-
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.
)
Simply put, their policies are confused, contradictory, and overall dangerous in these times. Whereas I would rather have peace and negotiation with all nations, and von Ritter war with them all, both Hensdale and Terrance want to appeal to all sides in American politics, which will only result in such a confused foreign policy, it will damage our relations for decades to come.
Mr. Terrance will almost certainly bring us into the conflict, since we'd be so heavily aligned to the Western powers. His policies would bring us to war with Germany, Austria, and Russia, and this conflict will rage for many years. However, his Latin policy is far better than Mr. Hensdale's.
Mr. Hensdale, though, shows yet another weakness. He seeks to hide from the other European states, and to align us, foolishly, to only Britain. Once this war begins, we will be drawn in, or we shall leave Britain out to dry, ruining our relations, regardless of his intentions. The war will ruin our European ties permanently under his administration. And his Latin policy is little better, since he views South America as our playground, and should follow our ideals to the letter.
My policy on Europe is the most different, and the best placed to have America in a strong position. My policies will free us from a solely Anglo-centric view, while still supporting free trade and other benefits from the Commonwealth, only without them being bound to aid us, and for us them. As well, since my policy will focus on remaining neutral, and attempting to negotiate the differences and conflicts between the two sides in Europe. Should a war erupt, America would serve as a mediator, a diplomat, to restore peace. Concerning Latin America, I would reopen relations with them, and work to bring them closer to us, not through diplomatic or through militaristic channels, but through trade, commerce, and the free exchange of ideas.
Mr. Terrance will almost certainly bring us into the conflict, since we'd be so heavily aligned to the Western powers. His policies would bring us to war with Germany, Austria, and Russia, and this conflict will rage for many years. However, his Latin policy is far better than Mr. Hensdale's.
Mr. Hensdale, though, shows yet another weakness. He seeks to hide from the other European states, and to align us, foolishly, to only Britain. Once this war begins, we will be drawn in, or we shall leave Britain out to dry, ruining our relations, regardless of his intentions. The war will ruin our European ties permanently under his administration. And his Latin policy is little better, since he views South America as our playground, and should follow our ideals to the letter.
My policy on Europe is the most different, and the best placed to have America in a strong position. My policies will free us from a solely Anglo-centric view, while still supporting free trade and other benefits from the Commonwealth, only without them being bound to aid us, and for us them. As well, since my policy will focus on remaining neutral, and attempting to negotiate the differences and conflicts between the two sides in Europe. Should a war erupt, America would serve as a mediator, a diplomat, to restore peace. Concerning Latin America, I would reopen relations with them, and work to bring them closer to us, not through diplomatic or through militaristic channels, but through trade, commerce, and the free exchange of ideas.
Honourable Governor Jarvis, you have once again taken my views out of context in this Great Debate. I wish to maintain out current relationship with the British, as well as expand to the other nations of Europe. Using your logic, if we were to leave the Commonwealth our relations with the British would be destroyed, we would suddenly get a large boost with the Triple Alliance, who would seek our recognition of their efforts and their governments. This would be a sign for you to forge a "Neutral" stance and then align yourselves with these powers. When the war breaks out, we would have sour relations with the British, and an urging by those Governments against the British to enter the war upon their side. We simply cannot have that stand. The Commonwealth must NOT be broken at this time, drastically reformed, yes.
Talking about Latin America, I do disagree with them being our "Playground", but I am adamant in the fact that relations have been sour, and they had reached a point of no return during the previous administrations. It is now, that under my leadership, we shall take a new tone on Latin America, forging new paths ahead, and preventing the need for such an action ever again.
Talking about Latin America, I do disagree with them being our "Playground", but I am adamant in the fact that relations have been sour, and they had reached a point of no return during the previous administrations. It is now, that under my leadership, we shall take a new tone on Latin America, forging new paths ahead, and preventing the need for such an action ever again.
What tone shall that be, Mr. Vice-President? If things have, as you say, gone pas the point of no return, do you believe we should go to war with the nations of the Santiago Pact?
On Europe, under my administration, we will act only as mediators, nothing more, nothing less. I have always striven for peace, and will do so as President. If we were to dramatically change the Commonwealth, what would the point in having the institution exist under your administration, when it is really nothing more than a glorified trade agreement? Unless, of course, you support the mutual defence ideals formed from it. Indeed, if you are so Anglocentric, then shouldn't we come to the aid of our cousins across the Atlantic?
