• 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.
"On that day, a small group of Texan Federal Troops had passed by the ranch of one Abraham Devine [2]. The troops had noticed that Devine was verbally berating a black man, and moved over to investigate. Devine explained that his slave was refusing to work unless he was paid. The federal soldiers told Devine that slavery was outlawed in Texas, so the man was not Devine’s slave and had full rights to pay.
This prompted Devine to march into the house, and fetch his hunting rifle. He fired, apparently in simple rage and not intent to harm, at the slave. The bullet missed, but the troops were sufficiently spooked to shoot Devine on the spot. Devine’s story galvanized those Texans who disagreed with the terms of admittance. They demanded the reinstitution of slavery, and their demands were answered equally fervently by the government and anti-slavery portion of Texans.
Over the course of the next two months, King watched in horror as the state of Texas descended into a civil war of its own. The sides in the phenomenon that became known as “Bleeding Texas” were the Federals [3] and the Amarillo Brigadiers [4]. In November 1838, half the United States Army would be in Texas supporting the State Government."

Wow...things got out of hand in Texas, which just went to show that I was right. the states should never have interfered in Texas and her traditions, her admittance as a slave state would have prevented all of this, as have been pointing out since the day the Texas Bill was first proposed by Jackson.
 
Wow...things got out of hand in Texas, which just went to show that I was right. the states should never have interfered in Texas and her traditions, her admittance as a slave state would have prevented all of this, as have been pointing out since the day the Texas Bill was first proposed by Jackson.

That is what the SNP has been saying since we formed. Texas should have been allowed to decide for themselves what type of state they wished to be, not forced to be something they don't want to be by the Whigs and the former Democrats bending to Whig demands. ((by former i mean pre-union party))
 
That is what the SNP has been saying since we formed. Texas should have been allowed to decide for themselves what type of state they wished to be, not forced to be something they don't want to be by the Whigs and the former Democrats bending to Whig demands. ((by former i mean pre-union party))

((Rob1993 voted for us so he agrees with us already, no need to persuade him)):D
 
I said no good could come of taking Texas into the Union. She should have been her own country within our economic sphere and in an equal alliance and never had the issues of the USA thrust upon her and had her lifestyle changed by the government in Washington.
This has set a dangerous trend, which i assume the Davis Compromise was intended to heal.
 
That is what the SNP has been saying since we formed. Texas should have been allowed to decide for themselves what type of state they wished to be, not forced to be something they don't want to be by the Whigs and the former Democrats bending to Whig demands. ((by former i mean pre-union party))

I too agree that forcing a people was a mistake. Had i known I would not have abstained on such a decision. However, it can also be concluded that slavery caused this to happen. Clearly some people will die to keep other humans as posessions. This issue cannot be put off much further. Soon, a President must step up and end this debate once and for all.
 
I too agree that forcing a people was a mistake. Had i known I would not have abstained on such a decision. However, it can also be concluded that slavery caused this to happen. Clearly some people will die to keep other humans as posessions. This issue cannot be put off much further. Soon, a President must step up and end this debate once and for all.

We at the SNP only hope that president makes the right decision, for I fear for the union if he makes the wrong one.
 
I too agree that forcing a people was a mistake. Had i known I would not have abstained on such a decision. However, it can also be concluded that slavery caused this to happen. Clearly some people will die to keep other humans as posessions. This issue cannot be put off much further. Soon, a President must step up and end this debate once and for all.

That is why we who have joined Mr. Davis in the SNP have done so. He proposes ideas and policies to slowly fade away slavery through an increased industrial base and laws against the mistreatment of slaves. The Union will only stay together through slow subtle change, not all-out abolition all at once like the Whigs would have us do. Peace, patience, and understanding must prevail, not loud voices and act-now demands.
 
