The Presidents: 1836-1936 - An Interactive US AAR

[BigBadBob]

I have yet to receive a single platform or VP.

I require them to get this election started.

[hygge0302]

((Come on everyone it can't be that hard to write something up))

[Riccardo93]

((Come on everyone it can't be that hard to write something up))

((It can be if you weren't born with hands, I tell you hwhat))

I would also like to suggest to Mr. Sherman that he create a 'rainy day' fund for the sole purpose to ensure that, in a time of economic crisis, the government will not have to raise taxes or tariffs, and would be able to instead lower taxes to help the market recover and reorganize more easily. I would also suggest that once the amount deemed suitable by you is reached, that a further, smaller tax cut be made to help promote continued economic growth. I doubt highly that either former President Terrance (which I would like to remind you all led us to the bloodiest war in world history only eight years ago, and forced upon the American people more regulation, higher taxes, forced conscription, the Federal Reserve, and a host of other economic and social ailments that still afflict our society (and consider the fact that he did not go to Congress for war approval, if memory serves me)) or Governor Sullivan, a staunch socialist and follower of the ideals of Joe Hayden and the like, would take my advice seriously, instead favouring higher taxes and more government intervention and artificial growth.

[BigBadBob]

I have both platforms.

(Sullivan has submitted himself to the position of junior partner in a Terrance-Sullivan Federal ticket).

If you're lucky, I can wrest the only device with a word-processor (if anyone else has an iPad, you will know how incredibly painful anything close to work is with the monstrosity I'm writing this on) from my brother's (likely cold and dead) hands, the update will be here tomorrow instead of late on Saturday.

[Riccardo93]

((Great! Do whatever you want (and take as much time) to get the best result; if you need to slay your brother, I'll lend you my Shillelagh...))

It is worrisome that the more moderate Federals have now aligned themselves with the radical Progressives (which is rather odd, considering how Sullivan railed against the Federal-Democratic Labour union only four years ago). It seems I am more and more compelled to vote for Mr. Sherman, who will hopefully be more moderate than reactionary.

[Seek75]

Rest assured, Mr. Jarvis, I am not supportive of Jim Crow, only disdainful of vain attempts on the federal government's side to stop it.

[Riccardo93]

Good; that remark alone reassures me a great deal! I tend to agree with you on such matters, and I was reluctant to use federal power, and am still reluctant to exercise such powers; I am even more concerned that the Federals will go much farther than I, or any sensible person would go.

[Seek75]

((Also, BBB, could you please add that I support free trade to my platform? Forgot to mention that.))

[thekinguter]

Rest assured, Mr. Jarvis, I am not supportive of Jim Crow, only disdainful of vain attempts on the federal government's side to stop it.

So you wont do anything to stop Jim Crow but wont do anything to encourage him? Please enlighten me, I am so confused.

[Riccardo93]

What I believe he is saying, though I don't want to put words in his mouth, is that he will encourage the end of Jim Crow, but will oppose federal action to mandate its end; a perfectly reasonable view in my opinion (and one I hoped would become more prevalent after a little pressure from the government under yours truly).

Indeed, reforms may go about quicker with a fellow Southernor in office, rather than a Californian like myself, or a New Englander (right?) like Terrance acting like an outside force, and invader, trying to dismantle a way of life, however wrong it may be. Under Sherman, if he encourages reform (and if he has a Northern running mate), I believe we will make at least some progress. I have no illusions, we are not going to have equality in my lifetime; nor is progress, or any form of success, going to spring from government intervention (save for the slightest, a nudge at best). While I would love to see equality in ten years, or twenty, I do not see that goal as realistic. What I did, in my term, was to protect the most basic of rights, and tried to enforce current laws more stringently, which I hope Mr. Sherman will do as well.

[Seek75]

To put it in simple terms, I will neither encourage nor discourage Jim Crow. It is not an issue that I believe the Federal government should be involved in either way.

[etranger01]

Section 1 of the Fourteenth Amendment guarantees the rights and privileges of citizenship to all American citizens, both on a state and federal level. With this amendment, the Constitution revoked the rights of the states to discriminate against its citizens on the basis of race, gender, or personal creed. Quite simply, the Fourteenth Amendment exists precisely to guarantee that, for instance, Episcopalians are not disqualified from serving on a jury in Connecticut, or to ensure that Franco-Americans are not forbidden from opening eateries in Colorado. Equal protection under the law for all American citizens, an ideal forged in the aftermath of the Civil War.

