read the article and your question will be answered - maybe

As to the Scots-Irish thing, I think the author missed half of the equation. The folks from Scotland and Northern Ireland (primarily Ulster), whether called Scots-Irish or Scotch-Irish, are exemplified by Andy Jackson (both parents from Ulster - Carrickfergus). As early as them were the Famine Irish from Southern Ireland (primarily Munster) in the 1600s and 1700s (many famines in Munster), many of whom settled in the South (Virginia being prime real estate) and who were usually Anglicans. The huge migration of Famine Irish occured in the 1800s (Potato Famine, etc.), who largely settled in the North and came along with their RC priests - also some of the same ilk settled in the South - and both got to fight each other in the Civil War.

Except for the religious differences, it is hard to see that much difference in how the Scots-Irish and Famine Irish reacted to challenges - very much clan-based (using the Scottish term) and sept-based (using the Irish term), for the same type of extended families. All of which is historical since the Gaelic speakers (Q-Celts or Goidelic) of Scotland and Ireland were known from Roman times into the early Middle Ages as Scotti. And, there were also Picts in Ireland, though not as many as in Scotland.

So, if we view all of these Scotti and Pictish descendents as something of a collective herd of cats, their influence on the US military has been and still is obvious. If someone were to set up a poll here at SWC asking about some ancestry from Scotland or Ireland, I suspect a large percentage would be affirmative.

As to these folks from Scotland and Ireland, I fail to see their history as being particularly bellicose in external matters. One can certainly point to four characteristics: (1) faction fighting amongst themselves; (2) defense of their self-interests domestically (sometimes well; oftentimes badly); (3) service as professional soldiers or mercenaries under the flag of other countries; and (4) something of a propensity for gradual domestic migrations when under pressures (military, economic or population).

-----------------------
My looksee at the New England Puritans has been less personal (my English ancestry is minimal and not American colonial English). However, in looking at the history of a good chunk of my wife's ancestors, I've gained some appreciation for what the New England Puritans were and were not. Also, I looked at them from the standpoint of the Canadian Marines; that is, as opponents over a couple of centuries of warfare (including the two US invasions of Canada). My overview is that there was a lot of Cromwell's Roundheads in the New England Puritans, just as there was some Cavalier influence in the South. How far one can take that in analysing present-day US foreign policy and the reactions to it, is something less than that argued by the author.

I thought the quote from the Brit officer (included in this snip from the article):

The Puritan experience in the War of Independence reflected this institutionalization of collective violence. The war in New England was a righteous war, authorized and often organized by the New England “black regiment” of Calvinist clergy. As Charles Royster wrote in A Revolutionary People at War (1979), “both those who admired the American Protestant ministry and those who ridiculed it could agree that preachers carried the revolution to large numbers of Americans.” Royster quotes Royal Army Major Harry Brooke, a soldier deployed to Boston who was eloquent on the subject of the clergy and the rebellion: “It is your God damned Religion of this Country that ruins the Country; Damn your religion.”
is a thought that more than a few have had in dealing with present-day religious fanatics.