That is why we who have joined Mr. Davis in the SNP have done so. He proposes ideas and policies to slowly fade away slavery through an increased industrial base and laws against the mistreatment of slaves. The Union will only stay together through slow subtle change, not all-out abolition all at once like the Whigs would have us do. Peace, patience, and understanding must prevail, not loud voices and act-now demands.
While some Whigs indeed might have suggested instantaneous abolition, it is hardly fair to paint even them as such "act-now" demanding persons. Indeed, even King pushed for gradual abolition, and the strengthening of the industrial base in the South (and elsewhere) and commitment to criminalizing the mistreatment of slaves have always been core tenants of the Whig platform and the Union platform that is now formed by a coalition of statesmen taken without regard to partisan labels. We seek to preserve the union by considered and gradual accomplishment of willing abandonment of the ills of slavery. How is this less peaceful, less patient, and less understanding than a party formed with a militia coalition, which took action to force an arbitrary and economically damaging ratio to disproportionately represent their culture in the military by discriminating against others?
 
This has proven future National Union is unnecessary. If there is to be a 2 party system, the SNP should not be one of those parties. On the field with the limited SNP, there really is naturally a three party system - or else the SNP will never have a chance of winning and too many people will be stuck on the other single party.

Whigs and Democrats or whatever they will become in BBB's inkling should be able to compete just fine in the next election separately, if this is the best the SNP can do.
 
This has proven future National Union is unnecessary. If there is to be a 2 party system, the SNP should not be one of those parties. On the field with the limited SNP, there really is naturally a three party system - or else the SNP will never have a chance of winning and too many people will be stuck on the other single party.

Whigs and Democrats or whatever they will become in BBB's inkling should be able to compete just fine in the next election separately, if this is the best the SNP can do.

((Remember this is our first election and we had to fight fearmongering over our party and a combined whig-democrat coalition. Beyond this we still won 21%-26% of the vote (depending on whether you counting niether parties candidates or both parties candidates as votes) and considering our voterbase is almost exclusively in the south which in this time period settled down to a stable 30% of the country we won 2/3 to 5/6 of the southern vote. that should have some effect on the story and should garuntee my parties survival. ))

((we may not agree politically but you can't disagree that the ridiculously high proportion of the southern vote we got should at least influence the story in some notable way, I think a three party system for the next election SNP v Democrat Remnant v Whig))
 
William_L._Marcy.png


Good People of the United States of America,

Seeing as your voting as overwhelmingly proved that you all wish to see nothing more than the radical paths of the Whig-dominated Union party, which, under my belief, will utterly destroy this nation in end, that I can stand here today, affirming with full convictions, that the Southern National Party, and the cause of a United Union, are lost. From here, it won't be long before the turn-coat Democrats, who have joined this Whig Party satellite, will over see the very destruction of the country they had banded together to protect. Under a Whig's administration, Slavery will be no doubt limited, brought down, and eventually abolished in this nation, rather quickly, when this Southern land of ours is not yet ready for the transition. My running mate, Colonel Davis, and I, John Hensdale, had offered the Union a chance of peace between North and South, we wanted to usher in a Second Era of Good feelings, where North and South worked together, and acted as one country, one people.

If the Southern National Party fails, on it's tombstone should be written: Died of a Theory.

My final warning, and heed my advice, this Glorious Union, that unless a move away from the Radical Whigs is preformed, this country will be plagued with an insurmountably evil, that will usher in a conflict never before seen by any man on this planet. It is my only hope, that I will not be alive when that happens.

God Save the Union!

John Hensdale, Southern Nationalist Senator from Virginia​
 
Last edited:
William_L._Marcy.png


Good people of the United States of America,

Seeing as your voting as overwhelmingly proved that you all wish to see nothing more than the radical paths of the Whig-dominated Union party, which, under my belief, will utterly destroy this nation in end, that I can stand here today, affirming with full convictions, that the Southern National Party, and the cause of a United Union, are lost. From here, it won't be long before the turn-coat Democrats, who have joined this Whig Party satellite, will over see the very destruction of the country they had banded together to protect. Under a Whig's administration, Slavery will be no doubt limited, brought down, and eventually abolished in this nation, rather quickly, when this Southern land of ours is not yet ready for the transition. My running mate, Colonel Davis, and I, John Hensdale, had offered the Union a chance of peace between North and South, we wanted to usher in a Second Era of Good feelings, where North and South worked together, and acted as one country, one people.

If the Southern National Party fails, on it's tombstone should be written: Died of a Theory.

My final warning, and heed my advice, this Glorious Union, that unless a move away from the Radical Whigs is preformed, this country will be plagued with an insurmountably evil, that will usher in a conflict never before seen by any man on this planet. It is my only hope, that I will not be alive when that happens.

God Save the Union!

John Hensdale, Southern Nationalist Senator from Virginia​

The Southern Nationalist Party shall not die my friend, we have started this endeavour and we will see it through. True we did not win this election, truth be told it is unlikely without a collapse or split in the whigs that we will ever win a presidential election. However for honours sake and the sake of the South we must carry on. For the sake of the Union, we must carry on. If we fail know that history will rememeber us, that history will absolve us, that a group of people foresaw the impending disaster and did thier best to stop the rest of the country from moving inexorably towards it.We at the SNP shall carry on, shall contiinue to fight, and shall cotinue to carry the torches of truth and liberty for as long aswe shall live. This is our creed, we must change this countries direction and if we fail, we must face the disaster like men, loyal to our country.

-Colonel Thomas J.L. Davis
-God Save the Union and God Save the South
 
While some Whigs indeed might have suggested instantaneous abolition, it is hardly fair to paint even them as such "act-now" demanding persons. Indeed, even King pushed for gradual abolition, and the strengthening of the industrial base in the South (and elsewhere) and commitment to criminalizing the mistreatment of slaves have always been core tenants of the Whig platform and the Union platform that is now formed by a coalition of statesmen taken without regard to partisan labels. We seek to preserve the union by considered and gradual accomplishment of willing abandonment of the ills of slavery. How is this less peaceful, less patient, and less understanding than a party formed with a militia coalition, which took action to force an arbitrary and economically damaging ratio to disproportionately represent their culture in the military by discriminating against others?

Let us not forget, that even though many Whigs and Democrats continue to grumble about this so-called "discrimination" in the military the Davis Compromise was almost overwhelmingly voted into law with only a few "No"s. If the core value of this Union party is hatred towards what we in the SNP and the rest of the South see as equal treatment towards us in an institution as old as the Constitution then why do so many Whigs and Democrats who supported the Compromise now side with the Union party? Would it not have been much more to your party's pleasing to form your own Compromise on the basis of the Davis Compromise but with the military aspects of it let out? And I do not see how we took action to force this Compromise into law. It was voted by Congress legally and with all interested parties present. And as has been repeated time after time along with the Militia Bill, the SNM in no way acts on orders of the SNP or on what it views as would be in the best interests of the SNP. It is a purely regional National Guard force to police the South in times of peace and support the Federal Army with the defense of Southern Cities and Ports in times of war. I do apologize for labeling all of the members of the Union party as pushing for instant-abolition and "act-now" demanders. It is just my viewpoint that not enough was shown by the end of Mr. King's term as president to show that he had even attempted to improve the industry of the South away from the Cotton industry.
-Nicolas Khur, Inspector-General of the SNM, Commanding-Officer of the U.S. Dragoons
 
The Southern Nationalist Party shall not die my friend, we have started this endeavour and we will see it through. True we did not win this election, truth be told it is unlikely without a collapse or split in the whigs that we will ever win a presidential election. However for honours sake and the sake of the South we must carry on. For the sake of the Union, we must carry on. If we fail know that history will rememeber us, that history will absolve us, that a group of people foresaw the impending disaster and did thier best to stop the rest of the country from moving inexorably towards it.We at the SNP shall carry on, shall contiinue to fight, and shall cotinue to carry the torches of truth and liberty for as long aswe shall live. This is our creed, we must change this countries direction and if we fail, we must face the disaster like men, loyal to our country.

-Colonel Thomas J.L. Davis
-God Save the Union and God Save the South

No it shall not Mr. Davis. You and this party shall continue to have my support, and even if it takes till my grandchildren have asumed responsibility for their lives, the idea of our proud party will win in the end. This I swear to you.
 
Let us not forget, that even though many Whigs and Democrats continue to grumble about this so-called "discrimination" in the military the Davis Compromise was almost overwhelmingly voted into law with only a few "No"s. If the core value of this Union party is hatred towards what we in the SNP and the rest of the South see as equal treatment towards us in an institution as old as the Constitution then why do so many Whigs and Democrats who supported the Compromise now side with the Union party? Would it not have been much more to your party's pleasing to form your own Compromise on the basis of the Davis Compromise but with the military aspects of it let out? And I do not see how we took action to force this Compromise into law. It was voted by Congress legally and with all interested parties present. And as has been repeated time after time along with the Militia Bill, the SNM in no way acts on orders of the SNP or on what it views as would be in the best interests of the SNP. It is a purely regional National Guard force to police the South in times of peace and support the Federal Army with the defense of Southern Cities and Ports in times of war. I do apologize for labeling all of the members of the Union party as pushing for instant-abolition and "act-now" demanders. It is just my viewpoint that not enough was shown by the end of Mr. King's term as president to show that he had even attempted to improve the industry of the South away from the Cotton industry.
-Nicolas Khur, Inspector-General of the SNM, Commanding-Officer of the U.S. Dragoons

In no way is instant abolition a good policy. Texas has shown what happens when something drastic takes place.
As to the military issue. It appears to me, that the South should not be in that powerful a place. Note, the souths population and industry is simply not equal to the north. It makes sense to give the south a powerful force to deter violence but with equal military forces the citizens of the South may use the equal military force as a weapon for slavery. Keep in mind, you honorable politicians do not control the masses. It is quite easy to ignite a fire within a mob and things get out of hand. Texas showed us that politicians cannot control the anger of the masses.
 
My fellow Southern Patriots,

I hope you did not take my letter to the Citizens of the United States as one of me abandoning the Party, I have said that I will always support the South and our Practices, and thus I will always support the Party. I wrote that letter to try and warn the good people of this country what will happen if this Whig domination is to continue, I would rather no longer live, than to live on any other country on this Earth than the United States of America, and in that, the South. It is here, today, that I pledge both my life and soul into the cause of the South, the cause of the Southern National Party, and the Cause of the United States of America!

Colonel Davis, Mr. Kuhr, We will prevail!
 
In no way is instant abolition a good policy. Texas has shown what happens when something drastic takes place.
As to the military issue. It appears to me, that the South should not be in that powerful a place. Note, the souths population and industry is simply not equal to the north. It makes sense to give the south a powerful force to deter violence but with equal military forces the citizens of the South may use the equal military force as a weapon for slavery. Keep in mind, you honorable politicians do not control the masses. It is quite easy to ignite a fire within a mob and things get out of hand. Texas showed us that politicians cannot control the anger of the masses.

((Which is why the leadership of our party are Military men for the most part, it is our job to herd angry mobs with guns in the correct directions and keep them under control!)):D
 
Last edited:
Which is why the leadership of our party are Military men for the most part, it is our job to herd angry mobs with guns in the correct directions and keep them under control

And before anyone can twist that around, Mr. Davis is NOT saying that we are moving "angry mobs" in the direction that we wish to see them take. We are not petty demogauges ((still cant spell)) using the masses for our own means, rather for what is best for the nation as a whole.
 
And before anyone can twist that around, Mr. Davis is NOT saying that we are moving "angry mobs" in the direction that we wish to see them take. We are not petty demogauges ((still cant spell)) using the masses for our own means, rather for what is best for the nation as a whole.

((Which is why I edited that comment after making it to be out of charachter and jokingly))