure that makes you and Russell Kirk ashamed.

 

[99KingHigh]

Well, I'm sure that makes you and Russell Kirk ashamed.

We are oft ashamed together.