• 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.
Though he obviously supports the removal of the monarchists, William Clark feels he should make his voice heard in response to the defense of the monarchists.

"I fully support the right to free speech. The people of this nation are free to believe whatever they wish. However the issue is not about whether they are allowed to speak, but whether they can exercise power and effect our constitution, which is already inherently republican in nature. To allow monarchist influences on the constitution would threaten the liberty and rights of every soul in this nation."
 
Name: Christopher J. Stevenson
Occupation: Merchant/Industrialist/Opportunist/Ruthless Scoundrel
Date of Birth: February 9th, 1815, Pittsburgh
Biography: Fourth son of a wealthy New York industrialist, Christopher grew up knowing that his older brothers would always get the majority of his father's company. After finishing his schooling, Christopher asked his father for a loan, and set out to make his own fortune. This made him seek west.
It has been 10 years since he settled in Monterrey, and he makes a small fortune on trade with Asia. And on convincing Chinese opportunists to move to the New World. Many of these are very cheap labor and are put to work in other companies that he owns. Since he does not like competition, he is suspected of being involved in sabotage and violence against competitors, though nothing has been proven.
His current goal is to be involved in the construction of a railroad from California to the West Coast, as this will allow him to move goods much faster and make a larger profit.
 
Grover doubles over laughing. Perhaps he is a moderate at the convention!

Sir, I find it hilarious that you say that expelling you is a spit in the face of democracy when you yourself seek to remove democracy. But, I shall still vote against the motion to expel the monarchists. For I believe in the principles of free speech.

When did I ever say I didn't want democracy? A Monarchy can have a democratic system, look at the United Kingdom for example, they have a parliamentary democracy that works perfectly fine.

- Richard Scott
 
Gentlemen of the Convention.

I arrived mere hours ago and have already been declared repulsive, authoritarian and a threat to the stability of California. I have not been allowed to make my voice heard before these accusations were levelled towards me and my fellow partners of the California Imperial Party. I came here with the belief that though my ideas and my beliefs may be considered reactionary or too conservative for some of the more liberal gentlemen here, I could not have expected this barrage of anger directed towards me. You would accuse me of sponsoring authoritarianism, as Santa Anna or the Second Mexican Empire. You have declared me to in support of an absolute monarchy, that I would restrict free speech or crush the democratic tradition of California. Yet there is not a grain of truth within these statements.

Gentlemen of the Convention, listen well, I beg of you. I have served this nation all my life. Today, I speak for its citizens and I tend to its wounded, just as my family has brought it wealth throughout the years. I share this duty with thousands upon thousands of other Californians, though my beliefs may be foreign my heart is Californian, just as well as yours are. I can promise you right here, right now, that I have no desire for an absolutist monarchy or dictatorship. I sponsor the right to free speech, despite the fact that some of the gentlemen here appear to think differently, judging by the proposal to expel me and my party from the convention for expressing ideas that you would disagree with. I believe in democracy with all of my heart and my mind. I urge you to look to the British. A constitutional monarchy that accepts the influence of the people, embraces it, yet acknowledges the need for a head of state that remains, inspires stability and patriotism. It is this government that I wish for the beautiful nation that I love so dearly. A democratic, constitutional monarchy, lead by a gentle, guiding hand. I shall repeat myself once more, to ensure that every member of this convention hears me, and understands. I support democracy. I stand firmly against absolutism and if there was even the slightest need, I would die with sword in hand to protect my democracy. A King does not prevent a democracy. Indeed, this convention should note well that it is the republics that create dictators, not the monarchies. No dictator rules in Britain, or Sweden, or Denmark.

I shall note only one final thing. Beyond the ideological disgust I harbour for the notion of dismissing free speech as something that may be circumvented at will, it is not only despicable and a disgrace to God, who gave us our speech to use for good, but it is also a great danger to our democracy. Perhaps we, the few monarchists here, are easy to target, as few will come to our defines. We are weak, we are but newcomers to the political scene of California, and for now we appear to be prey. Yet should this motion pass, what is stopping the convention from banning other parties? What barriers remain until there is but a single party, dominating the politics of this nation while suppressing their opponents? My friends, you fear absolutism, yet you are taking the first steps towards it. The man who fears heresy does not embrace it. The man who wishes to live does not touch the face of the leper. You may hate me. You may hate me my friends, my partners, my fellow monarchists. You may wish to see us burn, or lose our heads. I plead to you now, let us not resort to violence or force. Let us not resort to oppression to silence those whom you do not agree with. Whether you hate me or not, this is certainly not the way.

I shall therefore, vote Nay on the motion to expel the monarchists, and I urge every man here who respects democracy to do the same. Thank you for your time gentlemen, let us now divert our time to more pleasant topics.

- Doctor César Antonio Castañón
 
Although, it is my belief that monarchism has no place in our young nation, we should not spit in the face of the ability to express different political opinions. It would be completely against our right to express our opinions freely. Therefore, I vote against the motion to ban the Imperial Party.

Alexander Kingston,
Representative for San Diego
 
"Monarchism is certainly a notion that brings to all of our hearts certain ideas forever associated with it: overbearing, extremely powerful central government; the abuse of the rights and liberties of Man; a dynastic line that operates as a head of State for the Nation, who is not ever elected by the people, or ever chosen even by a small convention or congress; and all the excesses, financial and otherwise, that are associated with the spending of a royal. I would detest if the style of the Californian Government were made to be that of a monarchy. I would defend republicanism in this Nation until the very moment I breathe my last.

But, no matter how radical, the republican system of government must allow the speech of people -- even those that see such a republican institution be torn down -- regardless of their beliefs. Though the monarchists are no friend to me, nor probably the vast majority of delegates in this Convention, but I refuse to have them thrown from this house due to a differing point-of-view. Therefore, I oppose the motion to remove the monarchists from this Convention.

As regards the arguments of those in favor of unicameral legislature: surely a single house of congress, unopposed by any other form of competing legislative body (and, therefore, many more minds which may be adept to point out the flaws of proposed bills) can wield enormous power, perhaps even unchecked by a single executive (never-mind two) and an independent judiciary. Two houses of the legislature, having both concurrent and competing powers, would flesh out the best facets of proposed laws, while striking down those laws that would prove a harm to the Nation.

In response to the good Gentleman from San Francisco, Mr. Sinclair: I would very much like to know who and what these so-called "annexationists" are, and where I may seek them out so as to reveal their nature as enemies of this Republic."

Mr. Isaac Leonard Shaw
Delegate from Los Angeles
 
Mr. Chairman,

I must first thank you for your clarification of your own qualms with the idea of a bicameral arrangement, which was greatly appreciated.

Nonetheless, I find it curious that Mr. Sinclair should reject the merit in my support of a bicameral system owing to the fact that I have neglected to illustrate more fully any ideas I may have as to the nature of a second chamber. It seems necessary at this juncture to remind Mr. Sinclair that we are at the present debating the notion of a unicameral – or indeed, bicameral – system rather than the specifics of either. If he might find fault with the more general proposal rather than any hypothetical specifics (or lack thereof) I should be greatly obliged.

So as not to leave the Honourable Gentleman wholly devoid of any answer, however, my own preference would be for a chamber elected in much the same manner as the other. Unlike the first chamber (one assumes,) this Chamber would be independent of party and the restrictions on true, free thought associated therewith. I would also posit that mandating a longer term for members of the advisory chamber than those of the other would aid independence in ensuring that members have a greater sense of security in their position. This, I believe, would protect against members having to frequently worry about the consequences their scrutiny at any time may have on their chances of re-election, being aware of a trend amongst those fearing for the security of their position to act with perhaps a lesser degree of sang froid.

These remain, however, mere exercises in conjecture – as they shall always be until we move on to discussing the specifics of our eventual legislature. At such a stage, I will gladly welcome any criticism Mr. Sinclair – or any of his supporters – have of my ideas, or lack thereof. Prior to then, however, I would ask once again that the debate remains over the principles themselves.


~Doctor Júpiter Arreola
 
We have already agreed to unitary government. Many of the fine countries of the old world have senates. Thus I have to vote against a unicameral legislature, some sort of an alternate power must be kept. I, however, vote in favor of single magistrate with executive powers, and in favor of an independent judiciary.
 
When did I ever say I didn't want democracy? A Monarchy can have a democratic system, look at the United Kingdom for example, they have a parliamentary democracy that works perfectly fine.

- Richard Scott
Then you wish to impose a celebrity to claim a useless throne? Sir, I see no point in that. The United Kingdom has a long history of monarchy, California does not. They would simply be a figure head that the people would waste taxes on.
 
A letter is sent to the Chairman of the Convention from Colonel Gowan:

Dear Mr. Chairman,

My men and I have recently recieved rather disturbing news. We have heard talk of a plot to impose a tyrannical monarchy on the good people of California. I can only hope that such news is nothing more than idle gossip, but, should these rumors prove to be true, my regiment will not support this despotic government, and we will oppose it to the extent of our duty and ability as men of the militia.

Signed,

Colonel George P. Gowan
 
Then you wish to impose a celebrity to claim a useless throne? Sir, I see no point in that. The United Kingdom has a long history of monarchy, California does not. They would simply be a figure head that the people would waste taxes on.

I seek to have a Monarch that would have powers akin to what a president would hold if California would become a republic. California does not have a history of republican government sir, so by your very logic we might as well not have one as we have no history or tradition with any form of government and thus all of them are equally bad.

- Richard Scott
 
It appears that several individuals here did not quite understand the nature of my proposal regarding a bicameral legislature. Such as it is, I shall attempt to provide illumination on the matter. Some have argued that what I have put forward is some form of psuedo-federalism, it is not. It is instead an issue of district magnitude.

While I argue that the lower house, the Congress of Deputies – El Congreso de los Diputados, should be structured such that its members are elected from a single at large electoral district for the entire nation using a system of proportional representation, preferably with an open list. The upper house, the Senate of California – El Senado de California, shall be elected from multiple districts, divided by county, population, or some other determinant.

As can be seen the issue herewithin lies not in some form psuedo-federalism, but district magnitude.

~ W.R. Reed
 
I would propose that all states have some federal parts. How else would a nation be possibly ministered?
 
As I have spent more time in thought on the issue of how two chambers would work, I've come to realize the largest barrier to success that a unicameral faces, and that's got to be language. We got a great many Spanish speakers, and we got just as many English speakers, now, I don't want to force either lingual group to do what they don't like, and as such I am supporting the following proposal- that is, that there will one chamber, The National Assembly, elected by Spanish speakers, with all members being primary speakers of Spanish, and The College of Delegates, elected by English speakers, with all members being primary speakers of English. What is needed to vote for either will be the ability to speak the language, and all laws passed by one will be considered temporarily binding until it is translated and voted upon by the other house. This will ensure that our government works effectively without disenfranchising either of our two largest lingual groups. I don't think this will separate the Californians from the Californios, instead it will help to preserve each group's unique culture without harming the representation of either.
 
William Clark was pleased that a bicameral congress seemed likely, but was worried now that the executive would be split.

"I fully agree with Mr. Reed's proposal for a bicameral congress based on population in one and locality in the other. It seems a fine system to represent the interests of the people, while protecting the spread out rural folk and frontiersmen from abuse by the organized urbanites. The idea of splitting congress based on language is counter-intuitive to the nation we are trying to build. We would found the government, not as a bridge and link between peoples with common interests and separate language, but as a sharp divide between those who spoke English and those who speak Spanish. We must move towards a united people, removing language as a separating factor, not embracing it.

On the matter of a divided executive, I must reaffirm my support for a single executive magistrate, since a divided magistrate will only divide the limited power the executive branch has and if the executives do not agree, then they become powerless, and the government is weakened considerable, which is a danger to our nation's continued independence."
 
"Congressmen, those whom have not elected to cast their votes on the two principle motions of the house, I bid them do so - for there is but an hour left to the voting period.

I remind those impatient delegates who would introduce and discuss entirely irrelevant matters to wait until the two motions at hand are solved. After this there shall be a period of free debate, where any delegate may introduce a motion.

As to Mr. Campo's proposal for a standing army, in particular, I hardly find such a matter to require Constitutional oversight, but rather such matters are better befitting legislation. Beyond the empowerment of the government to create such an army, it is not our business to establish a standing force."
 
Wishing to see to all outstanding business to concern him before retiring for the night to the apartments he was keeping in Los Angeles for the duration of the convention, Dr. Arreola rose to vote for a second time that evening:


Mr. Chairman,

In accordance with my belief, as previously expressed, that the separation of powers is, on the whole, a commendable doctrine worth enshrining within our constitution, I find myself also opposed to the other motion before the convention: that executive power is best vested in a single magistrate.
 
I must advance my own vote In favour of a single chief executive and for a Unicameral legislature.

-President Ide
 
thomaspaine.jpg

Name: Jack Marshall
Occupation: Plantation Owner, Real Estate salesman and Delegate to the Constitutional Convention
Date of Birth: January 1st, 1788

Biography: Jack was born into an extremely wealthy British family of industrialists. In his early years, he cared little for business, instead traveling throughout the world with his father's money and his own galleon. However, during a visit to Nigeria his ship of sail sank in the harbour, so Jack decided to board a Dutch ship headed for Houston from there. In Houston, he met a fellow businessman, a US citizen called Tim Pratt, with plans to start a plantation in California. Excited by the prospect of owning a plantation in the New Word, Jack sent word to his father requesting more money to invest in such a venture.

In 1722, Jack Marshall and Tim Pratt established a plantation near Phoenix, which proved very successful. Some ten years later, Jack bought his business partner's shares in the plantation and continued the enterprise on his own, additionally starting to trade in real estate after inheriting the remainder of his father's money. At this time, Marshall is one of the wealthiest men in California.

As a plantation owner and reportedly owner of the single highest amount of slaves in the nation, Jack Marshall is a staunch supporter of the Confederalist party. While, when given the choice, he would support a Federal nation rather than a Confederalist one, the right to hold slaves is very dear to him. He continues to fight for his right to hold slaves of any race, whether that be black, hispanic, asian or white.