A Shining Valley - The Great Desert Lake in California
- Thread starter Planita13
- Start date
For @HowAboutThisForAName and @GlebPro2004 because of their interest.
“The election of Robert Smalls as Governor in 1874, proved that a demographic majority of former slaves in South Carolina translated to a majority in votes. The irony that the former heart of the Confederacy, elected an black person as Governor was not lost on white supremacists. That year the Red Shirts, with the support of Redeemers across America, launched a violent uprising intending to bring South Carolina back to white control. With the assistance of federal troops, Smalls was able to crush the revolt, alibet with significant bloodshed. The end of the Red Shirt Revolt, marked the end of any violent attempt to suppress the black population of South Carolina. The reelection of Smalls for another term only put the nail in the coffin for the attempts of white supremacists to regain white control over the former heart of the Confederacy.
...
With the establishment of the black government in the late 1870s, the state experienced extraordinary demographic shifts in a very short period of time. Between 1876 and 1880, tens of thousands of whites moved out the state, refusing to be governed by blacks. Over those four years, over 50,000 white people left the state while over 100,000 black people fleeing increasing racial oppression, migrated to South Carolina. In 1860, around 57% of the population was black, by 1890 the percentage grew to over 80%. In that time, state soon saw itself as one of the safe havens for black people across the South, where they could be live without discrimination in a place ruled by their peers. In 1885, the state government passed the “Free State Bill” marking the beginning of a new era for the people of the state. There were already some attempts on the county and state level to erase the reminders of the Confederacy; cities were renamed, flags changed, and statues put up. However the Free State Bill took this a step further, most prominently by renaming the entire state from South Carolina to Liberty.
...
Redeemers and white supremacists looked at the development in the state now known as Liberty with horror. The first state to leave the Union in the Civil War, was now a unrecognizable safe haven for black people. While many of them were pleased to see black people in their own states leave for Liberty or Louisiana, it did not mask the fact that the South “lost” two states to black majority governments. In response a new ideology emerged, pushed by former Confederate officials, as well as organizations like the Sons of Confederate Veterans and the United Daughters of the Confederacy. Known by various names such as the Lost Cause, the Coming Redemption, and the Great Struggle, it declared that the cause of the Confederacy was a just and necessary one to preserve the Southern way of life from the North and in particular blacks. If left to their own devices, the proponents believed that black people would eventually outnumber whites in the south because of their supposed lascivious nature. From there with their demographic majority these blacks would take over state governments as they had in Liberty and Louisiana, and then destroy the cultural heritage and Institutions of the south. Building upon old racist stereotypes, this ideology and racial conspiracy would become pervasive in the South, poisoning race relations for decades to come."
“The election of Robert Smalls as Governor in 1874, proved that a demographic majority of former slaves in South Carolina translated to a majority in votes. The irony that the former heart of the Confederacy, elected an black person as Governor was not lost on white supremacists. That year the Red Shirts, with the support of Redeemers across America, launched a violent uprising intending to bring South Carolina back to white control. With the assistance of federal troops, Smalls was able to crush the revolt, alibet with significant bloodshed. The end of the Red Shirt Revolt, marked the end of any violent attempt to suppress the black population of South Carolina. The reelection of Smalls for another term only put the nail in the coffin for the attempts of white supremacists to regain white control over the former heart of the Confederacy.
...
With the establishment of the black government in the late 1870s, the state experienced extraordinary demographic shifts in a very short period of time. Between 1876 and 1880, tens of thousands of whites moved out the state, refusing to be governed by blacks. Over those four years, over 50,000 white people left the state while over 100,000 black people fleeing increasing racial oppression, migrated to South Carolina. In 1860, around 57% of the population was black, by 1890 the percentage grew to over 80%. In that time, state soon saw itself as one of the safe havens for black people across the South, where they could be live without discrimination in a place ruled by their peers. In 1885, the state government passed the “Free State Bill” marking the beginning of a new era for the people of the state. There were already some attempts on the county and state level to erase the reminders of the Confederacy; cities were renamed, flags changed, and statues put up. However the Free State Bill took this a step further, most prominently by renaming the entire state from South Carolina to Liberty.
...
Redeemers and white supremacists looked at the development in the state now known as Liberty with horror. The first state to leave the Union in the Civil War, was now a unrecognizable safe haven for black people. While many of them were pleased to see black people in their own states leave for Liberty or Louisiana, it did not mask the fact that the South “lost” two states to black majority governments. In response a new ideology emerged, pushed by former Confederate officials, as well as organizations like the Sons of Confederate Veterans and the United Daughters of the Confederacy. Known by various names such as the Lost Cause, the Coming Redemption, and the Great Struggle, it declared that the cause of the Confederacy was a just and necessary one to preserve the Southern way of life from the North and in particular blacks. If left to their own devices, the proponents believed that black people would eventually outnumber whites in the south because of their supposed lascivious nature. From there with their demographic majority these blacks would take over state governments as they had in Liberty and Louisiana, and then destroy the cultural heritage and Institutions of the south. Building upon old racist stereotypes, this ideology and racial conspiracy would become pervasive in the South, poisoning race relations for decades to come."