I want to see your full plans for the Commonwealth; your goals may not even have the broad support of Congress, or the American people. If you simply say that you'll change it, but show no proof, especially when serving under the interventionists Carr and Harrison, then how do we know you'll even carry out such a proposal?
On Europe, under my administration, we will act only as mediators, nothing more, nothing less. I have always striven for peace, and will do so as President. If we were to dramatically change the Commonwealth, what would the point in having the institution exist under your administration, when it is really nothing more than a glorified trade agreement? Unless, of course, you support the mutual defence ideals formed from it. Indeed, if you are so Anglocentric, then shouldn't we come to the aid of our cousins across the Atlantic?
I want to see your full plans for the Commonwealth; your goals may not even have the broad support of Congress, or the American people. If you simply say that you'll change it, but show no proof, especially when serving under the interventionists Carr and Harrison, then how do we know you'll even carry out such a proposal?
I believe the Santiago Pact has not reached this point, and by a policy change of our attitude towards them, we can forge a new, lasting relationship with them. All it would take is a little diplomatic work, add in a few trade agreements and general friendly banter and they can be brought back.
By changing the Commonwealth, I do, yes, make it a glorified trade agreement, but I also wish to reform it into a medium of allowing Britain and the United States to share ideas, to grow and prosper side by side as we have since Virginia's inception! Why, the Commonwealth should be the embodiment of the nature of Anglo-American relations. I am not, however, Anglocentric. I do believe in a special spot for the British among the American matrimony, I am in no way willing to send our armed forces to defend Europe over another bloody war. We shall pressure our old, and new friends, to not go to this brink of destruction, but anything further and we will simply be forced to turn our heads and sigh at yet another unneeded war in Europe over petty issues. As President, I shall use all of the power of the United States to resolve these issues peacefully, by forging good relations with ALL the nations of Europe.
How do you know I'll carry this proposal through? It is really quite simple. My personal beliefs motivate me far more than enough to bring this to bear. I believe in American Exceptionalism as well as America claiming her place in the world. It MUST be done through diplomatic, and not militaristic, means however.
((Glares at Seek))
By changing the Commonwealth, I do, yes, make it a glorified trade agreement, but I also wish to reform it into a medium of allowing Britain and the United States to share ideas, to grow and prosper side by side as we have since Virginia's inception! Why, the Commonwealth should be the embodiment of the nature of Anglo-American relations. I am not, however, Anglocentric. I do believe in a special spot for the British among the American matrimony, I am in no way willing to send our armed forces to defend Europe over another bloody war. We shall pressure our old, and new friends, to not go to this brink of destruction, but anything further and we will simply be forced to turn our heads and sigh at yet another unneeded war in Europe over petty issues. As President, I shall use all of the power of the United States to resolve these issues peacefully, by forging good relations with ALL the nations of Europe.
How do you know I'll carry this proposal through? It is really quite simple. My personal beliefs motivate me far more than enough to bring this to bear. I believe in American Exceptionalism as well as America claiming her place in the world. It MUST be done through diplomatic, and not militaristic, means however.
((Glares at Seek))
You've already said that our relations have reached the point of no return under the Carr Administration, during which you've served as Vice-President. Indeed, you supported PPSA, which has lead to this point. I, on the other hand, opposed the measure for what it is; a gross power grab by the administration to declare illegal wars!
At least you are opposed to fighting a war, though I don't believe you have ruled it out.
As for the Commonwealth, if it is nothing more than a trade agreement, I believe that free flow of ideas would happen under my administration, which not only would have a free trade agreement with Britain, but would seek one with each country on earth. I doubt the asking a President, especially one perceived to be leaning towards the British, as this Commonwealth has, and will, create, to calm tensions in the German court will appease the Kaiser; indeed, it will likely harm our relations, as I believe the Empires of Europe are looking for a fight, rather than fearing one. That is why we should avoid even lightly tying ourselves to Europe; the war to come is desired, not loathed.
I also doubt that only a little diplomatic work, and trade will resolve the Latin issue. I believe a radical change in our policy is needed. I believe we should move all our forces out of the region, announce that we are no longer using gunship diplomacy, and actually have discourse with the leadership of these nations, unlike what we saw during your administration, Mr. Vice-President.
As well, can you show us your proposed changes to the Commonwealth on paper, Mr. Hensdale; I, and I believe the Congress, and American people, are very interested in your plans. Perhaps, if I think they are sound, I will use them as transition plan to the abolition of this agreement, in favour of a broader, and less burdensome agreement, for both sides.
At least you are opposed to fighting a war, though I don't believe you have ruled it out.
