Corrupt? A deal negotiated in a fishbowl and agreed to by all parties? How is that corrupt, South-hater?
"Not entitled?" Sez you. Don't like the deal? Don't do the deal. And when the States you hate anyway decide to split the sheets, just let them walk away -- if you don't like the deal, or have buyer's remorse.
So tell us how you're entitled to have things all ways, your way, washed down with buckets of blood, while bad-mouthing other people who were party to the original deal.
Federalists did the deal because pandering politicians, the mob and loser states (some were in the north) liked to inflate the currency. They had a moral reason--creating a sound financial system-- to accept Jefferson and his fellow aristocrats getting partial extra representation for every slave they owned.
The first movement to secession was from the north. Oliver Wolcott wanted CT to put out if Jefferson was elected. New England and New York almost did pull out in 1814.
Fisher Ames in 1804:
Federalism was therefore manifestly founded upon a mistake, on the supposed existence of sufficient political virtue, and on the permanency and authority of the public morals. The party now in power committed no such mistake. They acted upon what men actually are, not what they ought to be . . .They inflamed the ignorant; they flattered the vain; they offered novelty to the restless; and promised plunder to the base. The envious were assured that the great should fall; and the ambitious that they should become great . . . we are descending from a supposed orderly and stable republican government into a licentious democracy . . .
Good description of the Democrat Party of today isn't it? I don't see why conservatives think Jefferson was such a wonderful guy. He fomented a second American Revolution, from which, the licentious democracy and abandonment of the principle of delegated powers we see today sprang. Oh yeah, he talked a good game. He was the Bill Clinton of his day. He would say anything that sounded good to a particular audience and did.