-Excerpts from Us, Americans.
The History of these United States with Sources
Volume 2: Since 1864.
Last edited:
The National Union of America, also known as the Nationals, or simply as the Party, is the dominant political party in the United States and is one of the most successful ones in the West, perplexing political scientists for over a century. Whether the National Union is an incredibly broad and decentralized political party, or whether it is actually a broad political coalition of de facto political parties is up for debate. In addition there is a consensus among the majority of political scientists, that the National Union is so embedded in the American government that it is effectively become a government institution in its own right as a vital part of American governance. Thus it maintains its importance by its own political power. Regardless of what it is, at least according to the Federal Elections Commission, it is registered as a political party. However on the state level, the National Union does not have an official presence, instead there are affiliated political parties. Much unlike other nations, these state parties are only loosely connected with the National Union and the other political parties at the national level. Here the internal factions of the National Union have officially established themselves as state political parties, often merging with local opposition parties to advance their own interests. The most famous example is the Citizens of California party, a very broad big tent party representing the non-Californios in the state. Pro-National Union parties control a majority of the states governments and the National Union has supermajorities in both houses of Congress and has held the Presidency for the last several elections. It may look like the National Union has a firm grip on power in the United States, but if you look closer, the truth is much more complicated.
Instead of a unified political party, in actuality the National Union consists of several competing political factions vying for power. While all the factions agree with empowering labor unions and the need for a market economy, they have significant differences over social and economic issues. A recent national debate over the legalization of same-sex marriage has split the party by its factions. The party’s current major factions can be split into three broad groupings. Christian Labor and Southern Labor form the Conservatives, who combine socially conservative policies with moderate left economics. Christian Labor draw broad support across the Factory Belt and most of the Sun Belt from conservative ethnic minorities, and low-income whites, while Southern Labor draws support exclusively from southern whites. Liberals consist of the Moderate faction, who support both socially and economically liberal policies. They draw support from the middle class, particularly urban areas on the coast, and libertarian-minded voters in the West. Lastly is the Red faction, consisting of the imploding Democratic Left and the rising Progressives, who support leftist economics and some social reforms. They garner support from religious leftists and the industrial workers of the Midwest. These three broad political groups are enough to cover the political positions of the vast majority of American voters.
In order to govern however, the National Union had to form a cohesive national policy out of this fractious party. For the past century, this was done through the primary system. The first primary elections were held for 1904 Presidential Election when William McKinley ran in the first ever National Union primaries running on his Progressive platform. He found broad support among Americans, but the leadership was able to prevent him from winning the nomination. Enraged, McKinley gathered a large coalition of voters in the actual election and won it in a landslide. Once President, Roosevelt demanded reforms to the nomination process and leadership, otherwise he would personally burn the party to the ground. The establishment acquiesced and allowed the reforms, allowing Roosevelt to use the party as a vehicle for the Progressive Era reforms. Not only did the 1904 Elections lay the foundations for the modern National Union and it’s primary system. While all the states would adopt primaries by 1932, it would take several election cycles before reforms were made to allow a more open and democratic selection of the nominee. Even then conflicts remained, especially over the role of superdelegates, winner take all systems, and the bonus delegates rule for first-place finishers.
This dispute boiled over in led to continuous general election defections by dissatisfied factions. Often these candidates running under the Independent National ticket would be defeated in the General Election, but on several occasions they managed to pull off a win. The most infamous defection was 1972, when independent Sam Young successfully won the Presidency as an independent, after the second place finisher in popular votes became the nominee by a combination of the previously mentioned factors. Further reforms would take place with superdelegates were abolished and the bonus delegates rule being abolished outright. However the winner take all rules were gradually replaced with proportional distribution of delegates over several election cycles. The simplification and standardization of the rules have largely failed to prevent general election defections from occurring, and most of the National Union has largely accepted it has a normal part of politics. As a multi-party system emerges and fractional conventions appear to be the new norm, the possibility for these defections continues. Still there is little question that the National Union would maintain its hegemonic control over American politics. The party's leadership still has full control over the nomination process allowing it to easily control the political process.
Last edited:
The Opposition Parties in the United States refers to the political parties that currently opposes the National Union on a state or federal level. Currently the biggest opposition parties in Congress are the Free Workers, the American Freedom Party, and the Socialist Party of America. In certain states, these parties have been able to win significant victories by getting elected as Governors and Senators. However due to their ideological differences, they are unable to form a united front and seriously challenge the dominance of the National Union in federal politics. As of 2016, no candidate of the current Opposition Parties have elected President.
