Talk Elections

Vote of Confidence, May of 1789:

Be it resolved:


Debate will last 48 hours, allowing players to make their points as to why the Government should or shouldn't have the confidence of the House. After that a simulated vote will be held automatically, so factions must inform me of how they plan to vote.

Mr. Speaker,

I rise in opposition to this Vote of Confidence. My reasoning for doing so is simple - the proposed First Secretary has not formed a Government that has the absolute confidence of this house. In a statement provided to the major newspapers of the nation, the gentleman from Charlottesville announced his Government would be built of Democratic-Republicans, Whigs, and Westerners. That formula does not a Government make, sadly. The gentleman from Charlottesville of the Democratic-Republicans commands 17 votes. The gentleman from Middlesex of the Whigs commands only 9 votes, and the gentleman from Kentucky of the Westerners has only 6. Those forces combined supplies the proposed Government with only 32 votes.

Of the total number of men duly elected by the people of this nation and sworn into office in accordance with our Constitution, the gentleman from Charlottesville does not command a majority. On any motion, his proposed Government could be defeated. It is my belief that the First Secretary must be able to form a Government that can survive and pass legislation with no support from the Opposition, which the proposed Government cannot. I am aware that a grand bargain was been established with the gentleman from Augusta for the Patriots of the South to abstain from this vote, and for the proposed Government to formally receive the confidence of the house but I do not believe that such an arrangement is in the best interest of our nation. Our First Secretary must be able to act with confidence and swiftness as the needs of the nation demand. The proposed Government cannot do that.

Therefore, I urge my colleagues to vote in opposition to this motion.

I yield.

Mr Speaker,

We have just seen what will quite possibly be the most divisive election this country is ever to see. Yet, we must remember, this election has just been fought. It is time to move on.

However, we reserve serious doubts about a three-faction government. Such a government is unstable, and unable to effectively implement an agenda to protect this country. The Democratic-Republicans' irresponsible populist pandering has introduced instability into the nation, and will only make us vulnerable to threats in the future. The opposition of this coalition of chaos to a strong central government, as well as national army and bank, is irresponsible and will put this nation at incredible risk.

Therefore, while I encourage each member of this faction to make up their own minds and vote as they wish, I will be voting against the Motion.

I yield the remainder of my time.

Mr. Speaker,

As some of my colleagues have already addressed, including the honorable gentleman from Suffolk and Queen's, this election has been one of the most divisive in history and thus it is important that we should move to unify this nation as quickly as possible with a government of the people.

Unlike what some others have claimed, this coalition is a very strong three-faction, like-minded government that has already in advance prepared in great lengths co-operative policy that we share much ground on. In these past few days since the election, we have worked tirelessly to make a stable government for the people, and we have achieved that.

While we do remain one seat short of an absolute majority in the Assembly, I should also note that due to the very polarized nature of the opposition, it is completely impossible for any other grouping to form government out of these election's results, and if this confidence is denied, then we shall return back to the polls for yet another election. After the highly divisive and unstable nature of the last, I believe the American people to be tired of these politics, and for this reason, to preserve our democracy and our bastion of freedom, we must unite to form this first national government, or we could reach a fate far worse than the one reached at this last national polling.

For these reasons, I encourage each member of the Republican faction to support this grand coalition, not for our sake, not for this government's sake, but for American democracy's sake.

I yield the remainder of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I rise to a point of opposition to this motion of confidence, for neither I nor the Radical faction have any confidence in the gentleman from Virginia in acting as First Secretary or in a politician of our great Republic.

For we were initially willing and ready to join the gentleman from Virginia’s coalition, to grant him a true majority that represented a regional and ideological variety in this nation's first Government. Whereupon the young gentleman from Virginia had, in the span of a few hours, gone from being completely supportive of such action to one in complete opposition, but not because of legitimate disagreeances in policy or character, but rather because of political worries. Specifically, the gentleman from Virginia had stated his fear that, upon entering into a coalition with the Radicals, his party would lose its seats in the South at the next election. I say, shame upon you, young gentleman from Virginia, for putting your own political ambitions above the health of our young Republic. Gentlemen, how can we allow a man who places the political prospects of future elections above the needs of our nation become First Secretary? The gentleman from Virginia is showing early signs of tyrannical behavior, a behavior which seeks to cling to power above all else. I say, Deputies, truly, what is the point of a Republic if we allow such a power-hungry man to seize the highest place of power in our land? How are we any better than the tyrannical monarchies of Europe, the very monarchies we had shed blood to escape?

And, may I say, that aside from his voracious desire for power, that the gentleman from Virginia has effectively doomed our young Republic by establishing the precedent of a tyranny by the minority. He has spat on the face of Liberty and Democracy, by forging secretive back-room deals with the Patriots, whom I will address later. A government formed by tricks of parliamentary procedure is hardly more legitimate than the oppressive monarchy we had fought to reject, and I hope that the rest of this House recognize that as well. The gentleman is the Great Charlatan of Virginia, and he ought to stop hiding behind song and dance, and acquire the brazen boldness of a man, and finally show, in the open, the very act he is attempting to accomplish: to tear up the Constitution and crown himself King.

Now to address my remarkable colleagues from the South, the Patriots, if they can even be called that, who have sacrificed all principles on government that they hold so that their friend from Virginia can become Tyrant. A faction which elected to not participate in the orders of government surely ought not last long at all, and I hope such fate befalls this dastardly alliance. You are acting as mere tools of tyranny yet are not cognizant enough to recognize such. I would wish that at the next election, your Deputies would be obliterated by a flurry of votes for the opposition, if only it were not the vile Democratic-Republicans, who would much better carry the name of Tyrannical-Monarchists, who would stand the most to benefit.

Deputies, this election had created the opportunity for a government to be formed by a broad consensus of the population. Instead, we are staring a minority government in the face, a dangerous precedent which will flies against the principles of consent by the majority. The gentleman from Virginia, rather than taking a strong stand to unite the nation, is instead cementing the divisions present in our Republic. He claims that a minority government would be for the defense of democracy, yet it goes completely against our shared belief that the majority ought to rule. He makes bold claims that Americans are tired of politics, yet, like the deceitful serpent of Eden, is merely reinforcing those political quarrels to damn our Republic's future.

I should hope that every man standing in this chamber will realize the sheer hypocrisy, tyranny, and damnation that shall befall our nation should this minority government be formed in success. I say that, if the gentleman from Virginia shall become First Secretary, our Republic was doomed to fail, and that those here that claim to stand for democracy are not republicans at all, but rather deceitful Monarchists seeking to end our great experiment within a year of its inception.

I yield the remainder of my time, and I fear that our Republic's time, too, will be cut short.

Mr. Speaker,

We just witnessed an election that turned brother against brother. I stand here today to call for unity within the nation after that divisive election. We must form a government and quickly so we can fix the most pressing issues this nation faces such as our growing national debt. This is why I call on the national assembly to either choose a confidence vote or join me in abstaining from the vote.

I understand many in this assembly have differing views from those of the gentlemen from Charlottesville, as do I, on many important topics plaguing this country. Still, a vote of no-confidence is a vote of disunity within not only the national assembly and the government but the whole nation. I disagree with the gentlemen from Charlottesville on many topics as many of you do, but I must put those topics aside so our nation preserves unity in its early stages of life.

After much consideration, I urge my fellow Patriots and my fellow deputies to vote to abstain as I will be doing the day of the vote.

Before I yield my time, I would like to address the gentlemen from Pennsylvania speech. Mr. Franklin, the only reason this great republics time will be cut short is that of radical views and disunity within the nation. Mr. Franklin, you will be the reason the republic will be cut short. The Radical faction has chosen not to leave the disunity created by the election at the voting booth but they have decided to continue to drag it in the assembly today. I will again restate before I yield my time, that my choice of abstaining is a choice of bringing unity into the country not division.

I yield.

Mr. Speaker,

The past election has truly been a massively divisive affair, and it is my belief that it is in the best interests of the Nation that a government be formed with the ability to hold itself together, and to be allowed to put forward it's agenda.  Now, as a number of my colleagues have stated, Mr. Madison's government would be a minority, but what other government could possibly be formed?  A government of Hamiltonians, Tories, and Radicals would be much shorter of a majority than the currently proposed government is, and any government of opposites, such as a Republican-Hamiltonian government, would be doomed to division and failure.

Now, as I stated in my article in the Patriot Star, the Patriots do not believe that the honorable gentleman from Charlottesville is the best candidate for first secretary, however we also do not wish to oppose the formation of a government, lest we drag our nation back into another divisive election, in which it may be even harder to form a government of any party.  That is why I will be abstaining from the Vote of Confidence, and I urge my fellow Patriots to do so as well, in the interests of helping to unify this nation.

Before I finish, I wish to address the attacks myself and my faction have received from the gentleman from Pennsylvania.  His attacks upon us are quite amusing, such as deriding for making a deal involving a reasonable concession on policy so that we would abstain from the vote of confidence, allowing the government to form, when you yourself were going to go through with a similar deal.  However, your "concession" you demanded would have been to outlaw the expansion of slavery into new states, regardless of whether or not the people of the state willingly submitted a constitution allowing the institution. 

You speak of us as accomplices to tyranny, and attack the gentleman from Charlottesville as a supposed Tyrant, when the very policies you wish to go through with would be tyrannical to the extreme.  Your faction completely wishes to disregard the will of the peoples of new states should they wish to have the institution of slavery exist within their state, as well as outlaw the continuation of slavery through your "Freedom of the Womb" stance.  What your faction wishes is truly Tyrannical, as your stances would obliterate the economies of all slave states and doom this Union to failure through the collapse of half it's states, as well as throw the will of the people out the window.  You yourself are much like a Monarch in actuality, as you demanded a policy that would disregard the will of the people much as King George did in the years prior to the revolution.  Now you throw a tantrum on the floor of the Assembly much as a child would after the gentleman from Charlottesville had the decency to reject your ideas of destruction and tyranny. 

I sincerely hope that the gentleman from Pennsylvania's mind shall recover from this horrible spell of Tyranny, lest this great Assembly be subjected to the whinings of a wishful Despot for the duration of the term, and have to be held witness to more ideas that would bring this whole nation to ruin.

I yield.

Mr. Speaker,

First and foremost, I congratulate the honorable members of this house on their election after a hard-fought campaign.

I'd like to advocate in favour of a vote of confidence in the government which has been formed. I'd like to re-iterate the comments made by the honorable member for Charlottesville in saying that this government is made up of three factions which share a number of goals, including commitment to civil liberties, opposition to monarchy and opposition to centralization - principles which the election results show, the American people resoundingly support. As such, I strongly encourage this house to vote alongside the American people, in confidence of this government.

I'd also like to take some time to address the leader of the Radical faction who, unlike the other deputies, seems to be incapable of moving past election grudges - instead choosing to besmirch the house with a bitter tirade of verbal diarrhea. Let it be known that the accusations made by this member are false in their entirety. The reason our faction refused to make deals with the Radical faction is that we have fundamental disagreements with this faction, particularly relating to the question of slavery. Their centralizing approach to this issue concerns our Southern constituents deeply, who would surely suffer were this approach realized. Our concerns regarding this issue are not redeemed by the Radicals' lack of words in support of the vital pursuit of decentralization. Make no mistake, the Radical faction is a hindrance to the march of progress, despite their attempts to appear to the contrary. The member also refers to the member from Charlottesville as a power-hungry tyrant. This is nothing more than a smear below the member's office. Given the bitterness of Franklin's speech, I am given the impression that it is in fact that member who is power-hungry, bitter at the Republican faction's refusal to allow them in to power.

From the incoherent ramblings of the leader of the Radical faction, I can conclude that this decision, to deny this philandering clown access to power was the correct and responsible choice.

I yield.

Mr. Speaker,

After a divisive election, far more vicious than I believe even the most cynical of observers could have predicted, it is imperative that we move beyond the histrionics of electoral politics in order to take up the sacred duty with which the public has entrusted us: the governance of these United States. I am proud to stand in support of First Secretary Madison in forming the first government of this country.

It is, admittedly, unfortunate that we could not produce a coalition that can command an absolute majority in this chamber — but that is to be expected. We are a large nation, home to a multitude of competing interests, and that reality was reflected both in the results of the election and in the negotiations afterwards. Forming a coalition has been rife with difficulties. The gentleman from Pennsylvania, for instance, offered his support only on the condition that we sacrifice some portion of the self-governance we fought so hard to achieve — to remove the power from the people of newly formed states, to regulate institutions within their borders, and instead offer that power to the central government. While Pennsylvanians would retain the right to make such decisions, my colleague from Pennsylvania sought to strip that right from Kentuckians, a concession I found unacceptable both in my role as a faction leader and as the duly elected member for Kentucky.

My colleague the gentleman from Suffolk raises some concern about our ability to pass legislation, but I have little worry about this government’s ability to enact policy. Our commitment to individual liberties, to sound fiscal policy, and to the freedom of commerce are principles that I believe command broad support, both in this Assembly and across the several states. That a substantial minority government could be assembled is itself an accomplishment, the result of extensive negotiations that have rendered this coalition prepared to present detailed and comprehensive policy to this Assembly and the public at large.

As a result, I urge every member of the Western faction to support our first national government, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Here here!

Mr Speaker,

How can it be claimed that the people of this country overwhelmingly support the agenda of this coalition of chaos when the second largest faction here has been elected on a platform directly opposite theirs? This coalition has no mandate to pass their agenda, of which the sole purpose is to ruin this country?

Calls for unity are all well and good, but meaningless as they seek to marginalise and belittle those who oppose them by referring to them as lunatics.

Mr Speaker,

I'd like to briefly address the statement by the member for Suffolk and Queens who, unfortunately, appears to have abandoned his past statement calling for this honorable house to move on from the election.

The claim that the Republican faction seems to marginalize and belittle political unequivocally false. I can assure the honourable member that if he feels that way, he needn't. My words were wholeheartedly addressed at the leader of the Radical faction, who was peddling a number of falsehoods regarding the Republican faction, referring to the honourable member for Charlottesville as a tyrant. It was necessary to respond to such shenanigans in equal measure. If the leader of the Hamiltonian faction believes that such smears should be uttered unchallenged within this esteemed house, then I suspect it is him who seeks to marginalize and belittle his opponents.

I yield.

Mr. Speaker,

The sentiments expressed by the gentleman from Charlottesville are so proper, and the words he speaks so perfectly fitted to the occasion, that I will not further tax the patience of the Assembly by restating that which has already been sufficiently put. The results of the election are clear; the will of the people is known; and a government has been formed which reflects that will. It is my purpose therefore, and so I implore my fellow Whigs to make it theirs, to support the motion to declare that this Assembly has confidence in the government of the first Secretary.

For the sake of our Liberty, in the interests of Peace, and for the preservation of our federal Union—long may it live—I make this plea on behalf of the government. It has been suggested, by resentful tongues abroad, and some who now are seated in this chamber, that a republic cannot endure without dissolving into anarchy and chaos. We believe they are wrong; and now it is up to us to prove them wrong. In this endeavor, in this great and noble experiment, we set an example for the world: to show beyond all reasonable doubt that man can be governed other than by fear, that Liberty and Security are not opposites, and that a government which sets its foundations not on the monarchial principle of hereditary rule, but in the good heads and stout hearts of the people, can endure to see the freedom enjoyed by it's progenitors preserved for the benefit of their posterity.

I yield my time to the chair.

With time allocated for debate having ended, the Speaker closes the debate and calls for a vote.

As to the motion of confidence:

AYE: 32 votes
NAY: 23 votes
ABSTAIN: 10 votes

The Ayes have it! This National Assembly hereby declares its confidence in the Government of the First Secretary.

Federal Courts Act, 1789:

Be it resolved:


Mr. Speaker,

This resolution will be the bill of the Tory faction for this sitting of the National Assembly. We believe it a fundamental principle that the federal judicial system should be strong and empowered from the very earliest days of this grand experiment.

Although we are in the Opposition, the Tory's will not sit passively by and allow the First Secretary and his Minority Government to ram-rod this House with their ideas. This House will not be an echo-chamber for the Minority Government. We will stand strong and proud and advocate for the issues and policies which we discussed, stood for, and were elected on in these most recent elections.

I yield.

Declaration of Rights Amendments, 1789

Be it resolved, the following enumerated Amendments to the Constitution of the United States:



Mr. Speaker,

Ever since the commencement of the election to the National Assembly and even before, it has been apparent that the rights of the American people best stand codified in our Constitution.

A central campaign pledge of not only the Republican faction but many others was to create such a Declaration of Rights, and so to ensure the freedom and liberty of our citizens I propose these before you now. These rights were of top importance to the pledges that we bestowed upon the American people these past few months, and since we were returned with such a mandate, we feel it clear to propose these in the will of the American people.

We hope that the Opposition shall join us in this pursuit of freedoms, and to raise concerns if they wish but pass these unalienable rights by-and-large, so that Americans throughout our glorious nation can rest assured their liberties are secure.

I yield.

Mr. Speaker;

I rise in support of my colleagues. The rights of man cannot remain tethered to the whims of an institution that by nature is malleable to the will of those whom wish to squash the values of which we fought for. In adopting these declarations of the Rights of Men to our constitution, we are enshrining the principles for which many sacrificed, many paying the greatest price in order to obtain the treasure of freedom and liberty. It would be no less than an affront to the memory of our fallen compatriots should we shirk the duties to defend our revolution at this time. I urge this assembly to adopt the Articles.

I yield the remainder of my time, Mr. Speaker.

Reform of the Presidency Amendments, 1789

Be it resolved, the following Amendments to the Constitution of the United States:


Mr. Speaker,

These Amendments shall be the Patriot faction's bill for this sitting of the National Assembly.  We believe that the Office of President, as it has the ability to appoint or dismiss a First Secretary at it's will, appoint the First Secretary, as well as it being proposed that the Office be granted the ability to appoint non-political Judges, should remain neutral and above the political squabbles of the coming years, lest their be the possibility of bias within the office while selecting or dismissing a First Secretary, or in appointing Judges. 

In addition, we believe that the any Person who holds or wishes to hold the Office of President should be limited to 2 terms of seven years, lest we allow the possibility for a President to grow corrupt in holding the office for their lives, much as a Monarch would.

I yield.

(OOC: Edit I made was to switch two years to 3 years and 6 months as I forgot the term is  7 years, if that could be edited into the legislation that'd be great.)

Constitutional Plebiscite Amendment, 1789

Be it resolved, the following Amendment to the Constitution of the United States:


Mr. Speaker,

We in the Republican faction do feel it necessary to protect the rights of the states, and by extension, the people residing within these states. For this reason, we believe that the people should have the final say in all amendments to our Constitution, as on our very document we wrote the heading of We the People, not We the Deputies of the National Assembly. In addition, we do propose this to add an extra layer of protection against the interference of the federal government against the rights of the states and the people therein, as it again, should come to the voice of the people whether their Constitution shall be amended. We are a nation that pursues the democratic ideal; shouldn't we allow our citizens to democratically shape their guiding document?

I yield the remainder of my time.

Land Act of 1789

Be it resolved:

Mr. Speaker,

This act is intended to alter the system by which public lands are currently sold under the Land Ordinance of 1785. It is essential to raise revenues to fund the functions of government and pay down the national debt. This legislation would accelerate the sale of such lands through the establishment of a system of credit and a significant reduction in the minimum size of each grant. This legislation is that of the Western faction for this year.

I yield.

Mr. Speaker,

I rise today not to speak about a single issue or to introduce legislation but to speak about the topic of slavery and new states that have recently come in the spotlight.

First, I would like to talk about slavery. During the campaign, I and the rest of the Patriots declared that we were the only faction to represent the south, sadly today it looks like that is very true. We are the only faction to defend slavery on the national assembly floor. If the other faction won't defend slavery or even try to attack slavery do not understand how important slavery is to the southern economy. The Radicals, Hamiltonians, and Tories by all opposing slavery and trying to get rid of slavery will not only destroy the southern economy and the United States economy but it may lead to secession. This is destructive talk and creates division within this country. We must keep slavery and the slave trade or this countries economy and politics will be sent to chaos.

Second, I would like to discuss the new discussions within not only this assembly but around this country about new states. I believe that we should create new states especially in Kentucky but right now I would like to discourage splitting Pennsylvania and Virginia into new states. Westsylvania is going to create huge division across this state and across this nation as we are going to have to create a new national discussion of slavery. Virginia needs slavery but Pennsylvania is filled with people who argue that slavery should be gotten rid of. Because of how radically different these two states are I don't believe it is wise to merge parts of them because that would create a state that is bound to fail.

I yield

Mr. Speaker,

I rise today to discuss the matter of the admission of new states into the Union. The Western faction ran on an explicit promise of statehood in Kentucky, Franklin, and the areas that would form Westsylvania -- we believe that our victories in all those elections represent a clear popular desire for statehood, and will act to the fullest extent to guarantee the admission of these new states in our Congress.

I thank the deputy for Augusta for his support for Kentucky's statehood, and would like to gently correct his characterization of the economy of Westsylvania. The country of western Virginia is rugged and mountainous, and the farms that exist between the mountains are small, often worked by only a single man and his family. While they are legally permitted to become slaveholders, the institution is extremely rare, a fact that I do not expect to change given the conditions of the land. Should the state be admitted to the Union, I believe the people of the state should determine through their own democratic methods whether slavery is permissible, but I do not foresee significant strife arising out of whatever decision they may make.

Mr Speaker,

I rise in support of the gentleman from Lexignton's proposal. It is the democratic right of those to be admitted into this Union to decide whether or not to institute slavery in their state. While our opposition to the slave trade is non-negotiable, we respect the rights of the people to choose.

The proposal to let the people of these new states to decide the issue of slavery within their own states is  one that we wholeheartedly support.

Mr. Speaker,

I rise in support of the Gentleman from Lexington's proposal on the issue of Slavery.  I believe that there are possible new states, such as Franklin and Kentucky, which have use for the Institution of Slavery, and there are also states such as Vermont and possibly Westsylvania which will either have no wish for the institution to exist, or have no land in which it's usage would be possible.  As such, I believe it is in the interests of the people within new states to decide their fate on the issue of Slavery, and I will make the following guarantee on the issue of Slavery.  The Patriots do not wish to expand slavery into a state which does not want the institution to exist, we merely wish to defend it's existence where it is allowed, or where the people of a state wish to allow it, as in those states the institution is a vital part of it's economy and interference on slavery from federal legislation could bring the economies of Slave States to ruin.

I also wish to ask a question on the Gentleman from Suffolk & Queens position on the Slave Trade.  Does your faction wish to outlaw the trade entirely through federal legislation?  For if so you would be betraying the right of the people to choose whether or not to allow importation of slaves into their states.  I believe that leaving that issue up to individual states would be the best idea, as some states may wish to ban the importation of slaves, such as Virginia in 1778, and others may wish to allow it to continue, such as South Carolina whose port of Charleston is a rather large hub of the trade.  I sincerely hope the Gentleman from Suffolk & Queens shares my view on this, as it is merely allowing the people to choose their own fate.

I yield.

Mr. Speaker,

I am opposed to the proposal from the Gentleman from Lexington. I believe that any state being admitted to the Union must be a non-slave, free state. Slavery is abhorrent, a great moral wrong which no self-respecting person can claim to support while also preaching on the American qualities of patriotism, liberty, and freedom. We must limit slavery to the states where it is currently, regrettably, practiced and begin the process of removing it from those states in due course. This is the only good, Christian path forward on this issue.

I yield.

Mr Speaker,

Our opposition to the Atlantic slave trade is non-negotiable, and we do seek its aboliton. However, we do not seek to end slave trade between the states of this union.  This is our position, as banning internal slave trading would be fundamentally anti-democratic. We merely seek the end of the Atlantic slave trade.

Compromise Bill of 1790

Be it resolved:

Mr. Speaker,
The issue of slavery has come to a point where it may tear our young Republic in twain. It is vital that this Chamber bring about a compromise, of which I have drafted with my Colleague from Savannah, which shall assuage the fears of both the planter gentry and of the residents of the Northern states of our Union. I believe that the unity of our Republic is vital to the continual protection of the rights of all men, and that a collapse of our union would leave individual states vulnerable to tyranny and agitation from the likes of monarchies such as England and Spain. However, we must also take steps to limit the importation of enslaved persons onto our shores, and such a move of levying tax on purchases of them would encourage plantation owners to consider free labour in its stead.

I hope we can all come together for the sake of our young Republic and avoid a dreadful disunion which will doom our great experiment.

I yield.

Tariff Act, 1789

Be it resolved,


Mr. Speaker,

This bill is entered on behalf of the government for to establish a reliable source of revenue for the United States in light of the significant debt left to us by the Confederation. It is the purpose of the government to forgo onerous taxes and duties upon the people of these States; however, without revenue we will be unable to keep our obligations to our creditors, our credit will be ruined, and we will have no prospect of trade with  Europe upon which the economies of both our Northern and Southern States depend. We therefore recommend this legislation to the house, to establish a moderate tariff for the purposes of revenue alone, in order to promote the financial solvency of the United States.

I yield my time to the chair.

National Military Act of 1790

Be it resolved,


Mr Speaker, our young nation is in need of a strong national defence. There are elements of various European powers would see us be brought under their thumb, and a strong defence will be needed to dissuade them from attempting to do so.

I served in the Continental Army during the Revolution, and I am certain many of us in this Assembly know of someone who served, or indeed themselves served, in either the Continental Army or Navy during said war. A national military with a unified command structure is required to ensure our nation's safety in the world.

Mr. Speaker, it is my great honor as the deputy for Kentucky to introduce the legislation that will allow Kentucky to take her rightful place as an equal in our Union of States.

Mr. Speaker,

I present the following bill, to serve as the legislation of the Tory Faction for this meeting of the National Assembly:


Mr. Speaker, I believe that a strong and empowered Senate is well within the image of this new government that we set out to create. This bill aims to be the first in what will hopefully be a series of bills to improve and embolden the Senate as the ultimate check on the whims and desires of some of the more radical members of this body.

I yield.

Mr. Speaker,

Today I wish to speak on a matter which has enflamed our country in recent days, the imprisonment of the staff of the Western Herald and James Wilkinson in Pennsylvania.  These arrests are based on a Pennsylvania law, calling any speech in support of secession from the state "Treason."  However, I submit that, as Mr. Wilkinson stated before he was arrested, that this law is in violation of the Laws of Pennsylvania and the Natural Rights of Man.  This law violates the rights of Freedom of Speech, the Press, and Assembly, and should be struck immediately from Pennsylvania's statute as such, should the Government of Pennsylvania wish to move away from the tyranny they've subjected the people of Westsylvania. 

I also wish to address the attacks upon this legislature by one Silence Dogood, claiming that Deputies are trampling the rights of states by opposing Pennsylvania's enforcement of this law.  Mr. Dogood, I believe you fail to understand two crucial points. 

First, that this law is firmly in violation of the Pennsylvania Constitution and the Natural Rights of Man, and if it were not for the timing of it's enforcement, said law would be Federally unconstitutional, under the Declaration of Rights Amendments.  As such, Deputies within this Legislature and all those who oppose Pennsylvania's law, are firmly within their rights to oppose this Statute, and push for it's immediate repeal.

Second, he speaks of Westsylvania's armed rebellion against Pennsylvania's tyrannical approach to the Rights of Man as something the Federal Government should step in and oppose.  Mr. Dogood, this proposed action would again be in violation of the Rights of Man, as when men are subjected to a government which has trampled upon the Rights of Man, as the Government of Pennsylvania has, have the right to overthrow said government and establish a new one, respectful of their rights.  That is the goal of the Westsylvanian Militias, to establish a government that will no longer trample upon their rights and interests.  As such, The people of Westsylvania have my full and complete support in their efforts to establish themselves as a separate State, and I implore all citizens within the proposed state of Westsylvania to rise up, and make your voices heard!  Stand as one people and strike down the tyrannical government of Pennsylvania in your pursuit of Freedom!

I yield, but may the people of Westsylvania never yield!

Mr. Speaker,

I come to this hall fresh from a duel that manifested from attempts to paint me as a monarch -- a man who felt himself above the law.

Today, from my very opponents, namely Secretary Madison and his Government, we have seen a monarch-to-be reveal his true face.

If these accusations ring true, Mr. Madison has attempted to grant legal immunity for himself and his government. These, gentlemen, are the first steps to tyranny through putting himself and his cronies into positions above the law.

The greatest irony is that these men of a supposed "small government" are now accused of attempting to rise above it. Of course, it makes sense -- if the government is small, it is easier for them to trample upon.

I implore Mr. Madison to respond to these criticisms immediately, to elucidate the American people as to whether these damning accusations have even a grain of truth to them.

If they do, we must stand against Mr. Madison and the separatists in the West of Pennsylvania. While I support a diplomatic way to statehood, Madison's alleged treason can never be tolerated.

I yield.

Mr. Speaker,

As you may have heard in my statement to the press, these accusations of a tyrannical nature that I possess are completely and entirely untrue and a baseless attack on my character. While these sentiments remain untrue, we do live in these United States, a bastion of civil freedom, and I do believe that this press does have the right to print these, no matter the nature of this false news.

Additionally, with my Secretary, Mr. Wilkinson, being imprisoned, I cannot stress enough that my request for his release only remained so he could engage in these negotiations, nothing more. And while it is the position of this government that he is being held illegally, we welcome him to stand his trial as we believe in the integrity of the law and the ability of the Pennsylvania courts to be able to interpret their Constitution.

I yield the remainder of my time.

Mr. Speaker,

I, along with the Honourable Robert Morris and Honourable Alexander Hamilton present the following bill on behalf of the Hamiltonian Faction:


For the people of the "Westsylvania" region, resolution is needed soon. As conflict within the region rises to a point of crisis, it is clear  that a diplomatic solution is imperative, lest we wish to see war on our frontier. Our faction hopes that this bill will become a point of consensus among the debate over "Westsylvania," a point that allows for local autonomy to be decided by the people, and for a stable government to be formed. We stand open for amendments and compromise, something that is much needed in today's tense climate.

Mr. Speaker,

Objects of the utmost gravity, questions which in their immensity contain the fate of our republic, are now before us. Let there be no ambiguity between us, gentlemen, now. May the voice of the Lord our God ring clear in the heart of every American, and the instrument of his divine Will this chamber be, in this, the crisis of our Union.

I will be very plain with you, gentlemen. I cannot condone, cannot excuse, the measures which the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania has seen fit to levy against the alleged treason of their brethren to the west. The arrest of General Wilkinson; the suspension in some quarters of freedom of the press; the attempts in their multitude to prevent the exercise by the people of their sacred and inalienable right to speak freely, and without fear of coercion; are levied in direct contradiction to the provisions of the Constitution of that Commonwealth, and are anathema to the principle of republican liberty. In this crisis, the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania have acted with all the arrogance and tactless insolence George III once reserved for the inhabitants of these States. That the contest has now come to violence, that American blood has been shed by American hands, is a prospect which was ever within the power of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania to prevent. Instead, provocation, intolerance, and coercion have been the policy of the governing party. For this unhappy course of events, they have no-one to blame but themselves.

But even so—even as the actions of the governors and their officers are destined to beget the manly resistance that now rises up in the West—this is no excuse for violence, and lawlessness. Let there be no mistake, Mr. Speaker: rebellion against a State is a crime against the people, and treason to this Union. No republic may long survive when laws cease to be the currency by which the people bond their liberty, and the contest of faction gives way to the contest of arms. The tyranny of the mob is as terrible and as great a threat to the liberty of the people as the tyranny of the monarch, and I fear the day when powder and musket shot should become the ballots by which governments are made and unmade on this continent.

In an absolute State, where the freedom of speech and the franchise are denied to the people by the laws of the dominion, then rebellion is the right and duty of every good and able citizen; but in a republic, where the laws of the Country are established by the sovereignty of the people, rebellion is unjust and treasonous, and may not be tolerated—even when the grievances which may give rise to rebellion are just and permissible. Such a principle, enshrined in precedent, would be the death knell of the Union—a prospect too horrible for any who call himself the friend of American independence to for a moment entertain. That Westsylvania has been wronged by the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, there is no contest; that some among her citizens have sought restitution for these wrongs by the point of the bayonet, is no more allowable, than the crimes they seek to prevent.

This, gentlemen, is our task. The rebellion must be put down with the gentle firmness of a mother, and immediately thereafter measures be taken by this government to restore the rights of the people of Westsylvania and secure the liberty of those wrongly held for the exercise of their natural liberty.

I yield my time to the chair.

Mr. Speaker,

I am informed, by word carried by the swiftest couriers newly arrived in the city, of the burning of Pittsburg. Mutinous militiamen, acting with the apparent disregard of their officers and the evident apathy of the present government of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, massacred the defenders and set fire to the town. Colonel Hamilton, who selflessly placed himself in the line of fire in hopes of preventing the further effusion of blood, barely escaped with his life. We do not yet know how many are dead.

The hour has come when this government must prove itself worthy of the confidences of the people and the respect of the world. I move that the National Assembly invest the president with full authority to raise a force sufficient to suppress the lawless rebellion of the Pennsylvania militia and restore peace and tranquility to the western counties.

I yield my time to the chair.

Mr. Speaker,

I rise today because I feel it is my duty to thank the deputy of Suffolk and Queens for his service to his nation. Mr. Hamiltion has shown today that he will put his country first, he is a truly honorable man and pray that Mr. Hamiltion's legacy shall stand the test of time.

I ask that the national assembly bow our heads and pray for the safety of Mr. Hamiltion and the security of our nation under his control.

I yield

Mr Speaker,

I thank everyone in this chamber for their well-wishes and may I say, I too hope my mission ends in success.

I hereby formally tender my resignation as the Member for Suffolk and Queens and as Leader of the Opposition. My deputy, Thomas Pinckney will assume acting Leadership until such time as a successor can be elected.

I wish you all the best.

With this Mr Speaker, I yield not just my time but my place. Thank you.

Mr. Speaker,

As the Interim Leader of the Patriots in the national assembly, I present this bill on behalf of the Patriot faction:


I believe this Act must pass because the south is becoming unrepresented because of the far distance of travel from the South to Philadelphia. Not only will this allow for equal representation from the north and south but it also allows the National Assembly to be safe of the rioters in Pennsylvania. Not only will this only more representation of southern deputies and allow every deputy to be in a safe environment but it will also save on cost since the south has slave labor, unlike the north and Philadelphia. If we stay in Philidelphia and continue to build our government there then our government will continue to cost more and more which will further push our nation into debt.

I urge all my fellow Patriots and Deputies to support this act

I yield

Mr.Speaker

I am not a member of these "Patriots", however I am a man who can see things that are needed. I second the motion to move the capital south.

Westsylvania Resolution Act of 1791

Be it resolved,


Mr. Speaker,

The act to install a referendum of choice for Westsylvanians has been revised to reflect the terms of the Westsylvanians and the Government to a peaceful resolution. No matter each faction's stance on Westsylvanian separatism, I ask for a vote in favor of this bill as it will offer an exit to this crisis and a peaceful resolution through democratic means.

I yield.

Mr. Speaker,

I have finally returned to this grand National Assembly from these negotiations, and while this resolution is not perfect, we have found a resolution to the Westsylvanian crisis, and in the process, preserved our Union.

Upon my return, I've took note of multiple things. First, I've been informed that my party's brand has potentially been permanently damaged in the eastern successor state of Pennsylvania by the outcome of these talks. And while I have much remorse for my fellow compatriots who strive to achieve political office in those lands who will now be consistently denied for generations to come, I will say I have no regret. I believe it better to preserve our Union while destroying my party, then to preserve my party while destroying this Union.

Furthermore, I have heard of many of my fellow Deputies that have criticized my performance in the negotiations in the battle field. I have a few notes for these Deputies. First, do experience these events in the same order as I have these past few weeks, and attempt a resolution when the Governor would not stop short of eradicating the Westsylvanians, as I had, before rendering a judgment yourselves. Without being too presumptuous, I believe the vast majority of you all would have acted in the same manner as I did given the hand I was dealt.

And secondly, if the unpopularity of this event eventually causes my political demise for one reason or another, then so be it. For it has been better for me to do my small part in preserving this Union than preserving my own electoral chances. I would rather return to Charlottesville Town without any office and yet know what I had done may have possibly tipped the scales in peace's favor, than to hold onto my seat and the office of First Secretary for dozens of terms knowing I had done absolutely nothing to resolve the crisis and have the nation burn beneath my feet. That, Mr. Speaker, would be the actions of a true tyrant. And that, for better or worse, is why I swiftly rode to the negotiating site, to preserve this Union for hopefully years to come and to put an end to this raging crisis.

I do not know, nor may ever know the full impact of this conflict on our young nation's future. I only hope it has shaped us in such a way that no future First Secretary may ever need to deal with such a crisis again.

I yield the remainder of my time.

Mr. Speaker,
I am proud to introduce legislation to recognize the new State of Cumberland, as well as to resolve the present dispute over the state's borders.

National Military Act of 1791

Be it resolved,


Mr Speaker, I believe that with the recent attacks by the Indian menace against our countrymen that this legislature must reconsider this legislation.  While I do recognize the concerns of my colleagues in the Senate on the amended legislation, which restricts the proposed military from being a large force during peacetime, there are a number of reasons why a large military would be dangerous to this nation. 

First, as the Gentlenan from Boston pointed out in this legislation's original debate, a large standing army has, in republics throughout history, been an enemy of liberty and has led to the destruction of Liberty by ambitious generals.  Secondly, there is the fiscal concerns of a large standing army, as this nation has just begun to produce a revenue in it's budget, a massive increase in spending would be dangerous to our economy.  The establishment of a large standing army would require either subjecting our nation to a large increase in its deficit and already enormous debt, or subjecting it to further taxation. 

Finding neither of these outcomes satisfactory, I choose to reintroduce this legislation in the interests of providing our nation and its people a standing army capable of purging the Indian menace from it's territory while keeping this nation's budget stable. 

I yield the remainder of my time.

(OOC: Legislation reintroduced by the Deputy from Wilkes.)

Vermont Statehood Act, 1791

Be it resolved,


Mr. Speaker,

The resolution of those remaining disputes between the state of Vermont and the state of New York, and the newly received petition of the former for admission to the United States, it is my distinct privilege to present this resolution, and to move that the state of Vermont be immediately received as a new member of the United States.

I yield my time to the chair.

The Speaker:

Denied. The Patriot faction has already introduced the maximum amount of legislation allocated for them this year.

National Military Act of 1791

Be it resolved,


Mr Speaker,

I am reintroducing the legislation that itself was reintroduced by the honorable Deputy from Wilkes. In this era of conflict and struggle, it is imperative that we have strong defence forces in times of need to protect our young nation. Given that this bill also creates assurances that it will cause little expansion of our debt. I have peace in reintroducing this bill.

I yield.

National Coinage Act of 1791

Be it resolved,


Mr. Speaker,

The Hamiltonians introduce this Act to create a national Mint and Coinage system for these United States. Our country cannot continue along a path of financial instability and insolvency. Nay, our nation is in need of a standardized currency and a way to produce it to ensure that our commerce is reasonable, prosperous, and secure. To have a strong nation, we must have a strong financial system, and this Act lays the groundwork with which to achieve that.

I yield.

Mr. Speaker,

It is with great honour that I, Gouverneur Morris, shall take the reigns of the Hamiltonian Faction in the halls of our Congress.

It has been a pleasure to have served under both General Hamilton himself, and the Honourable Charles Pinckney. May our leadership be as strong as their will and their tact.

To the men of my Faction: I stand with you. As long we stand united in this Congress, and across these United States, our Faction shall be a mighty one.

To the leaders and honourable men of our Congress' many other factions, I extend an open hand. I am eager to work alongside you for the good of this Nation, and to fiercely debate any law that shall come before it.

I yield.

Mr. Speaker,

Maine is a largely independent area. They are a wild and rugged bunch, making a living on their own and in a very specific manner. They are not even in physical contact with the Commonwealth of Massachusetts, the Governor and Legislature of which claim jurisdiction over it. Why? What sense does it make? None.

I yield.

Mr. Speaker;

I rise in opposition to the proposed legislation in regards to the status of Maine. Though I hold no doubt that there are legitimate arguments in favor of statehood, I fear that adding yet another state to the union will throw off the delicate balancing act we have all collectively played, as the prospect of two abolitionists from the far-north representing only a small smattering of people could result in the over representation of those whom look down upon the Virginians way of life with great acrimony.

I yield.

Mr. Speaker,

While acknowledging the deputy's concerns, I would note the simultaneous consideration of the admission of the State of Cumberland in this legislative session, which I believe should maintain the current balance in the Senate.

I yield.

Statehood Amendment (22nd Amendment*)

Be it resolved, the following Amendment to the Constitution of the United States after ratification of the States and a Referendum of the People,


*OOC: I'm 99.999% sure it's the 22nd

Mr. Speaker,

It is apparent we need to codify completely the process that a state shall enter existence in this Union after Westsylvania and Cumberland. With our nation ever expanding to the North and West, it is even more apparent we must codify this amendment as soon as possible, before another crisis shall break out that may break our Union. This act is intended to prevent such a crisis as Westsylvania from arising yet again.

I yield.

The National Bank Act, 1791

Be it resolved,


Gentlemen, creating a National Mint and Coinage is simply the first step to economic security. For this nation to manage its economy at a federal level, truly ease the burden of our war debts, and create a true flow of capital and wealth across our lands, we are in need of a Nation Bank. By creating a currency of bills and notes, allowing for subscription to our shares at a six percent interest rate, and by having both private and public oversight, this bank is truly an instrument needed to guide us towards prosperity. The plan may be ambitious, but a bold plan is needed to truly grapple with our nation's debt woes once and for all.

I yield.

Mr. Speaker,

I have taken the floor to address the Assembly and this country on the state of our Union. Right now, it seems in almost every state there is some sort of secessionist movement or uprising brewing. Let it be known: yes, we are a collection of individual states, which have their own distinct histories and cultures. But more importantly, let it be known: Union comes before States in our title for a reason. We are a collection of states, but we are also more. We are, first and foremost, a united entity, a united country with a common goal under one government. We are one nation under God. So yes, I do sympathize with each individual secessionist effort and the opposition to those efforts. But I cannot come to terms as to these groups taking up arms, brother against brother, in a war of fire against each other. We are all Americans, and I cannot agree with any group which claims to liberate their peoples by incredible force from the oppression - of what? A state government? Hardly an entity to die for, to lay your lives down for! But yet, I also cannot agree with state governments which seek to dispel these movements by jailing their leaders and their comrades. What are you afraid of? Of freedom, liberty, and the values we stood for in the battles against the British? I cannot agree with either of these groups. We are sitting for a test, a great and important test for the whole world to see. Will this Grand Experiment function? Or will we fall to pieces when our individual identities take precedence over our common goal? We cannot allow such a fate. So yes, secession is fine, disagreement is acceptable. But when brother takes up arms against brother, and lives are lost? This shall be no more. America, we must stand as one. We must end the unnecessary hostilities, or our country, our society, our very way of life may crumble. America, everything is at stake in this test. It is now your choice to determine if we pass it.

I yield the remainder of my time.

Mr. Speaker,

With the passing of the act to move south, I have done what I came here to do because I have allowed the south to be more represented and preserved slavery in the south. I believe I have done the most I can in the national assembly and that is why I must resign my position as deputy from Augusta. I have already submitted my letter of resignation so this will be my last speech to the national assembly

I yield

---

Mr. Madison,

I have served my country in the military and then in the national assembly. It has been my great privilege to serve this country and watch the birth of the first Republic in the world. Still, I believe I have done all I can in the national assembly and that I can do more as Governor of Georgia. This is why I started running for Governor and the reason I must resign from the national assembly.

I officially resign from the national assembly at the end of the national assembly session.

X James Gunn

Mr. Speaker,

I would like to take this pause in debate to address a matter of recent importance: the assumption of Pennsylvania's state debt. Unfortunately, especially in a time such as this, it appears there are liars on both sides of the aisle in the wake of this resolution. On our left, with the Hamiltonians, a claim of most untruth has been levied: that we have shown favoritism to the Pennsylvanian government. This is completely and entirely false. We did not show favoritism, instead, we were finding a solution to a most extraordinary problem. If other states feel left out, I call on them: do, start a rebellion. Wage war against your brethren until your cities are burned to the ground. Ensure the almost complete destruction of our Union.

On my right, with the Patriots, they also levy the claims as stated before, but with an additional untruth: that these will cause an undue burden to the taxpayer and the national debt. Yet again, this is entirely false. The government, instead of yielding to the taxpayer, will instead create new sources of revenue, as we already have before, and prevent the growth of the national debt further by funding our expenditures.

And, I call furthermore on these who so boldly criticize this resolution without further substance. Come forward, and do instead of causing further strife, help our nation, by providing a solution of your own. If you believe that this resolution was not the best for our nation -- prove it. I can tell you that, most likely, you will not.

I yield.

Mr. Speaker,

I wish to address the statements of the First Secretary on his Pennsylvania deal.  Mr. Secretary, I ask of you this question, do you not know what legislation this Assembly has passed this session?  Of particular interest in this current debate would be the following Acts, The Capital Relocation Act of 1791, The National Military Act of 1791, and The National Coinage Act of 1791.  These three acts alone will create a considerable increase in this Government's expenditure, the latter being the most unnecessary and as such received mine and my Faction's opposition, though sadly was passed on the votes of your government.  Now, it is in addition to these Acts that your government has chosen to increase the expenditure even further through the construction of a massive canal in Pennsylvania, a project that should be paid for by a state's government but I digress, as well as create an increase of some 3 million dollars in our national debt through the assumption of Pennsylvania's debts. 

I ask of you Mr. Secretary, First, how is it that the Government expects to pay for all these increases in expenditure without an increase in taxes?  Do you seriously expect our revenue to increase to pay for a National Military, a new capital city, a National mint, and now a massive canal and another 3 million dollars in debt without harming the taxpayer?  If so, you must certainly be in a whimsical world where gold is grown upon the trees, but back within our reality it is a simple fact that these increases will send this nation spiraling either into further taxation or debt.

In addition to this massive oversight on our budget, your government has decided to take it upon themselves to pay the debts of the tyrant Radicals of Pennsylvania, thus freeing them of their own faults and instead placing the burden of paying off this debt upon the taxpayers within responsible and debt free states, such as your home state of Virginia.  This deal is not only a betrayal of your own state, which will along with the rest of this nation most certainly be subjected to an increase in the burden of taxation, but a betrayal of the principles of state's rights as well! 

On two points your government has betrayed state's rights, the first being the construction of the Harrisburg-Philadelphia canal.  Your government has chosen to undertake a project that will enrich primarily the state of Pennsylvania, not only a clear act of favoritism but also taking internal improvements within states, which should occur at the state level, and adding it as a power of the National Government.  What now is to stop a future government, primarily from one region, to spend their term in government enriching their own region through internal improvement projects, while levying taxes upon another to finance them? 

On the second point, you have granted a state massive federal aid, infringing upon the principles of self-government.  The principles of self-government do not state that a local government, such as a state, should receive federal aid whenever they are in difficulty, for that is merely taking away the ability of a state to learn from their own problems and to grow in their ability to govern themselves, yet you have done just that.  Is it your wish, Mr. Secretary, that the governments of states grow reliant upon federal intervention in times when they experience the slightest of difficulties?  For that is what this action appears to imply.

Mr. Secretary, you have sadly chosen a path of falsehoods and betrayal of the principles which your faction claims to stand for, and have thus abandoned the south and all those who support the rights of states.  The Patriots however, will not abandon our principles in times of difficulty, and will stand as a firm check upon expansion of federal power and unfunded expenditure, as well as a faction firmly dedicated to self-government and the rights of states.  May our nation survive this great betrayal, and let the factions who hold your government together, the Western and Whig factions, find their principles and join us in opposition of your actions.

I yield the remainder of my time, though the Patriots shall never yield our principles.

Mr. Speaker,

After a long period of my absence, I am proud to return to this National Assembly and lead the Patriot Party, through the remainder of this Government's term at the least.  There appears to be much to discuss on our nation, and I will address the current events of this nation in this speech.

First, I feel it relevant to discuss the madness of one William Blount.  When we welcomed Mr. Blount into our Party, we did not expect for him to go on a bout of madness during his campaign, and as soon as we heard of his insane ideas we immediately moved to expel him from our Party and replaced him as our candidate.  In no uncertain terms is William Blount a man who has lost his mind to some alternative world where his ludicrous ideas are accepted, and I must state that he does not represent for a second what the Patriots stand for.  I pray that Mr. Blount will never rear his head into our Nation's politics again, but if he should the Patriot Party will stand wholly against his madness.

Second, it appears that the words of my colleague John Milledge have rung true, as the spending approved in the previous year, as well as The First Secretary's "Deal" have sent this nation once again into a deficit.  While a significant portion of the spending is necessary, such as military spending for the Indian War and the construction of our new capital, the assumption of Pennsylvania's debt is most certainly not necessary.  As such, I will propose returning the assumed debt back to Pennsylvania, lest we fall into a pattern of aiding state governments at any time they are in difficulty and doom our nation to large increases in taxation to pay for said aid.  I believe that in regards to overall spending that we can trust in "Mad Anthony" Wayne to deal with the Indian threat as soon as is militarily feasible and will hopefully allow our nation to return to a deficit-free budget without further taxation being required.

Third, in regards to the war in Europe between France and the Austro-Prussian coalition, I believe there is no reason for the United States to involve ourselves in the war, and that we should maintain a strict neutrality in order to avoid damaging any current trade relationships we have.  However, I do believe that our new navy should begin guarding our merchant ships to stave off any possible attacks from foreign powers or pirates.  Our merchants should not have to trade in fear of possible attack, and as a neutral power it is our right to trade with all nations who wish to trade with us.

In finality, it is truly a privilege to return to this Assembly, and I thank the people of Baltimore for their hospitality for the duration of our Government's stay within their fine city.

I yield the remainder of my time, and may God Bless our United States with Freedom, Liberty, and Prosperity.

(James Jackson speaking as he can return now :P)

Financial Acts, 1792

Be it resolved:


Mr. Speaker,

These measures are brought in answer to what may be with justice, and is in many quarters, called the most perilous question of our age: that of the federal debt, and the future financial stability of these States. They form their answer in three parts: first, the establishment of a federal Treasury independent of the influence of speculators and foreign interests; second, the opening of trade with the kingdoms of Denmark and Portugal, in accordance with commercial agreements formed with those countries; third, a reasonable tax on imported and domestic liquors. The first and second provisos serve to establish on solid ground the faith and credit of the United States; the second and third to increase the sum of revenue by which the debt may be paid down. Regardless of party, all who admit the necessity of a sound financial policy must approve these sensible and moderate measures, as so we ask this honorable house.

I yield my time to the chair.