Clementine
Platinum Member
- Dec 18, 2011
- 12,919
- 4,825
- 350
The left's narrative has reached the point of insanity. They want racial division and class division. Divide and conquer is their motto and they will keep pushing the bullshit in hopes of keeping minorities on the plantation.
"Does the Electoral College have racist roots? Was it created only because of slavery? To listen to some media commentators in recent weeks, you would think so.
But nothing could be further from the truth.
Let’s start by acknowledging an obvious fact: Yes, some of our Founders owned slaves.
Compromises were made in our early years because North and South couldn’t agree on whether to continue the institution. (Of course, while Southerners owned most of the slaves, don’t forget that Northerners sometimes owned slaves, too. And the North often profited from the products made by Southern slaves.) NONE of us like this part of our heritage. ALL of us wish that slavery had never existed. But does this mean that the Constitution and its presidential election process are just a “relic of slavery”? Of course not. Our Founders were more than this one unfortunate flaw.
So what are the specific charges thrown at the Electoral College in this context?
First, critics sometimes cite the 3/5ths compromise, which was brokered by delegates at the Constitutional Convention. That compromise had to do with the way that the population would be counted for purposes of determining congressional representation. The South wanted to count slaves as a whole person. The North did not want to include slaves in this tally AT ALL—a larger population would give the South more voting power! In the end, the delegates to the Convention agreed to count slaves as 3/5ths of a person. But did that compromise really do more for the South or for the North? After all, if slaves had been counted as a whole person (as the South wanted), then the South would have had even MORE representatives in Congress. The 3/5ths compromise is often cited as something that was somehow pro-South/pro-slavery. But it can also be interpreted as a nod to non-slave owners in the North.
Something else you should know about the 3/5ths compromise: The delegates were discussing congressional representation, NOT the Electoral College. In fact, the discussions about the compromise and the discussions about the presidential election system were largely separate. The main reason that the compromise is cited today is because, late in the Convention, it was decided that each state’s electoral vote allocation would match its congressional allocation.
You wouldn’t know this to listen to Electoral College critics. Instead, they often cite one statement made by James Madison. Taken out of context, it certainly sounds damning. “The right of suffrage,” he told the convention in July 1787, “was much more diffusive in the Northern than the Southern States; and the latter could have no influence in the election on the score of the Negroes.” Electoral College opponents usually note that he mentioned electors in his very next sentence.
There are multiple problems here. First, Madison wasn’t the first to suggest the use of electors that day. A delegate from Massachusetts, Rufus King, had already mentioned them earlier. King’s state was not a slave state, nor was King himself in favor of slavery. (He worked against it during his lifetime.) Second, the discussion that day wasn’t about slavery. Madison’s statement was a tangent to the main discussion, which revolved around the President’s eligibility for a second term and whether the legislature should select the President directly.
Indeed, the debates about the presidential election process were not focused on slavery—at all. The delegates discussed whether legislative selection or a national popular vote was better. All the small states (not only slave states) were worried about the concept of a national popular vote. They feared that they would be outvoted by the large states time and time again. Keep in mind that the large states weren’t uniformly slave or not slave either. Virginia, one of the largest states, was a slave state, whereas Pennsylvania was not.
In short: Yes, slavery was AN issue at the founding of our country, but it wasn’t the ONLY issue.
The delegates to our Constitutional Convention met in a hot room in Philadelphia one summer, and they spent months in a deep, intellectual discussion and debate: How can a diverse nation composed of both large and small states govern itself, even as it treats minority groups fairly? How can it protect itself against government officials who would abuse their power? The delegates were learned men; they’d studied political philosophy and the history of other governments. They grappled with difficult questions, and they worked out several fair compromises. They deliberated as fairly and honestly as they knew how. They were relatively free of partisan motivations; their biggest biases lay in favor of their home states. Indeed, in the wake of the Convention, written debates between the Federalists and the Anti-Federalists continued this process. These essays reflect the seriousness with which our founding generation took its task. I challenge anyone to read those works, then argue with a straight face that the Constitution is nothing more than an attempt to protect slavery.
Our Founders worked hard to create a Constitution that would avoid the worst flaws of pure democracy, even as it kept the best aspects of self-governance. We hurt only ourselves when we dismiss their work so quickly."
Was the Electoral College created only because of slavery? | Tara Ross
"Does the Electoral College have racist roots? Was it created only because of slavery? To listen to some media commentators in recent weeks, you would think so.
But nothing could be further from the truth.
Let’s start by acknowledging an obvious fact: Yes, some of our Founders owned slaves.
Compromises were made in our early years because North and South couldn’t agree on whether to continue the institution. (Of course, while Southerners owned most of the slaves, don’t forget that Northerners sometimes owned slaves, too. And the North often profited from the products made by Southern slaves.) NONE of us like this part of our heritage. ALL of us wish that slavery had never existed. But does this mean that the Constitution and its presidential election process are just a “relic of slavery”? Of course not. Our Founders were more than this one unfortunate flaw.
So what are the specific charges thrown at the Electoral College in this context?
First, critics sometimes cite the 3/5ths compromise, which was brokered by delegates at the Constitutional Convention. That compromise had to do with the way that the population would be counted for purposes of determining congressional representation. The South wanted to count slaves as a whole person. The North did not want to include slaves in this tally AT ALL—a larger population would give the South more voting power! In the end, the delegates to the Convention agreed to count slaves as 3/5ths of a person. But did that compromise really do more for the South or for the North? After all, if slaves had been counted as a whole person (as the South wanted), then the South would have had even MORE representatives in Congress. The 3/5ths compromise is often cited as something that was somehow pro-South/pro-slavery. But it can also be interpreted as a nod to non-slave owners in the North.
Something else you should know about the 3/5ths compromise: The delegates were discussing congressional representation, NOT the Electoral College. In fact, the discussions about the compromise and the discussions about the presidential election system were largely separate. The main reason that the compromise is cited today is because, late in the Convention, it was decided that each state’s electoral vote allocation would match its congressional allocation.
You wouldn’t know this to listen to Electoral College critics. Instead, they often cite one statement made by James Madison. Taken out of context, it certainly sounds damning. “The right of suffrage,” he told the convention in July 1787, “was much more diffusive in the Northern than the Southern States; and the latter could have no influence in the election on the score of the Negroes.” Electoral College opponents usually note that he mentioned electors in his very next sentence.
There are multiple problems here. First, Madison wasn’t the first to suggest the use of electors that day. A delegate from Massachusetts, Rufus King, had already mentioned them earlier. King’s state was not a slave state, nor was King himself in favor of slavery. (He worked against it during his lifetime.) Second, the discussion that day wasn’t about slavery. Madison’s statement was a tangent to the main discussion, which revolved around the President’s eligibility for a second term and whether the legislature should select the President directly.
Indeed, the debates about the presidential election process were not focused on slavery—at all. The delegates discussed whether legislative selection or a national popular vote was better. All the small states (not only slave states) were worried about the concept of a national popular vote. They feared that they would be outvoted by the large states time and time again. Keep in mind that the large states weren’t uniformly slave or not slave either. Virginia, one of the largest states, was a slave state, whereas Pennsylvania was not.
In short: Yes, slavery was AN issue at the founding of our country, but it wasn’t the ONLY issue.
The delegates to our Constitutional Convention met in a hot room in Philadelphia one summer, and they spent months in a deep, intellectual discussion and debate: How can a diverse nation composed of both large and small states govern itself, even as it treats minority groups fairly? How can it protect itself against government officials who would abuse their power? The delegates were learned men; they’d studied political philosophy and the history of other governments. They grappled with difficult questions, and they worked out several fair compromises. They deliberated as fairly and honestly as they knew how. They were relatively free of partisan motivations; their biggest biases lay in favor of their home states. Indeed, in the wake of the Convention, written debates between the Federalists and the Anti-Federalists continued this process. These essays reflect the seriousness with which our founding generation took its task. I challenge anyone to read those works, then argue with a straight face that the Constitution is nothing more than an attempt to protect slavery.
Our Founders worked hard to create a Constitution that would avoid the worst flaws of pure democracy, even as it kept the best aspects of self-governance. We hurt only ourselves when we dismiss their work so quickly."
Was the Electoral College created only because of slavery? | Tara Ross