While the National Union is home to a broad range of pro-labor and free market ideologies, the members of opposition parties and their voters are considered too radical for the Party. The Free Workers is anti-union and the Socialists seek the eventual end of capitalism, which both are at odds with the basic tenets of the National Union. Party members that would eventually form the American Freedom Party were mostly expelled from the National Union for supporting segregation and racist conspiracy theories in the 1950s.
The Free Workers is the largest opposition party in the country, largely representing big business and free market interests. The party is well known for its unspoken opposition to labor unions and seeks to reduce the power they have over the American economy. It is the only major party to oppose labor unions in the country setting it apart from the rest of the opposition parties. The party largely consists of libertarians and market liberals who also support less government intervention in the economy and a reduced role for the federal government. Like all the other opposition parties, it opposes the significant power of the National Union in the political process and seeks to drastically curtail its influence.
The American Freedom Party is a merger of the Confederate nationalist State Right’s Party and the hard conservative New America Party. The merger was largely considered to be a rebranding of the party to increase the size of its electorate. The party is extremely socially conservative, nativist, and isolationist; it is well known for its opposition to PACCO and especially its visa travel and immigration policies. The party however supports government intervention in the economy and unions to an extent. However the party has often been accused of sexism, anti-semtism, racism, and Confederate apologia. The party is notorious for having poor relations with the African American Free States over many different controversies about race and the Confederacy.
The Socialist Party of America is the oldest extant Opposition Party in the country, founded by Eugene Debs in 1901. While the National Union and the Socialist Party may agree on the basic tenets for economic policy, the Socialists outright call for the eventual abolishment of capitalism. Much like the other opposition parties, the Socialists consists of different factions with roughly the same goal but with varying ideas on how to achieve it. The party is largely split between the traditional marxist social democratic faction and a growing libertarian socialist coalition. While there is some tension between the groups, for now they are united in a common cause of being a check on the National Union.
Last edited:
There are two political parties in California that appear on the national level, the Popular Movement and the Citizens of California Party. Although the center-left Solidarity Party has made significant inroads in recent years, it has yet to elect anyone to Congress. The Popular Movement is the political arm of the conservative Californian nationalist movement, dominating the politics of the state since statehood. The Citizens of California is the in-state branch of the National Union, founded to represent white Americans living in California, but it has increasingly come to attract Americanized Hispanic voters. Both parties are broadly big tent center-right parties, representing two sides of California's unique political climate. The parties are broadly competitive across the entire state especially in urban and suburbs. However Baja California tends to vote for the Popular Movement and the counties that borders the rest of the United States, and have a significant white minority, votes for Citizens.
The National Union political party post has been updated to reflect the current canon.
Last edited:
American industrialization grew explosively following the Civil War, but serious social divisions, similar to what was found in Europemanifested. Pre-industrial United States had relative social equality, at least compared to Europe, but by the end of the 19th century, a widening gap separated the classes. In Andrew Carnegie’s Homestead steel plant near Pittsburgh, employees worked everyday except Christmas and fourth of July, usually for twelve hours a day. In Manhattan, the destination for many European immigrants, became full of overcrowded buildings with four families and two toilets on each floor. To some, the contrast was a betrayal of American ideals while others saw it as a natural outcome of competition and the “survival of the fittest.”
As elsewhere, such conditions were ripe for many labor protests, the formation of unions, and strikes, sometimes leading to violence. In 1883, when the eastern railroads announced a 10 percent wage cut for their workers, strikes disrupted rail service across the eastern half of the country, smashed equipment, and rioted. State militias and federal troops battled striking workers over the course of over two months in cities across the country. It was the bloodiest period of civil unrest since the Civil War, killing over two hundred people and tens of millions in damages. Class consciousness and class conflict were intense in the industrial America of the late nineteenth and early 20th century.
Unlike many European countries, however, no major political party emerged to specifically represent the interests working class. Nor the radical ideals of Marxism draw significant support although socialist ideals swayed many. Nevertheless only the labor wing of the National Union emerged as a prominent force during the Progressive Era, propelling reformer Theodore Roosevelt to the Presidency in 1904. Even during that time, they struggled with the moderate faction of the party and infighting among themselves. No united movement of workers emerged to champion industrial workers until the Great Recovery sparked by the Pacific War. How might we explain this distinctive feature of American industrial development?
