Jump to content
270soft Forum
vcczar

New Historical President RP

Recommended Posts

Now keeping track of Vice Presidents as well. @WVProgressive @Sami @vcczar @Rodja @Lyly lp3.thumb.png.ec81dd294fd5e7742fab34adcd8355fa.png

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
28 minutes ago, Sami said:

(OOC: Great @Conservative Elector 2 but isn't the VP a Republican :o? Just for a check

Just a small change near in the party column :P

Congrats again!)

Yeah you are right. My bad, i will change this asap and thanks to everyone!!!

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
21 hours ago, Conservative Elector 2 said:

I created it quickly. 5ade3743815dd_Legend(1).thumb.png.2836d35eaebfde9258fa6e6de76a5a34.png

 

Seems like big states versus small states this election.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, Lyly said:

Seems like big states versus small states this election.

Yeah my intention was to group the states by their first vote. The second tie breaker was the second vote. Whether it was a person of the same party or not :D

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

@Illinois Moderate Very cool. 

@Conservative Elector 2 Good work. Don't forget to add Bunt's birth-death dates, which @WVProgressive posted.

@everyone 

I'll be able to continue this tomorrow, most likely. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
14 hours ago, vcczar said:

@Illinois Moderate Very cool. 

@Conservative Elector 2 Good work. Don't forget to add Bunt's birth-death dates, which @WVProgressive posted.

@everyone 

I'll be able to continue this tomorrow, most likely. 

Ok cool. Yeah included them already. I will post the list again when the P/VP has changed.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Lee Yates announces he will be running on the Republican platform for the next election, but as a moderate supporting an equal balance of State and Federal rights.

 

The full profile will be posted when the election is called.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The First Term of President Samuel Lewis (1797-1801) @Sami

State of the Union upon taking office:

National Strength: 3rd-tier country. The US now includes KY, VT, TN, with land cleared for settlement in future OH and IN. 

Military Strength: Weak, with no professional army and no navy. 

Foreign Affairs: Our ally France is now occasionally attacking our shipping in response to the Jay Treaty. Britain is strengthened in Europe, but they have removed their troops in our Territory in the West. They still impress our sailors into their navy however. We give tribute to the Barbary Pirates to protect our ships from pirate attacks. Relations with Spain are positive. 

Military engagements: Our mostly-militia based force is currently only defending against potential Indian attacks in the frontier. 

Economy: Weak-to-medium, but growing. We are still in debt, but we are on the pathway to paying it off. The outlook is hopeful, as revenue is coming in through tariff and taxation. Not much manufacturing and industrial production outside New England, which finally has at least one European-quality facility. Outlook for production growth is hopeful with Hamiltonian economic policies in place. The South is very agrarian, but profitable for the people. The agrarian sectors are critical of our current economic policies.

Trade: Protective Tariff allows for industrial growth in New England as well as revenue. The South opposes this tariff as it somewhat restricts their profits. International trade is growing because of the Jay Treaty with Britain. However, occasional attacks by the our so-called ally France on our shipping is putting slight dents in this trade. 

Budget: Small, and any revenue we gather is going to paying off the national debt. However, we were able to use the 80% of our budget that we were using on the late Indian War to help in paying off this debt. 

Social Harmony: Slight tension between Northern and Southern economies and world view. The South and West opposes the government's economic policies, but there is no threat of disunion at the moment. Some Northerners are upset about the Fugitive Slave Act as contradicts their Free State status. The Jay Treaty, which is wildly supported in New England, has increased tensions since the last election, most prominently in the South and West. . 

Immigration: Limited. Congress slightly increased the time to become a citizen. We have a lenient policy.  Mostly Protestant Scots-Irish, Protestant French, and a few Protestant Germans arrive, but they do not yet pose a danger to our more English-descent Protestant Culture. Most of these immigrants are moving to settle the West. If they move to a city, it is to NYC or Philadelphia.

Mood of the people: Positive and proud with mild grumblings in the South. and lands West of the Appalachians. 

Popularity of the Incumbent: Southerners and Westerners are wary of Lewis, but the North and Mid-Atlantic states are very enthusiastic. The Federalists and the Republicans are about equally popular, but for different reasons. The divide is mostly regional. 

Party Power: Federalists lead in the Senate, but they are no longer dominant. The US House and governorships are split between Federalists and Republicans. 

 

President Lewis's Events/Decisions for his first term:

1) Mr. President, wars overseas could spread, and the attacks on our shipping have not stopped. Additionally, we must end the tribute to the pirates at some point. Should we follow President Bunt's closing advice in establishing a Professional Army or Navy or both? As we saw in this last election, even Republican politicians are endorsing a national military force, counter to their party's general view on such nationalizing creations. If created, do we do one or both? If created, how large? How do we acquire the budget to even afford a professional army? 

2) Mr. President, will we pardon the Whiskey Rebellion participants as President Bunt intended to do? 

3) Mr. President, our diplomats to France have just informed me of a series situation. The French apparently are not seeking to prevent a possible war with us. The French minister, Talleyrand, had given his underlings expressed orders to not conduct business with us without a bribe. They won't even refrain from occasionally attacking out ships without said bribe. In short, they want tribute, similarly to the Barbary Pirates. The French diplomats argue that such bribes are common in diplomacy with the French. Do we pay the bribe and ensure peace? Do we refuse the bribe, and see what happens? Do we declare war? 

4) [This only takes effect if you do not accept the bribe in event #3] Mr. President, the French have clearly increased their attacks on our shipping, and it is greatly stifling our trade. The North and merchant cities want an all out war, but do we have the military and budget to do this? Should we engage in purely attacking their ships? Should we attempt to resolve this once again? What should we do? 

5) Mr. President, recent issues with France have posed a problem at home. Francophiles, all of them Republicans, are undermining our efforts to achieve peace or war with France. Some say French are migrating here only to stir up the crowds against us. As you can see, the newspapers are soundly Pro-French. One could hardly tell we were in America! Our party in Congress have passed several Alien and Sedition Acts for your signature. One grants you the power to imprison or deport any non-citizen deemed dangerous to our country. Another allows the same of anyone from a hostile nation. One criminalized false statements that are critical of the government. Lastly, there is a new immigration act, requiring 14 years of residency, as opposed to the lenient 5 years. Will you sign these acts favored by your party? 

6) [This takes place if you sign any of the Alien and Sedition Acts] Two anonymous authors, evidently leaders in the Republican Party, have drafted two resolutions, one from Virginia and one from Kentucky, supposedly. Both claim that the states have the power to declare acts unconstitutional, and that they have the right to nullify federal law. Do we even respond to these? If we respond, what do we say?

7) [This only takes effect if you do not engage in all out war] Mr. President, our diplomats to French have reached a treaty in principle with the French that could end the attack on our shipping, ensure our peace, and potentially formally end the often-ignored alliance with France. The French would agree to accept the end this entangling alliance, so long as we formally declare that our countries are at peace and that a sincere friendship is established in its place. Both countries will end attacks on each other's shipping. To ensure the protection of shipping and trade, both countries will award the other country "Most favored trade partner (this might upset Great Britain)." We recognize French fishing rights in the international waters just off our coast in Northern Massachusetts (current day Maine). Does this treaty meet your demands? 

8) [This only takes effect if you raise a tax to help pay for an army or infrastructure] Western Pennsylvania Farmers are once again on the offensive. This rebellion could exceed the numbers used in the Whiskey Rebellion. We've identified the leader as an auctioneer named John Fries. How do you respond to this new tax rebellion?

9) Mr. President, the Barbary Pirates have increased the required tribute for continued protection of our ships. They expect a prompt payment under the new terms or attacks on our ships will be renewed. Do we continue to pay the tribute or do we risk war? [Note: Even if you establish a professional navy, ships take years to build]

10) Mr. President, your supporters expect you to fulfill your promise of modernization. However, most Southern and Western Republicans, and some in the North, oppose any federal funded infrastructure, deeming it unconstitutional. Some say they will support it only if an amendment is passed that allows it first. The Northern and Mid-Atlantic Federalists are soundly on board. Southern Federalists are split. How should the bill be crafted in a way that can guarantee the most support? Where do we get the funding for this? How much improvement do we make? Where will the improvements take place? Etc. etc. etc. We cannot pass it on Northern votes alone. Even if it passes, tension is likely to increase. 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

(For a French player you gave me a lot of argues with France xD)

Presidential Office: @vcczar

Time of sufferance in front of the decisions

First part of the speech in Congress

Quote

1) Mr. President, wars overseas could spread, and the attacks on our shipping have not stopped. Additionally, we must end the tribute to the pirates at some point. Should we follow President Bunt's closing advice in establishing a Professional Army or Navy or both? As we saw in this last election, even Republican politicians are endorsing a national military force, counter to their party's general view on such nationalizing creations. If created, do we do one or both? If created, how large? How do we acquire the budget to even afford a professional army? 

We will invest first in a professionnel army for the next 4 years.

This is essential, Britain can still uses their forces on our soil even if they're focused on Europe.

I want at least an army of 65 to 70 000 professionnal men, on 4 years. 

Second we will also need to devellop some treaties with Spain to fight piracy and with others nations.

Then the other budget for a navy will serve for industrialization and researchs.

Quote

2) Mr. President, will we pardon the Whiskey Rebellion participants as President Bunt intended to do? 

We do, and I want that this been named in the honor of President Bunt.

Quote

3) Mr. President, our diplomats to France have just informed me of a series situation. The French apparently are not seeking to prevent a possible war with us. The French minister, Talleyrand, had given his underlings expressed orders to not conduct business with us without a bribe. They won't even refrain from occasionally attacking out ships without said bribe. In short, they want tribute, similarly to the Barbary Pirates. The French diplomats argue that such bribes are common in diplomacy with the French. Do we pay the bribe and ensure peace? Do we refuse the bribe, and see what happens? Do we declare war? 

( ANSWER TO 3 AND 4)

We won't pay this.

Let's return the table.

France can have a big army, their fleet suffered the revolution, they lost a lot of good officers.

That they can throw 450 to 500 000 men in the face of their neighbors doesn't threatens us at 4000 miles of it.

If France threatens us, we will sign an alliance with the British in exchange of more lands to the West.

If France agrees to discuss more "normal" proposals like rediscussing some points which disturbs them AND STOP to attack our ships in return, we will grant offers to them.

You can send this letter to Talleyrand.

Résumé: We can be close of Great Britain or we can find agreements and stay neutral, it is up to you to find news allies, but America won't be the bank of the French.

-No bribe, but a third way is possible.

And let's remind them that they can not invade us, let's also play on their lack of allies in Europe without insulting them.

