Under President Cameron, it is now against the law for any reforms to be made abolishing slavery.
-
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.
Under President Cameron, it is now against the law for any reforms to be made abolishing slavery.
How, exactly? The South will resist any and all attempts to curtail slavery, and, as Mr. Khur has said, it is against the law to carry out the necessary reforms. While I am personally against the institution, we cannot make any rash decisions that will have abolitionists and pro-slavery people tearing at eachother's throats. I stand for recognition of the slavery debate for what it is, and little else. I leave it to Congress and the American people to decide.
I would like Brass to address what he believes the President can do to advance abolition. I think all in the Whig party want to see eventual abolition. We disagree on how to achieve that end while maintaining the union.
That and if necessary Davis' proposed law forbidding the debate or condemnation of slavery in the federal government are exactly what I plan to repeal. That is the stance I am taking against slavery - bold perhaps, but not radical.
By restoring free speech to our country we can then have an open and honest debate about slavery and reach abolition as part of a natural process of criticism and conciliation.
I don't expect to see abolition in my term, I only promise to re-legalize the national debate on slavery and the possibility of abolition in my term.
I feel that all of this "moderation" is leading to stasis and in my term hope to break up that stasis so that those who follow me can get done what must be done.
As for Natives, under my proposed citizenship act their children would become citizens automatically; but of course in order to register to vote or enjoy other rights beyond those afforded to all (due process and so forth) one must have or apply for a birth certificate or other identification and pay taxes. Should any Native wish to continue living in their territories or on one of our Eastern-style reservations and not assert their rights and duties as a citizen, who am I to tell them that they must? Mainly though, I am confident that within 20 years we will have made great progress in the assimilation of the Natives.
Also let me remind that as per my promsises, if I gain the nomination all parts of my platform not previously elucidated (citizenship, making the discussion and possibility of abolition laws legal again/along with other free speech stuff) will be up to the Whig convention to decide (so if you vote for me another Whig and you are not a well known member of another party, send me a PM so I can incorporate the suggestions with the most support - this includes who should be my VP; the main possibilities being Kerr, Nightmoore, and Carr at this point it would seem). Anything that the convention does not dictate, I will fill in the manifesto myself of course - but not going against the will of the convention.
Our platforms are incredibly similiar. I do not want to bow out of the race, and yet it seems with your rather superb citizenship policy it seems you will be getting all of the votes.
Hrm...this is a troublesome conundrum.
Hrm...this is a troublesome conundrum.
I don't have any particular problem with Senator Carr. But Jerimiah Brass has been a leading and vocal member of our party's political debates for so long that I and many other members of the party can trust him implicitly. When one is in the enviable position of having multiple options without any flaws, one naturally will gravitate towards the more familiar option.
So 'tis a popularity contest, essentially? It is as I feared, then.
Regardless, I will continue running. It's not over until it's over, my father used to say.
Carr, you could drop out of the race, give your support so Brass wins the ticket, and in the process ask Brass for a VP position. If Brass were to win the presidency, than the name Carr would become well-known once Brass has (possible) held office for two terms.
I wouldn't say it's a popularity contest, it's just the platforms are quite similar so little differences matter a lot. As for myself of course, I made my beliefs clear when I shared a ticket with Jeremiah last election and would be quite the cur to turn on him now.
The VP idea isn't all that bad. Look at how well it worked for the man you are running against.
The VP idea isn't all that bad. Look at how well it worked for the man you are running against.
I to would be pleased to see a Jeremiah Brass and Sebastian Carr ticket. I must say that I was not fully sure who to support, as indeed the policies are very similar (and the variance is simply in what things you focus on - but with Brass' platform and your similar exemplary and modern stances, this is most likely not a major issue). However, Brass has proven here and before that he can clearly discuss and promote these ideals. I am sure that you two together can work together to fully implement effective policies and positions for our modernizing country.
((and a VP spot is not bad at all here, if I might speak from experience - and people running for VP and losing have done quite well later on from what we've seen so far))
((and a VP spot is not bad at all here, if I might speak from experience - and people running for VP and losing have done quite well later on from what we've seen so far))
Indeed, Carr and I both seem to be more interested in allowing the courts and Congress to make decisions regarding slavery again rather than to dictate those decisions ourselves. There is no reason why a ticket wouldn't work - but I will stick to my platform of abiding by popular Whig suggestions and I also would like to reiterate that Mr.Kerr and Mr.Nightmoore are both viable VP candidates.
After reviewing the programs of the Whig candidates, I like both candidates, however I have some pointed questions regarding Mr. Brass' platform. I certainly support the repeal of the debate laws so that slavery may once again be brought into the open and scrutinized rather than swept under a rug until a time that it might become an insurmountable problem. I also support the idea of extending citizenship to all people. However, if this citizenship law does come about, and presumably slaves become American citizens, is it not even moreso morally reprehensible to hold fellow American citizens in bondage? Should they not be freed men? I am afraid that without a plan, this issue could be catastrophic. This concern also extends to the natives. would it not be morally reprehensible in the future to engage in resettlement efforts for natives once they become American citizens, such as was done in the past? I have regrettably not been able to follow the debates as closely as I would like, so perhaps this has already been addressed.
Lastly, if possible, I would like more information on Mr. Brass' plans for the military, economy, and foreign policy, that I may compare them to Senator Carr's. Gentlemen, I appreciate your efforts and hope these debates become a foundation for progress in this nation.
In Service,
Colonel Max Mandrake
Lastly, if possible, I would like more information on Mr. Brass' plans for the military, economy, and foreign policy, that I may compare them to Senator Carr's. Gentlemen, I appreciate your efforts and hope these debates become a foundation for progress in this nation.
In Service,
Colonel Max Mandrake
As presented earlier, my act specifies children born to free parents living under American rule - the children of Natives, colonial subjects, Mexicans in recently acquired territory, freemen, etc. Thus there would be no Constitutional Crisis nor immediate basis for a successful Supreme Court suit forcing the hand of abolition on technical grounds.
I've sworn to take heed of my party and present a convention platform on all other areas than my key promises, but to present my own suggestions to the party on that subject:
- I am firmly anti-expansionist (as it exacerbates the free/slave state debate) but also for a strong standing army and for good relations with all nations, not getting involved in foreign alliances. I feel these were the principles of George Washington and should be continued.
- If the party gives me go ahead and I have the time after fulfilling my other major promises, I would certainly like to either break off the special priviledges and recognition of interstate militias (let there be a SC militia, a Georgia militia, and so on - no more Southern "National" Militia) or integrate such interstate militias into a single unified National Militia command structure.
- I believe laissez faire and free market are best, but I've been known to court interventionist and protectionist policies - so I feel I would make no dogmatic stands but instead act is appropriate.
- I am a strong supporter of fortifications and naval build up rather than asserting power through assimilating territory or creating sattelites (such as these proposed Cuban adventures). However I believe these fortifications should be based on external defense (our coastline and borders) rather than internal defense - why the internal reaches of the South would need forts as the former SNP suggested is beyond me. I don't believe our enemies our within, we're all Americans after all.
- Generally speaking industrialization and the railroad should be encouraged, whether through free market or interventionist measures as appropriate - simply expanding crafts and agricultural production are not enough.
- I think, with Mexico defeated, we should either invest great friendship or fortifications in terms of our British neighbors in Canada - I have no hostility, it just seems like the intelligent thing to do to keep our options open in the future: why should we be forced in ten, twenty, fifty, or a hundred years to necessarily join the British side in an alliance? If we must at some point violate isolationism and become entangled, we should be free to choose the best side - rather than be lumped in with a neighboring superpower. In fact I might be as bold as to suggest we should attempt either way to in the mean time influence Canada to our position. I have no desire for territory, but having Canada favor us as much or more than Great Britain could save on future trouble.
- If necessary, the expansion of industry and fortifications/the military should be slowed in order to maintain rigorous crimefighting, education, and social standards. Corruption would be a fierce enemy of my administration.
Does that answer your questions?
I've sworn to take heed of my party and present a convention platform on all other areas than my key promises, but to present my own suggestions to the party on that subject:
- I am firmly anti-expansionist (as it exacerbates the free/slave state debate) but also for a strong standing army and for good relations with all nations, not getting involved in foreign alliances. I feel these were the principles of George Washington and should be continued.
- If the party gives me go ahead and I have the time after fulfilling my other major promises, I would certainly like to either break off the special priviledges and recognition of interstate militias (let there be a SC militia, a Georgia militia, and so on - no more Southern "National" Militia) or integrate such interstate militias into a single unified National Militia command structure.
- I believe laissez faire and free market are best, but I've been known to court interventionist and protectionist policies - so I feel I would make no dogmatic stands but instead act is appropriate.
- I am a strong supporter of fortifications and naval build up rather than asserting power through assimilating territory or creating sattelites (such as these proposed Cuban adventures). However I believe these fortifications should be based on external defense (our coastline and borders) rather than internal defense - why the internal reaches of the South would need forts as the former SNP suggested is beyond me. I don't believe our enemies our within, we're all Americans after all.
- Generally speaking industrialization and the railroad should be encouraged, whether through free market or interventionist measures as appropriate - simply expanding crafts and agricultural production are not enough.
- I think, with Mexico defeated, we should either invest great friendship or fortifications in terms of our British neighbors in Canada - I have no hostility, it just seems like the intelligent thing to do to keep our options open in the future: why should we be forced in ten, twenty, fifty, or a hundred years to necessarily join the British side in an alliance? If we must at some point violate isolationism and become entangled, we should be free to choose the best side - rather than be lumped in with a neighboring superpower. In fact I might be as bold as to suggest we should attempt either way to in the mean time influence Canada to our position. I have no desire for territory, but having Canada favor us as much or more than Great Britain could save on future trouble.
- If necessary, the expansion of industry and fortifications/the military should be slowed in order to maintain rigorous crimefighting, education, and social standards. Corruption would be a fierce enemy of my administration.
Does that answer your questions?
As a military man I will answer this. All the Cities I mentioned that were in the interior are major rail junctions (Chatanooga, Memphis, Richmond, Atlanta) and as such would be the immediate target of a foriegn invasion if the Coastal Cities were taken. A mobile Defense in Depth is the key to modern warfare. I would also like to point out that I specifically constructed my brief presidential bid to include a precisely equal number of Northern and Southern Cities. The Geography of new england and the old northwest means that most large cities in those areas are coastal and the terrain is less conductive to a defense in depth.
In addition, what is your specific objection to the SNM now? The Joint Militia Limitation Act rendered it nigh impossible to use politically and it has acted both as a extremely effective law enforcement tool and has served well in combat against the evil bean-eating forces of ex-dictator Santa Anna.
Mr. Brass, I see that you are quite critical of the temporary ban of the Discussion of the Slavery Debate at a National Level. I do not mean to limit free speech, to clarify anyone can say anything they want to about it, but no laws relating to it should be discussed in congress until 1860 to give us one decade of calm internal development. I am merely trying to hold the country together, your pace of abolition is far to fast and I fear it could destroy the country.
Last edited:
The objection is that the Southern states as a whole shouldn't have a militia. After all, why should what is more or less a region have a whole militia? It should be broken down into indiviual state militias.
You ask this question like we have forbidden the forming of a Northern Counterpart to the SNM. The Individual state militias are leass efficient than the All-Encompassing SNM.