One answer lies in the relative conservatism of the major American union organizations which continues to this day. The largest unions, such as the American Labor Federation focused on moderate skilled workers over more radical unskilled laborers. While it limited its power in politics and prevented a unified front from forming, it helped avoid the unions being labeled as dangerous revolutionaries by the american public. Furthermore, the United States is a nation of immigrants and there were much larger religious, ethnic, and racial divisions compared to the homogeneous populations of most European countries. Catholics and Protestants; English, RIsh, Germans, Slavs, Jews, and Italians; white and black; Californios and Anglos; these differences undermined the class solidarity of American workers, making it much more difficult to sustain a class-oriented political parties and a socialist labor movement. Many different labor organizations were a part of the labor wing of the National Union, who often had to cooperate with each other first before negotiating with the rest of the party. Finally, the country’s industrial growth generated on average a higher standard of living for American workers than their European counterparts experienced. By 1920, white collar workers in sales, services, and offices, outnumbered factory workers. While they were often members of these conservative unions, their middle-class aspirations dampered radicalism.
Other political challenges to the abuses of capitalist industrialization did arise. Populists who railed against banks, industrialists, monopolies, the existing currency system, and the political establishment found broad support from small farmers. The Progressives led by Theodore Roosevelt and backed by the unions pushed for specific reforms, such as wages-and-hours legislations, better sanitation standards, antitrust laws, and increased regulations. What cemented the power of the labor organizations in the economy and in the National Union was the recovery from the Great Depression. For a span of nearly twenty years from 1926 to 1942, the average unemployment rate consistently hovered around 10%. While the numbers of unions actually decreased during the Depression itself, it concentrated the remaining workers into a few labor unions. When the Great Recovery began, sparked by the declaration of war on Japan, the surviving labor unions were poised to greatly benefit from the influx of workers. From then on the conservative labor movement became the backbone of the American economy and the foundation of National Union.
The economic bust and boom had largely ended the previously fractured labor organizations, although racial divides were still present, especially in the south. Nevertheless by 1950, there were three major federations of multi-trade labor unions, the National Association of Labor, the Union of Industrial Organizations, and the Reform with Solidarity Coalition. Despite their fierce rivalries and disagreements on how labor should be organized, all supported the National Union and usually the same candidates. In 1965, the three organizations founded the United Congress of American Labor or UCAL, an organization consisting of representatives from the major labor groups to promote cooperation to pursue a common goal.
Today the labor organizations hold significant political power by their sheer size; it is estimated that over half of the workers in the United States are unionized. A typical unionized worker is part of a regional and a national trade union, which in turn, is a member of one of the three national federations. Since its formation, the United Congress has evolved into the political arm and the consensus-building body of the American labor movement. It is governed by an Assembly consisting of elected representatives from its member labor organizations who elects a Chairman who presides over the Assembly and an Executive Committee. Originally meant to be an advisory body, it now directs the member unions' general policies and activities for state and federal elections. As a result it is one of the most powerful political organizations in the United States today.
Since the 1976 Presidential Election, the National Congress has endorsed Presidential candidates or directly nominated a candidate to stand in the National Union Primary. For the 2016 Presidential election James Wallace was nominated by the UCAL Assembly for the primaries, denying President Norcross an official endorsement for a second term
Edited: 16 September
As elsewhere, such conditions were ripe for many labor protests, the formation of unions, and strikes, sometimes leading to violence. In 1883, when the eastern railroads announced a 10 percent wage cut for their workers, strikes disrupted rail service across the eastern half of the country, smashed equipment, and rioted. State militias and federal troops battled striking workers over the course of over two months in cities across the country. It was the bloodiest period of civil unrest since the Civil War, killing over two hundred people and tens of millions in damages. Class consciousness and class conflict were intense in the industrial America of the late nineteenth and early 20th century.
Unlike many European countries, however, no major political party emerged to specifically represent the interests working class. Nor the radical ideals of Marxism draw significant support although socialist ideals swayed many. Nevertheless only the labor wing of the National Union emerged as a prominent force during the Progressive Era, propelling reformer Theodore Roosevelt to the Presidency in 1904. Even during that time, they struggled with the moderate faction of the party and infighting among themselves. No united movement of workers emerged to champion industrial workers until the Great Recovery sparked by the Pacific War. How might we explain this distinctive feature of American industrial development?
One answer lies in the relative conservatism of the major American union organizations which continues to this day. The largest unions, such as the American Labor Federation focused on moderate skilled workers over more radical unskilled laborers. While it limited its power in politics and prevented a unified front from forming, it helped avoid the unions being labeled as dangerous revolutionaries by the american public. Furthermore, the United States is a nation of immigrants and there were much larger religious, ethnic, and racial divisions compared to the homogeneous populations of most European countries. Catholics and Protestants; English, RIsh, Germans, Slavs, Jews, and Italians; white and black; Californios and Anglos; these differences undermined the class solidarity of American workers, making it much more difficult to sustain a class-oriented political parties and a socialist labor movement. Many different labor organizations were a part of the labor wing of the National Union, who often had to cooperate with each other first before negotiating with the rest of the party. Finally, the country’s industrial growth generated on average a higher standard of living for American workers than their European counterparts experienced. By 1920, white collar workers in sales, services, and offices, outnumbered factory workers. While they were often members of these conservative unions, their middle-class aspirations dampered radicalism.
Other political challenges to the abuses of capitalist industrialization did arise. Populists who railed against banks, industrialists, monopolies, the existing currency system, and the political establishment found broad support from small farmers. The Progressives led by Theodore Roosevelt and backed by the unions pushed for specific reforms, such as wages-and-hours legislations, better sanitation standards, antitrust laws, and increased regulations. What cemented the power of the labor organizations in the economy and in the National Union was the recovery from the Great Depression. For a span of nearly twenty years from 1926 to 1942, the average unemployment rate consistently hovered around 10%. While the numbers of unions actually decreased during the Depression itself, it concentrated the remaining workers into a few labor unions. When the Great Recovery began, sparked by the declaration of war on Japan, the surviving labor unions were poised to greatly benefit from the influx of workers. From then on the conservative labor movement became the backbone of the American economy and the foundation of National Union.
The economic bust and boom had largely ended the previously fractured labor organizations, although racial divides were still present, especially in the south. Nevertheless by 1950, there were three major federations of multi-trade labor unions, the National Association of Labor, the Union of Industrial Organizations, and the Reform with Solidarity Coalition. Despite their fierce rivalries and disagreements on how labor should be organized, all supported the National Union and usually the same candidates. In 1965, the three organizations founded the United Congress of American Labor or UCAL, an organization consisting of representatives from the major labor groups to promote cooperation to pursue a common goal.
Today the labor organizations hold significant political power by their sheer size; it is estimated that over half of the workers in the United States are unionized. A typical unionized worker is part of a regional and a national trade union, which in turn, is a member of one of the three national federations. Since its formation, the United Congress has evolved into the political arm and the consensus-building body of the American labor movement. It is governed by an Assembly consisting of elected representatives from its member labor organizations who elects a Chairman who presides over the Assembly and an Executive Committee. Originally meant to be an advisory body, it now directs the member unions' general policies and activities for state and federal elections. As a result it is one of the most powerful political organizations in the United States today.
Since the 1976 Presidential Election, the National Congress has endorsed Presidential candidates or directly nominated a candidate to stand in the National Union Primary. For the 2016 Presidential election James Wallace was nominated by the UCAL Assembly for the primaries, denying President Norcross an official endorsement for a second term
Edited: 16 September
Last edited:
Last edited:
By the time election year rolled around, the Democratic Norcross Administration was in a bind. While President Anderson Norcross had a couple of foreign policy successes under his belt, in the end most voters cared about their paychecks more. The economy continued to wind down throughout 2016, and some economists worried that it could completely stagnate by years end. The President was still broadly popular, especially in the Industrial Belt, but many in the Democratic Left worried that Norcoss wouldn't be able to pull off another surprise win like the one that won him the nomination in 2012. Thus when he declared his intention to run for a second term, many in the Democratic Left fretted and Christian Labor smelled blood in the water. In turn they nominated James Wallace, a military veteran and senator from Missouri.
However it was the year of the populist tide, and neither the mainstream factions fully grasped the implications. First it was the collapse of the Christian Labor in the Deep South a year before. Southerners furious over the end of protectionist policies and the CL’s support of the removal of Confederate statues defected to form the Southern Labor faction. Wallace and the rest of the leadership at first blew off the faction assuming that the defectors would return to the fold, but when they fielded notable firebrand Willam Robertson and the first polls came in, Christian Labor knew that they had a problem.
Secondly the weakening economy was accompanied by the meteoric rise of the American market right. The Moderates’s liberal platform attracted many voters tired of the power of the unions over the nation’s economy and the nation’s socially conservative laws. While they had existed since the 1960s only since the 2000 election, did they rise to any significance. They nominated self-made billionaire, philanthropist, and humanitarian Henry Gates.
The Progressives nominated Benjamin Sanders, a notable social activist and popular Senator from Vermont. He represented a large break from the large anti-capitalist caucuses in the Progressives, which he hoped could draw in disaffected Democratic Left voters. Although the Progressives is one of the most vocal and liberal forces for socially liberal policies, Sanders effectively shared the same economic policies with the Democratic Left.
Finally the various ethnic interests caucuses once again chose to run under a fusion ticket as they had for the past several elections. While they do not share policies or positions, they run under a joint ticket to win delegates and influence at the Convention. They nominated Leonard Innis from Free Labor, continuing the tradition of rotating the nomination between each major caucus.
By April it was clear that the primary would be wild and unpredictable. The economic growth shrunk with President Norcoss’s poll numbers, whose campaign floundered for a couple of weeks before righting himself. Meanwhile Christian Labor focused its efforts on winning back the Deep South, which infamously culminated in a personal spat between Wallace and Roberston. It put a serious dent into the persona that Wallace tried to cultivate as a calm, collected character. The two candidates of the main factions struggled to gain momentum, leaving the door open for populist forces to exploit.
Meanwhile Henry Gates was largely successful at remaining above the fray, instead focusing on healing the infamously fractious caucuses in the Moderates and forming a united front in order to boost their chances. His socially and economically liberal platform already appealed to the urban liberals on the coast, but Gates moved to court new constituencies. He found broad support from the libertarian-minded voters of the Mountain States who were attracted by Gate’s promises of personal freedom. He was already well known in the region as his Foundation played a major role in rebuilding the region’s dated infrastructure. He was accused by Wallace and Norcross of exploiting his wealth to garner votes, but his supporters didn’t care.
Another constituency Gates courted was the Hispanic vote, which traditionally backed Chrisitan Labor. While his efforts among older Hispanics were mixed at best, he found the most success with middle ages and young Hispanic voters. In fact, somewhat unexpectedly, Gates found broad support from younger voters dissatisfied with the current union dominated standard quo. While attempts at outreach were mixed at best, it was undeniable that he was the first choice of most young voters. The leadership hoped that the competitive coalition they forged of urban liberals, young voters, and the libertarian-minded voters of the Mountain States would carry them far, maybe even to victory as unlikely as that seemed.
Dissatisfied voters turning away from the uninspiring Norcross campaign instead looked toward Sanders’ campaign. While it was a boon to his run for the nomination, Sanders had to constantly fend off attacks by factions members from the far-left, who tepid with his run to begin with. The criticism that Sanders shifted toward a more moderate stance just to be palatable with more voters, proved to be founded based upon Sanders's voting record in the Senate.
Slowly but surely President Norcross lost ground to the other candidates. Senator Wallace pulled ahead into a slight lead ahead of the pack, but Wallace was unable to fully benefit from the stuttering campaign of his chief rival. Most of it had to do with Gate’s meteoric rise in the polls, and thus they turned their attention on each other. Gates was attacked as an out of touch billionaire with no political experience and thus unqualified to be President. Gates hit back, most famously accusing Wallace and Norcross being two sides of the same coin in a primetime TV commercial.
As August neared, it became clear that unless the polls were off by miles in one way or another, the coming Convention would be the most fractional in history. The polls showed a three way race between Christian Labor, the Moderates, and the Democratic Left. Some showed Wallace with an insurmountable lead, some appeared to show a last minute surge for Norcross, and others showed three way tie. When the day came on August 6th, Americans across the country watched as the results slowly trickled in from all the primary elections at once.
The final results were unsurprising and surprising at the same time when the last delegates were finally allocated by 4 AM the next day. It was no surprise that the main candidates would perform poorly but not this poorly. The Moderates arguably had the best night, surging to a respectable third place by drawing support from the West and the Mid Atlantic. Later research would show Gates was able to draw voters from Christian Labor and the Democratic Left, rather than just from the latter. The Democratic Left, while still in second, suffered the worst primary results for a incumbent President in political history. Wallace also had the dubious honor by being the front-runner with the lowest percentage of votes and delegates in history. Southern Labor also effectively carried the Deep South, further hindering Christian Labor and with the amount of infighting between the two in the campaign, the split appeared to be permanent. Innis and the People of America also had something to celebrate for, as the German American Association managed to win Sioux by a thread from all the vote splitting in the state. Nevertheless they shook hands and parted ways for the Convention in September.
However it was the year of the populist tide, and neither the mainstream factions fully grasped the implications. First it was the collapse of the Christian Labor in the Deep South a year before. Southerners furious over the end of protectionist policies and the CL’s support of the removal of Confederate statues defected to form the Southern Labor faction. Wallace and the rest of the leadership at first blew off the faction assuming that the defectors would return to the fold, but when they fielded notable firebrand Willam Robertson and the first polls came in, Christian Labor knew that they had a problem.
Secondly the weakening economy was accompanied by the meteoric rise of the American market right. The Moderates’s liberal platform attracted many voters tired of the power of the unions over the nation’s economy and the nation’s socially conservative laws. While they had existed since the 1960s only since the 2000 election, did they rise to any significance. They nominated self-made billionaire, philanthropist, and humanitarian Henry Gates.
The Progressives nominated Benjamin Sanders, a notable social activist and popular Senator from Vermont. He represented a large break from the large anti-capitalist caucuses in the Progressives, which he hoped could draw in disaffected Democratic Left voters. Although the Progressives is one of the most vocal and liberal forces for socially liberal policies, Sanders effectively shared the same economic policies with the Democratic Left.
Finally the various ethnic interests caucuses once again chose to run under a fusion ticket as they had for the past several elections. While they do not share policies or positions, they run under a joint ticket to win delegates and influence at the Convention. They nominated Leonard Innis from Free Labor, continuing the tradition of rotating the nomination between each major caucus.
By April it was clear that the primary would be wild and unpredictable. The economic growth shrunk with President Norcoss’s poll numbers, whose campaign floundered for a couple of weeks before righting himself. Meanwhile Christian Labor focused its efforts on winning back the Deep South, which infamously culminated in a personal spat between Wallace and Roberston. It put a serious dent into the persona that Wallace tried to cultivate as a calm, collected character. The two candidates of the main factions struggled to gain momentum, leaving the door open for populist forces to exploit.
Meanwhile Henry Gates was largely successful at remaining above the fray, instead focusing on healing the infamously fractious caucuses in the Moderates and forming a united front in order to boost their chances. His socially and economically liberal platform already appealed to the urban liberals on the coast, but Gates moved to court new constituencies. He found broad support from the libertarian-minded voters of the Mountain States who were attracted by Gate’s promises of personal freedom. He was already well known in the region as his Foundation played a major role in rebuilding the region’s dated infrastructure. He was accused by Wallace and Norcross of exploiting his wealth to garner votes, but his supporters didn’t care.
Another constituency Gates courted was the Hispanic vote, which traditionally backed Chrisitan Labor. While his efforts among older Hispanics were mixed at best, he found the most success with middle ages and young Hispanic voters. In fact, somewhat unexpectedly, Gates found broad support from younger voters dissatisfied with the current union dominated standard quo. While attempts at outreach were mixed at best, it was undeniable that he was the first choice of most young voters. The leadership hoped that the competitive coalition they forged of urban liberals, young voters, and the libertarian-minded voters of the Mountain States would carry them far, maybe even to victory as unlikely as that seemed.
Dissatisfied voters turning away from the uninspiring Norcross campaign instead looked toward Sanders’ campaign. While it was a boon to his run for the nomination, Sanders had to constantly fend off attacks by factions members from the far-left, who tepid with his run to begin with. The criticism that Sanders shifted toward a more moderate stance just to be palatable with more voters, proved to be founded based upon Sanders's voting record in the Senate.
Slowly but surely President Norcross lost ground to the other candidates. Senator Wallace pulled ahead into a slight lead ahead of the pack, but Wallace was unable to fully benefit from the stuttering campaign of his chief rival. Most of it had to do with Gate’s meteoric rise in the polls, and thus they turned their attention on each other. Gates was attacked as an out of touch billionaire with no political experience and thus unqualified to be President. Gates hit back, most famously accusing Wallace and Norcross being two sides of the same coin in a primetime TV commercial.
As August neared, it became clear that unless the polls were off by miles in one way or another, the coming Convention would be the most fractional in history. The polls showed a three way race between Christian Labor, the Moderates, and the Democratic Left. Some showed Wallace with an insurmountable lead, some appeared to show a last minute surge for Norcross, and others showed three way tie. When the day came on August 6th, Americans across the country watched as the results slowly trickled in from all the primary elections at once.
Last edited:
The Pacific Cooperation Organization (PACCO), also known as the Pacific Pact is an intergovernmental organisation of 16 members states and 8 associated members largely centered around the Pacific Ocean. Originally an American-led bloc of satellite states, it has since evolved into a free and equal community directed by the PACCO Secretariat, although the United States still has significant influence. The organization promotes cooperation through the Common Economy, a free trade bloc, the Common Security, a conflict prevention group, and the Common Defence, a collective military organization.
The formal peace treaty with Japan ending the Pacific War was signed in 1955, freeing Japan’s former colonies and putting the Home Islands under American occupation. The origin of PACCO begins in 1958, when the new governments established by the United States signed the Pacific Charter, declaring the principles of self-determination and self-governance, international cooperation to improve economic and social conditions, and the end of aggressive wars. The charter was not only aimed at the defeated militarists in Japan, but also European powers who saw their far east colonies not returned to them after Japanese control was wrestled away. While relations with Europe were seriously damaged, the nationalist movements and the governments that they founded became largely pro-American. The Pacific Community, the predecessor to PACCO, was founded that year as an American dominated free trade organization.
In 1985, the United States conceded to demands from Japan and Korea to delegate administrative duties to an independent Secretariat and the decision-making process was revised to be based on common consensus. Since then, the scope of the organization continued to expand and further economic integration. The current organization was formally founded in 2000, with the singing of the Manila Treaty, reorganizing the former Community into a free and equal organization. The treaty further expanded and reorganized PACCO’s purpose into three broad agencies:
Common Economy: A trade bloc, free trade zone, and common monetary system. It intertwines the economies of the member states by reducing trade barriers between the states, addressing intellectual property theft, and improving market access. In addition it organizes a common monetary policy through the Pacific Currency Board, who sets exchange rates and monetary value of the currencies of member states.
Common Security: A national security oriented group concerned with civil rights, conflict prevention, crisis management, and post-conflict rehabilitation in member states. Notable affairs it addresses are stopping the illegal spread of weapons, preventing conflict, coordinate disaster response, and ending human trafficking.
Common Defense: While it is not a conventional military alliance, it promotes military cooperation and coordination instead. It on provides intelligence to combat international espionage and terrorism through information sharing and cooperation between domestic intelligence and law enforcement agencies. It also coordinates large scale military exercises on land and sea to increase military readiness and experience in combat operations. It also maintains a newly formed common peacekeeping force.
The accession of new member states in the Americas, Asia, and Oceania since the signing of the Manila Treaty has further expanded the power of the Organization. Today, its full members cover more than 32,990,082 thousand square kilometers spanning three continents. In 2018, it has an estimated population of 1.11 billion people contributing a combined Gross Domestic Product of 42.08 trillion dollars. Associated members only participate in some sections of the Organization, although they may gain full membership in the future.
Last edited:
not a particularly pleasant subject to cover. obviously I do not condone any kind of genocide or ethnic cleansing
Carved from the corpse of the German Empire, the Republic of Zapadoslavia is the culmination of the Russian State's rather successful program to permanently destroy the German state. Although the current Zapadoslavian government has long disavowed the Genocide mostly for the sake of good relations, the very nature of Zapadoslavia continues to overshadow any half-hearted attempt at reconciliation.
The August Revolt in 1944 convinced the Russian State that even a defeated Germany would be a threat to Russia. Thus starting in 1945, the Russian State embarked on a decade long program of ethnic cleansing and genocide following the plan set by General Plan West. Entire towns were razed, cultural landmarks leveled, and industry and infrastructure were completely destroyed or imported elsewhere. Hundreds of thousands of Germans were killed, and several million fled occupied Germany into French occupied Rhineland and beyond. Meanwhile the Russian State encouraged Russian and other Slavs to migrate into depopulated regions and settle. This was especially popular with the veterans of the German-Russian War who were often stationed in Germany themselves.
Slavs forms a large majority of the population in Zapadoslavia today, mostly consisting of Russians. The current government is no longer a puppet of the Russian State, and in fact actively opposes them since the White Revolution. However the treatment of Germans within its own borders and the very nature of the state overshadows Zapadoslavia's relationship with Western Europe. While France and the United Kingdom are somewhat willing to overlook its history, the remnant German states and the greater German Diaspora are far less willing.
Today, Zapadoslavia is a dominate-party presidential republic, led by a President and a Prime Minister. It is a regional power with a strong economy and holds membership in the G20 and the OECD. It is armed with nuclear weapons and thus is part of the international Council of Nuclear-Armed States. It maintains good relations with the French Republic and is part of the French-led Strasbourg Community and the European Defence Pact.
The August Revolt in 1944 convinced the Russian State that even a defeated Germany would be a threat to Russia. Thus starting in 1945, the Russian State embarked on a decade long program of ethnic cleansing and genocide following the plan set by General Plan West. Entire towns were razed, cultural landmarks leveled, and industry and infrastructure were completely destroyed or imported elsewhere. Hundreds of thousands of Germans were killed, and several million fled occupied Germany into French occupied Rhineland and beyond. Meanwhile the Russian State encouraged Russian and other Slavs to migrate into depopulated regions and settle. This was especially popular with the veterans of the German-Russian War who were often stationed in Germany themselves.
Slavs forms a large majority of the population in Zapadoslavia today, mostly consisting of Russians. The current government is no longer a puppet of the Russian State, and in fact actively opposes them since the White Revolution. However the treatment of Germans within its own borders and the very nature of the state overshadows Zapadoslavia's relationship with Western Europe. While France and the United Kingdom are somewhat willing to overlook its history, the remnant German states and the greater German Diaspora are far less willing.
Today, Zapadoslavia is a dominate-party presidential republic, led by a President and a Prime Minister. It is a regional power with a strong economy and holds membership in the G20 and the OECD. It is armed with nuclear weapons and thus is part of the international Council of Nuclear-Armed States. It maintains good relations with the French Republic and is part of the French-led Strasbourg Community and the European Defence Pact.
Last edited: