Mr.Byrd might I ask why should we close all schools ; I personally dont see the point of this decision at all.
- Doctor Robert Horshington.
- Doctor Robert Horshington.
((Hmm, I'm considering joining. Couple of questions though; First, what year are we in? Second, what's happening in the US of A and the rest of the world? And finally, is there a Governor of Nevada?))
The year is 1953. The last two updates (RAJ and Emerson), which can be found in the first post's table of contents, should give a pretty good idea of the current state of the world, if I've done my job right. I do not believe there is a Governor of Nevada.
While I find Dagger's foreign policy more ideal than President Jarvis' stubborn inaction, his economic policy seems to be far from what I hoped for.
I will wait and see if Dagger cares to change his position or explores his position on the issue of desegregation to decide my vote.
I fail to see how my administration has suffered from "stubborn inaction" and frankly the only place where I see that is in the fearful silence from the Liberals on the matter of civil rights.
I would also advise Mr McCahill on reconsidering his vote; the good Mayor and his running mate have been ominously silent on the issue of Virginia, and surely a progressive such as yourself would not dare vote for a man who will do nothing in defence of civil rights.
You stand back and attempt to make friends with the Soviet Union, despite the fact that they are the epitome of despotism, and the sheer opposite of freedom. You sit back and allow the red tide to wash over the rest of the world in the name of "peace" and what you, for whatever reason, insist on referring to as "free trade" when it is nothing but.
The free market cannot and shall not stand when a force that is religiously bent on destroying it is allowed free reign on the global stage. If we don't act against this threat now, then it will boil over and take us along with it.
Mr McCahill, my father not only passed the last Civil Rights Act in this nation, he brought the issue back into the American conscience, when no one wanted to hear it. Members of this party have been... lukewarm on the matter of civil rights, I will admit. But the Liberals, Progressives, and Federals all maintained the same silence. Not once under Sullivan did civil rights get mentioned. Not once under your esteemed leadership during the War. Not once under the Emerson Administration. The Republican Party has, despite its spotted record on the matter, been the main proponent of the issue.
Might I ask just one question then; why are you so determined to make this issue into a conflict, given you promise to refrain from such conflict abroad? I cannot help but think it is a political ploy, not out of real conviction, but to win yourself votes. It is my express belief, as it is in foreign policy, that change is better achieved through negotiation than through force of arms. That is why I support the United Nations and that is why I support a gradual abolition of the practice within the southern states; your attempts to breed contempt so far seem to me to have done nothing but harden the opposition to change rather than create any lasting legacy. I really do hope I am being cynical and my concern is not well founded, but I would prefer silent change, which I genuinely believe Mr Dagger could achieve, to the storm you have created that is sure to make even the moderates oppose your actions.
How can we criticise others when our own house is built on a weak foundation? How can I call out the Soviet Union for their failings in equality and liberty, when the Negroes of this country are discriminated against? Lastly, issues at home will not result in nuclear war; you of all people should be aware of that.
However, that you would call my stance on this issue a "political ploy" is disgusting, and I am ashamed that you would even make that insinuation. I have been in favour of civil rights my entire life; I supported my father's initiatives in the 1910s and 20s... when your father was remarkably neutral on the issue. I continued to support them in the 30s and 40s... when you were silent on the issue. I actively campaigned for civil rights in 1948 and stood by my promises, whilst Emerson campaigned on indifference. I am appalled that you would accuse me of such a thing, as I had thought you were above such things.
Furthermore, would I sacrifice the South, which has voted Republican solidly for decades, at the chance of possibly gaining votes else on a simple political ploy? Not only is your charge of it all being a political ploy a disgusting charge, it is not based on any sort of logic!
As President, I must enforce the laws of this nation, and the Supreme Court in favour of desegregation. Should I ignore them? Should I allow the states free reign in segregation? Would you rather Mr Dagger not enforce the laws of this nation? That, not my lawful defence of desegregation, would be a political ploy... a highly autocratic and illegal one at that.
Lastly, this nation has been silent on the issue since 1921, and almost nothing has been achieved in the thirty years following; is that the silent change you promote?
You know full well we were not in a position to change anything 30 years ago, or even 10. The war changed everything and only now is the climate right to act; that Emerson did nothing is reprehensible, that you have not been entirely constructive is almost as bad. I understand full well your predicament; the President never really gets to make easy choices, and perhaps my charge against you was somewhat unfounded, but this sort of inconsistency between your foreign policy and your domestic beliefs should not be celebrated as you have. I merely wish to make the point that a less vocal advocate might be better able to work with the South to achieve real change. Enforcing the law is one thing, but actively going out of your way to cause trouble in the South in doing so is not the same at all.