I Vote NO on the freedom act, though its authors heart is in the right place the act would destroy the Union. Is it wise to so antagonize the south in the middle of a war with mexico.
-
We have updated our Community Code of Conduct. Please read through the new rules for the forum that are an integral part of Paradox Interactive’s User Agreement.
I'll try. Also, apologies to Mr Hensdale for my wrongful accusations of slander. I meant libel.
And by the way, could Mr Hensdale fill in a few more details so I can follow the script? I hate to disappoint people.
A few more details for the script? I'm afraid I do not understand what you mean. As for the argument that had sprung up, I simply had walked away from it, in order to try and be the peaceful party in the fight, I shalt not take up a pen nor sword against a petty issue against a fellow American.
I will abstain from voting on the Freedom Act until it is made more clear how the government is to fund such an endeavor in a lawful and reasonable way.
Under Cameron, the Mexican armies were repelled from their unlawful occupation of Texas and raids of Colorado. Under Cameron, Americans in the northern sections of Mexico need no longer fear for their lives, liberties, and their pursuit of happiness. You call it imperialistic, but Mexico has no claim on the lands. They do not protect the lives, liberties, and pursuits of happiness of the people in the lands. They do not support and promote the lands. They did not even explore the lands, and there are as many Native Indians, Americans, and other groups in the lands developing the lands then there are people Mexico cares about. They do not own it by right, by claim of possession, or by development. Is the land then to be left to them for Santa Anna to make more Texases? Are we to sit lifeless as the grim specter of death passes over the lands again and again?
The "private army" of the Southerners are militias, as now more carefully reigned in by the nation as a whole, as totally legal under the law, and as already existent at the time under different leadership. If you have quarrels with their leadership, take them up with the SNM in discourse and arguments, not with Cameron, trying to have him break the law for your quarrels.
At the worst, the states of Mexico, being not capable of governance on their own, would be formed into states of the United States, and would then by the Davis Compromise have popular sovereignty over their status of slavery. Are you that despondent on the practicality and principle of the American people? There are freed men all over these territories - they are not Southern plantations, but rather deserts and other lands suitable for the yeoman farmer - they are rich distant lands which have no reason to keep slaves for themselves.
It depends on how you define a war of "aggression". Here, we were not aggressors. Our blood and money has gone to pay our beliefs in fundamental rights and liberties of mankind that cannot be trampled on as Santa Anna has done. If we do not pay in blood, we will be paying in our honor and in our beliefs. We will be paying with the fundamental ideas that make us American. These arguments of the future just happening to go wrong are just screens of fog to obscure this fact. It is our rightful duty to protect our citizens, to protect liberty, and to protect the rights of man. Whether or not the future will have its worst case scenarios is up to the future, but I know this; that if we are wrong now, then they will have to pay. For every man - free men of Colorado, settlers of the northern lands, and so on - that we condemn to die or be persecuted and ruined out of our own cowardice, there will be that many fewer men who can stand up and protect the rights and liberties of mankind for the next generation.
Indeed, and this was the state of things before the war too. Americans died and were persecuted for their adherence to liberty, the rights of man, and the sovereignty of the United States. This is why we fight, that these deaths and persecutions may not continue, and that they might not die futilely.
Under the watch of Cameron, the laws as legally provided were carried out - not enslaving anyone, but rather permitting the survival of slave owners in Texas to bring about peace and the removal of the ills of slavery.
Under Cameron, the Mexican armies were repelled from their unlawful occupation of Texas and raids of Colorado. Under Cameron, Americans in the northern sections of Mexico need no longer fear for their lives, liberties, and their pursuit of happiness. You call it imperialistic, but Mexico has no claim on the lands. They do not protect the lives, liberties, and pursuits of happiness of the people in the lands. They do not support and promote the lands. They did not even explore the lands, and there are as many Native Indians, Americans, and other groups in the lands developing the lands then there are people Mexico cares about. They do not own it by right, by claim of possession, or by development. Is the land then to be left to them for Santa Anna to make more Texases? Are we to sit lifeless as the grim specter of death passes over the lands again and again?
The "private army" of the Southerners are militias, as now more carefully reigned in by the nation as a whole, as totally legal under the law, and as already existent at the time under different leadership. If you have quarrels with their leadership, take them up with the SNM in discourse and arguments, not with Cameron, trying to have him break the law for your quarrels.
At the worst, the states of Mexico, being not capable of governance on their own, would be formed into states of the United States, and would then by the Davis Compromise have popular sovereignty over their status of slavery. Are you that despondent on the practicality and principle of the American people? There are freed men all over these territories - they are not Southern plantations, but rather deserts and other lands suitable for the yeoman farmer - they are rich distant lands which have no reason to keep slaves for themselves.
Sweet. Can we have one of these for every candidate each election?
I will make as many as I can. I will make Candidate Profiles/Election Tickets/Newspaper Articles for anything in this AAR. Although, the Harper's Weekly will be severely biased towards Democrats/SNP.
Well, peace with mexico (that's a cert, once they agree to hand over territories to fulfil our manifest destiny) industry collapse, abolition of the slaves, war, uprising, anarchism, despotism, it's all a bit sparse isn't it? I hate to disappoint anone, but I'm really going to need more details in order to destroy the country according to your wishes.
Anyway, amenments Two and Four withdrawn, would people like Amendment One more if it banned importing rather than trading? Amendment Five deserves to be it's own bill actually, it's a fulfilment of this promise:
And yes, it would be nice to have cartoons for everyone.
EDIT: ((Just realised that Amendment One has been in effect since 1808, so it's pointless.))
Last edited:
Importing slaves is already banned in the United States.
As for your request for more details Mr. Walsh, that Newspaper article is left simply to the imagination of the voter.
As for your request for more details Mr. Walsh, that Newspaper article is left simply to the imagination of the voter.
Oh well, I'll try my best. Any more coming up? ((You made the last one real quick.))
Whig: Brass
Freedom Act: Yes
I would support the amendments, but I fear they're unconstitutional.
Edit: After reading BBB's post: I vote Yes on the amendments.
Freedom Act: Yes
I would support the amendments, but I fear they're unconstitutional.
Edit: After reading BBB's post: I vote Yes on the amendments.
Last edited:
((Quick question -- are you, BBB, the Supreme Court, or is this another possible facet of the AAR that could be player driven? Could be an interesting little twist.)
Generally speaking, if I don't specifically say no to a bill it'll go to a vote. If it's unconstitutional, it can always be used as a weapon against the legislation in a vote. For example, I will say no to a bill that is basically abolition, which is why I was waiting to see if the amendments passed on the Freedom Act.
Well maybe you can set up another radical Whig/Free Soil mouthpiece journal too, so that we can get both extremely biased sides at once
Whig: John F. Cameron
Freedom Act: Abstain until a clear and reasonable plan for lawful expenditure is produced.
Well maybe you can set up another radical Whig/Free Soil mouthpiece journal too, so that we can get both extremely biased sides at once
I'll think about it, it takes long enough to do one.
(( I think I already did that, considering the Brass family owns the New York Sentry ))
Whig: Jeremiah Brass
We must not let the question of slavery become readmitted to US politics with the acquisition of Mexican land
Freedom Act: NO
Such an act would polarize the North against the South. Even the southerners who do not own slaves, the majority, see slavery as an essential institution. If such an act would occur, I shudder to think what could happen. Already we here the early whispers of secession from South Carolina...
We must not let the question of slavery become readmitted to US politics with the acquisition of Mexican land
Freedom Act: NO
Such an act would polarize the North against the South. Even the southerners who do not own slaves, the majority, see slavery as an essential institution. If such an act would occur, I shudder to think what could happen. Already we here the early whispers of secession from South Carolina...
Whig: J. F. Cameron
Freedom Act: Yes, with all amendments. Any step taken in the right direction, as small as it may be, is an important one.
A quick thought on Mr. Gallatin's question: I suppose that a Federal ad hoc Fund could be established. As our Southern friends may object having their tax dollars going to it, the Fund should have a minimal federal backing (in order to keep it running) and the majority of the money could be provided by: State governments, on a voluntary bases, and private individuals who support this plan. We all know that there are many people in the North pushing for abolition, and many of them are wealthy. They could use this opportunity for freeing slaves without the risk of getting shot.
PS: I loved that little inflamatory paper
Freedom Act: Yes, with all amendments. Any step taken in the right direction, as small as it may be, is an important one.
A quick thought on Mr. Gallatin's question: I suppose that a Federal ad hoc Fund could be established. As our Southern friends may object having their tax dollars going to it, the Fund should have a minimal federal backing (in order to keep it running) and the majority of the money could be provided by: State governments, on a voluntary bases, and private individuals who support this plan. We all know that there are many people in the North pushing for abolition, and many of them are wealthy. They could use this opportunity for freeing slaves without the risk of getting shot.
PS: I loved that little inflamatory paper
I, Thomas J.L. Davis, Move that while the Original Negro Payed Freedom Act is not objectionable assert that with the amendments it is UNCONSTITUTIONAL and ILLEGAL.
1. According to the Pinckney Resolutions passed in May of 1836 "All petitions, memorials, resolutions, propositions, or papers, relating in any way, or to any extent whatsoever, to the subject of slavery or the abolition of slavery, shall, without being either printed or referred, be laid on the table and that no further action whatever shall be had thereon" Therefore, the Amended Freedom Act is Illegal.
2.Amendment four is Illegal Under the davis act as it would lead to the seperation of freed children from thier parents because no slaveowner would pay to house someone who does not work.
3.Article 5 is illegal under under the Fourth Amendment to the constitution as to remove a mans most valuble property at the same time as the death of thier parent or beloved spouse leaving them poor and devastated most certainly constitutes a unreasonable siezure and to enforce it would require unreasonable searches.
4. Article three is illegal under the 1st amendment as it discriminates specifically against people of a non-christian religion or people who have been unable to be baptized due to circumstances
5. Articles one and two constitute cruel and unusual punishment and are therfore illegal under the 8th admendment for minor crimes that essentially would equate to (if the law was passed) Life Imprisonment for smuggling and bribery/blackmail.
1. According to the Pinckney Resolutions passed in May of 1836 "All petitions, memorials, resolutions, propositions, or papers, relating in any way, or to any extent whatsoever, to the subject of slavery or the abolition of slavery, shall, without being either printed or referred, be laid on the table and that no further action whatever shall be had thereon" Therefore, the Amended Freedom Act is Illegal.
2.Amendment four is Illegal Under the davis act as it would lead to the seperation of freed children from thier parents because no slaveowner would pay to house someone who does not work.
3.Article 5 is illegal under under the Fourth Amendment to the constitution as to remove a mans most valuble property at the same time as the death of thier parent or beloved spouse leaving them poor and devastated most certainly constitutes a unreasonable siezure and to enforce it would require unreasonable searches.
4. Article three is illegal under the 1st amendment as it discriminates specifically against people of a non-christian religion or people who have been unable to be baptized due to circumstances
5. Articles one and two constitute cruel and unusual punishment and are therfore illegal under the 8th admendment for minor crimes that essentially would equate to (if the law was passed) Life Imprisonment for smuggling and bribery/blackmail.
I Must now return to my military command which is preparing for a operation at the Mexican Front, I hope the Supreme court Reaches the right decision. As for the above reasons I am SUEING in the supreme court the authors of this bill and its amendments in the court case Davis v Walsh.
Last edited: