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
Or Mr. Hensdale, it could show your willingness to continue this Commonwealth, which, regardless of what you say you plan on doing, ties to Europe, and risks a Great War erupting, or that you will continue invading South American countries that are relevant to our 'interests.'

What do any of you plan on doing about this institution, the Commonwealth?
 
I pledge to support the very idea of the Commonwealth, not the entire thing itself. It is my belief that it does need some reforms to it to make it a more functioning organ of trans-national governmental affairs. I do not propose a complete and utter separation from Europe, I maintain steadfast in the idea militarily we should refrain from intervention, but a healthy dose of American political and economic influence should be kept in place, simply to try and ensure peace and stability. If that fragile balance is broken, it is NOT our place to sort it out. They created their own mess, they may clean it up. I shall not continue to invade South American countries on a whim. I shall work with all of South America diplomatically to entice them back into the fold of the American Eagle, and to ensure good relations. I wish to establish a new era in American world affairs where we maintain our interests at home, in a peaceful manner.
 
But what if another state should fall to communism? What will you do? Or if the Latin American nations continue to act on their own accord, free of, and occasionally counter to, your will?

And as we've seen, our relations with Britain have deteriorated precisely because of the Commonwealth. Not only that, but you will still run the risk of drawing ourselves into a European war. On a final point, the Commonwealth biases us towards Britain, or creates that perception. Should European affairs devolve into a Great War, we would be a poor choice of arbiter or negotiator, and we could do nothing but watch as the war wages on, and kills millions of more people than it should have. If we leave this arbitrary and weak alliance, and opt instead to enter free, fair relations with all of Europe, we can better act in a more neutral way, and bring a more equitable and longer-lasting peace to the European states.
 
I have advocated for that very same ideal Governor. I said, in only a few letters before penning this one, where I disagreed to any new foreign alliances and instead will work with any European nations. Trust me in when I assert the fact that I support having friendly relations with the United Kingdom just as much as the German Empire, or the Russian Empire. These nations have done nothing against us - they have not wronged us. I see no reason why we can't work with them. On the subject of the Commonwealth, it may bias us towards the British, but destroying the Commonwealth would do little more than splitting the rift between our two nations even further. It can be reformed, and relations can be repaired with them.

((Lincoln-Douglas style debates much?))
 
Is our bond with Britain so special? Why yes, I agree it will cause some temporary harm to our relations, that we will still be more than willing to trade openly and make agreements with His Majesty will help rebuild those relations, without the binding of our two nations in these wars. Indeed, free from these burdens, our relations may very well soar!

I agree with you completely that they have not wronged us, but the mere fact that we are so closely aligned with one nation, a nation they hate vitriolically, virtually ensures that we will be drawn into a war, despite any of our intentions (of course, the Colonel is probably looking forward to that).

Should we form Commonwealth-like agreements with all the powers of Europe? That would simply drive us even more into the affairs of Europe. I call for complete neutrality, or to come as close to it as possible. When (I fear it is no longer a matter of 'if') this war breaks out, I want America to have no such attachments that could be used to bring us to war. The Commonwealth is built almost entirely on mutual protection, which would require our entering into a war, especially one of such gravity as I fear, and predict, will happen.

However, if we reform the system as substantially as you wish, then what is the point of having the Commonwealth in place? It is, though to a much smaller degree, reforming the Bible to better suit our needs; it no longer is a significant agreement, simply a common deal, something that no longer matters. We must act cautiously, and with great neutrality, which the Commonwealth almost entirely makes impossible.

((The Jarvis-Hensdale debates))
 
King50000 said:
((I'm not saying this because he was my character, but Jamous is definately our best looking President so far.))
Click to expand...

((Callahan, that stone cold fox... ;) .

But seriously, your aggrandizing knows no bounds... it's almost as great as mine for Santa Rosa (though not as pervasive)

Though I will agree with you that he was a pretty good president (not the best, but good); all that pro-German, economic and foreign interventionist stuff, though...))
 
Last edited:
Whats with the color code?
 
Riccardo93 said:
((Callahan, that stone cold fox... ;) .

But seriously, your aggrandizing knows no bounds... it's almost as great as mine for Santa Rosa (though not as pervasive)))
Click to expand...

