Home Trending Latest threads New posts Developer diaries

The Presidents: 1836-1936 - An Interactive US AAR

Jump to latest Follow Reply
  • 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.
Show only dev responses
I couldn't disagree more with President Callahan and Former Vice President Jarvis - one has disgraced the spirit of the Rough Riders and other brave soldiers by denying Cuba true democracy, the other is lionizing Spain - the nation they fought to bring liberty to Cuba and the Philippines.

If you elect me your president, I will ensure that the heroes who died in this war will not have given their lives in vain - I will grant an immediate plebiscite, as I was the first candidate to promise to do so this election, to Cubans and will steadfastly oppose attempts by Spain to retake that young democracy under their decadent empire's influence.

This is the moment to peacefully bring liberated colonies of Spain to their potential as full democracies, and to democratize the British Empire through the Commonwealth. In 50 years the greatest empire in the world will instead be a Commonwealth of equals; and we have the ability to ensure democratic liberation in the Americas and Pacific Ocean from other corrupt European powers. We are already at the beginnings of the 50 years in which the world's greatest power will be formed, a coalition of democratic nations!

Vote Bridgeworthy for a world with no empires but the Empire of Liberty envisioned by Thomas Jefferson!
 
Mr. Jarvis,

Our haste or deliberation in entering the war is something that you must bring up with Callahan's administration and Congress themselves. However, you and I agree on the more pressing issue - on the issue of what we do now.

Cuba and the Philippines must be given fair and immediate (as immediate as possible - it is not possible to poll or give ballots to thousands at a second's notice, and to ensure fairness we cannot rush into a system that is biased toward one group - such as American-centric Cuban immigrants) plebiscites, with the Commonwealth watching the example and prepared to welcome its new members (whether new nations within it, or new member states of our Union). We cannot stray and linger, looking back at the Sodom of imperialism longingly. We risk becoming to attracted to the idea of a new empire, turning a deaf ear to pleas of independence.

I would like for both nations to have a fair plebiscite before any of us may be elected, but if I am elected and this is not the case I will make sure that the issue is decided by the will of the people within months of inauguration.
 
friget234 said:
((can't wait to slip in a sun goes up sun goes down reference))
Click to expand...

((Pure gold. Might just proclaim the Marines' new motto is "Tide goes in Tide goes out."))

Riccardo93 said:
To counter that, I wish to point out this; we have not granted a plebiscite to the Cuban people. Instead, we've placed expatriates, pro-Americans, in the seat of power on the island, mush like a Spanish Viceroy.
Click to expand...

It is currently less than a month since the end of the war and I have not held a plebiscite in Cuba yet. Perhaps this is due cause for criticism. I will not however, allow you to slander the achievements of my administration by accusing me of the same ignorant imperialism as the Spanish.

We had five loose options for an interim government during the transition to independence.

  1. To retain the Spanish vice-royal government during the transition. This would have drawn the kind of criticism heard from Sen. Jarvis from the mouths of even my Cabinet.
  2. To utilise the natural leaders from amongst the armed Cuban independence forces. While perhaps a superficially noble act, given our own experience with military leaders, I draw instead comparison with other former Spanish colonies that suffered under a more localised form of tyranny after independence.
  3. To introduce American military or civil officials to govern in the interim. This would be, in my mind, a most heinous betrayal of our rhetoric of self-rule.
  4. To use Cubans-in-exile from around the Caribbean. This would have been an incohesive mix of people of unreliable backgrounds.
  5. To utilise the informal Cuban Congress, a Federally endorsed group of public figures among the Cuban exile community in America. As representatives of the Cuban people, we could rely on them to act in the Cuban interest, ensure that they would be a strictly civilian government, not be under the influence of imperial governments and have a mutual understanding with the American military presence.

The plebiscite will come in due time, but I would prefer to be able to withdraw from a politically stable country before we do so. A plebiscite under the gun would not be a fine example of democracy, whether it's ours or the locals'.
 
I am happy you and I agree on one issue, Mr. Vallejo; I would make an immediate plebiscite.

Mr. Callahan, you could simply place a rather basic system in place, and call for a vote, rather than place pro-American expatriates in power; that you handpicked the leadership of this 'nation,' whilst going to war to free it, is a grave contradiction. Since we invaded Cuba and are forcing our 'democracy' and governance on them, I fail to understand why you brought up your last point of a "plebiscite under the gun would not be a fine example of democracy, whether it's ours or the locals" since that what you've done.

In that process, you killed nearly one hundred thousand people, and possibly more! You've shattered the old balance of power, and have turned us into the world's policeman, the warmonger of democracy!

As I've said before, this war and occupation would be expensive in many ways; in manpower, in monetariel terms, and in the honour of our nation, turning from peaceful non-interventionism, to imperialism in the name of liberty!
 
The old balance of power sought to do nothing more than to oppress peoples and hold back the future of man as a free person, as envisioned by liberal and socialist thinkers alike for many years past. If you Jarvis wish to be the vanguard of that then so be it, but it makes you no different from the Stuarts, Habsburgs, Bourbons, and Hohenzollerns, those that cast Europe under their tyrannical rule for centuries. If Callahan had truly smashed that order I would be fully behind him, but his actions in the last chapters of the war puts us in disagreement, which is why I seek to be President today, to right those wrongs.
 