If Senator Sherman truly aspires to the Presidency, he must realize that, should he win, he will be required to take an oath to preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States, including its Fourteenth Amendment. How, then, can he reconcile that oath with his pledge to do nothing about Jim Crow? "Leaving it to the states" is not an option, as upholding minority rights is clearly a federal matter with that amendment.

So, we come to two possible options. Either Senator Sherman intends to serve as an honorable executive,uphold the Fourteenth Amendment, and fight Jim Crow, breaking his campaign pledge, or he plans to speak falsehood when accepting the Presidency, to lie in his oath of office, and subvert the Constitution by allowing the states to discriminate against their citizens in violation of their Constitutional rights.

Neither of these choices is a particularly palatable option, and frankly neither is Senator Sherman. I call upon all Americans to reject the thinly-veiled racism of the Republican Party, to reject their anti-Constitutional platform, and to stand up for what we know to be right! Because, my fellow citizens, if we allow the Republicans to deny the vote to the blacks, who will be next? Will they be content with denying rights to those of different skin tones, or will they seek to disenfranchise those of other European cultures? Perhaps other religions? Who will be next?

[WelshDude]

((Mate, there is no 14th amendment in thread. We didn't make one.

[Projekt 919]

((Mate, there is no 14th amendment in thread. We didn't make one.

((Indeed, we may have emancipated but there was never any law guarunteeing equal rights for the emancipated))

[BigBadBob]

((Indeed, we may have emancipated but there was never any law guarunteeing equal rights for the emancipated))

Matter of fact there is. It was among the equal rights laws passed during 1861-65. I just failed to single the Reconstruction Amendments out since I neglected to remember that they might come up with Jim Crow, and the Constitution hasn't been used that much in arguments until now, so I didn't see it as necessary.

[Riccardo93]

and the Constitution hasn't been used that much in arguments

((Unless I was ranting...))

[BigBadBob]

The Presidential Election of 1925

If the National Conventions of 1925 were anything to go by, the Republican Party was invincible, although not by virtue of its own strengths, but rather by virtue of managing not to split at a time when the economy guaranteed election on its own for the Republican candidate. For the Republican Party’s candidate, John T. Sherman, the first presidential candidate of Native American ancestry, the main challenge was to keep from reopening the Party’s barely sewn up wound; Jim Crow. If he could do so and, judging by the response of the Republican Convention that nominated him almost unanimously on the first ballot, he almost certainly could, the Solid South and the electoral trump card of the prosperous economy would likely see him coast to victory.

1. John T. Sherman, c. 1925.

The Federal Party, knowing it faced an uphill struggle due to the Republican Party’s being sure to vote a candidate who would secure the Solid South, worked intensely on forging a ticket that could hope to beat a candidate who was nearly as fireproof as candidates come. To do so, they needed a candidate and running mate who could force Sherman to debate in a campaign where his greatest weapon would be a silence in which voters would likely gravitate to the man most likely to keep the seemingly perfect status quo. In the Federal Convention, Thomas Terrance was deemed to be that candidate.
Terrance however, knew that chances of victory were slim if Sullivan, who had announced he would be running again, continued to take votes that would likely have gone Federal. So he approached Sullivan and proposed he run as Terrance’s VP on a nominal coalition ticket, although due to the nature of Sullivan’s candidacy and much smaller clout in congress, the Federal Party would be a very clear senior partner in the alliance.

The Candidates/Tickets of 1925

The Election Manifesto of the Republican Party

Presidential Candidate: John T. Sherman
Vice-Presidential Candidate: Simon Ritter

My American friends, I call upon you to vote for me, not because of any desire for the office of President, but because I believe I am the best possible choice. If you look to the left of me, you will see two other men. One whose platform is not much of a platform at all; rather, it is simply an amorphous anomaly whose only true goal is the centralization of power away from Congress and the States and into the presidency. The other calls for redundant, inefficient, and pointless government intervention and restrictions, when our economy is going through its greatest boom yet due to the lack of restrictions to contain it.

But you did not come to listen to me rant about my opponents, did you? No, I believe you came here to hear my platform, and so you shall.

Economically, I stand for laissez-faire economics. Our greatest periods of growth have been under administrations that allowed the economy to sort out its own problems, and so why should we not continue this practice? As well, I believe that government regulation, at the end of the day, only impedes the economy, rather than aids it. Why should we put caps on our own growth, rather than allowing it to grow as much as possible?

Militarily, I am anti-military. While I appreciate everything that our armed forces have done for this great nation, I do not believe we need a very expansive military. Something to defend, and little more. Besides, quality beats quantity. A smaller military will allow for a more advanced, more elite fighting force.

America is not a Christian nation, but a nation with Christians. Ergo, I favor secularism.

I favor full citizenship. Everyone who comes here and accepts our ways and our culture is an American, in my opinion.

In regards to foreign policy, I do not think we should involve ourselves in the rest of the world's affairs. I will not recognize the rebel government in Germany, however neither will I aid what I believe to be the legitimate government.

In terms of the South, I believe leaving the South alone is the best solution to the issue with Jim Crow. Jarvis' attacks on the Jim Crow laws have made the South even more defensive of segregation. They will look upon Federal involvement in the issue not as an attempt to champion liberty for all men, but rather as an attack upon the rights of their states. Federal involvement will not solve the problem, it will only radicalize the Southerners and possibly lead to conflict. I therefore am supportive of allowing the Southern states to solve the issue themselves.

Election Manifesto of the Federal-Progressive Coalition

Presidential Candidate: Thomas H. Terrance
Vice-Presidential Candidate: Michael Sullivan

Out of one of the most bloody wars in all of history, our nation through the Transition to Peace Act embraced and allowed to flourish a tradition that stems from the days of Cameron, and one that's been embraced by every great President since him; that we are stronger united than divided. That we together are more than the sum of our parts. We rose to greatness in the world on the basis of this notion, which should underlie policy. It was this that created the health-care system which has saved millions of American lives. It is this that has given us pensions so nobody need fear being old. It is this that improved the standards of safety in our factories. It is this which won us the Great War.

This blood flows though the veins of the Federal Party, and myself, and is what the Republicans seek to spill. It's against the destruction of this glorious system and support for Jim Crow the Federals and Progressives have rallied to form an alliance against. And so we present a manifesto for the masses!

Restoring Social Justice
The grossly unjust flat-tax is to be replaced by a return to the progressive system, the just system that best serves the American people. Lining the pockets of the rich is not to be paid for by pilfering those of the poor. The welfare state that the Federals, in alliance with other men and women of progress, which has managed to survive the onslaught of the past eight years shall be given new life, and never under a Federal-Progressive administration be starved of the funds it needs to serve the people of this nation.

Economic Stability
A Financial Compliance Division is to be founded under the FBI, and overseen by Congress, to ensure that the nation's banks act in accordance with financial and monopoly law, which shall be made more robust. The markets shall also be made more secure by the creation of the Federal Deposit Insurance Commission imagined by my colleague Alicia Vallejo. However the well regulated markets shall be free, this will primarily be achieved through free trade within the Commonwealth. Laws shall be enacted to ensure the quality of commercially sold food produce and to illegalize fraudulent labeling. Immigration law shall be loosened, so as to allow our expanding factories new workers where natural growth is insufficient.

A Workforce Fit for the Future
Education funding is to be increased. We must prepare our youth for life and employment, giving them the greatest skillsets in the world so we may continue to be the greatest country in the world. Higher education scholarships to the poor shall also be increased in number, so that peoples may lift themselves out of poverty and to add water to the great river of social mobility.

Support for the Inalienable Rights
A Federal-Progressive administration would oppose Jim Crow at every turn. Any federally employed negro employee is to be granted a wage in high proportion to those of a white employee in the same job. Similar rules shall be enforced for women, along with legislation to ensure maternity leave rights. The Federal-Progressives continue to advocate constitutional reform, so that our system is more accountable, just, democratic and representative of our fine people.

Promoting Peace and Diplomacy
Jarvis killed one of the great ideas of our times; a League of Nations. An organization that would seek to resolve conflict not through soldiers and ships, but through discussion and negotiation. This is not petty idealism but a means of ensuring peace in a world prone to conflict. A Terrance administration would seek to revive that ideal, with the League of American States and League of European states as branch organizations of it. Our military shall be maintained at present levels, except for our air force which is to be expanded.

--------------------------------

Exceptional Situation(s):

None in this second-to-last election before the shi*t hits the fan again. Vote on.

[theAhawk]

Federal

[etranger01]

(Isn't someone who supports Jim Crow technically for Limited Citizenship? =P)

[Gloa]

My vote is for T. H. Terrance and the Federal coalition.

(("Alliance of Federal and Progressive candidates" just doesn't have the same ring to it as "Federal coalition"))