((What can I say, when someone is just that great of a leader you can't but admire him :cool:
After all, he didn't even want to run for a second term and still won, if that doesn't show great of a President he was, Idk what will :p
And thinking back on Jamous' term got me thinking, how did the Democrats go from being pro-business under Jamous to now being staunchly anti-business?))
 
(It could use a key, kind of confusing not knowing what correspond to what. Awesome stuff though, Gloa.)

Edit: Nevermind

Edit 2: It includes presidents before the time line, who were Democratic Republicans, and Federalists. Black is probably Federalist, Purple is Democratic Republican, and orange is a giant mystery. Did the SNP ever win an election?)
 
((Purple (Democrati) Republican; Black, Federalist; Orange, National Republican? maybe))
 
Riccardo93 said:
Is our bond with Britain so special? Why yes, I agree it will cause some temporary harm to our relations, that we will still be more than willing to trade openly and make agreements with His Majesty will help rebuild those relations, without the binding of our two nations in these wars. Indeed, free from these burdens, our relations may very well soar!

I agree with you completely that they have not wronged us, but the mere fact that we are so closely aligned with one nation, a nation they hate vitriolically, virtually ensures that we will be drawn into a war, despite any of our intentions (of course, the Colonel is probably looking forward to that).

Should we form Commonwealth-like agreements with all the powers of Europe? That would simply drive us even more into the affairs of Europe. I call for complete neutrality, or to come as close to it as possible. When (I fear it is no longer a matter of 'if') this war breaks out, I want America to have no such attachments that could be used to bring us to war. The Commonwealth is built almost entirely on mutual protection, which would require our entering into a war, especially one of such gravity as I fear, and predict, will happen.

However, if we reform the system as substantially as you wish, then what is the point of having the Commonwealth in place? It is, though to a much smaller degree, reforming the Bible to better suit our needs; it no longer is a significant agreement, simply a common deal, something that no longer matters. We must act cautiously, and with great neutrality, which the Commonwealth almost entirely makes impossible.

((The Jarvis-Hensdale debates))
Click to expand...

Now - I shall defend my position on Commonwealth reform by saying that if we do keep the system in place, the other nations of the world will surly see that we do value the partnership with the United Kingdom, which we truly do. Since our independence, we have been dependent on each other for trade and commerce. I am not suggesting a policy of favoritism, but the simple regard for the long standing relationship between our two countries is enough to reform it and create a better system of economics and political linkage. It would foster a direct line between the Congress and the Parliament, something I feel comfortable with, rather than opening up the Congressional doors to any nation. No, I regard our British friendship highly, but I refuse to shut out the Germans or the Russians simply because they are Britain's enemy. I disagree with the intervention in European affairs, but I agree that the United States position, right now, offers us an opportune moment to allow us to make all the nations more willing to listen to the American voice of reason, which can ultimately, prevent a war from breaking out.
 
zagoroth said:
(It could use a key, kind of confusing not knowing what correspond to what. Awesome stuff though, Gloa.)

Edit: Nevermind

Edit 2: It includes presidents before the time line, who were Democratic Republicans, and Federalists. Black is probably Federalist, Purple is Democratic Republican, and orange is a giant mystery. Did the SNP ever win an election?)
Click to expand...

((SNP never won. I'm thinking orange is the giant coalition that formed in reaction to the 3 players in the SNP. There should have been no reason for such a coalition.))
 
((Ah yes. Projekt, King, and I. Then the rest of the game united against us. Good times))
 
(I barely remember that, but I think you are right. I suppose in real politics it could have potentially occurred. One group was running for Nationalism to break away from the Union, so the other parties form together to preserve the Union.)
 
Frymonmon said:
((Ah yes. Projekt, King, and I. Then the rest of the game united against us. Good times))
Click to expand...

((It was a good time. Khur was still alive, and socialists hadn't sprung up yet.))

zagoroth said:
(I barely remember that, but I think you are right. I suppose in real politics it could have potentially occurred. One group was running for Nationalism to break away from the Union, so the other parties form together to preserve the Union.)
Click to expand...

((Even though the candidate on the "nationalism" ticket wasn't even advocating breaking away from the Union *cough* Khur *cough*))
 
(Well at least we got the color scheme sorted out.)
 
((On a side note, this is the first time a Hensdale has been important since the Civil War.))

((On an even more side note, my AHD icon is below my Lead and Gold Icon. Kinda funny because it looks like it can shoot Lincoln.))
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top Bottom
Back