To put it in simple terms, I will neither encourage nor discourage Jim Crow. It is not an issue that I believe the Federal government should be involved in either way.
-
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.
Section 1 of the Fourteenth Amendment guarantees the rights and privileges of citizenship to all American citizens, both on a state and federal level. With this amendment, the Constitution revoked the rights of the states to discriminate against its citizens on the basis of race, gender, or personal creed. Quite simply, the Fourteenth Amendment exists precisely to guarantee that, for instance, Episcopalians are not disqualified from serving on a jury in Connecticut, or to ensure that Franco-Americans are not forbidden from opening eateries in Colorado. Equal protection under the law for all American citizens, an ideal forged in the aftermath of the Civil War.
If Senator Sherman truly aspires to the Presidency, he must realize that, should he win, he will be required to take an oath to preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States, including its Fourteenth Amendment. How, then, can he reconcile that oath with his pledge to do nothing about Jim Crow? "Leaving it to the states" is not an option, as upholding minority rights is clearly a federal matter with that amendment.
So, we come to two possible options. Either Senator Sherman intends to serve as an honorable executive,uphold the Fourteenth Amendment, and fight Jim Crow, breaking his campaign pledge, or he plans to speak falsehood when accepting the Presidency, to lie in his oath of office, and subvert the Constitution by allowing the states to discriminate against their citizens in violation of their Constitutional rights.
Neither of these choices is a particularly palatable option, and frankly neither is Senator Sherman. I call upon all Americans to reject the thinly-veiled racism of the Republican Party, to reject their anti-Constitutional platform, and to stand up for what we know to be right! Because, my fellow citizens, if we allow the Republicans to deny the vote to the blacks, who will be next? Will they be content with denying rights to those of different skin tones, or will they seek to disenfranchise those of other European cultures? Perhaps other religions? Who will be next?
If Senator Sherman truly aspires to the Presidency, he must realize that, should he win, he will be required to take an oath to preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States, including its Fourteenth Amendment. How, then, can he reconcile that oath with his pledge to do nothing about Jim Crow? "Leaving it to the states" is not an option, as upholding minority rights is clearly a federal matter with that amendment.
So, we come to two possible options. Either Senator Sherman intends to serve as an honorable executive,uphold the Fourteenth Amendment, and fight Jim Crow, breaking his campaign pledge, or he plans to speak falsehood when accepting the Presidency, to lie in his oath of office, and subvert the Constitution by allowing the states to discriminate against their citizens in violation of their Constitutional rights.
Neither of these choices is a particularly palatable option, and frankly neither is Senator Sherman. I call upon all Americans to reject the thinly-veiled racism of the Republican Party, to reject their anti-Constitutional platform, and to stand up for what we know to be right! Because, my fellow citizens, if we allow the Republicans to deny the vote to the blacks, who will be next? Will they be content with denying rights to those of different skin tones, or will they seek to disenfranchise those of other European cultures? Perhaps other religions? Who will be next?
((Indeed, we may have emancipated but there was never any law guarunteeing equal rights for the emancipated))
Matter of fact there is. It was among the equal rights laws passed during 1861-65. I just failed to single the Reconstruction Amendments out since I neglected to remember that they might come up with Jim Crow, and the Constitution hasn't been used that much in arguments until now, so I didn't see it as necessary.
The Presidential Election of 1925
If the National Conventions of 1925 were anything to go by, the Republican Party was invincible, although not by virtue of its own strengths, but rather by virtue of managing not to split at a time when the economy guaranteed election on its own for the Republican candidate. For the Republican Party’s candidate, John T. Sherman, the first presidential candidate of Native American ancestry, the main challenge was to keep from reopening the Party’s barely sewn up wound; Jim Crow. If he could do so and, judging by the response of the Republican Convention that nominated him almost unanimously on the first ballot, he almost certainly could, the Solid South and the electoral trump card of the prosperous economy would likely see him coast to victory.
1. John T. Sherman, c. 1925.
The Federal Party, knowing it faced an uphill struggle due to the Republican Party’s being sure to vote a candidate who would secure the Solid South, worked intensely on forging a ticket that could hope to beat a candidate who was nearly as fireproof as candidates come. To do so, they needed a candidate and running mate who could force Sherman to debate in a campaign where his greatest weapon would be a silence in which voters would likely gravitate to the man most likely to keep the seemingly perfect status quo. In the Federal Convention, Thomas Terrance was deemed to be that candidate.
Terrance however, knew that chances of victory were slim if Sullivan, who had announced he would be running again, continued to take votes that would likely have gone Federal. So he approached Sullivan and proposed he run as Terrance’s VP on a nominal coalition ticket, although due to the nature of Sullivan’s candidacy and much smaller clout in congress, the Federal Party would be a very clear senior partner in the alliance.
The Candidates/Tickets of 1925
The Election Manifesto of the Republican Party
Presidential Candidate: John T. Sherman
Vice-Presidential Candidate: Simon Ritter
Presidential Candidate: John T. Sherman
Vice-Presidential Candidate: Simon Ritter
My American friends, I call upon you to vote for me, not because of any desire for the office of President, but because I believe I am the best possible choice. If you look to the left of me, you will see two other men. One whose platform is not much of a platform at all; rather, it is simply an amorphous anomaly whose only true goal is the centralization of power away from Congress and the States and into the presidency. The other calls for redundant, inefficient, and pointless government intervention and restrictions, when our economy is going through its greatest boom yet due to the lack of restrictions to contain it.
But you did not come to listen to me rant about my opponents, did you? No, I believe you came here to hear my platform, and so you shall.
Economically, I stand for laissez-faire economics. Our greatest periods of growth have been under administrations that allowed the economy to sort out its own problems, and so why should we not continue this practice? As well, I believe that government regulation, at the end of the day, only impedes the economy, rather than aids it. Why should we put caps on our own growth, rather than allowing it to grow as much as possible?
Militarily, I am anti-military. While I appreciate everything that our armed forces have done for this great nation, I do not believe we need a very expansive military. Something to defend, and little more. Besides, quality beats quantity. A smaller military will allow for a more advanced, more elite fighting force.
America is not a Christian nation, but a nation with Christians. Ergo, I favor secularism.
I favor full citizenship. Everyone who comes here and accepts our ways and our culture is an American, in my opinion.
In regards to foreign policy, I do not think we should involve ourselves in the rest of the world's affairs. I will not recognize the rebel government in Germany, however neither will I aid what I believe to be the legitimate government.
In terms of the South, I believe leaving the South alone is the best solution to the issue with Jim Crow. Jarvis' attacks on the Jim Crow laws have made the South even more defensive of segregation. They will look upon Federal involvement in the issue not as an attempt to champion liberty for all men, but rather as an attack upon the rights of their states. Federal involvement will not solve the problem, it will only radicalize the Southerners and possibly lead to conflict. I therefore am supportive of allowing the Southern states to solve the issue themselves.
Election Manifesto of the Federal-Progressive Coalition
Presidential Candidate: Thomas H. Terrance
Vice-Presidential Candidate: Michael Sullivan
This blood flows though the veins of the Federal Party, and myself, and is what the Republicans seek to spill. It's against the destruction of this glorious system and support for Jim Crow the Federals and Progressives have rallied to form an alliance against. And so we present a manifesto for the masses!
Restoring Social Justice
The grossly unjust flat-tax is to be replaced by a return to the progressive system, the just system that best serves the American people. Lining the pockets of the rich is not to be paid for by pilfering those of the poor. The welfare state that the Federals, in alliance with other men and women of progress, which has managed to survive the onslaught of the past eight years shall be given new life, and never under a Federal-Progressive administration be starved of the funds it needs to serve the people of this nation.
Economic Stability
A Financial Compliance Division is to be founded under the FBI, and overseen by Congress, to ensure that the nation's banks act in accordance with financial and monopoly law, which shall be made more robust. The markets shall also be made more secure by the creation of the Federal Deposit Insurance Commission imagined by my colleague Alicia Vallejo. However the well regulated markets shall be free, this will primarily be achieved through free trade within the Commonwealth. Laws shall be enacted to ensure the quality of commercially sold food produce and to illegalize fraudulent labeling. Immigration law shall be loosened, so as to allow our expanding factories new workers where natural growth is insufficient.
A Workforce Fit for the Future
Education funding is to be increased. We must prepare our youth for life and employment, giving them the greatest skillsets in the world so we may continue to be the greatest country in the world. Higher education scholarships to the poor shall also be increased in number, so that peoples may lift themselves out of poverty and to add water to the great river of social mobility.
Support for the Inalienable Rights
A Federal-Progressive administration would oppose Jim Crow at every turn. Any federally employed negro employee is to be granted a wage in high proportion to those of a white employee in the same job. Similar rules shall be enforced for women, along with legislation to ensure maternity leave rights. The Federal-Progressives continue to advocate constitutional reform, so that our system is more accountable, just, democratic and representative of our fine people.
Promoting Peace and Diplomacy
Jarvis killed one of the great ideas of our times; a League of Nations. An organization that would seek to resolve conflict not through soldiers and ships, but through discussion and negotiation. This is not petty idealism but a means of ensuring peace in a world prone to conflict. A Terrance administration would seek to revive that ideal, with the League of American States and League of European states as branch organizations of it. Our military shall be maintained at present levels, except for our air force which is to be expanded.
--------------------------------
Exceptional Situation(s):
None in this second-to-last election before the shi*t hits the fan again. Vote on.
My vote is for T. H. Terrance and the Federal coalition.
(("Alliance of Federal and Progressive candidates" just doesn't have the same ring to it as "Federal coalition"))
(("Alliance of Federal and Progressive candidates" just doesn't have the same ring to it as "Federal coalition"))
Op-Ed for the New York Times in the week prior to the 1925 election
I can only hope that the Federal-Progressive coalition triumphs this election. Us Federals are principled, with our beliefs in freedom, liberty, transparency, security and social justice triumphing over petty politics and selfish motives. The League of Nations would enable justice to be done across the globe. A better educational system will allow even the poorest citizen to achieve. Federal economic policies are crafted to prevent the few abusing the many. At every stage over the past decade, Federal policies have been clearly stated and clearly explained.
The alternative is dire; the Republicans strike me as self-centred, power seeking politicians, neither caring who they trample on on their way to a presidency they feel is guaranteed by the vast sums of money they receive from big business, nor caring for the well being of this nation and its people. Its members are either blatantly oppressive towards anyone they feel is different, or, possibly even worse, disagree with it, but are willing to let the quality of life for millions in the South suffer just for electoral convenience. The party has abandoned the morality of President Jarvis in exchange for hypocrisy.
And if the Republicans are willing to let so many suffer just for electoral convenience in regards to Jim Crow, what of the plethora of other hard choices that will lift people across the country out of poverty? Will the Republicans leave the pockets of the bankers and the industrial tycoons and help ordinary people? I think not, for this is a party that is willing to bring suffering to millions for its own gain.
The choice is therefore clear; will you, the people of America, elect a president who will bring social justice, liberty and security to this country and the world, or a president who is selfish, hypocritical, and in the thrall of special interests? I know I want the former, and that is why I will be voting ((have voted)) Federal, but what do you want?
I can only hope that the Federal-Progressive coalition triumphs this election. Us Federals are principled, with our beliefs in freedom, liberty, transparency, security and social justice triumphing over petty politics and selfish motives. The League of Nations would enable justice to be done across the globe. A better educational system will allow even the poorest citizen to achieve. Federal economic policies are crafted to prevent the few abusing the many. At every stage over the past decade, Federal policies have been clearly stated and clearly explained.
The alternative is dire; the Republicans strike me as self-centred, power seeking politicians, neither caring who they trample on on their way to a presidency they feel is guaranteed by the vast sums of money they receive from big business, nor caring for the well being of this nation and its people. Its members are either blatantly oppressive towards anyone they feel is different, or, possibly even worse, disagree with it, but are willing to let the quality of life for millions in the South suffer just for electoral convenience. The party has abandoned the morality of President Jarvis in exchange for hypocrisy.
And if the Republicans are willing to let so many suffer just for electoral convenience in regards to Jim Crow, what of the plethora of other hard choices that will lift people across the country out of poverty? Will the Republicans leave the pockets of the bankers and the industrial tycoons and help ordinary people? I think not, for this is a party that is willing to bring suffering to millions for its own gain.
The choice is therefore clear; will you, the people of America, elect a president who will bring social justice, liberty and security to this country and the world, or a president who is selfish, hypocritical, and in the thrall of special interests? I know I want the former, and that is why I will be voting ((have voted)) Federal, but what do you want?
Last edited:
Representing the wonderful state of Louisiana, I must vote Republican this election.
- Governor C. Blancharde
- Governor C. Blancharde
Republican
(if Sherman wins, won't it be the first time a two-termer was succeeded by a fellow party member? And Ritter will be the longest serving VP.))
(if Sherman wins, won't it be the first time a two-termer was succeeded by a fellow party member? And Ritter will be the longest serving VP.))
((I don't even remember volunteering for VP, but I do like the idea of being the longest serving VP 
))
))
((Riccardo told me IC to choose Simon and I was too lazy to bother looking for anyone else, so I went with it. ))
))
((Riccardo told me IC to choose Simon and I was too lazy to bother looking for anyone else, so I went with it.
((It works for me -- my character is a lot more anti-Communist than yours, I think, but other than that we're pretty close policy wise.))
((Joseph Jarvis... bringing Republicans together (and occasionally dividing them) since 1892...))
I am very happy to see that my Vice President is eager to continue serving this nation in that position, and I also would like to thank the New York Times for regarding me as a moral person; I do however, fail to see where the Republicans of today are in any way corrupt. Certainly, in the past, the ACP had to contend with the likes of Richard Orleans, and other Titans of Industry (though the Democrats, who make one third of the Federal coalition, had their own Titan in Thomas Howard); in my opinion, the members of my party are running on principled (though I would say some are misguided or mistaken, especially in regard to Jim Crow) and on policies that would help make America more prosperous.
Mr. Terrance and Governor Sullivan would argue that progressive taxes are fairer than a flat income tax; if you believe that the wealthy should be punished for being wealthy, then by all means, support them. However, if you recognize there needs to be limits on federal control, and that by having lower, flatter taxes, we can achieve more progress and equality, then vote for Sherman/Ritter this election day. If you reject the ideals of our Founders, and would only use the Constitution when it appeals to your side, vote for Terrance. If you stand by the Constitution, and the principles of the American experiment, vote for Sherman/Ritter.
If you believe that the government can, through bureaucracy, regulation, taxation, and naive internationalism, can lead to prosperity, equality, and progress, vote for the 'progressive' Federal Party; however, if you reject the notion that the federal government, or indeed, any centralised bureaucracy can conjure equality, can craft world peace, or in any way plan for every economic situation, vote for real progress, the Republican Party.
I am very happy to see that my Vice President is eager to continue serving this nation in that position, and I also would like to thank the New York Times for regarding me as a moral person; I do however, fail to see where the Republicans of today are in any way corrupt. Certainly, in the past, the ACP had to contend with the likes of Richard Orleans, and other Titans of Industry (though the Democrats, who make one third of the Federal coalition, had their own Titan in Thomas Howard); in my opinion, the members of my party are running on principled (though I would say some are misguided or mistaken, especially in regard to Jim Crow) and on policies that would help make America more prosperous.
Mr. Terrance and Governor Sullivan would argue that progressive taxes are fairer than a flat income tax; if you believe that the wealthy should be punished for being wealthy, then by all means, support them. However, if you recognize there needs to be limits on federal control, and that by having lower, flatter taxes, we can achieve more progress and equality, then vote for Sherman/Ritter this election day. If you reject the ideals of our Founders, and would only use the Constitution when it appeals to your side, vote for Terrance. If you stand by the Constitution, and the principles of the American experiment, vote for Sherman/Ritter.
If you believe that the government can, through bureaucracy, regulation, taxation, and naive internationalism, can lead to prosperity, equality, and progress, vote for the 'progressive' Federal Party; however, if you reject the notion that the federal government, or indeed, any centralised bureaucracy can conjure equality, can craft world peace, or in any way plan for every economic situation, vote for real progress, the Republican Party.
I do not doubt your faith in your party, Mr Jarvis, but I maintain that it is misguided; you say that the Republicans have been in free from big industry for decades, yet who else do its policies help? Not the starving or the homeless. Not the undereducated. Not people of coloured skin south of the Mason-Dixon line. The policies of the Republicans are there only to perpetuate the advantage of the rich, not out of high principle, but through selfishness.
I agree that progressive taxes are not necessarily ideal, in that, as you say, the rich are "punished for being wealthy". However, maybe it would give a fairer indication of policies to phrase that idea slightly differently - does not a flat tax system punish the poor for being poor? The poor are in no position to pay anywhere near the levels that the rich can, and should, pay. When you are earning a million dollars a year, a few percent in tax is very little, but if you earn a hundred dollars a year, a few dollars in tax, even at the same rate, takes food from your table. Again we see the wishes of the Republicans to abandon the common man in aid of those few multimillionaires who fund them.
I also accept that federal control will not lead to a utopia where everyone is fed and watered, nobody is without a job or a home and all are contented, because that is the stuff of fiction. There is no perfect system, but some are certainly better than others. That is why the state has a responsibility to every citizen to save them from poverty, because you can be sure those at the top of big business are looking out for no-one but themselves. That is why the federal government should be giving the children of this country the best possible start in life, because not all parents can afford to send their children to a private school. That is why it is the responsibility of the president to fight the injustices that the southern states are perpetuating, because otherwise millions more will suffer at the hands of racists and bigots. That is why the Republican idea that we can achieve utopia by doing nothing is worse than naive; it's stupid. That is why it is so important that the Federal-Progressive coalition triumphs this coming election.
I agree that progressive taxes are not necessarily ideal, in that, as you say, the rich are "punished for being wealthy". However, maybe it would give a fairer indication of policies to phrase that idea slightly differently - does not a flat tax system punish the poor for being poor? The poor are in no position to pay anywhere near the levels that the rich can, and should, pay. When you are earning a million dollars a year, a few percent in tax is very little, but if you earn a hundred dollars a year, a few dollars in tax, even at the same rate, takes food from your table. Again we see the wishes of the Republicans to abandon the common man in aid of those few multimillionaires who fund them.
I also accept that federal control will not lead to a utopia where everyone is fed and watered, nobody is without a job or a home and all are contented, because that is the stuff of fiction. There is no perfect system, but some are certainly better than others. That is why the state has a responsibility to every citizen to save them from poverty, because you can be sure those at the top of big business are looking out for no-one but themselves. That is why the federal government should be giving the children of this country the best possible start in life, because not all parents can afford to send their children to a private school. That is why it is the responsibility of the president to fight the injustices that the southern states are perpetuating, because otherwise millions more will suffer at the hands of racists and bigots. That is why the Republican idea that we can achieve utopia by doing nothing is worse than naive; it's stupid. That is why it is so important that the Federal-Progressive coalition triumphs this coming election.