Then why are we allying with the arbiter, the champion of the old order, Great Britain? She has committed atrocities against the Indians! Perhaps we should invade India and launch a plebiscite there? I oppose tyranny, I assure you; I fought for Texan liberty, legislated against slavery when you were still a child, and have opposed mistreatment of Native Americans for decades. I merely oppose meddling in other nations affairs, or acting as though we are better than any other nation; the Romans, the Chinese, the Macedonians, the Greeks, and Napoleon all did. and looked at what happened! I do not wish to invade, to liberate, at the cost of our own freedoms, of our security!
 
((Did we get Puerto Rico from the Spanish as well?))
 
Avindian said:
((Did we get Puerto Rico from the Spanish as well?))
Click to expand...

Yes. All Spanish colonies were ceded. That means: Philippines, Spanish Micronesia, Cuba and Puerto Rico.
 
Riccardo93 said:
Then why are we allying with the arbiter, the champion of the old order, Great Britain? She has committed atrocities against the Indians! Perhaps we should invade India and launch a plebiscite there? I oppose tyranny, I assure you; I fought for Texan liberty, legislated against slavery when you were still a child, and have opposed mistreatment of Native Americans for decades. I merely oppose meddling in other nations affairs, or acting as though we are better than any other nation; the Romans, the Chinese, the Macedonians, the Greeks, and Napoleon all did. and looked at what happened! I do not wish to invade, to liberate, at the cost of our own freedoms, of our security!
Click to expand...

Britain has a parliament, an independent judiciary, a monarch properly limited by a constitution, and a prime minister accountable to an elected parliament. And reform continues under the Liberal Gladstone who I've had much correspondance with. This method of modernisation is far better than the revolution which peoples who I think we could both agree with are detestable, desire; the Anarchists, the Marxist-Vinogradists and indeed Napoleonic figures. If the model of Britain could be followed by Russia, Prussia, Austria and others then we could see the advance of mankind without spilled blood.
 
Primary of 1880​

Republican Candidate(s):

Henry Jarvis (b. 1802), State Justice for California ((Riccardo93)). Jarvis, on his last run for the presidency, continues to believe in the ideals of “liberalism, freedom and constitutionalism”.

Andrew Garrett (b. 1840), Owner of Norfolk Shipping Co. ((Avindian)). Garrett supports military isolationism, free trade, a small army and a laissez-faire economic policy.

New Democratic Candidate(s):

Eamon Callahan (b. 1825), Incumbent President of the Republic ((komisha)). Callahan promises a continuation of the policies that have successfully led the United States through the last four years, and stands by the current Cuban Government.

Federal Candidate(s):

Oliver Glynn (b. 1819), Governor of California ((Mikeboy)). Glynn is running again for the Federal Candidacy. However, this time his focus on Cuba is in getting a truly Cuban plebiscite.

Josaiah Bridgeworthy (b. 1836), Secretary of Agriculture and Commerce ((Rogov)). Bridgeworthy is a man who whole-heartedly supports the Commonwealth, having already proposed numerous initiatives to the organization.

Daniel Vallejo (b. 1844), US Navy Commodore ((Gloa)). Having fought in the war, and been a member of the Federal Party since before it, Vallejo believes in the capability of his party and its policies to run the country.

-----------------------

Exceptional Situation(s):

You vote now. DIDI-MAU!

PS. ACAs. You’re vote may be disregarded if you do not have at least one vote placed there. Mr. Capiatlist through a lot of trouble to set them up, and I’ll be damned if you won’t vote!
 
((Jarvis isn't the current VP, he's a Justice back in California.))

I wish to hear the foreign policies of Mr Glynn and Birdgeworthy before I cast my ballot, particularly their stance on possible aid to the German and British war effort against the French.
 
King50000 said:
((Jarvis isn't the current VP, he's a Justice back in California.))
Click to expand...

I copy-pasted the 1876 primary as the template since only one candidate was different, and I missed that. It's now fixed.
 
I will vote for Jarvis in the republican primary

which you can read up to date coverage on in our newspaper ROX news!
 
King50000 said:
((Jarvis isn't the current VP, he's a Justice back in California.))

I wish to hear the foreign policies of Mr Glynn and Birdgeworthy before I cast my ballot, particularly their stance on possible aid to the German and British war effort against the French.
Click to expand...

With the collapse of the French Empire our focus should be in supporting and maintaining a free and fair democratic France within a peaceful Europe. Our support for German unification should come with the guarantee of futher democratic reform on their side and if possible I'd pursue an American-German version of the Nicaragua treaty. We must also focus on opening the vast markets of the east; Japan, Korea, China and Siam.
 
But Governor Glynne, they ruthlessly slaughtered Indian civilians, not three decades ago; the French oppress the Algerian and other African peoples; the Russian serfs are still opressed, despite the efforts of their great Czar, Alexander II, whom I respect immensely for those efforts. Are going to invade weak nations, opportunistically, and seize their land for 'liberty,' or are we going to use peaceful methods, trade, cooperation, and diplomacy to enact liberalization and reform? The prior will lead to death and our own freedoms gradually abandoned; the latter will free the world.

((...my first vote... disqualified... sadface...))
 
New Character:

Jimmy (Jeremiah) Nightmore
Born: 1840
Ideology: Christian Socialism
Party: Independent for now, will join a party at some point
Congressman from Ohio
Son of Governor Jonathan Nightmore. Joined politics late after having traveled around the country doing odd jobs. Showed at first very little interest in joining the Nightmore family tradition. However after having a religious experience he became fascinated with combining Christian ideals with the Socialist idea of a classless society. Was elected to the House of Representatives in 1878 as a young radical independent from Ohio. Jimmy Nightmore is already known as something of a troublemaker in the Congress.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top Bottom
Back