Richmond Peace Conference

January Peace Conference in Richmond, Virginia


You are not connected. Please login or register

Discussion

Go to page : Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8  Next

Go down  Message [Page 6 of 8]

126 Re: Discussion on Sun Dec 06, 2009 7:58 pm

Thomas Powell wrote:Mr. Bullock rises to speak.

"I have been directed by the Governor to point to the following question. How does the government intend to deal with individuals who left their constitutional offices for offices that do not exist. We also must look into if those offices attempted any foreign policy which contradicts those policies of the President. Pennsylvania is more then willing to compromise.. but not to forgive and forget."

OOC: The telegraph excuse was because I am cooking dinner for the family.. so ill be in and out

We do not agree with the Gentleman that such offices do not exist, and if we do reconcile we will not agree to anything that punishes individuals who felt their actions were justified as we most certainly do.

View user profile

127 Re: Discussion on Sun Dec 06, 2009 8:00 pm

I would note to the gentlemen from Pennsylvania that because the US does not recognize the SS, they have not actually resigned their seats. The south would be required to attend for a Quorum anyhow.

View user profile

128 Re: Discussion on Sun Dec 06, 2009 8:00 pm

Actually, I would very much suggest that "forgive and forget" be the operative phrase here. It's in our best interests to move forward from here.

View user profile http://peaceconf.forumotion.com

129 Re: Discussion on Sun Dec 06, 2009 8:02 pm

Furthermore,

I would ask if the Gentleman believes Southerners should be punished for voluntarily leaving a union, does he support punishments for Governors who open recruiting stations in other states to bolster militias aimed at antagonizing and fighting the southern brethren?

View user profile

130 Re: Discussion on Sun Dec 06, 2009 8:03 pm

Virginia wrote:Actually, I would very much suggest that "forgive and forget" be the operative phrase here. It's in our best interests to move forward from here.

Hear hear. If the South is willing to compromise and return to the Union, we ought to be able to put this nastiness behind us.

View user profile

131 Re: Discussion on Sun Dec 06, 2009 8:05 pm

Oregon wrote:
Virginia wrote:Actually, I would very much suggest that "forgive and forget" be the operative phrase here. It's in our best interests to move forward from here.

Hear hear. If the South is willing to compromise and return to the Union, we ought to be able to put this nastiness behind us.

I am glad that the Gentleman recognizes that we would be returning to the Union if we do agree to the compromises put forward here, since it recognizes our withdrawal from the union.

View user profile

132 Re: Discussion on Sun Dec 06, 2009 8:06 pm

I don't much care for the legal mumbo jumbo of the situation...just bringing it to an end.

View user profile

133 Re: Discussion on Sun Dec 06, 2009 8:08 pm

Maryland agrees. The point of this is to move on, not to antagonize.

View user profile

134 Re: Discussion on Sun Dec 06, 2009 8:09 pm

Virginia wrote:Considering a sizeable portion of the standing army is stationed to protect the people of New Mexico, requiring a constant investment on the part of the East, I would suggest New Mexico be willing to compromise here.

I understand that Virginia may have forgotten what it means to have to deal with lawless tribes in her own backyard, having removed such a threat centuries ago, but it is a reality for the people of New Mexico. While they are not in attendance, here, the states of Minnesota and Dakota, as well as the Montana Territory, face their own problems with native people, and will require militias for the protection of their citizens. I would add that we are far enough removed from you all out East so as to not pose an imminent threat to your sovereignty.

I can categorically state that neither South Carolina nor Virginia has any reason to fear the specter of New Mexico's mighty militia bearing down on your cities, towns, and farms.

View user profile

135 Re: Discussion on Sun Dec 06, 2009 8:12 pm

I continue to advocate an exception to militia caps for territories.

View user profile

136 Re: Discussion on Sun Dec 06, 2009 8:25 pm

Representing California is an odd pair. Pablo de la Guerra, California's Lt. Governor, and Thomas H. Williams, California's Attorney General. One a "Northern" Democrat, the other a "Southern" Democrat. De la Guerra, particularly, seems out of place, racially, both with the conference assembled and with the country as a whole. In speaking, de la Guerra's low voice and hint of his former Mexican accent denotes the California of his birth. Williams, originally of Kentucky, speaks with a southern drawl. The two whisper amongst themselves throughout the conference, mostly.


de la Guerra: I find that these issues of the tariff and of slavery are not unrelated. The tariff acts as a hidden incentive for slavery. The south, rich agriculturally, exports more than the north, and is burdened more harshly with the tariff than the northern states. Meanwhile, it sees little benefit from the tariff. Southern slaveholders are, therefore, incentivized to own more slaves and produce more, to guard against the tariff from digging too deep into their profit margins. And while the north benefits from canals and turnpikes subsidized by this tariff - due to the north's larger congressional delegations pulling federal money to them - the south sees no benefit at all, thus cementing slavery as the only viable economic option in the south. I would hope we could all see that the tariff, both by existing and its inequitable distribution among subject states, has cultivated slavery and, more than slavery itself, brought us to this lamentable situation. An agreement whereby the tariff was, regardless of its level, distributed equitably among the states in which it is collected, would do more to reduce the use of slavery - and bring it closer to its inevitable end - in our time than even Virginia's proposal of future emancipation.

Williams: I would add that the south's and north's concerns of the Fugitive Slave Law application is not irreconciable. A law mandating that the federal government will pursue all fugitive slaves, to the best of their abilities, will, I think, ensure that the south does not feel slighted by the north's moral quest, and the northern states will not feel obligated to enforce slavery within their borders.

View user profile

137 Re: Discussion on Sun Dec 06, 2009 8:37 pm

Governor Banks finally arrives. He was scheduled to come earlier for the peace conference however he hopes he still made it in time.

"Hello all."

View user profile

138 Re: Discussion on Sun Dec 06, 2009 8:38 pm

OOC: Mitchell's disclaimer applies. This is roleplaying and does not reflect my views on the War of Southern Treason or on race relations or on any other real-world topic.

The head of the Texas delegation, Daniel Bullock, rose up to speak:

"Gentlemen, I am sorry that I have been tardy in speaking - some of the delegation is Catholic, and insisted on hearing Mass before entering the proceedings. Nonetheless, I am here to make our points:

Firstly: Texas opposes the 'eventual freedom' statute. The Negro is a debased race, only good for servitude at the hands of a superior race - both Scripture and history bear us out. The current condition is the natural condition, and Texas will keep it that way until the end of the world.

Secondly: This is not some sort of National Governor's Conference. As far as the Texas delegation is concerned, this is a conference between one sovereign nation and another. Thus, we oppose everything in the current proposal excepting point 7, which is reasonable and should have been done to begin with.

Thirdly: We demand that all foreign troops be removed, and that all parties recognize Edward Clark and the Legislature at Galveston to be the legitimate government of Texas, as opposed to the pretender Houston in Aus-

*the doors open violently, with a group of rough-looking men in suits. One of them speaks:*

"That traitor is not a Texas delegate, we are. I am Rupert Schneider, representing the legitimate government of Texas in Austin. And we demand that the rebel scum be extirpated from our presence."



Last edited by Texas on Sun Dec 06, 2009 8:42 pm; edited 1 time in total

View user profile

139 Re: Discussion on Sun Dec 06, 2009 8:40 pm

Jersey sighs

View user profile

140 Re: Discussion on Sun Dec 06, 2009 8:43 pm

Perry looks at the Texas delegates. "Oh good god...."

He bangs his cane on the table several times to make sure he can be heard. "Incredible! Everyone here has largely agreed on these points... except for a few micreants from Texas. Let it be upon your shoulders, then. If this nation shall end up broken or engaged in any bloody conflict, history will remember that it was Texas who, alone, traded reason for madness."

View user profile

141 Re: Discussion on Sun Dec 06, 2009 8:44 pm

Texas wrote:The head of the Texas delegation, Daniel Bullock, rose up to speak:

"Gentlemen, I am sorry that I have been tardy in speaking - some of the delegation is Catholic, and insisted on hearing Mass before entering the proceedings. Nonetheless, I am here to make our points:

Firstly: Texas opposes the 'eventual freedom' statute. The Negro is a debased race, only good for servitude at the hands of a superior race - both Scripture and history bear us out. The current condition is the natural condition, and Texas will keep it that way until the end of the world.

Governor Banks rose to speak.

Mr. Bullock on that point I can not agree. The Negro is not a debased race. The Negro is of equal race and we shall treat them that way. God himself said that all man is created equal! So why this double standard for the negro?

View user profile

142 Re: Discussion on Sun Dec 06, 2009 8:44 pm

I suggest, Governor Lee, that Mr. Bullock be kindly tossed out on his ear, perhaps into a pit of snakes. Hello, Mr. Schneider. Glad you could join us.

Anyway ...

In response to the New Mexico gentleman's concerns, I think Sequoyah is in a uniquely suitable position to negotiate peaceably with the Apache and other Native tribes. Please ask us for help rather than merely reducing our Indian brothers to the status of dogs.

The only points concerning the current reconciliatory proposal that Sequoyah wish to clarify relate to repatriation and the children. Freed Negroes, I'll agree, may be expelled from the individual states, but I would argue that we should ensure that they go to the place of their own choosing. If that be Africa, so be it. If it be a Negro-friendly State, that should be acceptable, too. That seems the best way to avoid inhumanity while satisfying the needs of the South. Also: if the second generation is born free, but its parents remain in servitude, who shall care for them?

I suggest the following compromise to settle the issue, and also more clearly define the somewhat difficult issue of generations:

Every slave born after the adoption of this proposal whose parents were born prior to the adoption of this proposal shall be considered Generation One. Every slave born to Generation One shall be Generation Two. Every slave born to Generation Two shall be Generation Three. Generation Three shall be free upon birth. Generation Two shall be freed upon the birth of Generation Three. Generation One shall be freed at the discretion of the individual States. All slaves, regardless of generation, must be freed by the year 1900.

This ensures that no State will have the burden of effective orphans, and provides the Slave States with almost 40 years of further service.

View user profile

143 Re: Discussion on Sun Dec 06, 2009 8:47 pm

I suggest, Governor Lee, that Mr. Bullock be kindly tossed out on his ear, perhaps into a pit of snakes. Hello, Mr. Schneider. Glad you could join us.

Perry holds his cane menacingly.

I second and volunteer to do the removing, by physical force if necessary.

View user profile

144 Re: Discussion on Sun Dec 06, 2009 8:48 pm

Maryland wrote:Perry looks at the Texas delegates. "Oh good god...."

He bangs his cane on the table several times to make sure he can be heard. "Incredible! Everyone here has largely agreed on these points... except for a few micreants from Texas. Let it be upon your shoulders, then. If this nation shall end up broken or engaged in any bloody conflict, history will remember that it was Texas who, alone, traded reason for madness."

Schneider: I agree in spirit, sir, except to make the point that it is the traitorous Texans, not the loyal ones, who are mad-

Bullock: Like you would know about loyalty, Mr. Heinie Schneider...

Schneider: I may be German born, but I am more American than you perverters of the Constitution - God as my witness, if it weren't for the safe-conduct guarrantee, I'd shoot you and all the traitors myself!

Bullock: Them's fighting words, foreign scum *lunges at Schneider*

*A brawl between the two rival Texas delegations begins*

OOC: For those keeping score at home, there are two delegations for Texas - the SSA one from Galveston, and the Union one from Austin.



Last edited by Texas on Sun Dec 06, 2009 8:50 pm; edited 1 time in total

View user profile

145 Re: Discussion on Sun Dec 06, 2009 8:48 pm

Mr. Bullock is here as a representative of the State of Texas which is a member of the SSA. We will not continue to negotiate in good faith with this group, if the legitimate Government is not recognized and the imposters representing the former Governor Houston are not removed.



Last edited by Tennessee on Sun Dec 06, 2009 8:49 pm; edited 1 time in total

View user profile

146 Re: Discussion on Sun Dec 06, 2009 8:49 pm

Sequoyah wrote:I suggest, Governor Lee, that Mr. Bullock be kindly tossed out on his ear, perhaps into a pit of snakes. Hello, Mr. Schneider. Glad you could join us.

Anyway ...

In response to the New Mexico gentleman's concerns, I think Sequoyah is in a uniquely suitable position to negotiate peaceably with the Apache and other Native tribes. Please ask us for help rather than merely reducing our Indian brothers to the status of dogs.

The only points concerning the current reconciliatory proposal that Sequoyah wish to clarify relate to repatriation and the children. Freed Negroes, I'll agree, may be expelled from the individual states, but I would argue that we should ensure that they go to the place of their own choosing. If that be Africa, so be it. If it be a Negro-friendly State, that should be acceptable, too. That seems the best way to avoid inhumanity while satisfying the needs of the South. Also: if the second generation is born free, but its parents remain in servitude, who shall care for them?

I suggest the following compromise to settle the issue, and also more clearly define the somewhat difficult issue of generations:

Every slave born after the adoption of this proposal whose parents were born prior to the adoption of this proposal shall be considered Generation One. Every slave born to Generation One shall be Generation Two. Every slave born to Generation Two shall be Generation Three. Generation Three shall be free upon birth. Generation Two shall be freed upon the birth of Generation Three. Generation One shall be freed at the discretion of the individual States. All slaves, regardless of generation, must be freed by the year 1900.

This ensures that no State will have the burden of effective orphans, and provides the Slave States with almost 40 years of further service.

Nathaniel felt a chill go down his back at the thought of slavery for another forty years.

"No sir" he waved his hand at the delegate from Sequoya.

"Another 40 years of such inhumane practices is unacceptable. I believe a majority of states will agree with me on this."

View user profile

147 Re: Discussion on Sun Dec 06, 2009 8:51 pm

Why not allow both to sit? Perhaps they could work out some of their own differences along with both of us.

With regards to the gentleman from Massachusetts, I find the practice of slavery and the degradation of the negro race as abominable as he, but I believe that the negro stands to benefit more from an orderly way of being freed within the Union than he does from the bloodshed that could come of a war over secession. Further, does the representative propose that we suddenly drop millions of unskilled, enslaved negroes from their current state right on to their own two feet just like that? It seems, again, like it could do them more harm than good.

View user profile

148 Re: Discussion on Sun Dec 06, 2009 8:52 pm

Oregon wrote:Why not allow both to sit? Perhaps they could work out some of their own differences along with both of us.

With regards to the gentleman from Massachusetts, I find the practice of slavery and the degradation of the negro race as abominable as he, but I believe that the negro stands to benefit more from an orderly way of being freed within the Union than he does from the bloodshed that could come of a war over secession. Further, does the representative propose that we suddenly drop millions of unskilled, enslaved negroes from their current state right on to their own two feet just like that? It seems, again, like it could do them more harm than good.

There does not need to be a war over secession unless the North decides to invade our Sovereign States.

And I have serious problems with the delegates representing Sam Houston being allowed to be seated since they do not represent a legitimate state Government and thus cannot negotiate in good faith for an equitable compromise.

View user profile

149 Re: Discussion on Sun Dec 06, 2009 8:55 pm

Fair enough, but even within the South I should remind the representative from Massachusetts that it is in the interest of the free negro that the states of the South agree to a compromise such as that in 40 years rather than them never being free because Massachusetts was too stubborn.

View user profile

150 Re: Discussion on Sun Dec 06, 2009 8:56 pm

Meanwhile, Union Delegate Tomas Guzman is stabbed repeatedly by SSA Delegate Robert Hempsey, who brandished a bowie knife, until he is restrained by the rest of the SSA delegation.

OOC: After this conference, Houston's Government shall be relinquished to the President for game purposes, and I will be exclusively Clark.



Last edited by Texas on Sun Dec 06, 2009 8:58 pm; edited 1 time in total

View user profile

Sponsored content


Back to top  Message [Page 6 of 8]

Go to page : Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8  Next

Permissions in this forum:
You cannot reply to topics in this forum