Empire for Liberty: America in the Long Nineteenth Century

[volksmarschall]

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.

Thanks for dropping in! It's okay if you've missed the hints, because maybe you haven't. I haven't given the years of the Quebec War, other than I've made a few references to it. (I think it was in the opening preface, which was the first time I kinda said I took Quebec, or at least it's inferred.) Given that it was in Clay's presidency, it was somewhere between 1841-1844. But we'll get to it in the next chapter, or two, not sure how I'm going to proceed yet. So I don't want to give the date away just yet.

It was a normal war. No chain of events or crisis led to it. Although I consider it very plausible, especially to occur under a Clay Administration, given Clay's record of hawkish internationalism and the fact the U.S. wanted Canada (or parts of it at least) for a very long. Although, as I said, I have no superstate plans. Quebec will suffice.

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.

The Bear Flag Revolt, is, indeed, very comical. Fremont is, well, Fremont. We'll revisit him briefly in 1856 since I mentioned he's on a ticket already. I've been to many a multiple countries, but my only experience in California is San Francisco Airport about 12 times now lol. I've promised myself I'll get around to a proper visit someday. I'm just no sure when that will be. I spend too much up and down the Northeast coast now, return to the Midwest on "breaks", and often spend time in Europe, Israel, and Asia for research opportunities. Besides St. Louis, could you believe that I've never really spent more than a week west of the Mississippi!?

Well, John Brown fired a little earlier than normal. So we're actually going to get to bleeding Kansas sooner than later. As for Brown, well, I really like him so I think that's going to show when I write about him (not that I won't be critical too; a bit like when I covered Jackson--whom I really think has gotten a bad bad rap of late but these things happen all the time in history).

 

[Specialist290]

Looking forward to the coverage of Brown and Bleeding Kansas as well (and maybe a little bit of the Mormons, too -- I recall they made a few stops in the general area on their steady westward trek).

Speaking of which, given the scope and themes of this work, I'm expecting a nice big chapter to be devoted to the Americans settling and "taming" all this new land they've gotten, and the trials and tribulations they encounter along the way.

And finally, I really must protest the lack of handy maps to consult. A history book without maps is like a social fete without pretty and witty debutantes; certainly you can have the one without the other, but why would you?

 

[volksmarschall]

Looking forward to the coverage of Brown and Bleeding Kansas as well (and maybe a little bit of the Mormons, too -- I recall they made a few stops in the general area on their steady westward trek).

Speaking of which, given the scope and themes of this work, I'm expecting a nice big chapter to be devoted to the Americans settling and "taming" all this new land they've gotten, and the trials and tribulations they encounter along the way.

And finally, I really must protest the lack of handy maps to consult. A history book without maps is like a social fete without pretty and witty debutantes; certainly you can have the one without the other, but why would you?

We'll get our map in the next chapter post. I promise!

 

[Director]

Well, if you ever do come east of the Mighty Miss, give me a shout. I live 30 minutes from Gettysburg, 90 minutes from DC and Philadelphia. Thinking about going back to Antietam this weekend but may reconsider for weather.

 

[RossN]

volksmarschall when the Civil War started did you consider choosing to play as the Confederates until defeat is absolutely imminent, then switching back over to the Union? That way you could have a more effective Civil War experience than the standard few months battle.

(Of course you might have played so effectively the Confederates might have won which presumably wasn't what you were going for!)

 

[volksmarschall]

Well, if you ever do come east of the Mighty Miss, give me a shout. I live 30 minutes from Gettysburg, 90 minutes from DC and Philadelphia. Thinking about going back to Antietam this weekend but may reconsider for weather.

That's nice to know. Especially considering from coz1, some of the forumites have met in person. Of course, it would be stellar to one day meet the man who wrote A Special Providence!

volksmarschall when the Civil War started did you consider choosing to play as the Confederates until defeat is absolutely imminent, then switching back over to the Union? That way you could have a more effective Civil War experience than the standard few months battle.

(Of course you might have played so effectively the Confederates might have won which presumably wasn't what you were going for!)

Haha. Actually no I didn't. I just deliberately played in a manner to make the CW draw itself on.

Yeah, the one thing I dislike about Victoria (we can nit pick right, like also the political dynamic, also the listing of the Democrats as the "conservative" party and the Republicans as the "liberal" party since in reality all American parties are liberal), but the ACW is a bit of letdown. Unless you want to lose as the U.S., you can easily end the war in 6-9 months with a speed blitz of the South. It's a letdown because the CW is the transformative event in American history to a lot of people. I tend to agree. While I have no problem all the other times I load up a Victoria GC. I'm just to historically sentimental to have a 1 year CW for an AAR! hahaha

But I think you'll all enjoy it when we get there. Actually not far away.

 

[Idhrendur]

I've never been east of the Mississippi for more than a few days, myself (and always on business so with no chance to enjoy it). If you do get a chance to visit Southern or Central California, let me know, and I'll see if I can meet up to show you around.

 

[Qwerty7]

Well, John Brown fired a little earlier than normal. So we're actually going to get to bleeding Kansas sooner than later. As for Brown, well, I really like him so I think that's going to show when I write about him (not that I won't be critical too; a bit like when I covered Jackson--whom I really think has gotten a bad bad rap of late but these things happen all the time in history).

I'm curious as to what you would suggest to read that would be more sympathetic to Jackson than most recent historians have been? I'm currently reading Daniel Walker Howe's history of the period and he seems quite harsh on Jackson, especially with his claims that the Democrats fought for white supremacy. I've heard great things about Remini's multi-volume biography, which I noticed you included and I've read some of his other work, but what do you suggest?

And more generally what is you main qualms with most current historians' views on Jackson? Are they ignoring his contributions to mass democracy and support for electoral reform (I've learned that he called to abolish the electoral college) or are they not putting into context his attitudes on race.

 

[Qwerty7]

Well, John Brown fired a little earlier than normal. So we're actually going to get to bleeding Kansas sooner than later. As for Brown, well, I really like him so I think that's going to show when I write about him (not that I won't be critical too; a bit like when I covered Jackson--whom I really think has gotten a bad bad rap of late but these things happen all the time in history).

I'm curious as to what you would suggest to read that would be more sympathetic to Jackson than most recent historians have been? I'm currently reading Daniel Walker Howe's history of the period and he seems quite harsh on Jackson, especially with his claims that the Democrats fought for white supremacy. I've heard great things about Remini's multi-volume biography, which I noticed you included and I've read some of his other work, but what do you suggest?

And more generally what is you main qualms with most current historians' views on Jackson? Are they ignoring his contributions to mass democracy and support for electoral reform (I've learned that he called to abolish the electoral college) or are they not putting into context his attitudes on race?

 

[volksmarschall]

I've never been east of the Mississippi for more than a few days, myself (and always on business so with no chance to enjoy it). If you do get a chance to visit Southern or Central California, let me know, and I'll see if I can meet up to show you around.

I'll keep that mind Idhrendur if I ever make it out there for anything other than a changeover flight.

-----

@Qwerty7 Well, I would read Remini's multi-volume biography. Although dated, Schlesinger's Age of Jackson is still mandatory reading on Jackson and his influence in Democratic Party politics. If you can find a copy of Charles Wiltse's The Jeffersonian Tradition in American Democracy, published way back in 1935, I'd read that too.

Presently, Sean Wilentz is the best "defender" of Jackson. His book The Rise of American Democracy is insightful for those on seeking more "perspective" on Jackson.

I would like to be very open about myself. I've published a scholarly essay looking at Jefferson and Hamilton and their contributions to "Progressivism" at the turn of the century. Mostly intellectual. I'm trained in the history of ideas/intellectual history, cultural history, and philosophy. I give little weight to racialist histories, political histories, military histories, etc. (Not that I don't have a fair amount of books dealing with the subject matter, I'm just not enthralled by them.) This should be visible in what I'm writing on in this AAR, the vast majority of the works I'm utilizing to craft the narrative as it is compatible to the new outcome of my game's events. Hence, part of my gripe with modern histories is they butcher everything by having no firm intellectual foundation. They really have no idea what they're talking about when the use the term "liberty" "freedom" or "democracy." I don't think I'm being harsh on that. There is no true conservative tradition in America, so anyone who uses that term to describe what are essentially classical liberals mixed with Protestant nationalism deserve not to be listened to. (And as you can tell from reading the AAR, that aspect of Protestant nationalism is really important to understanding the U.S.) Protestant nationalism, mind you, is by historical standards the true birth of "progressivism." Even David Hume knew this some 240 years ago now in his History of England when he commented on the Puritans.

Almost all modern progressive prescriptions: electoral reform, popular/mass democracy, welfare programs, all have their roots to Jackson. Jackson, as many historians know, is the REAL FOUNDING FATHER of modern America. He transformed a patrician republic into a mass democracy. Not to mention that he, and Jefferson, are liberals, just like "American conservatives" are nothing more than a species of liberal too. Jackson's populism was a populism of optimism too, not a populism of resentment. I want to vomit every time I hear Jackson and Trump comparisons. They're not remotely the same.

There's a lot I can say about my thoughts of the historiographical trends of narrow thinking because of the putrid filth of postmodernism and racialist histories, which are butchering history to no end (for every explicit goals once you, ironically, deconstruct them). I won't go into that, because I don't think I should on this forum.

If you're looking for works that certainly present a fairer picture of everything that's going on in this era, I'd read:

Robert Remini's 3 volume biography/history. If not having the time, his Life of Andrew Jackson.
Sean Wilentz's The Rise of American Democracy (the sections on Jackson).
Arthur Schlesinger's The Age of Jackson
Charles Wiltse, The Jeffersonian Tradition in American Democracy
H.W. Brands' Andrew Jackson: His Life and Times
Jon Meacham's American Lion
Charles Sellers' The Market Revolution: Jacksonian America
Harry Watson's Liberty and Power: The Politics of Jacksonian America

This is just a small sample of the many works I own on Jackson. If you ever had the time to read them all you'd get a much different view of the man to see just how influential and important he is. Mind you some of these writers equally critique aspects of Jackson, which I think any serious historian would do.

If I had to read one biography, I'd actually read Brands' biography. It has the power to really change anyone's anti-Jackson bias if they're open-minded unlike Howe.

I would highly, highly, highly recommend The Market Revolution and Liberty and Power if you want a take on the importance of the political legacy and fallout of Jackson.

