• 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 never imagined that after the close fight of four years ago that the fine Jeremiah Brass would have such a leisurely stroll into the oval office.
 
[If I had to guess, there is something romantic, to use a term, about the rise of the Republican Party and Lincoln. I would suspect many people on this AAR were waiting for the formation of the party (myself included)]
 
I feel somewhat bad, it's mostly the timing. I could have been the sacrificial candidate four years ago, and Kerr would be walking into office with even more votes than me today.

We should have anticipated in the last election that with the pro-slavery faction of the Whigs finally deceased that people would naturally want to have a Democrat after so long a time.

Also, once the SNP ceased to be a real threat to the Democrats, that bolstered their ranks as well.

The last election was just a very strong moment for them; however we have seen that in this game it's not necessarily easier to be reelected than elected - as Arthur King can tell you.

So, if we were going on mass party appeal - through some formal convention system - I, or Nightmore if I could have weasled out of it, would have been a sacrificial candidate four years ago in order to lead the compromise (acceptable to both moderates and radicals) candidate Kerr to this election's victory now.

However instead you had a case where I had pull among a small but dedicated voting bloc, and the collapsing moderate wing rather than wishing Kerr success in the general election merely wanted him to win the primaries rather than any radical candidate.

It is a shame that John B. Kerr did not have a wing of his own, but our party didn't really ever have an internal center - just the Moderates on one hand and the Radicals on the other, without much attempt to bridge the gap between the two by most Whigs. Cameron was more interested in bridging the gap with the Democrats than with the other half of the Whig party, after all.

However, now that the Moderate Wing has been dead a while, I have a feeling that either the party as a whole will take a gradual reformist but definite action line like in my platform and Mr.Kerr's before me, OR we will have a reformist wing and a radical wing, rather than the old moderate and radical wings.
 
I feel somewhat bad, it's mostly the timing. I could have been the sacrificial candidate four years ago, and Kerr would be walking into office with even more votes than me today.

We should have anticipated in the last election that with the pro-slavery faction of the Whigs finally deceased that people would naturally want to have a Democrat after so long a time.

Also, once the SNP ceased to be a real threat to the Democrats, that bolstered their ranks as well.

The last election was just a very strong moment for them; however we have seen that in this game it's not necessarily easier to be reelected than elected - as Arthur King can tell you.

So, if we were going on mass party appeal - through some formal convention system - I, or Nightmore if I could have weasled out of it, would have been a sacrificial candidate four years ago in order to lead the compromise (acceptable to both moderates and radicals) candidate Kerr to this election's victory now.

However instead you had a case where I had pull among a small but dedicated voting bloc, and the collapsing moderate wing rather than wishing Kerr success in the general election merely wanted him to win the primaries rather than any radical candidate.

It is a shame that John B. Kerr did not have a wing of his own, but our party didn't really ever have an internal center - just the Moderates on one hand and the Radicals on the other, without much attempt to bridge the gap between the two by most Whigs. Cameron was more interested in bridging the gap with the Democrats than with the other half of the Whig party, after all.

However, now that the Moderate Wing has been dead a while, I have a feeling that either the party as a whole will take a gradual reformist but definite action line like in my platform and Mr.Kerr's before me, OR we will have a reformist wing and a radical wing, rather than the old moderate and radical wings.

To be fair Mr. Brass, I believe we should see how your attemps at reform pan out before we declare conservatism dead. As a nation I believe we are unaware of the manner in which certain segments of the population and regions might respond to your reform.
 
Yes, that is why when the history books are written, they will show the large amount of people who abstained from voting in this election.

As the math showed earlier, even counting abstains, I was certainly not elected by any sort of historically low percentage of the electorate as you are suggesting.
 
To be fair Mr. Brass, I believe we should see how your attemps at reform pan out before we declare conservatism dead. As a nation I believe we are unaware of the manner in which certain segments of the population and regions might respond to your reform.

Conservatism isn't dead, but the slavery-coddling wing of the Whigs certainly is. There's no room for them in a world where the SNP and Dems are under one roof. The ex-SNP won't vote for Cameronites, and neither will the reformist Whigs. And as their own faction or party they'd be too small to compete with the Dems+oldSNP.

You Democrats are a large party these days, and that puts a certain pressure on the Whig party - meaning that rather than appealing to Democratic swing voters in our loosely held primary elections, there's more of a Whig core actually doing most of the primary voting, and the majority of the Whigs are at least moderately pro-reform.
 
Conservatism isn't dead, but the slavery-coddling wing of the Whigs certainly is. There's no room for them in a world where the SNP and Dems are under one roof. The ex-SNP won't vote for Cameronites, and neither will the reformist Whigs. And as their own faction or party they'd be too small to compete with the Dems+oldSNP.

You Democrats are a large party these days, and that puts a certain pressure on the Whig party - meaning that rather than appealing to Democratic swing voters in our loosely held primary elections, there's more of a Whig core actually doing most of the primary voting, and the majority of the Whigs are at least moderately pro-reform.

I believe next election the democrats will make a much stronger showing. Because of the nature of Walsh's term much of the old SNP and swing vote SNP-Democrats could not bring themseles to vote for him again, I believe we might have won had I been able to continue in primary bid. ((RL Crippling stoumach flu)) Who knows what the next four years will bring. The decisions may be in your hands Mr. Brass, but the fates are in God's.

In addition Mr. Brass, since you plan to eliminate the Department of the South would you rather me tender my resignation as secretary or would you prefer to sack me yourself? In addition what would you have me say to the SNM, have you anything to say to them? ((Serious questions, not accusatory. I can be accusatory later))
 
As the math showed earlier, even counting abstains, I was certainly not elected by any sort of historically low percentage of the electorate as you are suggesting.

((If Im right about there only being 7 votes for you instead of 10, you would have only won by 1 if the abstains had voted Democrat))

Edit: ((Im glad that the election is finally over, but Im still irritated to have to wait another 2-3 days for the next update. Curse you short patience))
 
Last edited:
I believe next election the democrats will make a much stronger showing. Because of the nature of Walsh's term much of the old SNP and swing vote SNP-Democrats could not bring themseles to vote for him again, I believe we might have won had I been able to continue in primary bid. ((RL Crippling stomach flu)) Who knows what the next four years will bring. The decisions may be in your hands Mr. Brass, but the fates are in God's.
In this way, Walsh's term seems a lot like Arthur King's (except that with the Whigs - excuse me, the Republicans - relatively unified, there was no common ground between the dissatisfied groups). If the Democrats can find a politician who can take the Whig victory and run with it...

Now, if Cameronites and the old SNP vote managed to find a common goal, that would change things up again, but much like the radical Whigs in Cameron's era, they are stuck with no better alternatives.
 
In this way, Walsh's term seems a lot like Arthur King's (except that with the Whigs - excuse me, the Republicans - relatively unified, there was no common ground between the dissatisfied groups). If the Democrats can find a politician who can take the Whig victory and run with it...

Now, if Cameronites and the old SNP vote managed to find a common goal, that would change things up again, but much like the radical Whigs in Cameron's era, they are stuck with no better alternatives.

Mr. vallejo, I have made a career out of taking whig victories and running with them. I believe if Mr. Brass continues with his more radical policies me and the Cameronites may find common ground again. Perhaps a new davis compromise will be needed, but only time will tell.
 
((A lot of people seem to have left this game, we're back (including abstains) to 1836 turnout. BTW, would it be technically possible for me to run for president again, and run for reelection after that.))
 
((A lot of people seem to have left this game, we're back (including abstains) to 1836 turnout. BTW, would it be technically possible for me to run for president again, and run for reelection after that.))

((I think people just skipped out on this election, even if they have left more people will join for the Southern War of Independence.))
 
A. there aren't enough Cameronites, without Democrats faking and invading our primaries, to take over the National Republican party.

B. any Cameronites who would ally with ex-SNP members rather than alienate you by teaming up with more moderate Democrats would no longer be a Cameronite. In what world are the SNP moderates? Cameronism, for all you talk of the Davis Compromise, essentially was built on the idea that there were enough conservative Whigs and Democrats at the time to shut both the radical Whigs and the southern nationalist Democrats and SNP out of the process. Any Cameronite defection to the Democratic party would only weaken your voice and your faction and make you grumble and want to form the SNP again. Indeed, a Cameronite + Democrat + SNP biting their tongues and voting anyway could win many elections; but as much as I dislike Cameronism, they would not be creating political opportunities for you and the other ex-SNP players.

C. As above suggests, a new National Union ticket of moderate Dems and moderate Whigs forming a new party and leaving you firebreathers out of it completely is more likely than some fond memories of the Davis Plan causing Cameronites to make bread with firebreathing slavery expanders and therefore lose all of their moderate credibility.

D. The people who voted Whigs, even the conservatives, generally speaking don't want to see the CSA survive the civil war. Your faction of the Democratic party is all about strengthening the future position of the Confederacy. You are incompatible together.

E. I don't control, and there are not enough old radicals to, the Whig party. Instead of some conservative faction forming to destroy me and everything I stand for, National Republicanism is likely to be dominated by a consensus version - gradual reform. I expect we will be a majority reformist party no matter what I wish to happen, with conservatives and radicals being small unorganized fringes. Nightmore and the rest are more than happy it seems to push through moderate and gradual reform, after the halting stasis and unconstitutional blockages to reform of the Cameron days. Just like your old SNP sought to gradually strengthen the future confederacy, and until that one unfortunate immediate-seccession supporter you maintained admirable discipline. Well the National Republicans are not an authoritarian party with discipline enforced by one member, its just that we are a large tent with no official ideology whatsoever. By having a broad ideological base, we naturally trend towards consensus.
 
I congratulate Mr. Brass on his election. We must now get down to the work of the people and rebuilding freedom from the tattered remnants left behind by just four years of a Democratic administration and the undue influence of southern slavers who see a man merely as a commodity and not as both moral agent and moral patient.
 
I believe next election the democrats will make a much stronger showing. Because of the nature of Walsh's term much of the old SNP and swing vote SNP-Democrats could not bring themseles to vote for him again, I believe we might have won had I been able to continue in primary bid.

I voted Brass partly because I felt that this time of tension would reflect poorly on whosoever held the adminstration. It should be self-evident in my fellow conservatives' reluctance to voice support for the Walsh Administration.

However his policy brief also struck a cord even after I realised that it was a Whig(publican) proposal. I think it is a mistake to prejudge Brass on party lines: any candidate willing to engage his opposition on issues has my support, even if not my colleagues'.

I think it's time to stop thinking in terms of anti-slavery Whig Liberals and slave-power Democrat Conservatives. It would be advisable for Brass to consider the strengths of the Cameron Administration:
-A Whig at the head, with Federalist Democrat support and an opposition living in the past.-
It is time we acknowledged the need for an effective Federal mandate in the Slave debate. States'-rights Democrats can pretend the slavery debate is an invisible elephant in the room, but they should certainly be able see the dead horse they're flogging.

As for Brass, don't mistake your allies for your enemies. It would be a mistake to think you could have had such an easy election without a (big S)outhern Democrat staying out of the race. Congress is shaped like a horseshoe, it can be easier to reach across the aisle than across the party.

((EDIT: Taking the horse metaphor into the final stretch. *dum tish*))
 
Last edited:
Do people really still believe that Mr. Davis ruled the SNP like a King or other autocrat? We were as much a democratic party as the Whigs and Democrats, we just chose our nominations without the need of a primary like the other 2, until the seccessionist showed up that is. And I feel that many of us are not radicals at all, myself included. I feel that I and may other former SNP members are rather conservative for many of the issues both past and current. And many of us have grow since the fall of the SNP to the point where if it were to rise up again, we wouldnt join but stay with our current parties, both Democrat and Whig.