As for the Commonwealth, if it is nothing more than a trade agreement, I believe that free flow of ideas would happen under my administration, which not only would have a free trade agreement with Britain, but would seek one with each country on earth. I doubt the asking a President, especially one perceived to be leaning towards the British, as this Commonwealth has, and will, create, to calm tensions in the German court will appease the Kaiser; indeed, it will likely harm our relations, as I believe the Empires of Europe are looking for a fight, rather than fearing one. That is why we should avoid even lightly tying ourselves to Europe; the war to come is desired, not loathed.
I also doubt that only a little diplomatic work, and trade will resolve the Latin issue. I believe a radical change in our policy is needed. I believe we should move all our forces out of the region, announce that we are no longer using gunship diplomacy, and actually have discourse with the leadership of these nations, unlike what we saw during your administration, Mr. Vice-President.
As well, can you show us your proposed changes to the Commonwealth on paper, Mr. Hensdale; I, and I believe the Congress, and American people, are very interested in your plans. Perhaps, if I think they are sound, I will use them as transition plan to the abolition of this agreement, in favour of a broader, and less burdensome agreement, for both sides.
Last edited:
You may have noticed I am not an ACP member. These alliances also tie Britain to America, and saying that we could be Britain's friends when we will not even help it when at war with our deadlieist enemies, is, not too put too fine a point on it, not true.
I thought you believed we did not have that right, so surely they do not. And if we do have that right, we surely have the right to stop them from doing the same, as others have the right to try and stop us?
If the Triple Alliance win a war with Britain, then I do not doubt they would seize land which used to belong to a democracy. That means people who used to live in a democracy now live in a dictatorship. Ye, they might not be too many people, but they still matter.
The difference I think is that in the US-Santiago conflict it is us who've been the aggressor. Carr's invasion of Peru is an example of this. It's understandably a significant amount easier to end a conflict that oneself started. In addition the UPCA and Chile are democracies and therefore don't have to cater to the imperial whims of a Kaiser or Tsar. We must not allow some fear of Germany to stop us engaging in normal diplomatic activity; if we do so they have already won.
I'm callin' it.
The Polls are Closed.
The ACP candidate will be David Hensdale.
The Federal candidate will be T. H. Terrance.
Candidates, get me your VPs and policies as soon as possible.
The Polls are Closed.
The ACP candidate will be David Hensdale.
The Federal candidate will be T. H. Terrance.
Candidates, get me your VPs and policies as soon as possible.
Terrance would improve our ties with Britain, ignore Europe, and then ultimately either be forced to bring us into a war with Britain against Europe or to ignore Britain after having repaired relations with them; to betray them in their honor of need, as it could be portrayed. Could the desire to create US economic presence in China be a means of extending a wish to wage colonial rather than bloody European land war against the Triple Alliance should/when Britain goes to war with them? And what about France? Unlike Britain, they would have the most to lose from a land war in Europe and unlike Britain protecting their colonial possessions would not mitigate that harshness in the slightest. Alternatively, China could be a sign that a Terrance administration might use a war between the powers of the Old World as an opportunity to build up an American colonial empire - though perhaps along democratic and free trade lines rather than protectionism and no self rule, as is common with European colonies. The fact that he wishes peace rather than dominance over Latin America means he believes America's destiny lies elsewhere - but is it in the fields of Europe, or the rich ports of Asia?
Hensdale I think wants to rebuild Europe into a kinder, gentler land along the lines of how he envisions the United States. But it can only be rebuilt if it is destroyed, and raising diplomatic relations with the Triple Alliance while continuing an exclusive trade alliance with Britain would not only not prevent a land war in Europe but could possibly fuel the fire. However it would position the U.S. to rebuild Europe after the fact. His Latin American policy is an extension of all previous U.S. policy regarding our special role, as it is perceived, in protecting the Americas. But traditionally this power was exercised against European colonialists - is now the time to adapt it along the lines of our Peruvian intervention, saving Latin Americans from themselves? And how does the Santiago Pact compare to the dictatorship in Peru? Favorably? Can we justify war against a rival trade pact, a war that is pragmatic rather than a battle for a more virtuous world? Or can we not afford to seek to impose our ideals upon the world for ideals sake alone, and is it better to spread our ideals through trade; and through the level of dominance that requires, not necessarily an international empire all over the globe, but a strong sphere of influence here in our own hemisphere?
