Absolutely not Fred, you seem to not understand that the Fauxristocrats were weilding disproportionate power, discounting the votes of people in the North.
It's not equal, it was unfair and it's always a gross insult to democracy when one group starts throwing around more power than it should have. The South made and broke elections, why d'you think so many Presidents between 1816 and 1860 were *gasp* Democrats who generally supported Southern interests? The inclusion of more free states without slave states to 'balance' them would, of course, have thrown out that system - and with it, the South's hold on power.
Holy balls man I can't believe you're defending a completely broken political system cleverly exploited to perpetuate a slavocracy and further their interests here.
Disproportional =/= advantage to the South, IMO
Because there were so many more Northerners than Southerners, that should mean that a Disproportionate Congress would be more equal, yes?
And several events between 1816 and 1860 were considered widely as Anti-Southern, mainly the Mexican War.
when the union's inspiration through the worker's blood shall run,
there can be no power greater anywhere beneath the sun,
yet what force on earth is weaker than the feeble strength of one?
but the union makes us strong.
Uh, disproportional definitely = advantage to the South.
Equal...yet disproportional Congress? Pfft, if a regional party that exists only to serve Southern interests doesn't get a single seat outside of the South whose fault is that? The Democrats should've worked harder to appeal to Northern interests instead of turning into the patsies of the South. There's no such thing as a party that naturally 'deserves' power, the # of seats they get should depend solely on how best they can make their case before the masses.
And the Mexican-American War was considered anti-Southern...whaaaat? If anything, people thought it would hugely benefit the South considering they got a ton of territory south of the Missouri Compromise Line, all of which would've become slave states if the compromise had been allowed to go ahead and which would've skewed things further in favor of the South.
I meant disproportional in that both sides got equal representation, so neither side could force anything on the other.Equal...yet disproportional Congress? Pfft, if a regional party that exists only to serve Southern interests doesn't get a single seat outside of the South whose fault is that? The Democrats should've worked harder to appeal to Northern interests instead of turning into the patsies of the South. There's no such thing as a party that naturally 'deserves' power, the # of seats they get should depend solely on how best they can make their case before the masses.
Hey, ask them, it's their opinion, not mine.And the Mexican-American War was considered anti-Southern...whaaaat? If anything, people thought it would hugely benefit the South considering they got a ton of territory south of the Missouri Compromise Line, all of which would've become slave states if the compromise had been allowed to go ahead and which would've skewed things further in favor of the South.
when the union's inspiration through the worker's blood shall run,
there can be no power greater anywhere beneath the sun,
yet what force on earth is weaker than the feeble strength of one?
but the union makes us strong.
Still unacceptable. Why should the South get equal (read: demographically disproportionate) representation when they don't make up a majority of the country, either geographically or demographically, and even worse aren't even part of its economic future and have no desire to be? It's like asking why Wyoming doesn't carry as much weight in government as Cali or NY.
And you would agree that there are better ways to give the South more 'equal' representation than an act that binds slavery to the South's political future, yes?
Giving the South equal representation binds their future to slavery?
when the union's inspiration through the worker's blood shall run,
there can be no power greater anywhere beneath the sun,
yet what force on earth is weaker than the feeble strength of one?
but the union makes us strong.
I wasn't specifically talking about that...
when the union's inspiration through the worker's blood shall run,
there can be no power greater anywhere beneath the sun,
yet what force on earth is weaker than the feeble strength of one?
but the union makes us strong.
It's the only historical method they pulled prior to the Civil War (not counting the completely arbitrary and unworkable Missouri Compromise or the attempt at 'popular sovereignty', which Southerners rode roughshod over), so it's the only really relevant one here.
Fair enough, then.
when the union's inspiration through the worker's blood shall run,
there can be no power greater anywhere beneath the sun,
yet what force on earth is weaker than the feeble strength of one?
but the union makes us strong.
So then, do you concede that the CSA was about as righteous a regime as Nazi Germany, only practicing a different kind of evil (slavery rather than genocide) and perpetuating a different but still morally repugnant ideology (white supremacism with a thin veneer of romantic aristocratic ideals, used to justify slavery rather than crazy racial theories, used to justify genocide), and which deserved to be ground into the dust under Northern boots for the greater good of the country and its people?
Hell-ing-no. That's nowhere near the truth.
when the union's inspiration through the worker's blood shall run,
there can be no power greater anywhere beneath the sun,
yet what force on earth is weaker than the feeble strength of one?
but the union makes us strong.
I believe we have just established that over the last two pages, which you have ended up conceding in.
But enlighten me, then. What is the 'truth', according to you? That the CSA was a righteous nation of kind ladies and brave gentlemen, stopped from tasting the freedom they deserved by those cruel Northerners?
Wait, I'm confused now.
when the union's inspiration through the worker's blood shall run,
there can be no power greater anywhere beneath the sun,
yet what force on earth is weaker than the feeble strength of one?
but the union makes us strong.
when the union's inspiration through the worker's blood shall run,
there can be no power greater anywhere beneath the sun,
yet what force on earth is weaker than the feeble strength of one?
but the union makes us strong.
Yes, troops were fighting for the South. Yes, the South had slavery. But does this mean that those troops was fighting for slavery? Not necessarily. In a way, yes, they were. But for the time, slavery was an accepted part of their way of life; it'd like be invading Maine because we hunt deer, or invading New Jersey because of douchebag Italian-Americans on the Jersey Shore(that's actually not a bad idea). They were fighting not only for that(hell, alot not for Slavery at all), they were fighting because they were having a large, armed military force on their soil that wasn't exactly there to protect them. They knew that armies tended to loot, and they didn't want their land being ransacked by bluebellies, so they joined the Confederate Army. Most, if not all troops below the rank of Brigadier General didn't give two about slavery, because all the wealthy slaveowners were in the higher ranks. Generals, that's a different story, but many Confederate generals didn't like it, and many Federal generals owned slaves. I find it strange you're only criticising the South for Slavery, and not Maryland, D.C., Delaware, Kentucky, or Missouri.
when the union's inspiration through the worker's blood shall run,
there can be no power greater anywhere beneath the sun,
yet what force on earth is weaker than the feeble strength of one?
but the union makes us strong.