• 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.
I will back the Free Philippines Act, since it gives the Christian Philippine people the right to decide their own destiny. However it's in my opinion that the Cubans deserve the same chance.

Jimmy Nightmore, Congressman from Ohio
 
The Filipino Army is in no condition to take over all defensive duties for the country - completely withdrawing the U.S. Army which protects them from imperialistic conquest would be unwise, especially since the nearest place where we could station so many troops (to be ready in case foreign sponsored rebels, anarchists, or a foreign military decide to invade) is Hawaii.

We must begin by training up their army now and building up their fortifications and other necessities, then phase out American troops as the local military is able to take over their roles. We cannot leave such a lucrative set of islands (to the many nations eyeing the Pacific and its wealth) with absolutely no force to protect it.
 
The Filipino Army is in no condition to take over all defensive duties for the country - completely withdrawing the U.S. Army which protects them from imperialistic conquest would be unwise, especially since the nearest place where we could station so many troops (to be ready in case foreign sponsored rebels, anarchists, or a foreign military decide to invade) is Hawaii.

We must begin by training up their army now and building up their fortifications and other necessities, then phase out American troops as the local military is able to take over their roles. We cannot leave such a lucrative set of islands (to the many nations eyeing the Pacific and its wealth) with absolutely no force to protect it.

Which is precisely the problem! We are now bound to defend these lands, and they will cost more than they islands are worth. Of course, since we've already killed over one-hundred thousand men for these islands, they already have quite a way to repay before becoming valuable, if we are going for material wealth over human lives.

The Philippines are absolutely no value to us, Cuba is important on only the most tenuous terms, and the rest are irrelevant. We paid for these lands in our blood, and now you wish to spill more of it on these wars of folly, expanding in the name of 'liberty,' akin to the Old Empires expansion in the name of 'civilization.'
 
Which is precisely the problem! We are now bound to defend these lands, and they will cost more than they islands are worth. Of course, since we've already killed over one-hundred thousand men for these islands, they already have quite a way to repay before becoming valuable, if we are going for material wealth over human lives.

The Philippines are absolutely no value to us, Cuba is important on only the most tenuous terms, and the rest are irrelevant. We paid for these lands in our blood, and now you wish to spill more of it on these wars of folly, expanding in the name of 'liberty,' akin to the Old Empires expansion in the name of 'civilization.'

While I do support the Free Philippines Act, I must respectfully disagree with your opinion here. I think Commodore Vallejo has it right; I am all for letting the Filipino people determine their fate, but to abandon them entirely to their own devices, where other imperial powers might see a tasty snack, would make the blood we have shed in vain.

I would propose not an American garrison, but a treaty guaranteeing the independence of the Philippines, perhaps leasing a naval base and keeping a small portion of our fleet there. This would also help us maintain commercial influence in Asia.

I would humbly propose that my alliance suggestion be added as an amendment to the Free Philippines Act.
 
I suppose I would acquiesce to that, Mr. Garrett, though I am loathe to involve ourselves in a Filipino War. But I would ask you this, if we continue to shed our blood for their freedom, are we accomplishing anything?
 
I suppose I would acquiesce to that, Mr. Garrett, though I am loathe to involve ourselves in a Filipino War. But I would ask you this, if we continue to shed our blood for their freedom, are we accomplishing anything?

I can hardly think of a more noble cause than to shed blood for the freedom of others, Mr. Jarvis.
 
I propose the Cuban Democracy Act

1. The Cubans should be allowed to vote for a democratically elected Ruling Council as soon as possible.

2. Should the Cubans decide to join apply for statehood in our Union, we shall accept their request.

3. Full independence shall be granted within a year should Cuba decide otherwise.

4. The United States shall have no territorial claims over an independent Cuba.
 
Noble or foolhardy and vainglorious. Mr. Garrett? But, I ask you again, what does it accomplish?

And, I support Mr. Nightmore's proposal, should it go to Congress.
 
Noble or foolhardy and vainglorious. Mr. Garrett? But, I ask you again, what does it accomplish?

And, I support Mr. Nightmore's proposal, should it go to Congress.

I would use what influence I have in Congress to support Mr. Nightmore's proposal as well.

I believe, Mr. Jarvis, that spreading liberty is worthwhile regardless of cost or specific benefits to the United States; perhaps we shall just agree to disagree on this point.
 
Which is precisely the problem! We are now bound to defend these lands, and they will cost more than they islands are worth. Of course, since we've already killed over one-hundred thousand men for these islands, they already have quite a way to repay before becoming valuable, if we are going for material wealth over human lives.

The Philippines are absolutely no value to us, Cuba is important on only the most tenuous terms, and the rest are irrelevant. We paid for these lands in our blood, and now you wish to spill more of it on these wars of folly, expanding in the name of 'liberty,' akin to the Old Empires expansion in the name of 'civilization.'
If, sir, you seek to value worth only by our own material (or even material and human life) benefits, then the Philippines are still a worthwhile 'investment'. If we wish to think in such terms, they are a valuable source of trade and an ally in spreading our ideals of freedom and responsible government by their contributions to culture, diplomacy, and trade - the very thing you were advocating so strongly just awhile ago.

But what of "all men are created equal [and] are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights"? We must not be expanding simply in the name of "liberty", but also we must not cease to expand liberty itself, or we will find it can shrink as well.

We paid blood indeed - for our honor, our duties, and the freedom, blood, and livelihoods of ourselves and other likeminded peoples who can share with us in exercising their human rights and working together out of peace and common goals. Do not devalue the payment that soldiers made there, or their respect for their goals and honor.

- Commodore Daniel Vallejo
 
And where does it say that it is the duty of the United States to "liberate" them? I have read no such thing in our Declaration of Independence, nor in any works written by our Founding Fathers.

We are not the world's policemen. We were never intended to spread "liberty" across the globe. The United States is a haven for liberty, not a deliverer of it.

Furthermore, if people cannot gain freedom themselves, then what is the point of having it? We cannot simply say "You are free" and all of a sudden, everyone understands what liberty is and knows how to protect and preserve it. If we were given our freedom by Britain, would we be the same nation we are today? Would we truly know what freedom is, and how to protect it? I think not.
 
I will back the Free Philippines Act, since it gives the Christian Philippine people the right to decide their own destiny. However it's in my opinion that the Cubans deserve the same chance.

Which is already a law. The Cuban Liberty Act is being followed to the letter by the Callahan Administration. I will grant the vote in Cuba once the Cuban Congress has restored order.

I would humbly propose that my alliance suggestion be added as an amendment to the Free Philippines Act.

Done.
 
Furthermore, if people cannot gain freedom themselves, then what is the point of having it? We cannot simply say "You are free" and all of a sudden, everyone understands what liberty is and knows how to protect and preserve it. If we were given our freedom by Britain, would we be the same nation we are today? Would we truly know what freedom is, and how to protect it? I think not.
Nobody can become free on their own (perhaps excluding some small mountain or frontier towns for a short period of time). We hardly "gained" our freedom singlehandedly, with interventions from several nations being quite important for the success of the war. Should we not have freedom, then? Should Colorado not have freedom, because it never fought for its own? What about Texas, who depended on American aid? What about the West, which was aided by American soldiers in the Mexican American War? Should I be serf because my grandfather's California had too few men to fight successfully against a tyrant? What of the slaves? Should they be still in bondage because there was no slave rebellion that gained them their representation? The concept of freedom is not something only learned from shooting a gun, and even if so there have been many people agitating in various ways for Cuban and Filipino freedom. It would be foolish to say that they would be better off learning from dying and futility than to reward them with the rights that they all have.
 
Which is already a law. The Cuban Liberty Act is being followed to the letter by the Callahan Administration. I will grant the vote in Cuba once the Cuban Congress has restored order.

Your actions says otherwise. You have established a "Cuban government in exile" that lack popular support. The Cuban Democracy Act would ensure the Cubans can vote for their own government and decide their own fate. We're a democracy, and we should allow other people to enjoy the same democratic rights as we have. That includes letting them decide for themselves whether they become a State in our great Union, or an independent nation.
 
Your actions says otherwise. You have established a "Cuban government in exile" that lack popular support.

Cuban Liberty Act (1857) said:
Article 2
(i) It should be the policy of the Federal government to seek out responsible leaders for an independent 'Cuban Congress' to provide legitimacy to -and publish- the grievances of their people.
...
Article 3
(i) The United States should recognise the sovereignty of Cuban territory and the Cuban Congress as its legitimate government under the protection of the United States.
...
Article 4
(i) In the event Cuban territory is surrendered to the United States, it shall be incorperated as a Territory...
(ii) Inclusion as a State in the Union, devolution to an autonomous U.S. protectorate or fully independent Republic should be decided by popular vote in the Cuban Territory.

The Spanish American War said:
The President set up a Cuban “government-in-exile” in November 1880 ... and promised an eventual popular vote.

Show me where my actions have deviated from the law.

Just because I have not yet reached the final step does not mean I'm not following the letter of the law. I only had a month or two after the peace. so cut me a break.

At this point anyone who promises a plebiscite in Cuba is just saying they won't seek to repeal legislation.
 
(New Character time!)
Tr_nyc_police_commissioner.jpg


Samuel Lee Davis​
Born: March 18, 1850
Party Affiliation: Federalist
Education: University of Georgia, Class of 1872/1875, Bachelors in Political Science and a Masters in Law
Position: Governer of Georgia
Residency: Davis Hall, Thomasville GA
Notable Issues: Total end of Reconstruction, Limited Government, Direct election of Senators.

Samuel Lee Davis was born on March 18, 1850 in the Family Plantation, Davis Hall. He was the Youngest of General Davis' sons and the only one who did not die alongside him in Fort Sumter. Too young to serve in the Confederate Military, he remained elligible for political office and became a prominent politician in the post-reconstruction south. He has served as governer of georgia for less than 3 months at the present ans his detractors accuse him of riding into office on his name alone with only a parcity of qualifications. Known as a Good Public Speaker and Hard-Worker, he is fed up with corruption in washington and is calling for the direct election of senators. His hunting skills are also well-known, and bringing up his father (who he did not see after 1858) in a negative light is rumored to be suicidal. He proposes a fair and open trial of the Confederate Government, with a special jury of 100 people made up jurors selected proportionaly based on the nationalities within the Country (I.E. Dixie, Yankee, Irish, Mexican, etc.)

Supports Oliver Glynn for the Nomination
 
Last edited: