Home Trending Latest threads New posts Developer diaries

[Forum Game] - Empire of the Pacific

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.
Changes possible, expansion forthcoming:


Name : Volodimir Borisovich Tarasenko (English: Victor Shaw)

Occupation: Farmer, lumber trader, aspiring politician.

Biography: Born in 1811 in Ukraine to a family of peasants, he lived the life. Drunken bar fights, which may or may not have had fatal endings, robbing a stagecoach full of money, sleeping with a couple of farm daughters, and a stint in the army. In 1839, he had to run from a couple of angry farmers and equally angry policemen, he hopped on a boat and joined the first shipping company that hired. Working as a stoker first and foremost, but also doing other jobs around ships. He grew tired of a life on the ocean wave in the summer of 1841, and hopped off in New York, after which he wandered for two years in which he learned English and gradually ventured westwards, ending up in the Californian Independence Kerfuffle. Doing the odd fighting, he ended up staking claims in the hills southwest of Lake Tahoe, where he built a logging camp with a small sawmill in the forests which provides the majority of his small income, and southeast of Salt Lake he owns a farm where he spends most of his time, farming and writing.

Victor lacks a formal education, but this is not to say he isn't a wise man. Gregarious and charismatic, he knows how to sell the stuff he grows or produces, and he's a welcomed face in the community with political ambitions encouraged by his surroundings. However, whilst he is a succesfull entrepreneur, he lacks legal knowledge and has a distaste for paperwork which may very well bite him in the arse. Furthermore, he is careful to hide his origins and past, fearing discrimination and discredit.
 
"I am again thoroughly disappointed at the actions undertaken to write this provisional Constitution. No doubt, in good time, it can be amended to better and perfect it.

As a fellow Californian and Republican, I endorse Mr. Jarvis' candidacy for President. His fire and willingness to lead made him a shining star of the Convention and this Nation's leading proponent of Republicanism and as a fighter for the liberties of Man. He will forever be remembered in his efforts to defend these innate rights in the Constitution that we never got to write.

Still, it is with firm conviction that I support a republican California of the people and for the people, championing the rights of all Men and furthering the cause of liberty: in this, we can see Mr. Henry Jarvis."

Mr. Isaac Leonard Shaw
Former Delegate from Los Angeles
 
Last edited:
Riccardo93 said:
I, Henry J. Jarvis, announce my candidacy for the Presidency of the Republic of California on the Republican Party ticket.
Click to expand...

I completely support Mr. Jarvis in his presidential campaign, and urge all voting men from the Eastern Territories to join in support of this common candidate.
 
While he and I may not see eye-to-eye on all issues, my support lies with Mister Henry Jarvis. He has proven himself an outspoken advocate for ideals that resonate both within me and my party, such ideals as liberty, freedom, and support for the Californian man, not simply the elite of the coast, but also the common pioneer of the east. His guidance will be instrumental in unifying this blessed republic in spirit, and not in oppression.

Lazarus C. Shaw
 
I hereby show my full support for Henry J. Jarvis. He will make a good president.

~ N. Gagarin
 
Over these past few months, there have been many insinuations that I, despite being a veteran of West Point and having served in both the Texan and Californian Revolutions, am opposed to a military – whilst I am indeed wary of a standing army, due to its potential to threaten or undermine the Republic, I am in no way opposed to our armed forces and I do believe now is the time to express a notion I have been carrying for quite some time.

During the debate between Mr Clark and myself, I saw a recurring theme of his argument was his concern over the unprofessional nature of a militia army – whilst I still maintain that militias can and do perform as well as regular forces, I will concede that there must be an institution in place to ensure their officers and commanders are well educated and knowledgeable in both theory and practice. Therefore, I announce my intention, should I be elected as President of the Republic, to establish a Military Academy akin to the Point, the position and overall nature of which shall be discussed by the Legislature within my first year in office.

As I envision it, this Academy will teach its students the theories of the past and present, the proper ways and means to command soldiers, and instil in them the discipline and fidelity to protect this Republic.

H.J. Jarvis
 
Mr. Jarvis has decided to open the debate between us with a mixture of uncivilised bile, direct hostility, and unsubstantiated claims. Having no wish to undertake a Presidential competition on this basis, I ask my opponent that in the course oft his debate, that he may restrain such incendiary language. To accuse me of corruption and of Machiavellian behaviour is, in every frame of interpretation, a graven insult and a stain upon my honour. I ask Mr. Jarvis to withdraw these comments, lest I am forced to embark on your prosecution for libel. I ask for civility in this Presidential campaign from all candidates and all those involved, for without it, we descend to barbarism and anarchy.