Hensdale I think wants to rebuild Europe into a kinder, gentler land along the lines of how he envisions the United States. But it can only be rebuilt if it is destroyed, and raising diplomatic relations with the Triple Alliance while continuing an exclusive trade alliance with Britain would not only not prevent a land war in Europe but could possibly fuel the fire. However it would position the U.S. to rebuild Europe after the fact. His Latin American policy is an extension of all previous U.S. policy regarding our special role, as it is perceived, in protecting the Americas. But traditionally this power was exercised against European colonialists - is now the time to adapt it along the lines of our Peruvian intervention, saving Latin Americans from themselves? And how does the Santiago Pact compare to the dictatorship in Peru? Favorably? Can we justify war against a rival trade pact, a war that is pragmatic rather than a battle for a more virtuous world? Or can we not afford to seek to impose our ideals upon the world for ideals sake alone, and is it better to spread our ideals through trade; and through the level of dominance that requires, not necessarily an international empire all over the globe, but a strong sphere of influence here in our own hemisphere?
Just for clarity, any posts that discuss full in-boxes etc will be treated as off-topic. The forum rules, reproduced below, are clear on this. if you want someone to clear their pm-box then put a post on their profile not in a thread that should only have posts relating to the AAR
From the User agreement:
From the User agreement:
I voice my support for the Honorable Mr. Hensdale, who although was not my first choice for a Republican candidate, will at least uphold the values necessary for this nation. I will be voting for you in general election.
I thank Mr. Taggerman for his support. We must now band together as a party and put the ACP in the White House. We have had a divided primary, but I feel it was for the best. My position is clearly laid out on the table, and the good people of the ACP have choosen the side of peace, caution, and aggresive diplomacy. I shall vow to give it my all to solve all problems peaceful, using the military should only be a last resort. Even then, it will take a lot to provoke a war.
I Nicholas Kildwell have decided to vote for Mr Hensdale he may not advocate what I think is best for the American people but I prefer his policies to those of Mr Terrance.
Last edited:
((Well, crap. I finally get my internet up and running, and I find out how I could have been Vice-President.))
I lend my support to Mister Hensdale, who will ensure the firm hand necessary to guide our nation through the turbulent times ahead.
I lend my support to Mister Hensdale, who will ensure the firm hand necessary to guide our nation through the turbulent times ahead.
The Presidential Election of 1909
The National Conventions of 1908 heralded an era of withdrawal. Both domestically and internationally, the United States Government began to backpedal from its gains in the previous half-century. The election of 1905 and Carr’s term in office brought out a long-repressed American distrust of government and foreign entanglements. For the first time since before the Civil War, presidential hopefuls were espousing isolation, and gaining support in the polls.
In the American Conservative primary, Simon von Ritter’s campaign of intervention and European alliance saw the party rebuke him. The contest thus was only on the degree of isolation. In the end the more moderate David Hensdale won out against the staunch isolationism of Joseph P. Jarvis, but the Vice-President knew that, if elected, he would be forced to make major concessions in foreign policy to Jarvis. Both however, were united in their demand for an even more drastic cut-down of government intervention in the economy. This agreement, and the aforementioned need to make concessions, prompted Hensdale to choose Jarvis as his running mate for 1909.
1. David Hensdale, Vice-President of the United States (1905-09).
In the Federal National Convention, T. H. Terrance was shocked that he was not only running essentially unopposed for the nomination, but that the Democratic Party had decided to endorse him, instead of running a candidate of their own. Clearly the magnitude of the party’s defeat in 1905 had shaken Democratic confidence to the very core. The party that had catapulted itself back to the top of the ladder after the Reshuffle and Recession of ’93 was now relegated to backing another candidate for fear of complete humiliation.
The Candidates/Tickets of 1909
Election Manifesto of the American Conservative Party
Presidential Candidate: David Hensdale
Vice-Presidential Candidate: Joseph P. Jarvis
Presidential Candidate: David Hensdale
Vice-Presidential Candidate: Joseph P. Jarvis
My fellow Americans! We now stand at a perilous moment in the history of the United States. Across the briny foam, the nations of Europe are starting to murmur of War, and the previous administrations have done nothing but make enemies out of almost everyone. I say that should be no longer. A vote for Hensdale-Jarvis will restore peace and establish friendly relations with ALL of the peoples of the world. No longer shall we favor one country and distrust the next, they are all equal in the eyes of the United States of America. Running under my 3-Point Plan, I can truly restore America prestige abroad, and also allow us to grow and develop at home.
Point 1 - Reform the Commonwealth
It's quite obvious that the Commonwealth as it stands now is broken and only takes the path to lead us into War. I say this is no more. Under a Hensdale Administration the Commonwealth would be reformed into a new agreement with the United Kingdom to establish very close diplomatic and economic ties. The United States is poised to be the economic engine of the world, right behind the United Kingdom now, so logic would dictate that the United States and the United Kingdom must develop close ties, for the sake of being the most powerful countries. We are, however, not a militaristic society. I will remove all the military obligations of the Commonwealth simply for the sake of protecting the lives of American soldiers lest Europe get involved in a shooting match.
Point 2 - Peace At Home
My second point is quite simple, promote peace at home. While I supported the PPSA, I did so only because I felt the situation called for such an action, but I now feel that this nation can truly work better with the Santiago Pact and all other nations of South America. Some may accuse me of nation building and treating South America as our sandbox, but I disagree with this. My view is that America must take the Monroe Doctrine seriously, and in order to do so we must have friendly relations with all of Latin America. Furthermore, this point also talks about the domestic economy. Under a Hensdale Administration, I will not allow businesses to get to large, but I shall also take the Government out of our business once again, and allow it to grow on its own, A hands off approach is the best way to run this countries economy.
Point 3 - Peace Abroad
My Third and Final point covers the nations of Europe. We must develop friendly ties with ALL of Europe, including the Triple Alliance, in order to show them the way American does it. We are the freest nation on Earth; our system of Government is a righteous kind, one that would be extended to all peoples of the world, simply because it works so well. By establishing close ties with all of Europe, they would be more reluctant to openly start shooting each other because they know the United States will protect the one being attacked upon by the all might of the American economy. It is my true intention to stay out of any European War, at all costs, but I refuse to scuttle our chances at peace and work with ALL European nations.
Election Manifesto of the Federal Party
Presidential Candidate: T. H. Terrance
Vice-Presidential Candidate: Alicia Vallejo
Presidential Candidate: T. H. Terrance
Vice-Presidential Candidate: Alicia Vallejo
Ladies and gentlemen. There has been much talk of war in the run up to these elections; however there was also much talk of war in the run up to the last election when in reality there was none, other than that caused by Carr. I ask you to consider who’d win the peace? Who’d give you, the average American, the best possible life? Who’d improve your living standards? Who’d improve safety? Who’d reform our political system?
The answer to all these is a Terrance administration, and to achieve it I must ask for your vote.
While the ACP has frittered away money on repulsive foreign war it is I, the true candidate of peace whom shall instead invest in the future of America. I shall provide additional funding to schools under the federal grant system, I shall provide scholarships for those from lower-income backgrounds to give them a path into university. Ensuring the future workforce of America is educated and skilled allowing us to become the bastion of progress. I shall also provide Children’s money, a scheme which will reduce poverty and ensure every American born is able to be fed and clothed.
I shall abolish dangerous child labour. That young children are still allowed to die in factories and mills within these United States is a scandal. And a Terrance administration shall end it. We will also improve safety standards for adult workers through a National Work Board, that shall bring together employers, unions and volunteer groups to improve working lives, keep the markets open, boost productivity and help resolve trade disputes. I shall also introduce standards for food and reduce water pollution. To ensure a healthy America, this will also reduce the burden upon our public healthcare system.
As laid out before I shall introduce Old Age Pensions, is it right that good and honest Americans, whom have worked their entire lives are forced to spend their twilight years still toiling until their deaths? I say no! I say after a lifetime of paying ones taxes people should be allowed to die not in a factory or a cotton field or an office, but in their bed.
I'd give the FBI the power to investigate charges of corruption against politicians and have provided judicial oversight throughout, with the goal of eliminating corruption in our political system. I'd also get rid of the outdated electoral college and replace it with a cheaper and more modern direct vote.
I sincerely pledge that after eight years of a Terrance administration the largest class in America shall be the middle class! How will I achieve this? Through social mobility, an end to poverty and free and open markets.
In military and foreign affairs I've made myself quite clear: America must be defended. We shall do this by constructing a vast and unchallengeable fleet. We won’t waste our men’s lives on pointless wars in Latin America as the last ACP administration did. We shall instead make use of diplomacy to end conflict between ourselves and the Santiago Pact. The single surest way to ensure war doesn’t occur in Europe is through deterrence. A Commonwealth Alliance shall preserve the peace of the world.
Vote Terrance, for peace, prosperity, and an end to poverty!
----------------------
Exceptional Situation(s):
Hoo boy. Vote.