His diplomatic skills in France never been so usefull

Quote

 

Votre Excellence Talleyrand

Nous avons pris en note de votre courrier. cependant il faut être réaliste, nous savons que vous êtes réaliste, aussi vous savez que notre pays est un ancien allié.

Nous ne pensons pas que couler des vaisseaux est un signe d'alliance, aussi vous savez que réalistiquement vous ne pouvez pas attaquer les Etats Unis compte tenu de vos problémes avec la Royal Navy,

Compte tenu des circonstances, je vous offre la chose suivante:

-Un accord Franco-Américain sur autre chose que des pots de vins ou autre taxe de la part de la France.

-Une entente commerciale permettant à nos deux pays de prospérer.

J'ose continuer de croire et de penser que nous ne sommes pas devenus, et ne serons jamais des ennemis.

Avec mes éminents respects.

Samuel Lewis Junior.

President des Etats Unis d'Amérique.

Quote

5) Mr. President, recent issues with France have posed a problem at home. Francophiles, all of them Republicans, are undermining our efforts to achieve peace or war with France. Some say French are migrating here only to stir up the crowds against us. As you can see, the newspapers are soundly Pro-French. One could hardly tell we were in America! Our party in Congress have passed several Alien and Sedition Acts for your signature. One grants you the power to imprison or deport any non-citizen deemed dangerous to our country. Another allows the same of anyone from a hostile nation. One criminalized false statements that are critical of the government. Lastly, there is a new immigration act, requiring 14 years of residency, as opposed to the lenient 5 years. Will you sign these acts favored by your party? 

President Lewis' speech in Congress:

On the 4 laws

I accept to sign and pass the following measures:

-The bill which grants me the power to imprison or deport any non-citizen deemed dangerous to our country.

And 

-The bill which allows me to do the same for everybody coming from a hostile nation.

However, these are just LIMITED measures to protect our country, I want that the Supreme Court has the power to void any decisions that should be regarded as anti-liberty.

That's also because I'm a defendor of freedom THAT I STRONGLY OPPOSE the criminalization of statements against the government AS WELL AS the anti-immigration bill.

Let's not throw bullets through our feets.

My party asks to much but I contented it on that.

Quote

6) [This takes place if you sign any of the Alien and Sedition Acts] Two anonymous authors, evidently leaders in the Republican Party, have drafted two resolutions, one from Virginia and one from Kentucky, supposedly. Both claim that the states have the power to declare acts unconstitutional, and that they have the right to nullify federal law. Do we even respond to these? If we respond, what do we say?

The union shall prevail and I'm ready to be the candidate of the union against them

The federal union won't and will never accept that 2 states decide upon the others. It's my duty as President to refuse.

So let's not answer, let's the Supreme Court (which is Federalist thanks to the Senate) send a ruling, and let's claim that the Supreme Court well explained why it was umpossible.

Technically I will just follow the Supreme Court's ruling.

Quote

7) [This only takes effect if you do not engage in all out war] Mr. President, our diplomats to French have reached a treaty in principle with the French that could end the attack on our shipping, ensure our peace, and potentially formally end the often-ignored alliance with France. The French would agree to accept the end this entangling alliance, so long as we formally declare that our countries are at peace and that a sincere friendship is established in its place. Both countries will end attacks on each other's shipping. To ensure the protection of shipping and trade, both countries will award the other country "Most favored trade partner (this might upset Great Britain)." We recognize French fishing rights in the international waters just off our coast in Northern Massachusetts (current day Maine). Does this treaty meet your demands? 

I accept, it's good for everybody and

We will be able to say to the British that we did not touch to our own relationships like the Jay Treaty contrary to my previous position for accomodating them.

Quote

8) [This only takes effect if you raise a tax to help pay for an army or infrastructure] Western Pennsylvania Farmers are once again on the offensive. This rebellion could exceed the numbers used in the Whiskey Rebellion. We've identified the leader as an auctioneer named John Fries. How do you respond to this new tax rebellion?

Send negotiators to tell that the American government is open to discuss, but that violence won't be tolerated, President Bunt and I forgave them one time, but the federal army with the support of both parties will be sent in they continue to use violence rather than dialogue.

Politically we can discuss, with the pounder, there is no dialog.

Do they want to loose families for a battle they risk to loose, or do they want to discuss and make gains without blood? It's up to them, I do not think so many will be okay for risking their lives for nothing while they can gain things by beeing peacefull.

And at least this will reduce the expansion of the movement, even if we have to go to war, we have to divide them first or we will never be at the end of this story.

Quote

9) Mr. President, the Barbary Pirates have increased the required tribute for continued protection of our ships. They expect a prompt payment under the new terms or attacks on our ships will be renewed. Do we continue to pay the tribute or do we risk war? [Note: Even if you establish a professional navy, ships take years to build]

We continue as long as they do not increase and untill we have a navy.

Quote

10) Mr. President, your supporters expect you to fulfill your promise of modernization. However, most Southern and Western Republicans, and some in the North, oppose any federal funded infrastructure, deeming it unconstitutional. Some say they will support it only if an amendment is passed that allows it first. The Northern and Mid-Atlantic Federalists are soundly on board. Southern Federalists are split. How should the bill be crafted in a way that can guarantee the most support? Where do we get the funding for this? How much improvement do we make? Where will the improvements take place? Etc. etc. etc. We cannot pass it on Northern votes alone. Even if it passes, tension is likely to increase. 

Lewis' speech in the State of the Unions:

Dear members of both houses.

My project has to be national.

This plan is about innovation, is about something that researchers are thinking about these last months, it's called "steam motor", and if we arrive to control this system we will be able to use it, not only in transports, but also in our OWN industry!

And hence, starts "rail" roads  for quick transports and devellop steam system in our industry.

I accept the Constitutionnal amendment, but I want to be clear, if we are not modernized, we are dead.

So let's me explain how we will deliver a national plan of modernization.

This plan could last a century, it's a year-by year system on an undetermined end which will be invested every year on the american soil.

First about how we fund it:

3 ways.

=> A part of taxs, every year on a long term, a part of taxs will always be dedicated to that, I plan at least 30 to 50%, it does not mean we will raise taxs, it means that a part will be dedicated for modernization

=> A part of government borrows on the same term, this part will be reduced and will take place essentially during the years where our government has to focus on something else

=> A part of donations that we will increase by an interesting system:

"The concession", we grant them the costs of constructions of the modernization made, like transportation national service and in exchange, we grant them the temporary property of it, under our watch as "public warden", they will hence, pay back their investments.

And with a proportionnal system of concessions, we will reduce our costs (it's like it that many countries made to build a national railroad essentially France which has one of the best national railroad system did that during the 19th century)

With this current system, we won't have the true necessity to raise tax, we take into account all political differences there.

After, how we will make this works?

That's easy!

50% will be implemented in North

50% will be implement in South

The Kentucky line will be the territorial division.

Everybody will make gains with these modernizations.

For agricultors of the South=> Time of transports helps to exports more and more quickly, it means more capacities to devellop agriculture.

For North => A quicker industry that can rival with Europe and ways to asks more industrial 1st ressources from the mines in Virginia, Kentucky and South.

For West => More means to immigrate, I essentially thinks to the plains of Ohio and Indiana and for those who live in Tennessee, and our western lands, have greater links with the towns and the rest of the eastern country.

To be sincere, this modernization will help the creation of jobs, hence it will help our immigration, it will make us richer, so that we can pay an army and a navy, it will improve our own emigration to West and also it will economically benefit our own population growth, our own economic devellopment and our own independence.

If we truly want to be independent, we have to pass that reform.

It's not for my political career, it's for the independence of the United States of America, it's for our common benefit independently of where we are, all depends of one thing, transportation innovation.

Our revolution is now up to US.

I made the maximum to not raise taxs, to accomodate every parts of the country, to make clear that this reform is necessary...let's hope it pass, that they all realized the gains they would all make.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

((My precious Constitutional limitations!))

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

@Sami Pres. Lewis's first term continued:

1. (Regarding Army and Navy) Mr. President, a military of that size 60,000 to 70,000 would require that we pass a national draft, which is certainly to be opposed by all Republicans, and some Federalists. At best, we can all for volunteers, but we also have to pay them. In fact, you have not made it clear how we will afford a professional army or navy. We will either have to raise the tariff to a higher protectionist level, create a variety of new taxes, and/or raise the current tax. I think by doing a combination of this, we can probably hold a permanent professional army of 10,000 men, who are fed, clothed, and trained year round. In an emergency, we can call militia for another 50,000 of more troops; although, they won't be professional. Currently, we have about 2,000 active, semi-professional (aging Rev War vets) military guarding our frontier. In regards to the navy, we also need money to build ships. We can expect about six warships by the end of your term if we moderately raise the tariff (on top of the risen tariff to support the army), one new tax, and a slight raise to the current taxes. It is highly possibly that we can only either increase the navy or support a 10,000 man professional army. Our economy is not yet booming, so the current tariff only generates so much revenue. 

2. (Regarding Fries Rebellion) The Fries Rebellion leaders have listened to your negotiators. They will agree to return home, and pay the windows and carriage tax, so long as you promise not to create any new taxes during your term. Basically, status quo. This would include any taxes for a army, navy, or infrastructure. The ringleaders seem to know of your agenda and are trying to tie your hands. You must proceed delicately, considering these tax rebels represent potential tax rebels throughout the country. We should probably be diplomatic, using some sort of finesse. We also have to assert the power of our government. How do we accomplish this? 

3. (Regarding infrastructure) Mr. President, while your speech on infrastructure has roused the Federalists to applause, and convinced a minority of Republicans, economically-minded politicians throughout the country are still perplexed as to how this national program can be afforded. Our army used to guard the frontiers and confront the Fries Rebellion composes about 40% of our budget. 20% of this goes to other governmental costs. 20% of this goes to paying off our national debt. 10% goes to Rev War pensions. Then we have 10% of the budget to help in increasing our army, our navy, or infrastructure. If the Rebellion escalates, we will need this 10% to help in paying for a militia, unless the states foot the bill. We may need to greatly scale down and localize this infrastructure plan, back out of federally-funding it, and promote state-only involvement or private donation involvement. Your speech has roused many, but it may not be practical at this time, at least at a national level. We should scale it back and let the industry of our country and modernization keep pace with one another, since the former generates income via tariff to afford the latter. 

No one ever said being president was easy, Mr. President. This situation could potentially blow up many different ways, only absolute skill can solve this conundrum. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

General George Winston declares he will run for President as a Federalist in the next election, blasting President Lewis as not being able to carry out the promises he had made to the country and his supporters.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

1. (Regarding Army and Navy) Mr. President, a military of that size 60,000 to 70,000 would require that we pass a national draft, which is certainly to be opposed by all Republicans, and some Federalists. At best, we can all for volunteers, but we also have to pay them. In fact, you have not made it clear how we will afford a professional army or navy. We will either have to raise the tariff to a higher protectionist level, create a variety of new taxes, and/or raise the current tax. I think by doing a combination of this, we can probably hold a permanent professional army of 10,000 men, who are fed, clothed, and trained year round. In an emergency, we can call militia for another 50,000 of more troops; although, they won't be professional. Currently, we have about 2,000 active, semi-professional (aging Rev War vets) military guarding our frontier. In regards to the navy, we also need money to build ships. We can expect about six warships by the end of your term if we moderately raise the tariff (on top of the risen tariff to support the army), one new tax, and a slight raise to the current taxes. It is highly possibly that we can only either increase the navy or support a 10,000 man professional army. Our economy is not yet booming, so the current tariff only generates so much revenue. 

I accept the proposal made, but only because the Republicans will attack me on the navy if I do not devellop it for 1800.

Sincerely, I do not estimate a navy as the most topic in which depends.

However I would like that our Congress pass a "clarity bill" which will force us to communicate on what we will do.

Quote

2. (Regarding Fries Rebellion) The Fries Rebellion leaders have listened to your negotiators. They will agree to return home, and pay the windows and carriage tax, so long as you promise not to create any new taxes during your term. Basically, status quo. This would include any taxes for a army, navy, or infrastructure. The ringleaders seem to know of your agenda and are trying to tie your hands. You must proceed delicately, considering these tax rebels represent potential tax rebels throughout the country. We should probably be diplomatic, using some sort of finesse. We also have to assert the power of our government. How do we accomplish this? 

We agree to pass a bill that will clarify our budget and make a status quo for everybody on taxs for the next years.

And God, my industrial plan does not need so much money with private investments.

However I am ready that the government concedes on no raising taxs, I also want to tell them that our party will accept some candidacies among our ranks and that they will be able even to suggest me some "members of my cabinet" from their movement.

Give them some concessions and political support and they will be happy.

With the clarify law, the Congress will have to inform the whole people about a "planification expense plan" we will do, hence they won't feel betrayed.

And after all, remind yourself the ******* 40% of our budget this rebellion costs, if we stop this rebellion we do not need news taxs, WE LITTERALY HAVE 40% OF THE BUDGET FREE FOR OTHERS INVESTMENTS!

And by opening my door to them, I keeps news electors from keys states.

Quote

3. (Regarding infrastructure) Mr. President, while your speech on infrastructure has roused the Federalists to applause, and convinced a minority of Republicans, economically-minded politicians throughout the country are still perplexed as to how this national program can be afforded. Our army used to guard the frontiers and confront the Fries Rebellion composes about 40% of our budget. 20% of this goes to other governmental costs. 20% of this goes to paying off our national debt. 10% goes to Rev War pensions. Then we have 10% of the budget to help in increasing our army, our navy, or infrastructure. If the Rebellion escalates, we will need this 10% to help in paying for a militia, unless the states foot the bill. We may need to greatly scale down and localize this infrastructure plan, back out of federally-funding it, and promote state-only involvement or private donation involvement. Your speech has roused many, but it may not be practical at this time, at least at a national level. We should scale it back and let the industry of our country and modernization keep pace with one another, since the former generates income via tariff to afford the latter. 

Well, I accept to reduce my plan to local places, but let's dispatch these in keys places of South and North, that both parts of our country stay happy of the small changes.

Let's involve the private sector and make them the privileged partner of our country.

About the rebellion if they accept my small concessions we will be able to transfer the 40% of our budget to others places such as the navy, army and infrastructures devellopment.

I am for an equal part for each, hence our opposition won't be able to tell that we did not concede to this will for a navy and military devellopment without renouncing at all to our industry.

 

Then about the candidacy of the General

Well, I'm fulfilling the promise to promote year by year an economic modernization of this Country, and I assume to be there first for that.

If the General thinks that I'm not doing this, I hope he, at least, follows the works of this Congress and will realize what we're currently doing, it's important when someone wants to be President.

Joke launched to the Congress.

Then a private note to the party:

We are no longer dominant, the economic result of my 4 years and the rebellion negotiations will play a lot. The federalists have unanimously to back me.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The President originally requests a military build up of so many troops that we would require a draft, then simultaneously he promises the rebels that he would not increase taxes on the citizens, but he raises taxes anyways to build a navy. The President is flip-flopping constantly and as a party we must rally around somebody who stays consistent.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Presidential answers:

I'm not flip flopping

But if we have a large reduction of our expense for the current risk of rebellion, we've more money to devellop our fleet than without.

The general should learn that raising taxs is not the only way to get money for investment, reducing expenses also works.

And if I have to be the President of the respect of the large movement against "too much taxs" I will be!

Can I put a question to our whole nation:

Didn't we made the revolution because some central country was taxing us too much?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Not only do I want lower taxes, I would support an exemption to the tariffs for natural resources and a financial reward for new inventions. I was just pointing out the inefficiencies of the President's plans. Instead of raising a large military, we should maintain a smaller, better trained force, just like we had when we defeated the Redcoats.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Presidential third answer:

Absolutely general! And that's why we will have a shorter army than expected but greater than in the past for the last years. 

Our Congress and parties are asking for it, President Bunt was asking and I will follow them.

if you agree with the idea of limitating our current army that's excellent, we're majoritary on the same page.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Lewis presidency continued: @Sami

1) The Federalist-controlled Congress wishes you to sign a bill that moderately increases the tariff and taxes, but does not include new taxation. This will compromise to build a 5,000-man professional army and allow for the construction of 3 warships. However, singing this would upset the farmers in rebellion. 

2) The Fries Rebellion leaders say they will back down if you do not sign the Professional Army and Navy Act. Should we let them run the government? Or is peace worth it? 

3) An Infrastructure Bill is being p;aced on hold by your own party until the rebellion has ended. However, enthusiasts in Boston, New York, Philadelphia, and Baltimore are investing in lighthouse and harbors improvements. Charleston ruling families are investing in a fort and a small canal. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, vcczar said:

Lewis presidency continued: @Sami

1) The Federalist-controlled Congress wishes you to sign a bill that moderately increases the tariff and taxes, but does not include new taxation. This will compromise to build a 5,000-man professional army and allow for the construction of 3 warships. However, singing this would upset the farmers in rebellion. 

2) The Fries Rebellion leaders say they will back down if you do not sign the Professional Army and Navy Act. Should we let them run the government? Or is peace worth it? 

3) An Infrastructure Bill is being p;aced on hold by your own party until the rebellion has ended. However, enthusiasts in Boston, New York, Philadelphia, and Baltimore are investing in lighthouse and harbors improvements. Charleston ruling families are investing in a fort and a small canal. 

Hard decision:

Could the leaders accept the following thing?

This first bill for Army and navy pass, let's argument that it's the last and exceptionnal effort for the country.

In exchange: The Congress adopts a national law of freezing taxation codes for the next 4 years.

No difficulty for making adopting it.

Let's pass the 1st little request on the national need for an army and a navy, the rebels could concede on it, but with a national law which will freeze current taxs in % untill 1801 it can be a great thing for the unity of the country.

Both concessions, them accept this small 1st law of the Federalist, in exchange the Congress freezes taxs until the end of my term after this.

And if they accept, the infrastructure bill will be able to pass. @vcczar

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Samuel Lewis's First Term Results 1797-1801:
Lewis's term did not see an increase in the size of the country. Economically, the country began to natural industrialize and trade increased through the Jay Treaty signed during Bunt's term. Congress advocated taxation to spur more growth, but Lewis was hesitant as a new tax rebellion consumed his entire term. Rather than enrage the rebels further, Lewis attempted to compromise, but the process took up the entire term. Ultimately, a minimal professional army and navy was established with a slight increase in tariff and taxation, but the bill freezes any future taxation for four years. Some saw this action as a benevolent compromise, some saw this as the actions of a weak executive, paralyzed by rebel forces. As Lewis's term ends, the rebels have not yet had the chance to react to this compromise. As such, Lewis's watered-down infrastructure bill is held up in Congress, blocking one of Lewis's campaign promise. Some see Lewis's presidency as one that had high ideals and goals, but were not exactly in tune with the economic and social tensions of the nation at the time. To Lewis's credit, he cleverly secured peace with France, ensuring another "Most Favored Trade Partner," (although, tensions with Britain now increase) and formally unshackling us from an unhealthy alliance. Lewis also continued Bunt's policy of paying tribute to the pirates, but notes that it will end once a navy is constructed. 
 
State of the Union Following Lewis's Decisions

National Strength: 3rd-tier country. The US now includes KY, VT, TN, with land cleared for settlement in future OH and IN. 

Military Strength: Weak, a professional army of 5,000 mean and a professional navy of 3 ships have been established, giving us some hope for the future, should be increase these numbers. 

Foreign Affairs: The British are still unofficially impressing our sailors into their navy, and tensions have increased now that we have given France, "Most Favored Trading Partner," a title which Britain now must share with France. To the credit of Britain, they have refrained from retaliating against us for now, allowing profitable trade to sail to both shores. The French have now stopped attacking our ships, and any threat from the French has gone as they turn their eyes back on Europe. We still give tribute to the Barbary Pirates to protect our ships from pirate attacks. Relations with Spain, a decaying empire, are positive. 

Military engagements: Our mostly-militia based force is currently defending against a tax rebellion in Pennsylvania, and a few militia men guard against potential Indian attacks in the frontier. A professional army is on its way to Pennsylvania. 

Economy: Weak-to-medium, but growing. We are still in debt, but we are on the pathway to paying it off. The outlook is hopeful, as revenue is coming in through tariff and taxation. Not much manufacturing and industrial production outside New England, which finally has at least three European-quality facility. Outlook for production growth is hopeful with Hamiltonian economic policies in place. The South is very agrarian, but profitable for the people. The agrarian sectors are critical of our current economic policies.

Trade: Protective Tariff allows for industrial growth in New England as well as revenue. The South opposes this tariff as it somewhat restricts their profits. International trade has grown because of the Jay Treaty with Britain and because of the recent Peace Treaty with France. About 80% of our international trade is via Britain, 10% is via France, and 10% via the rest of Europe. The Pirates are being paid tribute, so we are free from attacks. 

Budget: Small, and most revenue we gather is going to paying off the national debt. About 60% of our budget is going to military upkeep and creation and to protect the boarders and depend against the tax rebels. 20% is going to paying off the national debt. 20% is going to government upkeep. We have almost nothing for expansion at the moment, but we are hopeful that the trade and tariffs will make this possible within another term or two. 

Social Harmony: Federal taxation has caused a second rebellion in Pennsylvania, and there is some fear this could expand. Slight tension between Northern and Southern economies and world view. The South and West opposes the government's economic policies, but there is no threat of disunion at the moment. Some Northerners are upset about the Fugitive Slave Act as contradicts their Free State status. The Jay Treaty, which is wildly supported in New England, has increased tensions, most prominently in the South and West. The Sedition Acts signed by Lewis have emboldened Republicans, but they were relieved he did not sign all of the acts. 

Immigration: Limited. Congress slightly increased the time to become a citizen. We have a lenient policy.  Mostly Protestant Scots-Irish, Protestant French, and a few Protestant Germans arrive, but they do not yet pose a danger to our more English-descent Protestant Culture. Most of these immigrants are moving to settle the West. If they move to a city, it is to NYC or Philadelphia. Lewis defied his party by refusing to sign a restrictive immigration act. 

Mood of the people: Mostly positive and proud with mild grumblings in the South. and lands West of the Appalachians. 

Popularity of the Incumbent: Moderate, with a 50% chance of reelection. Independents have mostly been pleased with Lewis, for defying his party by avoiding war with France and by refusing to sign an immigration bill. His own party is critical of Lewis for these reasons, including his hesitancy to use force on the Tax Rebels. Many Federalists, while supporting his campaign promises, believed that Lewis had few ideas on how to make these promises practical. Republicans have earned some respect for Lewis, but are using the tax rebellion as fuel to make Lewis a one-term president. Despite a likely challenge from both his party and the other party, Lewis has a shot at gaining another term, where he might be able to fulfill his promises. 

Party Power: Federalists lead in the Senate, but they are not dominant. The US House is split. Governorships are now overwhelmingly Republican, except in New England

@WVProgressive @Reagan04 @Sami @Kingthero @vcczar @Rodja @Conservative Elector 2 @LokiLoki22 @Lyly @TheMiddlePolitical

@Illinois Moderate

Will Federalist Samuel Lewis run for the presidency for a 2nd term? Who will aim to run for the president/vice presidency? [Please create a first and last name for your character, a home state, their office, their party (Fed or Rep), and some sort of response to Lewis's presidency that will allow us to see your potential platform. You have 24 hours to make a candidate. Please quote this entire message when responding to this or your nomination will not count.]

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, vcczar said:
Samuel Lewis's First Term Results 1797-1801:
Lewis's term did not see an increase in the size of the country. Economically, the country began to natural industrialize and trade increased through the Jay Treaty signed during Bunt's term. Congress advocated taxation to spur more growth, but Lewis was hesitant as a new tax rebellion consumed his entire term. Rather than enrage the rebels further, Lewis attempted to compromise, but the process took up the entire term. Ultimately, a minimal professional army and navy was established with a slight increase in tariff and taxation, but the bill freezes any future taxation for four years. Some saw this action as a benevolent compromise, some saw this as the actions of a weak executive, paralyzed by rebel forces. As Lewis's term ends, the rebels have not yet had the chance to react to this compromise. As such, Lewis's watered-down infrastructure bill is held up in Congress, blocking one of Lewis's campaign promise. Some see Lewis's presidency as one that had high ideals and goals, but were not exactly in tune with the economic and social tensions of the nation at the time. To Lewis's credit, he cleverly secured peace with France, ensuring another "Most Favored Trade Partner," (although, tensions with Britain now increase) and formally unshackling us from an unhealthy alliance. Lewis also continued Bunt's policy of paying tribute to the pirates, but notes that it will end once a navy is constructed. 
 
State of the Union Following Lewis's Decisions

National Strength: 3rd-tier country. The US now includes KY, VT, TN, with land cleared for settlement in future OH and IN. 

Military Strength: Weak, a professional army of 5,000 mean and a professional navy of 3 ships have been established, giving us some hope for the future, should be increase these numbers. 

Foreign Affairs: The British are still unofficially impressing our sailors into their navy, and tensions have increased now that we have given France, "Most Favored Trading Partner," a title which Britain now must share with France. To the credit of Britain, they have refrained from retaliating against us for now, allowing profitable trade to sail to both shores. The French have now stopped attacking our ships, and any threat from the French has gone as they turn their eyes back on Europe. We still give tribute to the Barbary Pirates to protect our ships from pirate attacks. Relations with Spain, a decaying empire, are positive. 

Military engagements: Our mostly-militia based force is currently defending against a tax rebellion in Pennsylvania, and a few militia men guard against potential Indian attacks in the frontier. A professional army is on its way to Pennsylvania. 

Economy: Weak-to-medium, but growing. We are still in debt, but we are on the pathway to paying it off. The outlook is hopeful, as revenue is coming in through tariff and taxation. Not much manufacturing and industrial production outside New England, which finally has at least three European-quality facility. Outlook for production growth is hopeful with Hamiltonian economic policies in place. The South is very agrarian, but profitable for the people. The agrarian sectors are critical of our current economic policies.

Trade: Protective Tariff allows for industrial growth in New England as well as revenue. The South opposes this tariff as it somewhat restricts their profits. International trade has grown because of the Jay Treaty with Britain and because of the recent Peace Treaty with France. About 80% of our international trade is via Britain, 10% is via France, and 10% via the rest of Europe. The Pirates are being paid tribute, so we are free from attacks. 

Budget: Small, and most revenue we gather is going to paying off the national debt. About 60% of our budget is going to military upkeep and creation and to protect the boarders and depend against the tax rebels. 20% is going to paying off the national debt. 20% is going to government upkeep. We have almost nothing for expansion at the moment, but we are hopeful that the trade and tariffs will make this possible within another term or two. 

Social Harmony: Federal taxation has caused a second rebellion in Pennsylvania, and there is some fear this could expand. Slight tension between Northern and Southern economies and world view. The South and West opposes the government's economic policies, but there is no threat of disunion at the moment. Some Northerners are upset about the Fugitive Slave Act as contradicts their Free State status. The Jay Treaty, which is wildly supported in New England, has increased tensions, most prominently in the South and West. The Sedition Acts signed by Lewis have emboldened Republicans, but they were relieved he did not sign all of the acts. 

Immigration: Limited. Congress slightly increased the time to become a citizen. We have a lenient policy.  Mostly Protestant Scots-Irish, Protestant French, and a few Protestant Germans arrive, but they do not yet pose a danger to our more English-descent Protestant Culture. Most of these immigrants are moving to settle the West. If they move to a city, it is to NYC or Philadelphia. Lewis defied his party by refusing to sign a restrictive immigration act. 

Mood of the people: Mostly positive and proud with mild grumblings in the South. and lands West of the Appalachians. 

Popularity of the Incumbent: Moderate, with a 50% chance of reelection. Independents have mostly been pleased with Lewis, for defying his party by avoiding war with France and by refusing to sign an immigration bill. His own party is critical of Lewis for these reasons, including his hesitancy to use force on the Tax Rebels. Many Federalists, while supporting his campaign promises, believed that Lewis had few ideas on how to make these promises practical. Republicans have earned some respect for Lewis, but are using the tax rebellion as fuel to make Lewis a one-term president. Despite a likely challenge from both his party and the other party, Lewis has a shot at gaining another term, where he might be able to fulfill his promises. 

Party Power: Federalists lead in the Senate, but they are not dominant. The US House is split. Governorships are now overwhelmingly Republican, except in New England

@WVProgressive @Reagan04 @Sami @Kingthero @vcczar @Rodja @Conservative Elector 2 @LokiLoki22 @Lyly @TheMiddlePolitical

@Illinois Moderate

Will Federalist Samuel Lewis run for the presidency for a 2nd term? Who will aim to run for the president/vice presidency? [Please create a first and last name for your character, a home state, their office, their party (Fed or Rep), and some sort of response to Lewis's presidency that will allow us to see your potential platform. You have 24 hours to make a candidate. Please quote this entire message when responding to this or your nomination will not count.]

 
  •  

Associate Justice Blount will not run in a third attempt to win the White House instead he will focusing on his work on the bench. He is endorsing his close friend the aspiring Governor of Virginia to carry on the Republican revolution.

Name: Herman Jefferson Bigelow (born 1760)

State: VA

Political Party: Republican

Current Profession: Governor of Virginia

Platform:

States should decide certain issues through referendums, for example the people of territories should decide if they are admitted as a free or slave state , no more oppression from Washington

lowering taxes, especially establishing no new taxes

continue to establish a strong Army and Navy and immediately stop paying tribute to the Barbary Pirates, threatening to attack them after we got an army, do so if they attack us, trying to build an alliance with our positive partner Spain, a country which has the navy to defeat the pirates

having an influential foreign policy - building good relations with Europe especially with France and Great Britain, but oppose the Jay Treaty, opposing a tariff

expanding the United States, admit more states, encourage immigration to get more settlers into the West.

 

In Richmond, VA Gov. Bigelow is announcing a run for the Republican nomination to become President.

"Today is a good day for the future of America and its people. After my good and honorable friend Justice Blount has declined to run for the White House once again and gave me his full support to do so, I am announcing to run for the Republican nomination. I am promising to you my friends, that we will finally get the Republican Revolution the country desperately needs. If elected I promise you that we will get rid of many things the lawmakers including our past two presidents in Washington have dictated upon us. The Alien and Sedition acts were unconstitutional and proved to be a violation of States' Rights. We will not establishing any new taxes and we will strongly consider to lower those we are already suffering from. I promise you that we will remain peaceful with any European power and that we will continue to make positive alliances with the countries in Europe. But we will also continue to rapidly get a strong and capable army and navy in order to have the possibility to defend our people in a qualitative way. We also strongly encourage to stop paying any tribute to the Barbary states as soon as possible. We need our money for our own people and interests and not for paying to any pirates. We will never ever again bow to any foreign leaders. In order to have the possibility to fight them successfully if they start to attack us afterwards, we will need to make an alliance with Spain for the time we have not an own strong navy. But I promise you if you are going to elect me to the highest office we will not need such an alliance for a long time, because we will start to be capable to fight on our own. Additionally I propose to get rid of both the Jay Treaty and any tariff, since both things are hurting our economy severely. I also strongly encourage to expand the United States westwards and to get more settlers into the West. If the time is allowing it we will admit more states to the Union since it should be the President's goal to expand the United States as it is the greatest nation on Earth. Thank you my friends and God bless America!"

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

×