The real discipline of history is really historiography. We're all historiographers in some fashion. The historiographical wars are what push scholarship forward in the academy. I honestly don't consider myself a supporter of either Jefferson and Jackson, I have enough personal issues with them that are neither here nor there. My investment is that I'm part of the intellectual historiographical tradition. A tradition that was once very prominent and widely read, now has gotten the short stick because, let's face it, most readers aren't philosophers anymore so there's no want to read intellectual histories and try to understand how ideas link and evolve with each other over time. I find most of the modern histories that focus on racial politics, materialism, and all the postmodern histories to be pathetic excuses for scholarship. They'll be forgotten but Schlesinger will still be taught 100 years from now, just like Sellers' book, published in 1991.

But from my view, you'll never really understand American history and identity unless you're an intellectual historian. Then the rest of "history": war, politics, economics, etc. makes better sense once you have the intellectual foundation to understand what the hell is going on. But then again, intellectual and cultural history is not for the faint of heart. As my adviser once said, intellectual history is rare because few people can do it--it's an elitist enterprise. I agree.

Hence why I love Watson's book. It really provides an intellectual overview of what liberty, republicanism, and democracy meant. Unlike the butchering of these concepts we see by historians who have never taken a philosophy or political philosophy 101 course in their life.

 

[volksmarschall]

CHAPTER III: THE ORIGINS OF SECTIONALISM


THE SECOND MEXICAN WAR, II

The American Press at War: Holy War in Mexico and Beyond​

Although there was considerable discontent over the nature of the war back home, the Declaration of War against Mexico was passed on bipartisan lines for the most part outside of a handful of Whigs who rallied behind Adams’ opposition to the war. The real sectional tension occurred after the war, not before or during. The war itself lasted for 21 months, June 1846-March 1848. During those 21 months, there was not only a massive land war in California and northern Mexico, but a revolution inside the American media.

The power of the penny press shown through during the Mexican War. As mentioned before, the origins of the American press was explicitly partisan. There has never been a non-partisan “objective” media in American history. The earliest newspapers and publications, started by the Puritans, had the goal of reinforcing Puritan theology and doctrine. In fact, the Ivy League universities were created for this purpose of rigorous education but for very partisan outcomes. Likewise, the early newspapers in the infant republic were all established in support of the Jeffersonian political program, or the Hamiltonian alternative.

The cheap penny presses that were established in the “Newspaper Revolution” of the 1820s and 1830s were instrumental in the Age of Jackson. Most were staunch Jacksonian Democratic newspapers, some were not shy of highlighting this in their name, like the St. Louis Globe Democrat founded in 1852.[1] Many of these newspapers were founded during the age of westward expansion. Sustained by cheap ink and paper, most were “rag publications” by the more established and elitist New York and Boston newspapers (the few regions that were staunchly nativist Protestant and Whig in orientation or had considerable Whig influences). And as American soldiers marched off to war, so did the American press corps.

Hundreds of journalists attached themselves to American forces penetrating into California and into Mexico. In fact, the heroics of the California were lionized by the American press. The Bear Flag Revolt was re-written as American loyalists in the region rising up against the Mexicans, rather than the truth of a small cabal of mostly American, also Mormon, and indigenous anti-Mexican populations seeking their own independence. The movement was quickly superseded by the American forces as they invaded. The California Campaign lasted from June 21-November 11, the shortest of the campaigns, and the least deadly. This is not to take away from the true heroism of both sides, but by comparative standards, the real blood bath was in northern Mexico as American forces pushed south to Mexico City and Mexican defenders resolutely fought back.

At Los Angeles, for instance. Captain John C. Fremont—who had usurped the Bear Flag Battalion—led the charge against the last bastion defense of Mexican defenders. As Fremont and his men charged up the embankments, one newspaper reported wrote:

It was a heroic sight to behold, brave warriors of God rushing into the gates of hell; the fire from the Mexicans unable to deter the noble band of martyrs. And there I saw Captain Fremont, the dashing and courageous man who joined the American revolutionaries weeks earlier. [Referencing the Bear Flag Revolt.] He clutched the stars and stripes and raised it on high to the heavens as if making a pathway for the Holy Spirit to give him strength and protection. From amidst the smoke and gunfire, the stars and stripes pierced the smoke and was made visible for all to see. Men and boys, who hereafter their baptism of fire became men, rushed to follow the godly captain into the heart of Babylon…

A painting of the newly promoted Major John C. Fremont. Fremont was a famous explorer and map-maker before the war, earning the nickname "Pathfinder" as he charted the Rocky Mountains. A "hero" of the Second Mexican War, he eventually became appointed the territorial governor and led California into the entry of the Union. Rather than run for governor, he was elected to Senate by the California State Legislature. Originally a Manifest Destiny Democrat with anti-slavery leanings, he resigned his Senate post to run for Governor of California in 1852. He was invited by the Free Soil Democrats and was endorsed by the American "Know Nothing" Party too. The pro-slavery Democrats in California, known as the Lecompton Democrats, mounted a fierce campaign and accused Fremont of being a Catholic. He was, in fact, a Reformed-leaning Episcopalian. He won a narrow election and became governor. In 1853, the divisions between the pro-slavery and free soil Democrats was tearing the party in two. Fremont changed parties in 1854 for his reelection on the American Party ticket, which garnered support from anti-Chinese prejudice and also the Free Soil Democrats who endorsed Fremont. Fremont won re-election and issued a gubernatorial edict that made California a safe state for runaway slaves. Weeks later the California Supreme Court ruled the Fugitive Slave Act as unconstitutional.* American Party advocates sought his nomination in 1856, but instead Fremont was nominated as the Republican Party Vice Presidential nominee along with David Wilmot as Presidential nominee. The move by the Republicans was an attempt to attract Free Soil Democrats to vote for two former Democrats and prominent Free Soil politicians by their political record. In the first four months of 1860, Southern Secessionists seceded from the Union with the fear that Fremont was going to be the Republican Party nominee in 1860.​

It was without argue that the penny press journalists understood their role in the machine of Manifest Destiny. Glossing over objections, superseding the truth for the glory of heroic war reporting, the newspapers constantly reported of the decisive victories and heroic exploits of the “missionaries of republicanism” against the Catholic Papist Empire.[2]

The Second Mexican War was clearly envisioned as the culmination of Protestant nationalism, Jacksonian democratic politics, and Manifest Destiny coming together in a new militant trinity that promoted the gospel of Calvin, democracy, and freedom to the whole of the American continent. As another newspaper aptly captured, American soldiers marched off into the smoke of battle singing militant Protestant hymns convinced of the righteousness of their cause:

We’re the boys for Mexico Sing Yankee Doodle Dandy,
Gold and silver images, Plenfitul and handy.
Churches grand, with altars rich, Saints with diamond collars.
That’s the talk to understand, With lots of new bright dollars.[3]

The bloody determinism of American Calvinism would not be quenched until American virtues and democracy stretched from coast to coast. America’s Protestant character and readers, for instance, were all too willing to envision the conflict in such apocalyptic imagery. In fact, the 1830s and 1840s saw a swelling tide of millenarianism sweeping America’s religious landscape. A new eschatological doctrine: postmillennialism, had come to the fore of American Protestant thought. This equally influenced the Temperance and Prohibition movement, abolitionism, as it did the religious war fervor rolling through America. Accordingly, the second coming of Christ would not occur until the world was free of “social sins.” It was not just a political duty to consummate Manifest Destiny, it had become a religious obligation among America’s Protestants to free the world of the shackles of totalitarian Papism and usher in the true gospel of the Protestant and liberal democracy.

Chaplains were common newspaper sources. G. G. Goss, the chaplain of the Kentucky Volunteers, put it aptly:

[We] have battled long and hard against Catholicism…but I assure you this war is making Protestants fast, very fast. Even those that come out Catholics, are completely disgusted, and have lost all confidence in the priest-hood. Here we see it as it really is, unrestrained by Protestantism, sapping the very foundations of society, and laying waste what ought to have been the most flourishing country in the world.[4]

The American press even promoted the fact that hundreds of European Catholic volunteers—mostly Irish—flocked to Mexico’s service to battle the Protestant Americans. This was, of course, inflated. During the Battle of Saltillo, for instance, the American army suffered withering casualties during the assault against the Mexican defenses. In a battle where over 11,000 men were killed and wounded and captured—on both sides—the press recorded the hard-fought American victory as a conflict between American Protestants and Irish Catholics. An Irish-Catholic volunteer company, with their green Irish battle flag flying next to the Mexican flag, fixated the central point of the Mexican defense.[5]

The flag and banner of the Saint Patrick's Battalion during the Second Mexican War. The unit was composed of mostly Irish-Catholic Americans who defected to fight for the Mexicans during the war, although it also included foreign Irish and German Catholic volunteers from Europe.

The Battle of Saltillo, the first major battle of the Mexican Campaign. The battle saw over 11,000 casualties combined, a far cry from the easy American victories in California. The painting depicts the moment when U.S. Marines stormed the city center. Mexican forces had originally been forced to withdrawal from the outlying fields. Many reformed in the town, and a brutal five hour battle raged in the city streets before American Marines stormed the barricades. The performance of the Marines in the Mexican War transformed their role from naval infantry into elite shock infantry in the U.S. Military. The battle was a foreshadow of the bloody fighting to come on the long push to Mexico City.​

The Irish volunteers—the "Saint Patrick's Battalion"—no more than maybe 500 men present for duty during the battle, stood their ground as the Mexicans slowly broke. The journalists recounted the heroism of the Irish Catholics by inflating their story. “Thousands” of Irish volunteers put up “a spectacular but futile” defense of the hills against American forces. In Philadelphia and New York, reports of the battle of Saltillo, where the 1st Pennsylvania and 3rd New York volunteer regiments fought, unleashed a torrent of anti-Catholic sentiment in both cities. People, furious at Irish Catholic involvement on behalf of the Mexicans, rioted against the Irish Catholic populations in their neighborhoods as a reflection of domestic support for the war effort against the “Catholic traitors.” Philadelphia’s mayor, Mayor Robert Conrad, supposedly encouraged what was by any standard an anti-Catholic pogrom.

Philadelphia, already a hub of nativist Protestant politics, had previously experienced a major riot in 1844. On July 4, 1847, coinciding with Independence Day, a new riot erupted after the news of the Battle of Saltillo reached the newspapers. The Philadelphia Police only restored order after two days of rioting in which seven people died and three Catholic parishes destroyed. In New York, as well, rioting broke out for a week before order was finally restored with another two churches burned during the rioting. Bishop Samuel Eccleston, in Baltimore, safeguarded the Baltimore Cathedral from potential danger—only improving his status among America’s Catholic population. In the age of sectionalism that was dominated by the slavery debate, it was equally true that Protestant-Catholic sectionalism, or sectarianism, was a major element to this story in the 1840s and 1850s.

A second wave of anti-Irish Catholic sentiment swept the north when news of the defeat at Santa Maria del Oro slipped through. A Philadelphia journalist again noted a small group of Irish-Catholic volunteers flying the green flag of the golden harp. However, having just experience a swelling tide of rioting, there were no major incidents of rioting or church burnings; but great mistrust of Catholics grew—unintentionally giving power and the fledging Native American Party (later the American “Know Nothing” Party) which was gaining strength in coastal Protestant strongholds like Philadelphia, New York, and Boston. Although many newspapers published accounts of Irish Catholic volunteers in the Mexican Army, in cities sharply divided by religious affiliation, the Second Mexican War caused fear and loathing of the Irish-Catholic populations. Irish Catholic Americans no doubt had to look behind their backs every now and again to ensure they weren’t being followed.

The last major battle, San Luis Potosi, saw the last battle of the Irish volunteers of the Saint Patrick Battalion. As General Lucas Abercrombie stormed the hills, the 5,000 Mexican defenders (and 300 Irish Catholics) were either killed or captured for fewer than 500 American losses. Captain Jacob Reilly, an Irish expatriate and freedom fighter, was captured along with his men. Reilly was an American soldier before defecting and leading several hundred Irish soldiers to join him in the struggle for “liberty and freedom” (on behalf of the Mexicans). The 50 captured Irish-Catholic “traitors” were dealt the swift hand of “justice” by their American captors to make a statement to other Catholic soldiers in the American military ranks of what would happen if a Catholic soldier defected.

The Battle of Santa Maria del Oro, the worst defeat of American forces during the war. General James Phelps resigned his commission after the defeat. His beaten army was assumed control by William Clayton, who fought the Second Battle of Santa Maria del Oro (depicted in the painting) whereby American forces finally drove off the Mexicans after suffering only 500 casualties. The battle was notable for the stout Irish defenders in the Mexican ranks who repelled four assaults from American forces before Phelps retired from the field.​

The Second Battle of Monterrey. The image depicts American marines going over the top as they storm the central citadel defenses. The battle marked the collapse of Mexican defenses in the north, and opened the road to Mexico at long last. The battle, which lasted from July 9-11, 1847, led to the "Sprint to Mexico City" between Generals Lucas Abercrombie and William Clayton. The two armies met at San Luis Potasi where the last remnants of the Mexican Army put up a valiant defense but were overwhelmed. During the "Sprint to Mexico City," some 5,000 Americans would die from heat exhaustion, desert, or suffer from heat exhaustion. By war's end, over 25,000 American soldiers had been killed, wounded, captured, or were reported missing. Another 10,000 suffered from disease or heat exhaustion. Upwards of 60,000 Mexicans were killed, wounded, and captured. It was a particular violent and brutal war, even though it ended in a decisive American victory.
​

After the long fought war, the press noted the beauty of the American parade in Mexico City on February 11 as Mexican and American delegates began drafting the peace that would turn over the future states of California, New Mexico, Arizona, Utah, and Nevada to the United States.

Our men, dressed in their grey parade uniforms, black hats, and white belts, were a sight that would make even heaven jealous. The men marched in order, flags at front, waving in the wind. The officers on horseback leading the march through the streets of Mexico City. It was a beautiful sight to behold. The Rome of America has fallen to the true soldiers of God, and one could not be moved by the boots and drums shaking the very ground of the earth.

One might suggest as to why a Protestant republic came to fight a Catholic republic in the name of liberty and democracy. It was the Anglo-Saxon culture of Protestantism that was the main driving force. Catholicism, insofar that it was regularly and popularly perceived as a Satanic force—the “Great Apostasy” described in the Book of Revelation, the Harlot of Babylon—could never be a force for true liberty and democracy. Whatever “republic” Mexico was, it was subservient to Rome and not the Mexican elected officials in the minds of American Protestants. As such, true liberty and democracy came in the form of Protestant Christianity.

The resulting Treaty of Mexico City surrendered all Mexican territory north of the Rio Grande, and American control stretched to the Pacific. The American victory was a resounding political and military triumph. The crisis of sectional tension would arise in the aftermath of this. Slave politics and popular democracy, agrarianism and industrialism, Unionists and old confederates, Americanism and indigenous rights, would dominate western politics in succeeding order over the next several decades.

Immediate to the effects of the Treaty of Mexico was the eyeing of means to expand slavery among its expansionist proponents. While President Polk wrote in his diaries that slavery could not exist in the newly acquired western territories for the sake of American cohesion, Polk was otherwise incredibly narrow-sighted to not see how the conquest to the Pacific would not stoke up the flames of slavery-anti-slavery-abolitionist politics that had been brewing for some time. Although he chose not to run for reelection, “having accomplished all of his goals,” the greatest legacy of the Polk Administration was passing a tinder box ready to explode to his successors—a tinder box that did finally explode on April 25, 1860 when secessionist forces fired on the American garrison at Fort Macomb in New Orleans.

A painting of the American parade in Mexico City in February of 1848. Over the next month, Mexican and American delegates negotiated the terms of the Treaty of Mexico City. The resulting treaty which surrendered the Mexican territories north of the Rio Grande marked the eclipse of Mexico as a great power and cemented American dominance over North America. The Mexicans, weak as they were, considered it a "glorious defeat." Latin American Catholics united in anti-American and Pan-Latino Catholic nationalism in response, fearful of American imperialism that would strike ever further south since it had now reached the Pacific Ocean. This marked a decisive turn from American foreign policy in the early 1800s that saw the Latin revolutions as "sister republics" in the fight against Spanish Imperialism. (In part, that was motivated by America's hope to see Spain's demise in the Americas.)

The United States in the summer of 1848, after the Treaty of Mexico City had been signed.​

*This has historical precedence. In real life, the Wisconsin State Supreme Court ruled the Fugitive Slave Act as unconstitutional. In TTL, it is the State of California.

[1] Historical newspaper, defunct since 1986. It was not uncommon for early newspapers to explicitly label themselves in their name Democratic or Republican.

[2] The Mexican War, and westward expansion, has been said to be the fulfillment of the “Puritan's Empire”, the Protestant dream of an American continent dominated by the Anglo-Saxon Protestant religion against the superstitious and backward apostate and pagan “Christianity” of Catholicism. The contest between Catholicism and Protestantism in North America has been long documented, although rarely gets popular study. In fact, there is scholarship that asserts that part of the American Revolution was a reaction against the possible enfranchisement of Catholics in Quebec, and America’s early endeavor to conquer Canada was to preserve Protestant hegemony over North America—which had been won during the French and Indian Wars. Many Protestant ministers—especially in New England, envisioned the French and Indian Wars as a battle between the true religious liberty of the Protestant against the totalitarian superstition of the “agents of Rome” (e.g. French Catholics). This was very much the case in the historical Mexican War of OTL. As such, I’m emphasizing this strand of historical scholarship in TTL’s (Second) Mexican War.

[3] Song of the Volunteers, ca. 1847.

[4] His actual letter to Rev. T.S. Malcom of Philadelphia, 1848, a few modifications to reflect the in-game use.

[5] The Saint Patrick Battalion was a battalion of Irish-Catholics who fought on the Mexican side during the Mexican War. Their numbers likely never swelled over 1,000, but their presence and memory vivid. But the battles that they were part of were highly publicized by the American press. The “Ballad of the Saint Patrick Battalion” was their famous battle song. The battalion included defecting American Catholics, European Catholics living in Mexico, and also European Catholic volunteers. Although mostly Irish-Catholic, the battalion included Germans, Swiss, French, and Poles.

SUGGESTED READING

John S.D. Eisenhower, So Far from God: The U.S. War with Mexico

Amy Greenberg, A Wicked War

Timothy Henderson, A Glorious Defeat: Mexico and Its War with the United States

Michael Hogan, The Irish Soldiers of Mexico

Robert Miller, Shamrock and Sword: The Saint Patrick Battalion in the U.S.-Mexican War

Robert Merry, A Country of Vast Designs

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

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

 

[AvatarOfKhaine]

Now "we" just need Baja California, ugly borders are the Eighth Deadly Sin after all(or is it a subset of Sloth?) ]


Interesting account as always.

 

[RossN]

Another fascinating update, though I have to admit it was hard to root against the Mexicans (and Irish!) here. I'm actually quite worried for the reception the Catholic people of Quebec can expect!

(Also those borders are... well... ugly is such a strong word, but...)

 

[Idhrendur]

Well, as in OTL, California will forever be split between Alta and Baja. Unless there's a third Mexican-American war. But who needs that at this point?

 

[Specialist290]

The old familiar cycle: In times of crisis, give the people a common enemy to unite against and vent all their frustrations at, to build up as a "threat to our way of life" that must be neutered in the name of liberty and decency.

Meanwhile, I'm wondering how the presence of Quebec and the Transgrandean territories is going to affect the dynamics of the oncoming Civil War. On the one hand, I certainly don't see them getting statehood any time soon, and there's probably going to be some lingering animosity over annexation; on the other, I don't see either of these being particularly amenable to Southern slaveholders, either. Even if they don't substantially affect the balance of the war in any way, it might make sense for the Quebec Question to become a point of contention in the Trent Affair...

 

[volksmarschall]

Now "we" just need Baja California, ugly borders are the Eighth Deadly Sin after all(or is it a subset of Sloth?) ]

Interesting account as always.

Definitely an extension of sloth!

While I too like to jokingly harp about odd borders for aesthetic reasons, whenever I play the U.S. this is what always happens. I guess I've gotten so used to these borders now over so many years I just think they're somewhat natural!

Another fascinating update, though I have to admit it was hard to root against the Mexicans (and Irish!) here. I'm actually quite worried for the reception the Catholic people of Quebec can expect!

(Also those borders are... well... ugly is such a strong word, but...)

Well, Britain granting religious liberty to Quebec was actually one of the major reasons for the American Revolution. But no Americans know that, distracts from the whole taxes, liberty, and oppression image 99% of Americans have about the Revolutionary War.

The granting of Catholic rights in Quebec upset the whole notion of a Protestant liberal empire in North America. Hence America's early invasion of Canada in the war, and want to have Canada conquered again during the War of 1812. So yes, I think the Catholics in Quebec are in a for a bit of a problem, especially since Clay's going to attack for various reasons I'll explore when I get to that relevant post in the next chapter.

Would you be able to guess what person what this?

If you plan to spend the Fourth celebrating the liberty you haven't got, by all means go ahead. Me? I'm going to drink a loyal toast to one of the most benevolent rulers this suffering country ever had, a small-government man and a pillar of constitutional rectitude compared to despotic megalomaniacs and reckless warmongers like Woodrow Wilson, Franklin Roosevelt, LBJ, Clinton, and George W. Bush. His Majesty [George III], God bless him!

An American libertarian writer...

Oh the ironies of American history for those who don't know it!

Hence I feel obligated to take Quebec, and sometimes Ontario, when I play as the U.S. in Victoria. Americans, and America, always wanted it...

Well, as in OTL, California will forever be split between Alta and Baja. Unless there's a third Mexican-American war. But who needs that at this point?

War with Mexico is America's favorite past time whenever I play as the U.S.

The old familiar cycle: In times of crisis, give the people a common enemy to unite against and vent all their frustrations at, to build up as a "threat to our way of life" that must be neutered in the name of liberty and decency.

Meanwhile, I'm wondering how the presence of Quebec and the Transgrandean territories is going to affect the dynamics of the oncoming Civil War. On the one hand, I certainly don't see them getting statehood any time soon, and there's probably going to be some lingering animosity over annexation; on the other, I don't see either of these being particularly amenable to Southern slaveholders, either. Even if they don't substantially affect the balance of the war in any way, it might make sense for the Quebec Question to become a point of contention in the Trent Affair...

Well the CSA will certainly have some extra territory that's for sure!

Yeah, I feel somewhat perplex why the Catholic v. Protestant issue is not highlighted as much as it should be. Although I tend to think I know why. Here, we're not going to negate what has been the defining conflict in North America from the time of the Puritans and French, up to the present! I mean, I never heard of the St. Patrick's Battalion in high school when we covered the Mexican War ... whole story is a tragedy of the first order. Their story is quite remarkable.

And the primary letters and newspapers account of the war, not that it was shocking to me, but I'm sure many Americans would be surprised as to what the thoughts were back in 1847, and just how important the Protestant Liberalism vs "Catholic Totalitarianism" mentality was. Old habits die hard.

Certainly Britain will have more reason to want to side with the CSA during the ACW. But, as Longstreet noted to Fremantle, Britain was never ever ever ever going to ally with a country that had legal slavery.

 

[Specialist290]

And the primary letters and newspapers account of the war, not that it was shocking to me, but I'm sure many Americans would be surprised as to what the thoughts were back in 1847, and just how important the Protestant Liberalism vs "Catholic Totalitarianism" mentality was. Old habits die hard.

...And yet look at the animosity we have for "illegal immigrants" that come from Catholic Mexico and Central America and the "lazy Mexicans / Hispanics" stereotype that gets thrown around by the baser sorts to contrast them with us hardworking Americans brought up under the shadow of the Protestant work ethic. I'm becoming more and more convinced that the animosity never really went away; it just adopted a new vocabulary.

Certainly Britain will have more reason to want to side with the CSA during the ACW. But, as Longstreet noted to Fremantle, Britain was never ever ever ever going to ally with a country that had legal slavery.

True enough, but at the same time a strong, continent-spanning United States seems to have made the British nervous, and while they'd never countenance a formal alliance for fear of serving their own heads on a silver platter to the electorate, I can certainly see them playing both ends against the middle to get what they want...

"We have no eternal allies, and we have no perpetual enemies. Our interests are eternal and perpetual, and those interests it is our duty to follow..."

 

[Qwerty7]

@Qwerty7 Well, I would...

Thanks for the well-thought out and informative post. I asked about Remini specifically because I have his Jackson biography already, and so when I have the time I believe I'll read it. I was suspicious of what Howe would have to say about Jackson when he dedicated his book to the memory of John Quincy Adams, but I assumed that winning a Pullitzer Prize in History would mean he would present a more balanced view on the subject.

The breadth of recommendations on Jackson is, admittedly, a bit overwhelming, but very useful and I'll keep them in the back of mind should I intend to study Jackson more in depth instead of just generally as I'm doing right now. Rather than discouraging, the amount that has been written on the subject is both exciting and impressive. My main interest has so far been political histories, mostly through biographies of key players of the period, but I do find that my understanding of the ideas and the motives for political decisions is lacking, especially as it pertains to both Jacksonian democracy and Jeffersonian democracy. However, intellectual history sounds very interesting and I can understand the reason for its importance. I'm considering studying history in college, specifically American history, and so have quite a ways to go before I can being to fully comprehend this all, but hopefully I can further my understanding through reading these works even though it may take a while.

 

[volksmarschall]

...And yet look at the animosity we have for "illegal immigrants" that come from Catholic Mexico and Central America and the "lazy Mexicans / Hispanics" stereotype that gets thrown around by the baser sorts to contrast them with us hardworking Americans brought up under the shadow of the Protestant work ethic. I'm becoming more and more convinced that the animosity never really went away; it just adopted a new vocabulary.

True enough, but at the same time a strong, continent-spanning United States seems to have made the British nervous, and while they'd never countenance a formal alliance for fear of serving their own heads on a silver platter to the electorate, I can certainly see them playing both ends against the middle to get what they want...

"We have no eternal allies, and we have no perpetual enemies. Our interests are eternal and perpetual, and those interests it is our duty to follow..."

Lord Palmerston's quote is a perfect example of the progressive monism that undergirds liberal thought, and could have just as easily been said by any American President!

Thanks for the well-thought out and informative post. I asked about Remini specifically because I have his Jackson biography already, and so when I have the time I believe I'll read it. I was suspicious of what Howe would have to say about Jackson when he dedicated his book to the memory of John Quincy Adams, but I assumed that winning a Pullitzer Prize in History would mean he would present a more balanced view on the subject.

The breadth of recommendations on Jackson is, admittedly, a bit overwhelming, but very useful and I'll keep them in the back of mind should I intend to study Jackson more in depth instead of just generally as I'm doing right now. Rather than discouraging, the amount that has been written on the subject is both exciting and impressive. My main interest has so far been political histories, mostly through biographies of key players of the period, but I do find that my understanding of the ideas and the motives for political decisions is lacking, especially as it pertains to both Jacksonian democracy and Jeffersonian democracy. However, intellectual history sounds very interesting and I can understand the reason for its importance. I'm considering studying history in college, specifically American history, and so have quite a ways to go before I can being to fully comprehend this all, but hopefully I can further my understanding through reading these works even though it may take a while.

I actually listed Howe's What Hath God Wrought in one of my earlier posts, a fair work but I could easily critique it in many areas. (Just because I don't find it to be "superb" doesn't mean I don't think it should be read, it's good to get a fuller exposure just for general edification.) I feel Remini presents a more complete portrait of Jackson. I'm not sure I would consider it either pro- or anti-Jackson. I don't give weight to Pulitzer Prizes or where a professor holds tenure. There's many wonderful scholars in colleges no one has heard of who produce solid or even better work. In fact, many of the more obscure professors based on their teaching position are better, imo, because they're often far more specialized and know the subject matter they're writing on better than anyone else.

For instance, Dr. Christopher Curtis (Armstrong University) is widely considered the, THE, best scholar on Jeffersonian and Jacksonian legal history and its ramifications. His book Jefferson's Freeholders is a great book that looks at how Jefferson's legal reforms in Virginia paved the way for democratic growth in the Old Dominion State and eventually influenced Jacksonian political ideology. His book was published by Cambridge University Press, a reflection of how well respected he is. Yet he teaches at a relatively no name school. I know him because my scholarly essay looking at the ideas of Jefferson and Hamilton and how they came together in American Progressivism was published through one of their journals.

I find political and military histories to be somewhat dry and boring, and not necessarily the most "intellectual" of endeavors. Not that I don't enjoy them and have a fair lot of such works in my library, and that I don't utilize them for my work. (Although generally used to explain why political matters unfolded as related to intellectual history.) The replaying of events is just, to me, off putting because they don't look at why such events were really occurring. I find such works to be much better as supplements to intellectual histories. Once you start bringing all the schools of historiography together, then you start to see the broader picture of what's going on.

The reality about "History" as a discipline is that is Historiography. You have a lot of Historiographical Traditions. Scholarship is really the Historiography Wars where historians are all part of a specific tradition and advancing that tradition's historiographical foundations.

As someone with a bachelor's degree in history, and this isn't meant to sound hypocritical because of the institution I currently study at for graduate school, but if you're going to pursue a bachelor's degree in history in college, just be aware that you'll never get a good job with a B.A. in history. It's a degree that really pushes you into the road of grad school. The market is also over saturated, especially in U.S. history. But that's not meant to deter you, I just think you should be aware of this reality. Of course, I don't think college necessarily expands too much in terms of comprehension. It'll be the upper level seminars and grad school where you truly get immersed in historiography and read everything from Marxist and Economic Histories, to Intellectual and Political ones too, and everything in between. But it's something to look forward to. Your upper division courses will be more worthwhile than any of the basic intro/survey courses you'll have to study to first. Some of your upper division courses for bachelor's may only make you compare and contrast the historiography of a social history vs a more traditional political history. But then you're only reading two or three books of the many thousands in the historiographical tradition, but it does help show a more expansive approach to history.

I mean, look at me, I've read so much, granted I study at Yale, but where has it really gotten me after all these years? I'll be broke and entering the job market having lost 10 years of prime time work years in my life. Although it is truly wonderful. I wouldn't give it up for money if it's what you truly love and enjoy. All historians, whether teaching at community colleges or at some "prestigious" school, are married to history (and also a certain historiographical tradition they agree with or consider themselves part of). But they really do love what they do. And you should to if that's what you're getting into. I love what I do. And that's the most important thing for me.

 

[Director]

I admit I am surprised at your predilection for Quebec. Given the linguistic and religious differences, the only thing to recommend it is the St Lawrence Seaway. Personally, I'd rather take Ontario and let the British deal with Quebec.

Studying at Yale? I thought you were west of the Mississippi.