As to the more substantive criticism levelled against my Californian platform, I shall provide a due response.

On the matter of the National Bank, Mr. Jarvis may appeal to the voter on the flawed basis of emotion and ill-logic, but I shall not do the same. Our Republic is young, it is sparsely populated, and it is underdeveloped. We have need of roads; of railroads, and of harbours. The entrepreneurial class of this country lacks capital. The state treasury is practically empty. I see no other course of action - and indeed, Mr. Jarvis does not provide one - as to how to deal with this matter, except that of a National Bank and a National Debt. Both institutions would provide credit to the captains of industry, to the poor farmer, and to all enterprising citizens. Further it would provide a strong financial basis to the treasury, allowing for a system of public investment and infrastructure, which is so sorely needed in our Republic. How else are we to built what is needed: both the state and the private sectors lack the capital to embark on such endeavours. This capital can only be provided by the National Bank and a system of credit.

These economic concerns also belay our tariff policy. Our industry, while nascent, is small and vulnerable to the larger economies and industries of the United States and the British Empire; even Mexico possesses larger industries. How can it be fair for the shop-keeper if his Californian goods are undercut by cheaper foreign alternatives? How can it be fair that the honest Californian farmer cannot sell his grain, for foreign grain from elsewhere undercuts his prices? No, sir; however much you wish it, tariffs and a National Bank are very much in the common people's interests.

On the matter of foreign policy, Mr. Jarvis makes of me a warmonger. In my proposed policy to Mexico, he supposed that I wish to maintain tensions. This is not my intention whatsoever; merely, I recognise that the Mexican Republic maintains its hostility to us, and that a robust policy is needed. Are we to to forgo a standing military, as Mr. Jarvis advocates, simply because he prays and hopes his peaceful policy shall ward of the ambitions of Mexico City? I think not; for Mexico maintains her grievance, and Mr. Jarvis' Mexican policy is thus infeasible.

On the matter of slavery, I am to be seen in league with the Dixie-barons of the American South. Certainly, in response to his question, I am in sympathy with the enslaved Negro, and I do wish to see a solution to their problem, in the future. Does Mr. Jarvis believe, however, that the concerns of 3,000 outweigh those of the 90,000 who make up the total of our population? Slavery is so minor a concern, the slave population so low, I do not believe it warrants national attention. My foremost concern is for the welfare of the Californian people, and the maintain of their rights; including their property rights, which Mr. Jarvis does intend to infringe with his abolitionist creed. I do not believe Slavery in this country has a substantive future; it shall be eroded by the realities of economy in this land, not by unnecessary legislation.

This is the choice, therefore. Look to the face of the Republic in six years time. Under Mr. Jarvis, we may see freedom, liberty, and all that. But we shall also see a wasteland, a country of lost opportunity; for the farms will not be worked, the mines will not be dug, and the cities will be small and desolate. Under my vision, my Californian platform, we shall emerge from the end of my term of office as a Republic of prosperity, of profit, and of progress. We shall see roads, and clippers, and all the other hallmarks of civilisation. We shall see progress, intertwined with liberty, here in the free and noble West."
 
I, Andrew Pryor remain a member of the Expansionist party
 
William Clark prepared a statement regarding the results of discussion within the Expansionist party.

"Both Mr. Jarvis and Mr. Somerville make good points in their policy. Mr. Jarvis is correct to see the need for a war college to prepare our nation for further conflict and keep a well trained core of professionals. However his opposition against a true standing army remains unfortunate. In comparison Mr. Somerville's support for a standing army, combined with his support for a Central Bank to organize the nation and maintain its economy has the better policies I believe. Though I agree with neither candidate entirely, both would lead the nation in the way they see best fit, and neither would destroy the nation in such endeavors. However Mr. Somerville has the stronger of the two platforms, and thus has my support, as the Expansionist Party will not field a candidate for the presidential race, since one would only split the votes."
 
It is with surpassing pleasure that I endorse my good friend Mr. Somerville in his campaign to be elected President of the Republic. His sensible, forward-looking policies will ensure growth and prosperity for the Republic and her people. I encourage all men of sense to lend their support to his campaign.

Alexander Ulysses Sinclair
 
I will follow my party and give my support to Mr. Somerville.

~Pierre
 
"I must say that the fallacy that stems from Mr. Somerville's recent reply to Mr. Jarvis that the Republican platform prioritizes "the concerns of three-thousand over the concerns of ninety-thousand", and that the whole institution of slavery "does not warrant national attention" due to the relatively small population of enslaved persons, is most disagreeable; for any injustice in a Nation is an injustice still, and I believe it prudent to quote St. Augustine on the matter: "Lex iniusta non est lex" [An unjust law is no law at all]. How can a Nation of great personal liberty like California allow this abomination of an institution to continue within its own borders? An injustice against even the smallest proportion of the population is an injustice against all, and against the very principles that this Nation was founded upon: freedom from oppression and unjust law. I believe that this issue must be dealt with and slavery abolished completely."

Mr. Isaac Leonard Shaw
Former Delegate from Los Angeles
 
Having reviewed the positions of the various parties I have decided that I will give my support to Mr Sommerville in both the primaries and the coming elections. I also announce that I will be standing for the National Assembly in the seat of San Francisco. I hope that the National Democratic Party will support my candidacy however I fully intend to run either way.

~William Henry Clinton
 
I do wonder when a great horde of Garrisonites did invade our country!
 
I too would like to refute Mr. Somerville's contention that the slave population in our fair state is too small to warrant national attention. While there may only be three-thousand slaves in the nation at the current point in time, what is to say that these numbers will stay the same? Already, we have seen a migration of slaveholders come over across Texas from the East, bringing their slaves in tow. As more and more slaves and slaveholders immigrate into California, then California will surely become over-dependent upon the forced labor of blacks. This will most assuredly retard industrial growth and development in our country, preventing freemen from gaining employ and turning fair California into a backwards fiefdom of the slave-holding class. Mr. Somerville himself says in his speech that we must think about the future of California, which is precisely what all abolition-minded men are doing. The abolition of slavery will prevent us from entering into the downwards-spiraling cycle of poverty and under-development, the likes of which have been seen with slavery in the Southern United States and serfdom in Russia. I can say with complete certainty that it is in the rational self-interest of all Californians to turn against slavery so we can march into a prosperous future.

-J. F. Benton
 
William Clark was curious that a man had not understood the approved constitution and stood to explain the situation.

"Mr. Benten, the slave trade has been outlawed in all forms by the constitution. There is no danger of mass immigration of slaves then. The current population of slaves is all that there shall be. The current amount is small enough that it will not inhibit industrial growth, nor would the continued existence of slavery lead to mass poverty as you claim. Indeed, it would be far worse to deprive men of their property and the restitution payments would be quite high as well. A nation should not depend on slavery for its entire livelihood, but we have already assured that, and to press further and abolish slavery outright would be an economic liability for our nation, not a boon."
 
Slavery has been outlawed here before, the Plan of Iguala outlawed slavery in all land belonging to Mexico. The Americanos ignored these laws when they moved to Texas, and they stated that as a reason for rebelling. Now that California is free from Mexican rule, you believe that slavery should be implemented here as well. Slavery is an abomination to the earth, and claiming that humans are property is to deny them of the ability to be considered humans created in God's image. Reparations for holding humans should not even be considered should slavery be outlawed. We do not give prison wardens reparations for freeing their prisoners. Yet, the will of the Americanos is strong, we will agree to compromise.

I ask a motion be put forward to be voted upon after the election that all children of current slaves be emancipated and begin a process of gradual emancipation throughout California.

-Juan Manuel Campo
 
aedan777 said:
"Mr. Benten, the slave trade has been outlawed in all forms by the constitution. There is no danger of mass immigration of slaves then. The current population of slaves is all that there shall be. The current amount is small enough that it will not inhibit industrial growth, nor would the continued existence of slavery lead to mass poverty as you claim. Indeed, it would be far worse to deprive men of their property and the restitution payments would be quite high as well. A nation should not depend on slavery for its entire livelihood, but we have already assured that, and to press further and abolish slavery outright would be an economic liability for our nation, not a boon."
Click to expand...

And your point being? The end of slave importation to California is but a small step, taken only to appease those who call for the end of slavery. I can assure you, as you yourself quite likely know, that three-thousand slaves are quite enough to form a sizable population within our nation. As a case in point, let us again look to the southern United States, where the number of slaves has more than doubled since the end of the slave trade in 1808, multiplying at a faster rate than the population of the entire country. The end of the slave trade does not mean that the numbers of slaves will magically freeze in place. The slave-holding class would not find it profitable to continue onward with such a small number of slaves, but will encourage them to breed and spawn more slave-children, so that the numbers may rise. Populations grow, my friend. And it is then that we will see the catastrophe that I have previously outlined take place, as the slave population grows more rapidly than those of freemen.

OOC: Apparently, I should have read the constitution a little more closely.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top Bottom
Back