• 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'll probably be calling the election sometime tomorrow, considering we've already got one more vote than last time, even with two more people excluded from voting.
 
Would you call our former oppressors friends? And remember only a few decades ago, we isolated France with the help of our greatest friend, Prussia. To recap, if we hadn't have gotten in Europe in the 1860's, Germany would be weaker, the balance of power would have been maintained, America wouldn't have gone about forging an Empire across the globe (from illegally seizing Spanish territory), and these current crises would never have arisen.

However, since we have already gone down that path, and we can clearly see what we've helped cause, why do some of you insist we must continue to trod along blindly, accepting this foolish notion that America must go about the world saving everyone? The end result is equally clear; America will become overextended, bled dry, left impotent, and get knocked over by some new insurgent power. However, if we stop now, and let Europe bloody itself for a few years (I doubt really that the war will end conclusively, at least not for several years), we will become stronger, wealthier, and become free of the European shackles that some candidates wish to bind us to.

Your great fear that 'Democracy will die' is unfounded; how much power would it take to destroy France, with all her colonial possessions? And Britain is almost unassailable with her fleet. Indeed, I believe that the Central Powers would be beaten even if we don't assist the Entente, simply because the British can quite easily blockade their ports and starve them. Should Italy and the Ottoman Empire join, Austria and Russia would be busy, and I can certain that the King of England is very much aware of that. If Japan joins, Russia is left incredibly vulnerable, and if Spain joins, France's borders are reinforced. So, do not say that without America barging in, all hope is lost. Indeed, if we do, then we have finally abandoned our Founding principles, and will become nothing more than the policeman of the world, until we are left so weak we are destroyed.
 
You are quite mistaken Mr Jarvis, the current crisis is not the result of American politicians meddling in Europe's affairs, rather the failure of everyone to for see how the web of alliances and enmities that cross Europe could lead to the perilous position in which the world now sits. As you state the balance of power has changed, and therefore so has the threat to our country and our beliefs. It may seem hypocritical, yet it is this pragmatic approach to politics that allowed our great nation to be formed in the first place.

The second problem I have with your argument is that we can take the case of America in isolation from the situation in the world at large; as we saw in the crash of 1892. When the global economy suffers, so does the the American one. When their is war in Europe, we have to deal not only with the social repercussions of penniless refugees fleeing from devastation and tyranny, but a major slump in our main export market. Without a policeman, the world economy can run riot, with potentially disastrous consequences. However, with allies we could share this stabilising work and spread the load, ensuring peace and prosperity for future generations.

Thirdly, from where have you acquired information pertaining to the other more minor powers future involvement in the war? I hope these are reliable sources as from what I hear, the Mediterranean states are fearful of an attack on the Three Emperors as they know they are militarily no match. Does Turkey not have it's affairs in the Levant to solve before it fights a far superior Russian force? Does Greece not wish to regain their homeland from the Turks rather than loose it to the Austrians? Is Spain still not bitter at France for not aiding them in their struggle against us? ((Is Italy even united?))

The final problem stems from a misinterpretation and exaggeration of what I said. I stated some time back that the fall of Paris would cause, "the end for democracy on the continent ((which to us Brits doesn't include the British Isles))" as the more authoritarian states have ever more influence than a declining France. I never wished to ridicule the strength of democracy, but surely it would be detrimental to the free world's influence over the globe, if democracy, the very institution that maintains our entire system of government, was seen to be on the decline. Add to that the cast swathes of colonial territories that would likely pass from slightly objectionably British hands to terrible German or Austrian ones and the atrocities that would be committed by people only accountable to God.
 
Mr Sharp, I speak in purely a metaphorical sense. As individuals the senator for Maine is no more accountable to the constituents of Hawaii, or of China for that matter, than the Governor of California is to the people of Washington state, yet as a body, congressmen have a moral responsibility to the people of the world to act in the best interests of them all, not just the parochial and selfish interests of the people of these United States.
 
What kind of nonsense logic is that? Congressmen, of the United States Congress, have a duty to the world? What on earth are you on, sir?

The entire purpose of the United States Congress is to represent the American people and the American States: it is, for that very reason, that we have citizenship laws, and a German or a Frenchman or what have you cannot simply walk into the United States and vote for a pro-German politician or vice versa.

