The Presidents: 1836-1936 - An Interactive US AAR

[Avindian]

1) each senator must be at least 30 years old, 2) must have been a citizen of the United States for at least the past nine years, and 3) must be (at the time of the election) an inhabitant of the state he or she seeks to represent. Uh maybe you were born in 1805 not 1815?

((Whoops; you caught me there. We'll take MikeBoy's solution.)

((He can be a Representative as far as I remember the age limit for that's 25, also BBB I think you forgot to put the Presidential Election 1940 on the first post.))

((A representative I shall be!))

[BigBadBob]

Alrighty. Excellent speech Mr. President.

People, 'tis time for one more vote before I play the next four years through.

It's a yes or no vote.

Do you give President Cameron the right to act as he believes is best for these United States, when it comes to affairs with Santa Anna and his shameless Napoleonic Empire of Mexico.

(In essence, can Cameron declare war on Mexico once we get Manifest Destiny).

PS. The 1841 Presidential is now linked, albeit way too late. Thanks for notifying me of that glaring mistake Mikeboy.

[WelshDude]

Yes

[Projekt 919]

Yes

[Frymonmon]

No

[Mikeboy]

Yes

[ATTACK77]

Yes

[BigBadBob]

Yes

I probably shouldn't count the vote of the man who proposed the bill.

[WelshDude]

I probably shouldn't count the vote of the man who proposed the bill.

Well, it wasn't a bad try.

[Chimina]

I, Archibald Cartwright, am overjoyed to not see the SNP obtaining the Presidency. I am also pleased to see that my Foreign affairs policies have been adopted by this administration.

I am also voting YES on our ability to Manifest Destiny. God bless America.

[stratego937]

It is the destiny of our Grand Republic to dominate the North American Continent. Across the Rockies lie lands which belong to us by divine providence. It is with this in mind that I vote Yes to the proposal that President-elect Cameron be given the power to declare war on Mexico once his term begins.

Robert Parker,
Speech in Columbus, Ohio.

[BigBadBob]

...once his term begins.

It wouldn't be the moment, or even year, his term begins, but the day we get Manifest Destiny.

[Gloa]

With current negotiations proceeding, it is necessary that all options may be left open to resist the gross and baseless occupation of Mexican troops on territory rightfully claimed by the United States and the state of Texas. It is troubling, furthermore, that other populations of American settlers in the Western portion of this continent are being persecuted much the same was as Texas was. Though war is to be feared, question of how to prevent these persecutions and resolve the borders of Mexico and the United States must be resolved.

I vote Yes.

[zagoroth]

The acquiescence of new lands will bring about the question of slavery again to the forefront of our politics. Thus I must say NAY to the proposal to declare war on sovereign Mexico

[King50000]

My vote shall be, as expected by my background, Yes for President Cameron to act as he pleases towards the tyrany of the Mexican Empire. Numerous skirmishes have already been reported along the frontier and it is only a matter of time before all out war is seen against us. Me, my men, and the rest of the U.S. Military stand ready to protect the people of our great nation. May God protect the Union for these next four years and bring unity to our shaking Government.
-Speech by Nicolas Khur Outside of Fort Pike, New Orleans

[Avindian]

Yes! Perhaps with new lands, immigrants can find more opportunities out West.

[Rogov]

As a Whig I reject Manifest Destiny in favor of building up the lands we already occupy, especially not to free up more land in the South for Southern slavers to expand their peculiar institution into. The Davis compromise gives any new state below the line of compromise an entitlement to hold its own vote on the matter, and we all know how slaveocratic guerrillas tend to influence events and overturn laws they dislike, just as in Texas. Just as the Texans and the SNP held that it was not truly nullification as Texas was not yet a member of the US (and thus could theoretically choose how it wants to enter the union), any territory we released would just be taken over by settlers who would threaten to form their own new republics should we try to enforce legitimate federal laws upon them. And any referendum in such territories would be a joke - despite being a distinct minority, slaveocrats have peculiar notions about democracy being more about gunplay than ballot boxes. If Texas was willing to use arms to resist a federal law,that means any Southern influenced territory would be perfectly willing to kill its own freesoil minded residents should the anti-slavery vote outweigh the pro-slavery vote. So the very idea of these referendums is a joke, the South and the SNP would never allow a democratic majority to enforce anti-slavery laws anywhere South of the line of compromise.

This is why we should not war with Mexico and should not entertain Manifest Destiny - Manifest Destiny is the crux of Jacksonianism, and as Whigs were we not so long ago formed as a coalition specifically AGAINST "King Andrew" ?

This is the folly of National Unionism. I helped Cameron get elected, but I'll be damned if I don't go out of this mortal coil like a Whig.

Nay, Nay, forever Nay!

[Frymonmon]

As a Whig I reject Manifest Destiny in favor of building up the lands we already occupy, especially not to free up more land in the South for Southern slavers to expand their peculiar institution into. The Davis compromise gives any new state below the line of compromise an entitlement to hold its own vote on the matter, and we all know how slaveocratic guerrillas tend to influence events and overturn laws they dislike, just as in Texas. Just as the Texans and the SNP held that it was not truly nullification as Texas was not yet a member of the US (and thus could theoretically choose how it wants to enter the union), any territory we released would just be taken over by settlers who would threaten to form their own new republics should we try to enforce legitimate federal laws upon them. And any referendum in such territories would be a joke - despite being a distinct minority, slaveocrats have peculiar notions about democracy being more about gunplay than ballot boxes. If Texas was willing to use arms to resist a federal law,that means any Southern influenced territory would be perfectly willing to kill its own freesoil minded residents should the anti-slavery vote outweigh the pro-slavery vote. So the very idea of these referendums is a joke, the South and the SNP would never allow a democratic majority to enforce anti-slavery laws anywhere South of the line of compromise.

This is why we should not war with Mexico and should not entertain Manifest Destiny - Manifest Destiny is the crux of Jacksonianism, and as Whigs were we not so long ago formed as a coalition specifically AGAINST "King Andrew" ?

This is the folly of National Unionism. I helped Cameron get elected, but I'll be damned if I don't go out of this mortal coil like a Whig.

Nay, Nay, forever Nay!

This is the only tiem I will find myself agreeing with a Whig! I wish our nation to be built as it is now, and to be honest - even as a SNP member and a Southerner, I do NOT want to see slavery's expansion, as the ensuring political fight could be the very things I warned against in my concession speech.

[Gloa]

As a Whig I reject Manifest Destiny in favor of building up the lands we already occupy, especially not to free up more land in the South for Southern slavers to expand their peculiar institution into. The Davis compromise gives any new state below the line of compromise an entitlement to hold its own vote on the matter, and we all know how slaveocratic guerrillas tend to influence events and overturn laws they dislike, just as in Texas. Just as the Texans and the SNP held that it was not truly nullification as Texas was not yet a member of the US (and thus could theoretically choose how it wants to enter the union), any territory we released would just be taken over by settlers who would threaten to form their own new republics should we try to enforce legitimate federal laws upon them. And any referendum in such territories would be a joke - despite being a distinct minority, slaveocrats have peculiar notions about democracy being more about gunplay than ballot boxes. If Texas was willing to use arms to resist a federal law,that means any Southern influenced territory would be perfectly willing to kill its own freesoil minded residents should the anti-slavery vote outweigh the pro-slavery vote. So the very idea of these referendums is a joke, the South and the SNP would never allow a democratic majority to enforce anti-slavery laws anywhere South of the line of compromise.

This is why we should not war with Mexico and should not entertain Manifest Destiny - Manifest Destiny is the crux of Jacksonianism, and as Whigs were we not so long ago formed as a coalition specifically AGAINST "King Andrew" ?

This is the folly of National Unionism. I helped Cameron get elected, but I'll be damned if I don't go out of this mortal coil like a Whig.

Nay, Nay, forever Nay!

Who said anything about taking land? - not Mr. Cameron nor Mr. Bob in his declaration of the legislation which we vote on. ((IC none of us have any reason to suspect we'll land grab later, although we can perhaps denounce such things later as a war progresses))

It is the lives and freedoms of Americans that this is concerned about. The Mexican government continues to occupy the border regions of the United States, infringing on our sovereignty and slowly bleeding Texas in their own way. Meanwhile, Santa Anna, who declared his intention to turn Texas into a "graveyard" is overseeing the persecution of even more American citizens and nationals. Alta California. Arizona. Nuevo México. The liberties of the citizens in these and other regions must be protected - both our own people who find themselves forced against the wall of the vengeful Mexican state, and the other people of those lands who too feel the cruel neglect. The government of Mexico will not accept the basic rights of their own people, much less our own, or our sovereign territory, as it exists now. Perhaps the threat of force may dissuade them.

[King50000]

Who said anything about taking land? - not Mr. Cameron nor Mr. Bob in his declaration of the legislation which we vote on. ((IC none of us have any reason to suspect we'll land grab later, although we can perhaps denounce such things later as a war progresses))

It is the lives and freedoms of Americans that this is concerned about. The Mexican government continues to occupy the border regions of the United States, infringing on our sovereignty and slowly bleeding Texas in their own way. Meanwhile, Santa Anna, who declared his intention to turn Texas into a "graveyard" is overseeing the persecution of even more American citizens and nationals. Alta California. Arizona. Nuevo México. The liberties of the citizens in these and other regions must be protected - both our own people who find themselves forced against the wall of the vengeful Mexican state, and the other people of those lands who too feel the cruel neglect. The government of Mexico will not accept the basic rights of their own people, much less our own, or our sovereign territory, as it exists now. Perhaps the threat of force may dissuade them.

I must agree with this. By allowing President Cameron to act as he sees fit against the tyranny of Mexico, he may not seek to take new states/regions away from Mexico. Mearly regain the lost lands of Texas and ensure the protection of our fellow Americans living under Mexican oppression if he sees to do so.