Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[Harry Baldman]

"Ah, so you do have an army of your own? That is interesting. I don't recall any large-scale battles with Union forces being fought in this area. Where were they fought, if I may ask? And whose side did you represent in said battles? Was it the South, or did you just fight them for the sheer hell of it, as they say in the vernacular?"

[Innsmothe]

That is rather unfortunate because I already have an army.
I have led it in battle with the union and I have won every time.

I was referring mostly to our colleagues idea of each placing an equal number of officers in the army.

To do so would cause the army to turn on itself.
Who then would take over all command of those generals? One of us had to take the role of commander in chief to co-ordinate the generals in times of war and provide a central command on the frontlined and I am the only military man here to do so.

Every army needs one man to make the final call if the generals disagree.

No, no they don't. Generals tend to be given goals, but are usually free to implement the measures they think they require. Having an equal share of loyalty thus shall not impede efficiency.
I don't think any sane man(or woman) would let an unknown element take total control of the forces separating us from our potential enemies.

[Brood]

"Ah, so you do have an army of your own? That is interesting. I don't recall any large-scale battles with Union forces being fought in this area. Where were they fought, if I may ask? And whose side did you represent in said battles? Was it the South, or did you just fight them for the sheer hell of it, as they say in the vernacular?"

You don't recall them because there were none, allow me to give you a lesson on military tactics.
Our combined forces right now total maybe 10% of the unions, I command 2 devisions, which in total adds up to 4 regiments of regulars now using equipment taken from the enemy while at the time they were militia themselves.
A frontal assault would of been a slaughter for both sides and even if I had won it would of been to costly so I adapted.
We already knew where the enemies key bases in the area were so I devided my forces and took a central position to direct them, we destroyed supply convoys, ambushed patrols, crushed isolated forces.
We left the Union soldiers with a single clear message, we will hunt you down and we will kill you if you do not get off our land.

That should also answer who I fought for, I fought for the men beside me, for the families of those men and for the futures of those families.
The rest of you seek to gain power in your new roles, that is understable after all your business men first and fortmost.
I on the other hand see my business simply as the means of bringing in the people I need and getting the supplies I need for my army to defend my people and my people are a part of this nation so to answer your question in full, I fought for this nation and will continue to fight for it as long as I am able.

No, no they don't. Generals tend to be given goals, but are usually free to implement the measures they think they require. Having an equal share of loyalty thus shall not impede efficiency.
I don't think any sane man(or woman) would let an unknown element take total control of the forces separating us from our potential enemies.

Every military force has 1 General who commands the rest, the general who comes up with the overall plan and assigns tasks to each general beneath him, he also co-ordinates those tasks to give the greatest chance of success.
5 generals running around at random to do tasks with no co-ordination are an easy target for an enemy force to isolated and shred one by one much as my forces did to the Union.
5 generals attacking objectives in a co-ordinated strike on the other hand is almost impossible to counter if they strike fast.

As I said, no army can survive with more then 1 head, if 2 generals disagree over the tactics to complete a task then it will result in one of 4 outcomes.
The generals will fight and one will die at which point the armies will fight and we lose.
The generals will split up and go about it as they wish and in doing so weaker themselves, we probably lose.
The generals will sit and argue until the enemy attacks them, we lose.
One general will surrender to the other, we probably win. But this outcome is highly unlikely since a general is unlikely to surrender to another if he believes that other is wrong.

That is why you need one to stand above the others, if it reaches this stage then that one makes the choice for them and as soldiers they will follow the chain of command and do as that one has said.



So to put it simply, I wish to be given command over all our forces, by all means limit that control so it only takes effect in emergencies or to prevent in fighting.
Your welcome to elect one person each to attach to my staff who speaks with your authority to advise me and if required to step in and prevent me doing something against our interests without permission.
I seek that power purely to defend my people and this nation and a devided army as you seem to want would be no match for the Unions might.
If you will not grant me that power then I will be forced to continue to expand my own private army at which point I will have even more power then I would have had if you granted me the position of Military Commander.

[Innsmothe]

How about a compromise.
Allow the one general to be elected by the people of the newly freed state.
If they are to be defended by someone, it should be by someone they feel has their interests and not their own at heart.

[Brood]

" I will agree to that on the condition that I take the position until that vote can be completed, it will require time to arrange and conduct the voting and until then the role still needs to be filled.

My own forces will of course remain under my command whatever the outcomes, they serve me not the nation and would not accept being commanded by another. "

[Harry Baldman]

"So, Mr. Hunt, I am to understand that you have carried on a very successful guerilla war in this very state that nobody's heard about? In addition, you can spare me the rhetoric. I am far beyond the point of flowery declarations of purportedly selfless intent ever convincing me of anything."

"As to your proposition, Mr. Fitzgerald, I find it agreeable, but only on one condition - that none of us can ever hold the post of the, what shall we call it, Grand Marshal or something. Any military decisions required in the period before the elections must be decided by a committee. And the election is to be held in a month, no later."

[Brood]

" Then I disagree, there is no reason why I should not be allowed to run for that post.
Whoever takes it will pose an equal risk and I have as much right to defend my people as any of the other officers do.

I killed enemies in the night when they were out numbered and taken by surprise, I carried out that war purely to scare my enemy and I did so to great effect.
It would of been a pore campaign if I had been discovered in the process. "

[Harry Baldman]

"There is a very good reason. An excellent reason, in fact. And that reason is that you are not a subordinate of any of us. You also feel that you must defend your country your own way no matter the cost and that others are merely silly obstacles in the way that you must overcome through your means. In short, a very, very poor choice for selection as a subordinate. And any of your purported accomplishments have left no apparent evidence, it seems. And one of the goals of a good government is to prevent its own destabilization. If you took that post, you would simply have far, far too much power in your hands. This may pose a problem when you disagree with your fellow policy makers and decide to dispose of them, as you invariably will when this amount of power corrupts you. Human nature, Mr. Hunt, is why you cannot be the Grand Marshal."

[Brood]

" In which case whoever is chosen takes my place, becomes equally as big a risk to you in that he commands the army, he will have it's loyalty and if he should decide to then he will kill you all and the only one capable of stopping him will be me, and I will not risk the lives of a single one of my men to protect you.

Do you really believe you could prevent a general who's been given that post from coming for you if he wants to? No matter who you should choose that same risk will always be there, the only difference is that general will take the post because he seeks advancement and once he has it what is left for him but to take our place?

But by all means if the others agree then I will not put myself forward, what true difference will it make though? I already command the best equipped and most experienced combat force in this nation, if you won't trust me with the means to defend it that we have now then I will simply continue to build my own army instead and do it without you entirely.

Would you rather have me lead an army that swears loyalty to the nation? Or one that swears loyalty to me. "

[Harry Baldman]

"Now you see where I am coming from, Mr. Hunt. I proposed from the very start that there should not be a single general in command of the entire army for this very reason. One general per division of men, all generals act in accordance with the will of our committee. You are part of the committee, so I do not see a problem. It is, after all, you who wishes to have sole and absolute control of the army of the nation without any official accountability, even going so far as to threaten us with your army of hirelings should we not comply."

"Which does give me an idea. The rest of you, what do you say about imposing a hard limit on private militias? Say, limit them to several hundred men or so so that our properties can be protected from any infractions. As Mr. Hunt has demonstrated with his unsubtle threats, it also will not do to have us raising private armies for our own uses. Any men that wish to fight are welcome to fight in the Army of the New Pacific Republic to defend the interests of all, which would be best directed by several, but not too many generals who answer to our committee, who approve or veto war plans as well as provide goals for them to meet. Defense would be handled differently, with a general and his division protecting a certain part of the Republic unless our given directives say otherwise. The committee would, naturally, be advised by experts in logistics and tactics. During wartime, we would convene together and coordinate the actions of the committee along with possible deputies in case of our absence. Really, it's rather simple and prevents anybody from making too much of a mess, and the only thing standing in this plan's way is Mr. Hunt's insistence on creating a military dictatorship with him at the forefront."

[Brood]

" Do whatever you want I'm finished with this pointless discussion, your not interested in the good of the nation your interested in the good of yourself and your wallet and to afraid of not being in control of everything to see the danger.

I will be returning to my business to raise more men whether you decree it is illegal or not so that when your fear brings this crashing down around you I can still keep my people safe.
Oh and just so your aware, I have men in the Union already who will pass on a lot of information that would be harmful to you all if anything happens to me.

Good luck Hofmann your going to need it."

[Harry Baldman]

"Ah, the 'good of the nation'. Of course. Good luck in your wide and varied conspiracies, Mr. Hunt."

[Brood]

" No conspiracies involved I'm going to be preparing a nice big, well equipped, well trained army so when the Union or the Mexicans decide to come and take this land I've got the forces to help the army to repel them without you interfering every time I try to make a move.

Mr Hofmann, or whoever you are, your security forces will arrive soon, it's been a pleasure doing business with you.

As for the rest of you, if you need something my doors always open and my price is always fair."

Dominic then walks out of the room past the guards standing on the door winking at them with an amused look on his face.

[Innsmothe]

Hmmm, he didn't mention the blowhards in the second 'capital', The slavemongers.

I think we may have a fox among our chickens Miss Enderby.

[Harry Baldman]

"Indeed, Mr. Fitzgerald. I, too, wonder about his peculiar, immense, not to mention open hatred of the Union. And the fact that he has apparently seen fit to fight them even before our plans were made. Most unusual, that. I am afraid he may soon become an enemy of the state if this keeps up, or at least a highly unsavory element of it."

"But let's not speak of Mr. Hunt's particular problems. There are greater concerns at hand. Firstly, the government. How will it work and what will it be based upon? We could use the same Constitution or we could make a new one, though that would entail massive work on our part and time we might not be able to spare."