To assert that the United States Congress has some kind of duty to serve the people of the world before the American people is complete and total nonsense that refutes the very purpose for which this country was founded in the first place: so that the American people decided what happened to them, rather than some far-away nation on the other side of the ocean.
 
There was no insinuation that the Congress should favour any one country other than the USA, but I maintain there is a moral responsibility to do what is right for the peoples of the world in order to extend their liberties. That doesn't mean it shouldn't improve the lives of its citizens but rather that it should not take it's policies in isolation from the world and continue to strive to extend the freedoms of people across the globe. I apologise if it was baldy phrased, but not for the general sentiment, as it is intended to show why I don't agree with the isolationist sentiments of Mr Jarvis and President Hensdale.
 
Mr Sharp, I speak in purely a metaphorical sense. As individuals the senator for Maine is no more accountable to the constituents of Hawaii, or of China for that matter, than the Governor of California is to the people of Washington state, yet as a body, congressmen have a moral responsibility to the people of the world to act in the best interests of them all, not just the parochial and selfish interests of the people of these United States.

Why?
 
Hensdale
 
I believe I shall call it.

Polls are Closed.

The vote stands at 7 Terrance, 6 Hensdale, 2 Nightmore.

T. H. Terrance will become the next President of the Republic.


In the event of a war in Europe while we have an alliance with the Entente, I think I might have to put the DOW up to a vote.

PS. What's Terrance's first name?
 
((Thomas Hill Terrance is his full name.))

My cabinet, assuming all appointees accept, will be as follows:
Treasury Secretary (with responsibility for implementing social reform) - John Fitzgerald Harrison
Secretary of the Interior - Erica Hayden Vallejo
Secretary of State - Marinus van Mayer
Secretary of Industry and President of the National Work Board - John Sharp
Secretary of Education - K Mccahill
Secretary of Defence - Seamus Écossais​
 
Last edited:
I would gladly accept the position Mr. ((Vice?)) President.

Seamus Écossais
 
I congratulate the President-elect on his victory and accept his offer of a cabinet post,
Kevin Mccahill
 
I congratulate Mr. Terrance, even though he was not my pick for President.

I notice the honorable President has no Secretary of Agriculture, and I would be honored to continue my work in that role under your Presidency.

Mr. Terrance willing of course.
 
Congratulations Mr Terrance, you may not have been my first choice as president but I am sure you will make a fine one.
 
Congratulations, Mr. Terrance on your win. I can't say I am completely happy, but I can sincerely wish you the best luck in these next four years. I will now return to San Diego and start expanding my businesses.

*Joseph Jarvis, by late 1914, owns most of the media industries on the West Coast, and attempts, unsuccessfully to expand the Jarvis Automobile Company into the Midwest, only to be stymied by Davis Motors. He also begins plans to start making aircraft. (Being from one of the old, wealthy families, and being able to make up things that aren't too outlandish, is wonderful)*
 
On a slightly different note, I have to voice my concern at the policies of Walter Mandrake. Though I have great respect for those willing to give their life in our defence, as I am far too 'lily-livered' to fight myself, I cannot advocate in any way inciting rebellion in a country that we are attempting to preach peace to. Doesn't this sort of spying against countries that we are in peaceful relations with hark back to the travesties of the dark ages? It is up to us in the free world to advocate liberalisation to the governments through our merits, not fund dissident organisations that would not only trigger further repression but also jeopardise any progress our diplomats are making. You are not accountable to the electorate, Mr Mandrake, but we in politics are for our views, surely your allies in Washington can convey this to you. I wonder how you could justify to the electorate your profound wish to avoid war at all costs yet bring the world closer to it through your irresponsible proposal of mass intrigue.

Senator,

I understand your concerns over this and am obliged to explain in detail and clarify any confusion over my stance. Peaceful nations that treat their subjects with respect and do not upset the world order can be worked with in peaceful ways. When this period of instability and the spectre of war recedes, and I look to enter politics, I have ideas to encourage democratic government in nations that are seeking to reform and would welcome American expertise. We should encourage trade and financial aid for fellow democracies, especially struggling ones, to strengthen them and build relations. We must be good neighbors with our fellow democracies to serve as an example to others of the benefits and prosperity that come with better government.

However, nations which are threats to world stability, brutalize their citizens, or wage wars of conquest to glorify their authoritarian dictators, should reap what they sow. We may not openly war with them, but our conscience should demand some form of action. In those situations, I would support encouragement or financial aid to opposition groups to push for reform or government change. In extreme cases, I would support arming and financing rebel groups.

Most would call this extremist. I call it encouraging democratic change and a peaceful future for our children. Democratic and republican governments are by nature more peaceful and mindful of citizens' rights. Reactionary and autocratic governments will fight tooth and nail to defend their priveleges. We should not allow their corrupt and tyrannical ways to threaten world peace and stability. America, as the world's preeiminent democracy and an example for all other nations, should be a vanguard for this noble undertaking.

Lt. Colonel Walter Mandrake
 
Last edited:
Terrance: Thin Ice

Despite a close contest, intervention, or at least the promise of it, won out over isolation in 1913. As tensions increased at Geneva, and Santiago drifted ever closer to Berlin in its desperate grab for allies, Americans felt threatened, angered and bewildered all at once. Yet it seemed that domestic affairs decided the election, polls conducted by the New Yorker in Georgia, New York and Texas all indicated that Terrance’s social policies were what most drew voters to his cause.
It is likely though, that Hensdale would have won without the effect the Entente ticket had on the eastern states of the old ACP’s Solid South. The former Confederate states, now inundated with the view of themselves as the American warrior people as never before, were extremely receptive to Nightmore’s message of a glorious war. With their appeal to the South of Thomas Davis, the former Secretary of War and dark horse Entente congressman snatched victory from Hensdale’s grasp.

election1913.jpg

1. Results for the Presidential Election of 1913.​

With him Terrance brought a group of politicians who would become known as the “Idealists”. They included men like Kevin McCahill and Seamus Ecossais, who had only entered the national stage as recently as Hensdale’s term. In the first months of his presidency, Terrance and the Idealists would make a wild scramble to set in motion the social reforms they had promised before the ticking time bomb of Geneva exploded in their faces.
It was indeed obvious by mid-January 1913 that the Geneva Conference, far from bridging the gap between the Entente and Tripartite, would in fact expedite the coming of the Great War. Even before opening pleasantries had been exchanged, Britain and France had made clear their terms for China, terms which they knew Germany and its allies would not accept if hell froze over. Neither side was willing to back down from Geneva though, and the Conference for Peace became the opening salvo of a conflict that would dwarf the wars of the previous century.
Before the outbreak of war on June 15th, the United States Congress would see a flurry of action. The president and Secretary of the Treasury, “Fitz” Harrison, lobbied relentlessly for the Federal Education Act of 1913. With more than $75 million of money in the table, the FEA faced heavy opposition from the Republican Party, but eventually passed with the votes of Entente and Federal politicians. The flood gates seemed open.
The National Work Board was the next step in Terrance’s plan. The NWB almost split the Federal Party, but John Sharp eventually became President of the NWB on March 21st with a House vote of 264-171. After NWB however, military expediency hijacked social reform. The French, increasingly agitated by German belligerency at Geneva and troop concentrations in Alsace, offered an alliance to the United States through the British via the Commonwealth.

jjjusserrand.jpg

2. Jean J. Jusserand, French Ambassador to the USA (1908-15).​

The President, having advocated alliance with the Entente during the election, accepted. Should France come under attack from the Triple Alliance, the United States was now honor-bound to aid the Entente Powers. In Paris, Prime Minister Georges Clemenceau proclaimed that “the United States have heard the call of the free world”. In Washington, Thomas Hill Terrance confided in private with Fitz Harrison that he “was seized with a great emptiness in my stomach, for I fear I have doomed many young men to their deaths”.
On April 3rd, the United States Army expanded by a tentative 51,000 men with the Defense Preparations Act of 1913. Compared to the 250,000 men France had raised in the last few months, this was small, but to Americans it was a sure sign that war was ahead. As the United States Congress approved an unprecedented $350 million dollar Air and Naval Expansion Act on April 20th, the Germans and Russians put together three new armies, totaling a prospective 500,000 men.
As conversations at Geneva became ever more vitriolic, and threats of war became the norm, Americans waited anxiously, none more so than the President. On May 23rd, two weeks before the final straw that broke the back of peace, the 1913 Military Doctrines Act placed $100 million dollars more in the hands of Secretary of Defense Ecossais. The next day the Santiago Pact tied itself inextricably with Germany through a military alliance.

santiagogermany.jpg

3. A political cartoon depicting Germany (left), Chile (center) and Russia (right).​

Chile’s actions ensured that war would come to the Americas too in the event of a breakdown at Geneva, and on June 6th, exactly that happened. When leaving the Conference hall in Geneva, Count August Von Messerschmitt of Germany was approached by a young man as he descended the steps of the conference’s main location. The man pulled out a weapon and shot Messerschmitt five times before unsuccessfully turning the gun on himself.
Messerschmitt died in hospital believing his assailant was French, reflecting the best guesses of most people of the time. In time it would be proved that Georges Hauptmann was in fact a Swiss anarchist of Croatian background deeply opposed to the Tripartite’s support of the Austro-Hungarian regime, whom he had seen Messerschmitt to be a prime representative of. However, on June 6th 1913, allegations of him being French set off the Great War.
The Germans, outraged, walked out of Geneva on June 7th, to be followed the next day by the Austrians and Russians. On June 14th, and ultimatum reached Clemenceau’s desk; to concede to all the terms the Tripartite had given at Geneva, or face war. On June 15th, a cross-Atlantic phone call informed President Terrance that the United States was now expected to take up the arms promised on March 28th.

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

Exceptional Situation(s):

It is on.

The United States will honor its alliance. The question is how… accepting plans for war (e.g. South America first, with a 200,000 man force for France), bills for such things as conscription, while I begin to prepare myself mentally for playing through this slugfest.
 
Last edited:
With Chile and South America tied to Berlin and St. Petersburg there's just one thing to do. Burn the whole South American Continent to the ground. The call to Arms is now. I will vote for any way drafting our young men to the army. They need to learn what it is to be real men, that some of us did in Peru. They need to become heroes of our Glorious Nation, and raise the flag of our empire on foreign soil.

Long Live America!
 
Belated congratulations to President Hensdale and Vice-President Vallejo. Though we may disagree on matters of policy and ideology, I wish them all luck and offer any possible assistance in guiding the country forward and keeping it safe.

Excerpts from an open letter to Congress and the President from Governor Michael Sullivan:

If Congress is to honor this alliance with Britain and France and declare war on the Tripartite, it is my belief that America's part in this European war should be limited and focus primarily on containing the bloodshed rather than contributing to the inevitable slaughter. Our soldiers should be deployed in defensive positions, supporting British and French troops, to prevent a wholesale invasion by the Eastern Powers. Though our men are smarter, braver, better-trained, and better-equipped, we stand at a major numerical disadvantage and should rely on and enhance existing French fortifications, rather than attempt some ill-conceived offensive strategy. It is not America's purpose to further Britain and France's imperial interests, nor to secure their hegemony over Europe. If they wish to invade their neighbors, they may do so on their own strength, not ours.

As for the Santiago Pact, it is a source of great sadness to me that we must come to blows with those who should be our friends and allies, driven into Germany's arms by Calvin Carr's misplaced ideological zeal and blood thirst. It is my belief that we can end their involvement in this outsiders' war through limited military engagement and through enforcing a total blockade of their coastline. Once accomplished, we can bring diplomatic pressure to bear, with the intended goals of severing their alliance with the Tripartite and demilitarizing their leading members. We must take pains not to engage in jingoistic orgies of bloodshed, such as those seen during President Carr's term, but rather impose a fair and just peace so that we may expel European influence from South America and regain its nations as our friends once more.

I do not want this war. Many good men, American and European, will die while arms merchants and company presidents grow strong off their shed blood and the smoke of burning cities. But if it must be fought, if our leaders choose to sacrifice our soldiers at the altar of European ambition and rivalry, then we must do our best to support those soldiers, to ensure that they're being led intelligently, and to continue our struggle for a better America.
 
Last edited: