• 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.
On the question of the Anglo-French debt, I believe we should negotiate with both nations for a solution. I would be open to forgiving all or a portion of the debts if the UK and France agreed to further dismantle their colonial empires and grant independence to the nations they have colonized. They could maintain influence over these nations but the new nations should be free to form their own governments. We have been told we entered The Great War to fight for democracy and freedom so lets make the forgiveness of the Great War debts contingent on expanding democracy and freedom.

Patrick Ryan - Progressive Party candidate for President
 
My Position in the Anglo-French Debt, I think that these countries should be negotiated, but, they will have to pay us interests as soon as they have enough money to repay them, as for you Mr. Ryan the colonial empires mustn't be completely dismantled, if we do so the United Kingdom and the French Republic won't have enough money to repay the US Governement, only a small portion of their African colonies must be given independence, if i get voted, i will make a list of the countries that we want to give independence to, the Great war has made us suffer because of helping our allies, now may our allies recompensate us for our help!
-William Horshington, Republican Candidate
 
Mr. Horshington, that makes the assumption that their African colonies generate a net gain in profit.

They don't. They're a black hole when it comes to money. Were France and Britain to give independence to their colonial empires, they'd probably make more money rather than less.
 
Mr. Sherman, assuming some rich French or British colonial family still have slaves for the profit, and their African colonies provide them taxes.Also if their a black hole, then why dont they give them independence themselves.
-William Horshington
 
Last edited:
Mr. Sherman, assuming some rich French or British colonial family still have slaves for the profit, and their African colonies provide them taxes.

I already pointed out how African colonies make a net loss, rather than gain. Taxes will hardly make a difference, due to the amount of money that must be spent on maintenance of the colonies and keeping them protected. Most Africans do not have the money required to pay any tax, anyways, and even if they did that tax would probably go towards the colony anyways.

Furthermore, slavery was abolished by both the French and the British decades ago.
 
The African might not have money but the immigrants do, you seem to forget that today, most of the African colonies are poblated with the Colonizer's ethnique race and the taxes that go to the colony go to France or Britain which uses them to improve the colonies, and finally, even if slavery is abolished some families use them secretely.
-William Horshington
 
While I disagree with Mr. Horshington on some issues, perhaps his idea could be used effectively; now, of course, I believe we should forgive some of the debt, but to forgive more of it, perhaps we can use it as a bargaining chip for African autonomy, perhaps even independence, something I've always hoped would come about!

((Finally, my new internet!))

----------

Farewell Address of President Joseph Patrick Jarvis
Delivered via Radio on March 1, 1924

Today marks the end of my eight year administration; during that time, I have felt elation, fear, sorrow, joy, pride, and disappointment. I, to the best of my ability, and to the credit of many men greater than myself, sought to serve this nation as my forefathers, and the forefathers of this nation, did. To that end, I shunned war, loved peace, protected liberties granted by Nature to all men, and at every stage, sought to limit the power of the Federal Government. With only a few days left before I leave the executive mansion to my successor, I will make my final remarks, both in support of the American people who chose me to be president, and to warn the incoming president of what I feel is a great and impending danger for this nation, and the world.

To the people, I cannot express my gratitude that you chose me to be president; nor can I truly the greatest regret that I was unable to fulfil all the grand ideals I believed, and still believe, would make America stronger, and her people, the children of Liberty, freer. However, despite my failings, my shortcomings, I can honestly say that I kept this nation out of war, and refuted the Imperialism that had grown so pervasive during the ‘Progressive’ era, and consistently championed the noble ideas of self determination, peaceful coexistence, and the golden rule. My proudest moments, however, have come not from freeing the market, nor from rejecting war, but in doing all I could in supporting the rights of all men, Negro and Caucasian, just as my father championed the rights of Indians many decades ago. While my League of American States was never able to be realized, my great desire to end the Federal Reserve failed, and that I could not make permanent changes to the economic structure of this nation, I truly hope that my successor will make good on those ideals…

Which I cannot stress the urgency of to him… the second reason for my speech, my final address, as I have mentioned, was to give Mr. Sherman both some advice and a warning. While I certainly cannot say I agree with you on every issue, we can find common ground amongst all Republicans, reformist and conservative, in the ideals of free markets and free trade, and I am certain you will champion those ideals as firmly, and hopefully more successfully, than I have in these eight years. On civil rights, I know in my heart that all men will be free and equal one day, and that I helped play a small role in it; Mr. Sherman, do not abandon the cause of liberty; if you oppose the Federal Government involving itself in the states, encourage your Southern allies to make the changes themselves, to prevent the usurpation of liberty! You have the chance now, to prevent greater federal control, and could do more for civil rights than I could possibly hope to…

But my final warning is the most grave; we have been growing consistently for nearly three decades now, and this cannot last forever… within the decade, there will be an economic contraction; this is not a failure of the market; it is the result of federal intervention! Mr. Sherman, you know as well as I that the Government distorts the economy, and that it ultimately harms economic stability; the Federal Reserve, economic regulations, and other federal follies will bring misery, poverty, and suffering to the poor and will leave America prostrate and destitute. You can, however, prevent this; both by reforming the system, and reducing the size and power of the Government, and by dismantling the Federal Reserve, but also by preparing for the worst; create a ‘rainy-day’ fund of sorts, to have a way to keep money in the system without creating inflation or raising taxes. Use it to reduce taxes, to promote infrastructure, and to ensure that we can allow the market to readjust without bringing millions of men and woman to poverty!

It is now my great sorrow, and great honour, to bid farewell to the American people; by the end of this week, I will have returned to San Diego, to my family, to my business, and to private life. I only hope that history will remember my actions, if it remembers them, kindly, and show the world that the ideals of liberty, of peace, and of the rule of law had not yet vanished in the waves of progressivism and reactionism…

Thank you.

--------

Jarvis, despite his hopes to the contrary, would remain active in politics well into the 1930's, campaigning at home for civil rights and limited government, and abroad for capitalism, peace, and anti-colonialism. After the 1928 election, however, his overall role in national politics diminished (rather, he would become an international speaker, as well as a leading member of the American Civil Liberties Union, and a prominent supporter of the NAACP) In late-May, 1929, he would cede control of Jarvis Enterprises, the largest company on the West Coast, to his son Nicholas (who had managed the company in his fathers' stead during the Jarvis administration. His younger son, however, would continue the family legacy in politics, albeit reluctantly...

((At the end of this election, JP Jarvis will retire from national politics(though I may make some memoirs) and his son will take the reins of the other California political dynasty))
 
Last edited:
((Can we get a world map?))
 
My only daughter is very sick and I fear that the time is not right for me to be absent from my family. If I were to consume my time with this presidential campaign I may overlook the most important thing in any man's life: my own family. I will step down from the Republican primaries, in favour of President Sherman. I will pray for the safety of my child and hopefully if everything works out I may attempt to resume my campaign the next electoral cycle.



-William Carlsson, Republican
 
My condolences to you family, and I hope your daughter gets well soon.

I two things to say, the first directed at Mr. Sherman:

will you create a 'rainy day fund', as I have suggested? It seems to me to be a wise investment; should our economy contract, as I fear it will (though I appear to be little more than a minority in that regard), it would certainly make the situation easier on the average American to have a means to both cut taxes even further, and to donate to states as a way to promote infrastructure (which would give more people jobs), whilst still keeping the federal government afloat and largely out of the way.

My second is a question directed at Mr. Taggarman:

What is your economic plan? You being a former Republican, are you inclined to support laissez-faire, or a more interventionist outlook that the Federals have generally shown? If it is the latter, how do you reconcile your past as a laissez-faire Republican with the interventionist Federal view you may now support?
 
HISTORY OF AMERICAN ELECTIONS​

1836: (4.32M)
Arthur King / John Fender (Whig) (2.7 M) 62.5% (25%, 1.08M Margin of Victory (MoV)
Thomas McAttack / Archibald Cartwright (Democratic) (1.62M) 37.5%

1840: (4.52M) (+.2M)
John F. Cameron / Thomas McAttack / (Union (Whig-Democratic)) (3.62 M) 80% (60%, 2.72M MoV)
Jonathan Davis / John Hensdale (Southern National) (.904 M) 20%

1844: (5.01M) (+.49M)
John F. Cameron / David Gallatin (Whig) (3.44 M) 68.7% (50%, 2.5M MoV)
Nicolas Khur/ John Hensdale (Southern National) (.939 M) 18.7% (6.2%, .3M MoV)
Archibald Cartwright /Eldud Walsh (Democratic) (.626 M) 12.5%

1848: (6.1M) (+1.09M) (1.58M during Cameron’s two terms)
Eldud Walsh / Nicholas Gafferty (Democratic) (3.2 M) 52.5% (5%, .3M MoV)
James B. Kerr / Jeremiah Brass (National Republican) (2.9 M) 47.5%
Nicolas Khur / Jonathan Davis (Southern National) (--) --%


1852: (6.31M) (+.21M)
Jeremiah Brass / Sebastian Carr (National Republican) (4.41 M) 69.9% (39.8%, 2.51M MoV)
Eldud Walsh / Nicholas Gafferty (Democratic) (1.9 M) 30.1%

1856: (7.02M) (+.71M)
John F. Cameron / Jonathan Davis (State’s Republican) (4.51 M) 64.2% (28.4%, 2M MoV
Jonathan Hensdale / Jeremiah Brass (National Republican) (2.51 M) 35.8%

1860: N/A
Jeremiah Williams / Ignacio Vallejo (Republican)
Michael Jamous / Eamon Callahan (New Democratic)
Eric Vandrove / Carlos Hound (Libertarian)

1864: (8.49M)
Michael Jamous / Thomas Howard (New Democratic) (3.27 M) 38.5% (7.6%, .65M MoV)
Anthony Demchak / Benjamin Bachmann (Republican) (2.62 M) 30.9%(.3%, .02M MoV)
Martin Beukes / Jonathan Nightmore (Libertarian) (2.60 M) 30.6%

1868: (9.86M) (+1.37M)
Michael Jamous / Edward Wilkinson (New Democratic) (3.94 M) 40% (5%, .49M MoV)
Christopher Bryan / Eamon Callahan (Libertarian) (3.45 M) 35% (10%, .98M MoV)
Samuel Hensdale / Anthony Demchak (Republican) (2.47 M) 25%

1872: (11.17M) (+1.31M) (+2.68M during Jamous’ two terms)
Maximilian Mandrake / Henry J. Jarvis (Republican) (6.21 M) 55.6% (22.3%, 2.49M MoV)
Thomas Howard / Christian Priestson (New Democratic) (3.72 M) 33.3% ( 22.2%, 2.48M MoV)
Christopher Bryan / Adrian Edmonds (Libertarian) (1.24 M) 11.1%

1876: N/A
Eamon Callahan / Joseph Walker (Federal-Democratic)
Henry J. Jarvis / Sebastian Carr (Republican)

1880: N/A
Josaiah Bridgeworthy / Oliver E. Glynn (Federal)
Eamon Callahan / Joseph Walker (Democratic)
Henry J. Jarvis / Andrew Garrett (Republican)

1884: (19.71M)
Daniel Vallejo / Oliver E. Glynn (Federal) (13.15 M) 66.7% (33.4%, 6.58M MoV)
Eamon Callahan / James Nightmore (Democratic) (6.57 M) 33.3%

1888: (23.08M) (+3.37M)
Samuel L. Davis / Andrew Garrett (American Conservative) (9.89 M) 42.9% (7.2%, 1.65M MoV)
Joseph Hayden / George Walsh (Democratic) (8.24 M) 35.7% (12.1%, 3.29M MoV)
Daniel Vallejo / Oliver E. Glynn (Federal) (4.95 M) 23.6%

1892: (27.12M) (+4.04M)
Joseph Hayden / George Walsh (Democratic) (11.56 M) 42.6% (5.3%, 1.44M MoV)
Andrew Garrett / Richard Orleans (American Conservative) (10.12 M) 37.3% (17.2%, 4.68M MoV)
Joseph Walker / Andrew Gafferty (Federal) (5.44 M) 20.1%

1896: (29.41M) (+2.29M)
Joseph Hayden / James Harrison (Federal-Democratic) (16.04 M) 54.5% (9%, 2.67M MoV)
Richard Orleans / Roderick Khur (American Conservative) (13.37 M) 45.5%

1900: (33.18M) (+3.77M) (+6.06m during Hayden’s two terms)
James Harrison / Roderick Khur (Federal) (24.3 M) 73.2% (42.1%, 17.63M MoV)
Kade R. Carter / Joseph P. Jarvis (American Conservative) (6.67 M) 20.1% (13.4%, 4.46M MoV)
George Walsh / James Nightmore (Democratic) (2.21 M)6.7%

1904: (45.87M) (+12.69M)
Calvin C. Carr / David Hensdale (American Conservative) (29.42 M) 64.1% (36%, 16.55M MoV)
Thomas H. Terrance / Alicia Vallejo (Federal) (12.87 M) 28.1% (20.3%, 9.3M MoV)
Floyd Weaver / James Nightmore (Democratic-Labor) (3.57 M) 7.8%

1908: (51.3M) (+5.43M)
David Hensdale / Joseph P. Jarvis (American Conservative) (38.9 M) 75.8% (51.6%, 26.52M MoV)
Thomas H. Terrance / Alicia Vallejo (Federal) (12.38 M) 24.2%

1912: (53.04M) (+1.74M)
Thomas H. Terrance / Alicia Vallejo (Federal) (24.73 M) 46.6% (6.6%, 3.49M MoV)
David Hensdale / Joseph P. Jarvis (Republican) (21.24 M) 40% (26.7%, 14.17M MoV)
Jerry Nightmore / Simon Ritter (Patriotic (Entente)) (7.07 M) 13.3%

1916: (56.61M) (+3.57M)
Joseph P. Jarvis / Simon Ritter (Republican) (28.31 M) 50% (7.2%, 4.06M MoV)
Kevin McCahill / Alicia Vallejo (Federal) (24.25 M) 42.8% (35.6%, 20.2M MoV)
Taylor Caulfield / Nathan Lee (Southern) (4.05 M) 7.2%

1920: (60.21M) (+3.6M)
Joseph P. Jarvis / Simon Ritter (Republican) (29.63 M) 49.2% (14.8%, 8.9M MoV)
Alicia Vallejo / Kevin McCahill (Federal) (20.73 M) 34.4% (17%, 10.9M MoV)
Michael Sullivan / Maurice Horshington (Progressive) (9.83 M) 17.4%

1924: (67.2M) (+6.99M) (+10.59M during Jarvis’ two terms)
John T. Sherman / Simon Ritter (Republican) (47.01 M) 70.1% (40.2%, 26.95M MoV)
Thomas H. Terrance / Michael Sullivan (Federal-Progressive) (20.15 M) 29.9%

1928: (76.99M) (+9.79M)
Patrick Ryan / Leonard Jenkins (Progressive) (46.76 M) 61.5% (23%, 16.53M MoV)
John T. Sherman / Simon Ritter (Republican) (30.23 M) 38.5%
William Taggarman / TBA (Federal)(--) --%

1932: (88.22M) (+11.23M)
Patrick Ryan / John F. Harrison (Progressive) (40.72 M) 46.2% (7.7%, 6.79 M MoV)
Simon Ritter / Constant Blancharde (Republican) (33.93 M) 38.5% (23.2%, 20.36 M MoV)
Leonard Jenkins / Wallace (True Labor) (13.57 M) 15.3%

1936: (97.4 M) (+9.18)
Phillip J.J. McCahill / Constant Blancharde (Progressive-Republican) (49.1 M) 50.4% (.8%, .8 M MoV)
Richard Milton-Spencer / Charles Longstrum (United Fascist) (48.3 M) 49.6%

1940: (107.5M) (+9.75M)
Phillip J.J. McCahill (Liberal) (80.35 M) 75% (58.3%, 62.45 M MoV)
William Gallatin (Republican) (17.9 M) 16.7% (7.8% ,9 M MoV)
Michael Sullivan (Progressive)(8.9 M) 8.3%
 
Last edited:
After the last election I, Constant Blancharde have left the Federal caucus and have become a Independent. I am thinking of joining the Republican caucus but have still not decided.

- Governor C. Blancharde
 
You are more than welcome to join the Republicans, Governor Blancharde!
 
The Primary of 1928

Republican Candidate(s)

John T. Sherman
(b. 1870), Incumbent President of the Republic ((Seek75)). Sherman runs with the intent to continue the seemingly successful policies of the last four years.

William Horshington (b. 1887), Secretary of State ((Kaisersohaib)). With largely the same platform as four years ago, Horshington supports the use of Anglo-French debt as leverage in the campaign against Britain and France’s imperialism in Africa.

Federal Candidate(s)

William Taggarman
(b. ????), Governor for Texas ((zagoroth)). Formerly a member of the Republican Party, Taggarman became a Federal due to his dislike of Simmons and Sherman’s dismantling of the nation’s “safety net”, which he proposes to rebuild.

Independent Candidate(s)

Patrick Ryan
(b. 1889), Progressive Politician ((atomicsoda)). Ryan supports the rebuilding of the downsized social programs, to be paid for by a 3% tax increase on the highest income brackets, and the traditional progressive opposition to Jim Crow.

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

Exceptional Situation(s):

None. Please vote.
 
I cast my vote for John T. Sherman
 
I endorse John Sherman as well.
 
Looks like I'll be calling this early tomorrow.

Anyway, I did some number crunching for the GD. It's going to be nasty. I'm talking GDP at 1908 levels at it's worst nasty.
 
I understand that the progressive party will be running on it's usual anti-Jim Crow stance, but will the Federal ticket, with the governor of Texas at its head, be following suit? I ask this question of Mr Taggarman, given that the Federal party has, for as long as I have know it, been a party of high moral standing.


Anyway, I did some number crunching for the GD. It's going to be nasty. I'm talking GDP at 1908 levels at it's worst nasty.

((Is that in any way related to the only "seemingly successful policies of the last four years"?))
 
((Is that in any way related to the only "seemingly successful policies of the last four years"?))

Hmm... I knew I should have changed that sentence. I simply meant that it looks like they were successful.

Not to mention, this one's too big to have been created just in the post-war years. It winds right back to the end of the last proper downturn in the late 90s.