((Unfortunautly, I don't know if you saw but I have already compromised on the ratio and am not willing to drop it completely, I also know that I have the democratic party behind me as well as a signifigant number of whigs. the vote hasnt even started yet and people are openly declaring thier support for my plan; in addition a new fugitive slave act would alienate all the whig support for my bills. Finally, no offense, but considering the lack of a large scale public showing of support for your bill are you really in a position to make demands of my comprimise?))
((Gallatin's in no position to make demands, but he doesn't need a position. Politics has tons of failed legislation, especially in times like pre-Civil War.))
Senator Daniel Gallatin of Pennsylvania:
While due to lack of support I am removing my compromise proposal from the vote, I cannot support an inequal and hampering constraint placed like such an arbitrary yoke on the neck of our fine military. I will support the Davis Compromise, but only on the condition that it is amended to remove this ridiculous rule on military sizes.
- It is detrimental to the army. The north and the south are different numerically. This is self evident - it is not bad in any way, but it simply means that they cannot be acted upon in the same manner. We are unified through our differences in this country. Why should we limit the production of perfectly fine and American soldiers just because of the location of their birth? Why should we force our fine, fair, and responsibly controlled military to discriminate thusly, force it to not recruit based on what is good for our national defense, but instead for what creates a numerical balance as if to whitewash the purely numerical differences between us?
- It is detrimental to the North. The north has more people. It has more soldiers. In turning them away to fit this discriminatory and intentionally unbalanced rule (balanced numerically but not proportionally and realistically), we frustrate the livelihoods of northerners and disturb the natural flow of employment for many. Furthermore, we leave the populous cities of the north with inadequate local military forces to protect them by these arbitrary regulations.
- It is detrimental to the South. The south has fewer people, and fewer soldiers. To meet the quota in any balanced way, we would be draining the reasonable proportion of soldiers from their populations - soldiers who could have been farmers or factory workers. Perhaps men who would be better in those roles - good farmers and successful craftsmen, yet poor soldiers who were but pressed and accepted to serve in the military simply to meet quotas. We would be putting an unnecessary and ridiculous strain on the local areas to house and produce for them, and to pay for their establishment.
- And all for what? We are a republic, not a pit of warlords. The army serves the interests of the country - who can name when the army, acting uncaring of the wills of their civilian leadership, took hostile action against a regional minority? No. We have seen soldiers fighting for craftsmen at home, we have seen soldiers from far inland fighting in wars started over trade concerns, we have seen northerners providing for and supporting Texas, and protecting against raids in the Seminole Wars. What is the difference, unless by discriminating one might try to give a minority an undue power in order to use their military power against the union, in northern and southern soldiers?
I suggest and strongly support an Amendment ((whether as a separate piece of legislation, or just the Davis Compromise with this tacked on, or just changing the Davis Compromise itself - whatever works best for the election system and all)), in which the clause is replaced by:
"
That soldier recruitment shall not be discriminated against by regional location, and especially that the issue of fewer Dixie soldiers in the military shall be considered, and recruitment strategies and decisions shall be made to promote the expansion of Dixie soldiers in the military as best supports that region of our Union and the nation as a whole."
Who can refuse that that is sensible and nondiscriminatory policy towards military recruitment?
In other news, in regards to this Southern regionalist party, I call upon my party of the Whigs, and the Democrats as well - all moderates and politicians who love the liberties and common good of the Union - to convene a National Union conference to share and support our common goals, perhaps later to form a combined electoral ticket or whatever else is deemed necessary to promote the best interests of the nation. In particular, I would like to invite the esteemed Senator McAttack, whose sensible judgement and reason would be much needed in these troubled times. Not by armed men and bellicose rhetoric will we share our common goals, but with compromise and thought and beneficial dialogue from all members.
))
