Your talking about the same southern rouges who WROTE the davis comprimise
-
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.
Your talking about the same southern rouges who WROTE the davis comprimise
((ok, my bad. i thought Colonel Davis instantly become involved with Bills and such when he became a nomination for the Presidency))
Can you PM me a Final Copy and Ill Review it? ((I think this has cluttered the thread enough))
This part goes against the constiution, In fact, I might even go and say the entire bill is unconstiutional.
A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.
the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.
I belive cannons, distipe their strength, count as arms, and therefore can't be regulated or kept under the watch of federal troops (Unless its a federal cannon, of course).
I know, I just wanted to let the Supreme Court ((Read:BBB)) know that.
You could argue that, but to argue any man should have the same access to heavy and sophisticated weaponry as the Federal government is silly.
It's all a matter of interpretation, and the ultimate decision lies with the Supreme Court ((BBB)).
((are the common people able to mass produce their own cannons???))
The Davis Compromise which is only necessary because of armed terrorism by Southern rogues such as yourself opposed to the constitutionally enacted free state decision regarding Texas.
The Amarillo Brigade reversed the legal process through bloodshed - that is what the SNP and its militia stand for. Saying that you are immune to laws you dissaprove of.
The Davis Plan is the regretfully necessary option of negotiating with terrorists - namely the SNP which conveniently formed as the political wing of the pro-slavery militants involved in Bleeding Texas!
1. The Decision was forced upon the texans who were only willing to consider joining as a free state based on fear of mexico, using the Texans fear to force them to accept something against thier will is terrorism as well. It was wrong to try to force your views on the Texans.
2. We stand for opposing laws that are openly biased against the people of the south. If we dont have the right to oppose laws that threaten our God-Given rights then was the Revolution itself was illegal in your opinion?
3. Our Formation was partly resulting from the crises in texas, not the other way around. You act like we are trying to destroy the Union but the Bipatisan Militia Limitation Act and the Davis Comprimise prove our commitment to saving it. You are steeing a dangerous precedent by branding my entire party as terrorists and militants. It is inconcievable to me that I would ever have to order it, but I assure you if my party was truly being militant or acting as terrorists, you would know it.
The fact that you seized upon anti-Federal terrorism in Texas as an opportunity to state in your political manifesto that slavery was not the abomination against god and liberty that it is makes the SNP little better than the Amarillo brigade dear sir.
And if the Southern States are free to ignore any laws that they do not like, then what meaning does the Constitution have at all? Perhaps you men in the South would have preferred it if there had been no Constitution at all and we had remained under the Articles of Confederation.
You cannot claim the legitimacy of the Founders while going against the laws they established to defend liberty. The nullification, whether in the state houses or by force of arms, of Federal law by the states goes against the very essence of the Constitution - the very reason why it was written in the first place.
No state has the right to nullify Federal law - the reversal of a constitutionally decided law making Texas a free state, a reversal made by force of arms, was an act of unconstitutionality and dictatorial force more fitting with the Redcoats during the Revolution, not with the Patriots.
And if the Southern States are free to ignore any laws that they do not like, then what meaning does the Constitution have at all? Perhaps you men in the South would have preferred it if there had been no Constitution at all and we had remained under the Articles of Confederation.
You cannot claim the legitimacy of the Founders while going against the laws they established to defend liberty. The nullification, whether in the state houses or by force of arms, of Federal law by the states goes against the very essence of the Constitution - the very reason why it was written in the first place.
No state has the right to nullify Federal law - the reversal of a constitutionally decided law making Texas a free state, a reversal made by force of arms, was an act of unconstitutionality and dictatorial force more fitting with the Redcoats during the Revolution, not with the Patriots.
1. My Davis comprimise does more to limit the Abominations of Slavery than anything your whig party has done. So stop with the Holier-Than-Thou routine dear sir.
2. I did not say we are free to Ignore, the SNP opposes the laws through regular and legal political channels. And the SNM would never be used to enforce nullification, Colonel Khur can assure you of this. He would resign if I was to order such a thing.
3. The Founding fathers were half Southern Plantation owners. I assure you if Thomas Jefferson was alive today he would be a member of the SNP. He in fact wrote the compact theory on which much of our philosophy is based. In addition, the constitution never gave the federal government the right to dictate how people in OTHER countries live considering texas is still not part of the U.S.!
4. So how are the Texans who are still a seperate National entity not abiding by a law passed by our congress illegal? The Davis Comprimise is designed to make everyone happy, The Texans Keep thier slaves and those slaves are treated better in a nutshell. So I really can't see your problem with us or the compromise.
Last edited:
I merely propose this idea as a counter act to the increasing size of your own southern militia! And it seems that while you claim to want to create a haven, where you can live by your own virtues in your area of the southern United States, you now wish to impose those same virtues upon the rest of the country! We cannot allow inequality and hate to linguer any longer! Destroy the heart of darkness, stop the Southern Nationalist Movement in its tracks!
((Putting an even more agitation in his agitator persona.))
((Putting an even more agitation in his agitator persona.))
And if your militia abides by the terms of the new Militia Limitation act after it is passed it can exist, and how are we imposing our virtues again? Moreover my yankee friend you misspelled LINGER.
-Thomas J.L. Davis
-God Save the Union and God Save the South!
((Our Charachters are going to end up fioghting to the death at the halfway point between manhattan and thomasville at this rate))
Last edited:
While I understnad the militias must not be used as a political force the State of Montana needs a strong militia force. We have enemies on three sides and are the furthest from the center of the Union. We must have a militia to protect our interests from the mexicans, british, indians and other European nations. Could there not be a clause relating to the militia of frontier states as opposed to those closer to Washington. Maryland has less of a need for defense than Montana and thus I push for an exception to be made for frontier states.
I also condemn the outright belligerence on behalf of Cesar. No militia shall be used as a political weapon against citizens of America. Brothers must not fight brothers if the union is to survive. We must not raise hostility between the south and the north.
(in response to projekt) my one issue is that in the face of invasion on behalf of other powers the forces must be under the command of the state not the federal government. If it wishes to do anything outside of the state that is federal but within Montana we must maintain the right to react to agression as necessary.
I also condemn the outright belligerence on behalf of Cesar. No militia shall be used as a political weapon against citizens of America. Brothers must not fight brothers if the union is to survive. We must not raise hostility between the south and the north.
(in response to projekt) my one issue is that in the face of invasion on behalf of other powers the forces must be under the command of the state not the federal government. If it wishes to do anything outside of the state that is federal but within Montana we must maintain the right to react to agression as necessary.
Last edited:
The Bill allows for as strong a militia force as a state deems neccesary, It is merely making sure (Hopefully) that militias won't be used as political forces like in texas.
Edit: The State Militias remain under the command of the state, I assure you if you need the cannon the federal troops in montana will make them availible to you
Last edited:
First and foremost:
Whig: J. F. Cameron
Merger: Yes; grudgingly
Am I the only one who dreads the level of hatred concealed in every political statement issued in recent times? When did armed threats replace civility? I am a Whig, I am an abolitionist but, above all, I (as the rest of my fellow colleagues) am an American citizen, bestowed with the honor of voicing their needs in this Federal Forum. But, besides local needs, one must also advocate for common sense and the preservation of this Nation's integrity. Many have forgotten this simple truths and caused the current set of affairs, I say. Now, after this digression, to the matter at hand.
The popular militias that have sprung recently need to be controlled, if not, in a short time we'll have armed bands marching throughout the land imposing their political views by blood and brass and hanging those who oppose them. This must be avoided, whether this men may come from Boston or from New Orleans, I don't care. Of the many pieces of legislation proposed on that matter, I throw my support behind Mr Cameron's ((post #476)) as it had been presented. I shall reconsider after further modification is made. Only Art. 8 deserves a comment, in my opinion. Federal arsenals should also store a portion of the militia's weapons, not only artillery. I admit that I am no military expert but it strikes me as unnecessary to have all the weaponry available to them when there is no sign of immediate threat (border states are excluded, of course). Large stocks of arms should be controlled; if I had a dozen cannons and 500 rifles in my backyard what could I be possibly planning to do with them? Duck hunting in Ohio?
A. de Jong, Rep. of Massachusetts
Whig: J. F. Cameron
Merger: Yes; grudgingly
Am I the only one who dreads the level of hatred concealed in every political statement issued in recent times? When did armed threats replace civility? I am a Whig, I am an abolitionist but, above all, I (as the rest of my fellow colleagues) am an American citizen, bestowed with the honor of voicing their needs in this Federal Forum. But, besides local needs, one must also advocate for common sense and the preservation of this Nation's integrity. Many have forgotten this simple truths and caused the current set of affairs, I say. Now, after this digression, to the matter at hand.
The popular militias that have sprung recently need to be controlled, if not, in a short time we'll have armed bands marching throughout the land imposing their political views by blood and brass and hanging those who oppose them. This must be avoided, whether this men may come from Boston or from New Orleans, I don't care. Of the many pieces of legislation proposed on that matter, I throw my support behind Mr Cameron's ((post #476)) as it had been presented. I shall reconsider after further modification is made. Only Art. 8 deserves a comment, in my opinion. Federal arsenals should also store a portion of the militia's weapons, not only artillery. I admit that I am no military expert but it strikes me as unnecessary to have all the weaponry available to them when there is no sign of immediate threat (border states are excluded, of course). Large stocks of arms should be controlled; if I had a dozen cannons and 500 rifles in my backyard what could I be possibly planning to do with them? Duck hunting in Ohio?
A. de Jong, Rep. of Massachusetts
Mr. Cameron and Mr. Davis's thank you very much. And the debate on the bill is over, this is a bi-partisan piece of legislation and to shake it up at this point might shake it apart. Remember that since my party is the only one with a militia (The bill does allow for the continuation of the SNM as a organization of State Militias under one uniform and command) everything in that bill is a concession from us. A Goodwill present, if you please, to the whigs and to allieviate fears among the democrats that I am a dictator-in-the-making who might march on washington with my own Private Army.
-Thomas J.L. Davis
-God Save the Union and God Save the South
Edit: ((As a military expert, in the case of small arms militia usually use thier own weopans, so what you are asking for is the federal government to requisition everyones firearms. That is almost as ludicrous as President King Saying that private citizens should be allowed to own cannon))
Edit: (( I'm Turning in as its getting late. But since im the only one left on the thread Im so..............................http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xh_9QhRzJEs))
Last edited: