Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
[
Hey Carebear, do you realize that if that 3/5ths rule was not instituted, the North would not have had the power to end slavery because they would have had MORE CONGRESSIONAL districts, thus control of the house! !
Does the above make any sense to anybody?
I'm sure that is the way the story is told in public schools but it's wrong. The smaller states didn't want to be ruled by larger more populated states. The founders knew this and they knew the smaller states which were mostly located in the south would not vote to ratify if they didn't do something to get them on board. So they came up with a brilliant idea...the electoral college. Not sure where you got the slavery stuff but it's wrong. Slavery and indentured servitude was widely practiced in the days of the signing of the constitution. Slavery had nothing to do with the electoral college.Nope. Not because of some visionary genius by the Founders. Not some remedy for small states vs. large states, or rural vs. urban.
Like just about everything else in the history of America, it was connected to race, and slavery.
To put it simply -
Slaves couldn't vote, but they were counted at 3/5ths apiece to determine congressional representation.
The Southern states were thus at a disadvantage if the popular vote were to determine the winner,
but they got a big boost by the use of electors representing the size of their congressional delegations, since the counting of the slaves increased the number of house representatives those states were entitled to.
The Southern slave states got their way and that's where the electoral college comes from.
[
Hey Carebear, do you realize that if that 3/5ths rule was not instituted, the North would not have had the power to end slavery because they would have had MORE CONGRESSIONAL districts, thus control of the house! !
Does the above make any sense to anybody?
Oh yes, try thinking a second-------->would the population of the South as far as congressional districts go up, or down, with a 3/5ths rule? And YOUR logic was it was bad to have 3/5ths. Well, if I am a slave, and if me be counted as 1 allows my masters to have enough political power to keep me a slave, I no lika dat shit!
You are trying to twist the politics of the past, for political expediency today, it is plainly obvious. And, in the process..........you are also attempting to ignite racial tensions today, by moving a decision from back then that actually helped Black slaves, and bastardize it with your propaganda to make it seem as if it was all about screwing blacks.
Shame on you! Really, you are the worst of the worst leftist ideologue, and if you are not purposely painting this and instead believe it, they you are deranged by an education system that has left you in need, making you the poster child on here for Trump's vouchers!
Your lies mean nothing. Go away little girl.Nope. Not because of some visionary genius by the Founders. Not some remedy for small states vs. large states, or rural vs. urban.
Like just about everything else in the history of America, it was connected to race, and slavery.
To put it simply -
Slaves couldn't vote, but they were counted at 3/5ths apiece to determine congressional representation.
The Southern states were thus at a disadvantage if the popular vote were to determine the winner,
but they got a big boost by the use of electors representing the size of their congressional delegations, since the counting of the slaves increased the number of house representatives those states were entitled to.
The Southern slave states got their way and that's where the electoral college comes from.
See how angry they get when they are confronted with the truth.
The 3/5 in the Constitution was a compromise. The Southerners wanted to count slaves as a person while at the same time claiming they were property. Anti-slavery factions in the North said they couldn't have it both ways. Thence 3/5 was added to the Constitution as a compromise.
Southern states wanted slaves to be counted as property because of property taxes. As slaves aged they could use that to depreciate they property value. At the same time they wanted to count saves as people was that it gave them a higher population and therefore allowed them more seats in Congress.
Even with the 3/5 Compromise, Southern states still had an advantage in Congress until the Thirteen Amendment at the end of the Civil War, that made the Compromise obsolete.
Northern abolitionists also knew that with their higher population, counting a slave as a person, Southern states could dominate a Residential Election and could vote in pro-slavery Presidents.
The Electoral College was also a compromise to give smaller states a voice in a Presidential election, and to help combat the Southern states higher populations. The Founders knew that a minor number of high population states could dominate an election, and wanted the President elected by the entire country, not by 2 or 3 states alone.
(O'Connor, Sabato, and Yanus. American Government: Roots and Reform. 12th ed. New York, NY: Pearson Education, Inc., 2015. Print.)
So, your statement s semi-accurate. Yes, the Electoral College and the 3/5 Compromise had something to do with slavery, but not about being pro-slavery as you infer.
If your version were true they would have never counted any slaves.
Your lies mean nothing. Go away little girl.Nope. Not because of some visionary genius by the Founders. Not some remedy for small states vs. large states, or rural vs. urban.
Like just about everything else in the history of America, it was connected to race, and slavery.
To put it simply -
Slaves couldn't vote, but they were counted at 3/5ths apiece to determine congressional representation.
The Southern states were thus at a disadvantage if the popular vote were to determine the winner,
but they got a big boost by the use of electors representing the size of their congressional delegations, since the counting of the slaves increased the number of house representatives those states were entitled to.
The Southern slave states got their way and that's where the electoral college comes from.
See how angry they get when they are confronted with the truth.
The 3/5 in the Constitution was a compromise. The Southerners wanted to count slaves as a person while at the same time claiming they were property. Anti-slavery factions in the North said they couldn't have it both ways. Thence 3/5 was added to the Constitution as a compromise.
Southern states wanted slaves to be counted as property because of property taxes. As slaves aged they could use that to depreciate they property value. At the same time they wanted to count saves as people was that it gave them a higher population and therefore allowed them more seats in Congress.
Even with the 3/5 Compromise, Southern states still had an advantage in Congress until the Thirteen Amendment at the end of the Civil War, that made the Compromise obsolete.
Northern abolitionists also knew that with their higher population, counting a slave as a person, Southern states could dominate a Residential Election and could vote in pro-slavery Presidents.
The Electoral College was also a compromise to give smaller states a voice in a Presidential election, and to help combat the Southern states higher populations. The Founders knew that a minor number of high population states could dominate an election, and wanted the President elected by the entire country, not by 2 or 3 states alone.
(O'Connor, Sabato, and Yanus. American Government: Roots and Reform. 12th ed. New York, NY: Pearson Education, Inc., 2015. Print.)
So, your statement s semi-accurate. Yes, the Electoral College and the 3/5 Compromise had something to do with slavery, but not about being pro-slavery as you infer.
If your version were true they would have never counted any slaves.
You need to argue that statement with Karen O'Connor (Distinguished Professor of Political Science, American University), Larry J. Sabato (Professor, University of Virginia), and Alixandra B. Yanus, (Professor of Political Science, High Point University).
They are a damned sight smarter than you are on the subject.
[
Hey Carebear, do you realize that if that 3/5ths rule was not instituted, the North would not have had the power to end slavery because they would have had MORE CONGRESSIONAL districts, thus control of the house! !
Does the above make any sense to anybody?
Oh yes, try thinking a second-------->would the population of the South as far as congressional districts go up, or down, with a 3/5ths rule? And YOUR logic was it was bad to have 3/5ths. Well, if I am a slave, and if me be counted as 1 allows my masters to have enough political power to keep me a slave, I no lika dat shit!
You are trying to twist the politics of the past, for political expediency today, it is plainly obvious. And, in the process..........you are also attempting to ignite racial tensions today, by moving a decision from back then that actually helped Black slaves, and bastardize it with your propaganda to make it seem as if it was all about screwing blacks.
Shame on you! Really, you are the worst of the worst leftist ideologue, and if you are not purposely painting this and instead believe it, they you are deranged by an education system that has left you in need, making you the poster child on here for Trump's vouchers!
[
Hey Carebear, do you realize that if that 3/5ths rule was not instituted, the North would not have had the power to end slavery because they would have had MORE CONGRESSIONAL districts, thus control of the house! !
Does the above make any sense to anybody?
Oh yes, try thinking a second-------->would the population of the South as far as congressional districts go up, or down, with a 3/5ths rule? And YOUR logic was it was bad to have 3/5ths. Well, if I am a slave, and if me be counted as 1 allows my masters to have enough political power to keep me a slave, I no lika dat shit!
You are trying to twist the politics of the past, for political expediency today, it is plainly obvious. And, in the process..........you are also attempting to ignite racial tensions today, by moving a decision from back then that actually helped Black slaves, and bastardize it with your propaganda to make it seem as if it was all about screwing blacks.
Shame on you! Really, you are the worst of the worst leftist ideologue, and if you are not purposely painting this and instead believe it, they you are deranged by an education system that has left you in need, making you the poster child on here for Trump's vouchers!
Your misrepresentation of what I've done and/or said is like something out of an LSD experience
Your lies mean nothing. Go away little girl.Nope. Not because of some visionary genius by the Founders. Not some remedy for small states vs. large states, or rural vs. urban.
Like just about everything else in the history of America, it was connected to race, and slavery.
To put it simply -
Slaves couldn't vote, but they were counted at 3/5ths apiece to determine congressional representation.
The Southern states were thus at a disadvantage if the popular vote were to determine the winner,
but they got a big boost by the use of electors representing the size of their congressional delegations, since the counting of the slaves increased the number of house representatives those states were entitled to.
The Southern slave states got their way and that's where the electoral college comes from.
See how angry they get when they are confronted with the truth.
The 3/5 in the Constitution was a compromise. The Southerners wanted to count slaves as a person while at the same time claiming they were property. Anti-slavery factions in the North said they couldn't have it both ways. Thence 3/5 was added to the Constitution as a compromise.
Southern states wanted slaves to be counted as property because of property taxes. As slaves aged they could use that to depreciate they property value. At the same time they wanted to count saves as people was that it gave them a higher population and therefore allowed them more seats in Congress.
Even with the 3/5 Compromise, Southern states still had an advantage in Congress until the Thirteen Amendment at the end of the Civil War, that made the Compromise obsolete.
Northern abolitionists also knew that with their higher population, counting a slave as a person, Southern states could dominate a Residential Election and could vote in pro-slavery Presidents.
The Electoral College was also a compromise to give smaller states a voice in a Presidential election, and to help combat the Southern states higher populations. The Founders knew that a minor number of high population states could dominate an election, and wanted the President elected by the entire country, not by 2 or 3 states alone.
(O'Connor, Sabato, and Yanus. American Government: Roots and Reform. 12th ed. New York, NY: Pearson Education, Inc., 2015. Print.)
So, your statement s semi-accurate. Yes, the Electoral College and the 3/5 Compromise had something to do with slavery, but not about being pro-slavery as you infer.
"At the Philadelphia convention, the visionary Pennsylvanian James Wilson proposed direct national election of the president. But the savvy Virginian James Madison responded that such a system would prove unacceptable to the South: “The right of suffrage was much more diffusive [i.e., extensive] in the Northern than the Southern States; and the latter could have no influence in the election on the score of Negroes.”
In other words, in a direct election system, the North would outnumber the South, whose many slaves (more than half a million in all) of course could not vote. But the Electoral College—a prototype of which Madison proposed in this same speech—instead let each southern state count its slaves, albeit with a two-fifths discount, in computing its share of the overall count."
The Troubling Reason the Electoral College Exists
lol Why do Democrats have to accuse everyone else of being racists?Nope. Not because of some visionary genius by the Founders. Not some remedy for small states vs. large states, or rural vs. urban.
Like just about everything else in the history of America, it was connected to race, and slavery.
To put it simply -
Slaves couldn't vote, but they were counted at 3/5ths apiece to determine congressional representation.
The Southern states were thus at a disadvantage if the popular vote were to determine the winner,
but they got a big boost by the use of electors representing the size of their congressional delegations, since the counting of the slaves increased the number of house representatives those states were entitled to.
The Southern slave states got their way and that's where the electoral college comes from.
lol Why do Democrats have to accuse everyone else of being racists?Nope. Not because of some visionary genius by the Founders. Not some remedy for small states vs. large states, or rural vs. urban.
Like just about everything else in the history of America, it was connected to race, and slavery.
To put it simply -
Slaves couldn't vote, but they were counted at 3/5ths apiece to determine congressional representation.
The Southern states were thus at a disadvantage if the popular vote were to determine the winner,
but they got a big boost by the use of electors representing the size of their congressional delegations, since the counting of the slaves increased the number of house representatives those states were entitled to.
The Southern slave states got their way and that's where the electoral college comes from.
[
Hey Carebear, do you realize that if that 3/5ths rule was not instituted, the North would not have had the power to end slavery because they would have had MORE CONGRESSIONAL districts, thus control of the house! !
Does the above make any sense to anybody?
Oh yes, try thinking a second-------->would the population of the South as far as congressional districts go up, or down, with a 3/5ths rule? And YOUR logic was it was bad to have 3/5ths. Well, if I am a slave, and if me be counted as 1 allows my masters to have enough political power to keep me a slave, I no lika dat shit!
You are trying to twist the politics of the past, for political expediency today, it is plainly obvious. And, in the process..........you are also attempting to ignite racial tensions today, by moving a decision from back then that actually helped Black slaves, and bastardize it with your propaganda to make it seem as if it was all about screwing blacks.
Shame on you! Really, you are the worst of the worst leftist ideologue, and if you are not purposely painting this and instead believe it, they you are deranged by an education system that has left you in need, making you the poster child on here for Trump's vouchers!
Your misrepresentation of what I've done and/or said is like something out of an LSD experience
Nope. Not because of some visionary genius by the Founders. Not some remedy for small states vs. large states, or rural vs. urban.
Like just about everything else in the history of America, it was connected to race, and slavery.
To put it simply -
Slaves couldn't vote, but they were counted at 3/5ths apiece to determine congressional representation.
The Southern states were thus at a disadvantage if the popular vote were to determine the winner,
but they got a big boost by the use of electors representing the size of their congressional delegations, since the counting of the slaves increased the number of house representatives those states were entitled to.
The Southern slave states got their way and that's where the electoral college comes from.
Moronic leftards falling back onto their racist bullshit thinking that will somehow make them relevant again.Nope. Not because of some visionary genius by the Founders. Not some remedy for small states vs. large states, or rural vs. urban.
Like just about everything else in the history of America, it was connected to race, and slavery.
To put it simply -
Slaves couldn't vote, but they were counted at 3/5ths apiece to determine congressional representation.
The Southern states were thus at a disadvantage if the popular vote were to determine the winner,
but they got a big boost by the use of electors representing the size of their congressional delegations, since the counting of the slaves increased the number of house representatives those states were entitled to.
The Southern slave states got their way and that's where the electoral college comes from.
Nope. Not because of some visionary genius by the Founders. Not some remedy for small states vs. large states, or rural vs. urban.
Like just about everything else in the history of America, it was connected to race, and slavery.
To put it simply -
Slaves couldn't vote, but they were counted at 3/5ths apiece to determine congressional representation.
The Southern states were thus at a disadvantage if the popular vote were to determine the winner,
but they got a big boost by the use of electors representing the size of their congressional delegations, since the counting of the slaves increased the number of house representatives those states were entitled to.
The Southern slave states got their way and that's where the electoral college comes from.
Your ignorance of history and really everything else, is well know to all of us already. You needn't keep displaying it.
[
Hey Carebear, do you realize that if that 3/5ths rule was not instituted, the North would not have had the power to end slavery because they would have had MORE CONGRESSIONAL districts, thus control of the house! !
Does the above make any sense to anybody?
Oh yes, try thinking a second-------->would the population of the South as far as congressional districts go up, or down, with a 3/5ths rule? And YOUR logic was it was bad to have 3/5ths. Well, if I am a slave, and if me be counted as 1 allows my masters to have enough political power to keep me a slave, I no lika dat shit!
You are trying to twist the politics of the past, for political expediency today, it is plainly obvious. And, in the process..........you are also attempting to ignite racial tensions today, by moving a decision from back then that actually helped Black slaves, and bastardize it with your propaganda to make it seem as if it was all about screwing blacks.
Shame on you! Really, you are the worst of the worst leftist ideologue, and if you are not purposely painting this and instead believe it, they you are deranged by an education system that has left you in need, making you the poster child on here for Trump's vouchers!
Your misrepresentation of what I've done and/or said is like something out of an LSD experience
We wouldn't know about LSD experiences. We are not trash such as are you Liberals.
By the way, this new narrative of this OP, is mainly being pushed by the millennial crowd.
