What was the "American Civil War" really about?
Comments
-
@Bill_Coley said:
@GaoLu said:
You are barking up the wrong tree with your hyper-focused "negro" arguments. The only reason slavery enters the picture at all is because when Southerner Thomas Jefferson won the election of 1800 against Northerner John Adams in a race where the slavery-skew of the electoral college was the decisive margin of victory: without the extra electoral college votes generated by slavery, the mostly southern states that supported Jefferson would not have sufficed to give him a majority.That is a curious and significant footnote of history and the electoral process. That is not WHY we have an electoral system. The reason is well established and highly unlikely to be changed in our constitution because it is still relevant and recognized by most Americans as a very good idea.
Reformed won't answer my question, so I'll ask you, Gao Lu: What did James Madison mean when in a 1787 speech he made the following point about the electoral impact of the population of "Negroes" in the "Northern" and "Southern" states were the US to have selected its president via national popular vote?
"The right of suffrage 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. The substitution of electors obviated this difficulty and seemed on the whole to be liable to fewest objections."
-
@Bill_Coley said:
@GaoLu said:
@Bill_ColeyYou are barking up the wrong tree with your hyper-focused "negro" arguments. The only reason slavery enters the picture at all is because when Southerner Thomas Jefferson won the election of 1800 against Northerner John Adams in a race where the slavery-skew of the electoral college was the decisive margin of victory: without the extra electoral college votes generated by slavery, the mostly southern states that supported Jefferson would not have sufficed to give him a majority.
That is a curious and significant footnote of history and the electoral process. That is not WHY we have an electoral system. The reason is well established and highly unlikely to be changed in our constitution because it is still relevant and recognized by most Americans as a very good idea.
Reformed won't answer my question, so I'll ask you, Gao Lu: What did James Madison mean when in a 1787 speech he made the following point about the electoral impact of the population of "Negroes" in the "Northern" and "Southern" states were the US to have selected its president via national popular vote?
"The right of suffrage 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. The substitution of electors obviated this difficulty and seemed on the whole to be liable to fewest objections."
I already answered that explicitly above.
-
@GaoLu said:
I already answered that explicitly above.
In your previous reply, you referenced the impact of the presidential election of 1800. To wit:
"The only reason slavery enters the picture at all is because when Southerner Thomas Jefferson won the election of 1800 against Northerner John Adams in a race where the slavery-skew of the electoral college was the decisive margin of victory: without the extra electoral college votes generated by slavery, the mostly southern states that supported Jefferson would not have sufficed to give him a majority."
In my previous post, I asked you what James Madison meant when he talked about the electoral impact of "Negroes" in "Northern" and "Southern" states were the US to elect its presidents via direct popular vote. Madison gave the speech I asked you about in 1787, thirteen years BEFORE the presidential election of 1800; that election could not have been on Madison's mind when he gave the speech I asked you about.
So I ask you again: What did James Madison mean when in a 1787 speech he made the following point about the electoral impact of the population of "Negroes" in the "Northern" and "Southern" states were the US to have selected its president via national popular vote?
"The right of suffrage 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. The substitution of electors obviated this difficulty and seemed on the whole to be liable to fewest objections."
-
When you have read my clear answer to that specific question, then respond to that if you want. The issues being addressed are nearly identical. What do you not understand about it?
-
@GaoLu said:
When you have read my clear answer to that specific question, then respond to that if you want. The issues being addressed are nearly identical. What do you not understand about it?I simply want you to tell me what you think James Madison meant when he said what he said about the electoral impact of "Negro" populations in "Northern" and "Southern" states were the US to elect its presidents by direct popular vote, and the consequences of the nation's implementation of electors on the issues created by those populations.
He said "the substitution of electors obviated" the "difficulty" caused by those "Negro" populations. What "difficulty" was Madison referring to that in his view "the substitution of electors obviated"?
-
I don't know how to be clearer than I was. I suspect you did not read what was written or are trying to twist it. The statements stand as they are and are pretty clear given the posts I made above. Perhaps you have mystical insight others don't have? If so, share it. Internet links as proof would be helpful.
-
@GaoLu said:
I don't know how to be clearer than I was. I suspect you did not read what was written or are trying to twist it. The statements stand as they are and are pretty clear given the posts I made above. Perhaps you have mystical insight others don't have? If so, share it. Internet links as proof would be helpful.He's always trying to twist it, you can take that to the bank.
-
@GaoLu said:
I don't know how to be clearer than I was. I suspect you did not read what was written or are trying to twist it. The statements stand as they are and are pretty clear given the posts I made above. Perhaps you have mystical insight others don't have? If so, share it. Internet links as proof would be helpful.- MY QUESTION: "What did James Madison mean when he said...?"
- YOUR ANSWERS: Three, in whose 98 words are NOT found the name "James," the name "Madison," or the pronoun "he," which you might have used to refer to James Madison. Of course you claimed to have addressed my question "explicitly," but you didn't - it's not possible that you did - as the absence of those three words demonstrates.
It's not hard to discern WHY you didn't answer my question. You can't... without acknowledging that Madison's words reflect a truth injurious, probably deadly, to your claims that it's "absurd" to conclude the electoral college has any roots in slavery, and that such a contention "(barks) up the wrong tree."
The answer to my question, "What did James Madison mean when he said...?" is this: Southern states had higher slave - what in his speech Madison called "Negro" - populations than northern states. That meant southern states had higher populations of people who could not vote... because they were slaves. Were the president chosen by direct popular vote, Madison clearly knew, northern states would unavoidably have greater impact on the final result than southern states because they had higher populations of eligible voters. THAT was the "difficulty" to which Madison referred in the words I asked you about. THAT was the "difficulty" he said "the substitution of electors obviated." The next question is how did that obviation occur?
The answer to that question - which I'm not posing to you or reformed because neither of you would answer it - has to do with the source of electoral influence. In direct popular votes, the only way for a person, a community, or a region of the country to influence the result is for its voters to vote.
If town "A" has 1,000 eligible voters and town "B" has 10,000 eligible voters, then on election day, every eligible voter in both towns casts a ballot, the voters of town B will make the larger contribution to election's result because it has more people voting.
Northern states had a greater number of eligible voters than did southern states, which means in a presidential election decided by direct popular vote, they would have had more influence on the final result than did southern states.
HOWEVER!!!!!!!!!!!!! if we change the source of electoral influence - either away from the number of people voting, or perhaps, to something in addition to the number of people voting - the result might change. Enter the electoral college and the so-called "3/5 compromise."
The electoral college has two components: representation in the US Senate, and representation in the US House.
- Senate representation, of course, exaggerates small state influence because every state, regardless of population, receives two electors due to their two senators.
- House representation, however, is based on population. So that when a state ALSO receives a number of electors equal to its number of House members, the source of electoral influence changes from the number of votes cast in the election, to the population of the state. (Remember, it's state ELECTORS, not voters, who actually select the president)
But that change in the source of electoral influence - from voter turnout in a direct election, to state population in an electoral college - was not enough to help southern states overcome their population imbalances with the northern states. Why not? Because southern states had much larger slave populations, i.e. people who didn't show up in census totals.
Enter the 3/5 compromise, originally found in Article 1, Section 2, Clause 3 of the Constitution, which for purposes of census tallies counted three out of every five slaves (and other non-"free" persons). The effect was to increase slave state populations, BUT NOT slave state voter rolls. Did that matter? OF COURSE! Because electoral influence in the electoral college wasn't based on voter turnout, but rather, to a large extent, on state population!
BOTTOM LINE: In 1787, James Madison clearly and unequivocally cited the electoral college as a way of resolving what he called the "difficulty" of the fact that southern states had large "Negro" (aka "slave") populations who couldn't vote, meaning Northern states' electoral influence would have been greater than southern states' had the president been chosen by direct popular vote. The electoral college "obviated" that "difficulty" because it changed the source of electoral influence from votes cast - which would have granted the northern states more influence because they had more eligible voters - to state population - which, with the help of the 3/5 compromise, increased the influence of southern, slave-owning states. (Remember that nine of the first eleven presidents came from southern states, if you want evidence that the electoral college system magnified southern state influence.)
I've taken a good bit of time and effort to address this question at a depth neither you nor reformed would ever even consider, Gao Lu. Now I challenge you to respond in some semblance of in-kind. Refuse the temptation to cough out more personal commentary. Refuse the temptation to change the subject. Refuse the temptation to avoid my post entirely. Address the content of my post directly and susbstantively. Be the "former teacher" who claims to "know (this) history quite well." Demonstrate through historical facts and cogent analysis that my post is wrong, that it "(barks) up the wrong tree," as you have alleged.
-
@Bill_Coley said:
@GaoLu said:
I don't know how to be clearer than I was. I suspect you did not read what was written or are trying to twist it. The statements stand as they are and are pretty clear given the posts I made above. Perhaps you have mystical insight others don't have? If so, share it. Internet links as proof would be helpful.- MY QUESTION: "What did James Madison mean when he said...?"
- YOUR ANSWERS: Three, in whose 98 words are NOT found the name "James," the name "Madison," or the pronoun "he," which you might have used to refer to James Madison. Of course you claimed to have addressed my question "explicitly," but you didn't - it's not possible that you did - as the absence of those three words demonstrates.
It's not hard to discern WHY you didn't answer my question. You can't... without acknowledging that Madison's words reflect a truth injurious, probably deadly, to your claims that it's "absurd" to conclude the electoral college has any roots in slavery, and that such a contention "(barks) up the wrong tree."
The answer to my question, "What did James Madison mean when he said...?" is this: Southern states had higher slave - what in his speech Madison called "Negro" - populations than northern states. That meant southern states had higher populations of people who could not vote... because they were slaves. Were the president chosen by direct popular vote, Madison clearly knew, northern states would unavoidably have greater impact on the final result than southern states because they had higher populations of eligible voters. THAT was the "difficulty" to which Madison referred in the words I asked you about. THAT was the "difficulty" he said "the substitution of electors obviated." The next question is how did that obviation occur?
The answer to that question - which I'm not posing to you or reformed because neither of you would answer it - has to do with the source of electoral influence. In direct popular votes, the only way for a person, a community, or a region of the country to influence the result is for its voters to vote.
If town "A" has 1,000 eligible voters and town "B" has 10,000 eligible voters, then on election day, every eligible voter in both towns casts a ballot, the voters of town B will make the larger contribution to election's result because it has more people voting.
Northern states had a greater number of eligible voters than did southern states, which means in a presidential election decided by direct popular vote, they would have had more influence on the final result than did southern states.
HOWEVER!!!!!!!!!!!!! if we change the source of electoral influence - either away from the number of people voting, or perhaps, to something in addition to the number of people voting - the result might change. Enter the electoral college and the so-called "3/5 compromise."
The electoral college has two components: representation in the US Senate, and representation in the US House.
- Senate representation, of course, exaggerates small state influence because every state, regardless of population, receives two electors due to their two senators.
- House representation, however, is based on population. So that when a state ALSO receives a number of electors equal to its number of House members, the source of electoral influence changes from the number of votes cast in the election, to the population of the state. (Remember, it's state ELECTORS, not voters, who actually select the president)
But that change in the source of electoral influence - from voter turnout in a direct election, to state population in an electoral college - was not enough to help southern states overcome their population imbalances with the northern states. Why not? Because southern states had much larger slave populations, i.e. people who didn't show up in census totals.
Enter the 3/5 compromise, originally found in Article 1, Section 2, Clause 3 of the Constitution, which for purposes of census tallies counted three out of every five slaves (and other non-"free" persons). The effect was to increase slave state populations, BUT NOT slave state voter rolls. Did that matter? OF COURSE! Because electoral influence in the electoral college wasn't based on voter turnout, but rather, to a large extent, on state population!
BOTTOM LINE: In 1787, James Madison clearly and unequivocally cited the electoral college as a way of resolving what he called the "difficulty" of the fact that southern states had large "Negro" (aka "slave") populations who couldn't vote, meaning Northern states' electoral influence would have been greater than southern states' had the president been chosen by direct popular vote. The electoral college "obviated" that "difficulty" because it changed the source of electoral influence from votes cast - which would have granted the northern states more influence because they had more eligible voters - to state population - which, with the help of the 3/5 compromise, increased the influence of southern, slave-owning states. (Remember that nine of the first eleven presidents came from southern states, if you want evidence that the electoral college system magnified southern state influence.)
I've taken a good bit of time and effort to address this question at a depth neither you nor reformed would ever even consider, Gao Lu. Now I challenge you to respond in some semblance of in-kind. Refuse the temptation to cough out more personal commentary. Refuse the temptation to change the subject. Refuse the temptation to avoid my post entirely. Address the content of my post directly and susbstantively. Be the "former teacher" who claims to "know (this) history quite well." Demonstrate through historical facts and cogent analysis that my post is wrong, that it "(barks) up the wrong tree," as you have alleged.
Actually, the effect of the 3/5 clause was to DECREASE slave state populations, not increase it.
-
@reformed said:
Actually, the effect of the 3/5 clause was to DECREASE slave state populations, not increase it.
Obviously, the 3/5 compromise didn't change the number of human bodies in ANY state, but it DID change the final count of bodies in states used to determine legislative representation and taxation. Had slaves not been counted, the population totals used to determine how many House members slave states received would have NOT included ANY slaves. Due to the 3/5 compromise, three out of every five slaves were counted in the slave state population totals, meaning the population counts used to determine House representation in fact INCREASED over what they would have been without the compromise. Hence, my statement - that the 3/5 compromise effectively increased state population counts but not voter rolls - was correct.
And that's the best you can do, reformed? Quibble, incorrectly, with one sentence of my analysis of the role of slavery in the electoral college?
- Earlier in this thread you claimed we could "take it to the bank" that I would try to "twist" the truth.
- Before that, you claimed it's not possible to "reason with a liberal [presumably me] who likes to revise history."
- And before that you claimed I had "taken (Madison's) speech out of the context of the whole proceeding as (you) showed in (your) original post on the topic."
- And before that.....
All that bravado, and the best you can do is quibble, incorrectly, with one sentence in my analysis? Where's YOUR analysis? Not in fact-free, single-sentence outbursts, but in substantive and informed content that shows with rigor and credibility that my analysis is incorrect?
You claim to "know (your) history." Where's the post that reflects and proves your knowledge?
-
@Bill_Coley said:
@reformed said:
Actually, the effect of the 3/5 clause was to DECREASE slave state populations, not increase it.
Obviously, the 3/5 compromise didn't change the number of human bodies in ANY state, but it DID change the final count of bodies in states used to determine legislative representation and taxation. Had slaves not been counted, the population totals used to determine how many House members slave states received would have NOT included ANY slaves. Due to the 3/5 compromise, three out of every five slaves were counted in the slave state population totals, meaning the population counts used to determine House representation in fact INCREASED over what they would have been without the compromise. Hence, my statement - that the 3/5 compromise effectively increased state population counts but not voter rolls - was correct.
And that's the best you can do, reformed? Quibble, incorrectly, with one sentence of my analysis of the role of slavery in the electoral college?
- Earlier in this thread you claimed we could "take it to the bank" that I would try to "twist" the truth.
- Before that, you claimed it's not possible to "reason with a liberal [presumably me] who likes to revise history."
- And before that you claimed I had "taken (Madison's) speech out of the context of the whole proceeding as (you) showed in (your) original post on the topic."
- And before that.....
All that bravado, and the best you can do is quibble, incorrectly, with one sentence in my analysis? Where's YOUR analysis? Not in fact-free, single-sentence outbursts, but in substantive and informed content that shows with rigor and credibility that my analysis is incorrect?
You claim to "know (your) history." Where's the post that reflects and proves your knowledge?
Bill Bill Bill, I think you need to go back and do some research about the 3/5 clause. It DECREASED the population by not counting black slaves as a whole person.
-
@reformed said:
Bill Bill Bill, I think you need to go back and do some research about the 3/5 clause. It DECREASED the population by not counting black slaves as a whole person.
Reformed, reformed, reformed, I KNOW "you need to go back and do some research about the 3/5 clause."
From the first site I looked at in a simple Google search: (emphasis added)
"Three-Fifths Compromise
"The Three-Fifths Compromise was one of the first major decisions reached after the Great Compromise was made. In order to avoid taxation, states would frequently undervalue their land to avoid additional fees. The solution to this problem was to tax states based on their population and the question was brought up as to whether or not slaves counted among that population. The compromise (meant) that slaves counted as 3/5 of a person for both taxation and representation purposes. This gave the South, which had many more slaves than the North, a large boost for representation in the House of Representatives." [NOTE: AND HENCE, A BOOST IN ITS NUMBER OF ELECTORS]And a second site: from that same Google search (emphasis added)
"The Three-Fifths Compromise was a compromise reached among state delegates during the 1787 United States Constitutional Convention. Whether, and if so, how, slaves would be counted when determining a state's total population for legislative representation and taxing purposes was important, as this population number would then be used to determine the number of seats that the state would have in the United States House of Representatives for the next ten years. The compromise solution was to count three out of every five slaves as a person for this purpose. Its effect was to give the southern states a third more seats in Congress and a third more electoral votes than if slaves had been ignored, but fewer than if slaves and free people had been counted equally, thus allowing the slaveholder interests to largely dominate the government of the United States until 1861.[1] The compromise was proposed by delegates James Wilson and Roger Sherman.
THAT IS: The compromise INCREASED the population number slave states used to determine their representation in the House. The electoral college gave states one elector for each of its members of the House. SO, the 3/5 compromised INCREASED slave state populations over what they would have been had slaves not been counted. Or, as I said it in my previous post:
"Obviously, the 3/5 compromise didn't change the number of human bodies in ANY state, but it DID change the final count of bodies in states used to determine legislative representation and taxation. Had slaves not been counted, the population totals used to determine how many House members slave states received would have NOT included ANY slaves. Due to the 3/5 compromise, three out of every five slaves were counted in the slave state population totals, meaning the population counts used to determine House representation in fact INCREASED over what they would have been without the compromise."
AGAIN I must ask: The best you can do is quibble, incorrectly, with one sentence in my analysis? Where's YOUR analysis? Not in fact-free, single-sentence outbursts, but in substantive and informed content that shows with rigor and credibility that my analysis is incorrect?
You claim to "know (your) history." Where's the post that reflects and proves your knowledge?
-
Bill, it isn't our job to educate you. And if you Google up "facts" that support having a one-man hissy fit, well, don't blame us for that either.
You are wrong. I showed you how and why. @reformed did as well. Your questions were not only answered but resoundingly so. You are either in denial or blind, and apparently unable to be educated. What else is there?
Continue the fit as you wish. We are watching with popcorn.
-
@GaoLu said:
Bill, it isn't our job to educate you. And if you Google up "facts" that support having a one-man hissy fit, well, don't blame us for that either.You are wrong. I showed you how and why. @reformed did as well. Your questions were not only answered but resoundingly so. You are either in denial or blind, and apparently unable to be educated. What else is there?
You didn't answer my analysis AT ALL, Gao Lu.
- You didn't answer my question as to what Madison meant by his words.
- You didn't respond to the content of my analysis, specifically my take on the importance of the source of electoral influence.
- You didn't respond to much of anything.
You CLAIMED to respond - "explicitly" so, you declared. But all I have to do to prove you wrong is ask you to quote for me or provide a link to the post in which you "explicitly" responded to my request for your take on what James Madison meant by the words I quoted from his 1787 speech. And so I request. Please provide a link to that "explicit" response post of yours that explained your view of what Madison meant by his words.
Don't ask me to find it myself!!!! I've looked. There is no such post. So YOU have to do the work. It won't take you more than a minute. Give us the link.
-
@Bill_Coley said:
@reformed said:
Bill Bill Bill, I think you need to go back and do some research about the 3/5 clause. It DECREASED the population by not counting black slaves as a whole person.
Reformed, reformed, reformed, I KNOW "you need to go back and do some research about the 3/5 clause."
From the first site I looked at in a simple Google search: (emphasis added)
"Three-Fifths Compromise
"The Three-Fifths Compromise was one of the first major decisions reached after the Great Compromise was made. In order to avoid taxation, states would frequently undervalue their land to avoid additional fees. The solution to this problem was to tax states based on their population and the question was brought up as to whether or not slaves counted among that population. The compromise (meant) that slaves counted as 3/5 of a person for both taxation and representation purposes. This gave the South, which had many more slaves than the North, a large boost for representation in the House of Representatives." [NOTE: AND HENCE, A BOOST IN ITS NUMBER OF ELECTORS]And a second site: from that same Google search (emphasis added)
"The Three-Fifths Compromise was a compromise reached among state delegates during the 1787 United States Constitutional Convention. Whether, and if so, how, slaves would be counted when determining a state's total population for legislative representation and taxing purposes was important, as this population number would then be used to determine the number of seats that the state would have in the United States House of Representatives for the next ten years. The compromise solution was to count three out of every five slaves as a person for this purpose. Its effect was to give the southern states a third more seats in Congress and a third more electoral votes than if slaves had been ignored, but fewer than if slaves and free people had been counted equally, thus allowing the slaveholder interests to largely dominate the government of the United States until 1861.[1] The compromise was proposed by delegates James Wilson and Roger Sherman.
THAT IS: The compromise INCREASED the population number slave states used to determine their representation in the House. The electoral college gave states one elector for each of its members of the House. SO, the 3/5 compromised INCREASED slave state populations over what they would have been had slaves not been counted. Or, as I said it in my previous post:
"Obviously, the 3/5 compromise didn't change the number of human bodies in ANY state, but it DID change the final count of bodies in states used to determine legislative representation and taxation. Had slaves not been counted, the population totals used to determine how many House members slave states received would have NOT included ANY slaves. Due to the 3/5 compromise, three out of every five slaves were counted in the slave state population totals, meaning the population counts used to determine House representation in fact INCREASED over what they would have been without the compromise."
AGAIN I must ask: The best you can do is quibble, incorrectly, with one sentence in my analysis? Where's YOUR analysis? Not in fact-free, single-sentence outbursts, but in substantive and informed content that shows with rigor and credibility that my analysis is incorrect?
You claim to "know (your) history." Where's the post that reflects and proves your knowledge?
I've given facts, I'm not sure what you are spewing out.
-
@reformed said:
I've given facts, I'm not sure what you are spewing out.For the third and final time I'll ask: Where's YOUR analysis, reformed? Not in fact-free, single-sentence outbursts, but in substantive and informed content that shows with rigor and credibility that my analysis is incorrect?
You claim to "know (your) history." Where's the post that reflects and proves your knowledge?
-
@Bill_Coley said:
@reformed said:
I've given facts, I'm not sure what you are spewing out.For the third and final time I'll ask: Where's YOUR analysis, reformed? Not in fact-free, single-sentence outbursts, but in substantive and informed content that shows with rigor and credibility that my analysis is incorrect?
You claim to "know (your) history." Where's the post that reflects and proves your knowledge?
My original post and every post thereafter. The 3/5 clause decreased the population of the Southern States, not increased it. If they had counted the actual population of the states they would have had EVEN MORE power then what they did. The 3/5 clause limited Southern power, it did not enhance it.
-
@reformed said:
My original post and every post thereafter. The 3/5 clause decreased the population of the Southern States, not increased it. If they had counted the actual population of the states they would have had EVEN MORE power then what they did. The 3/5 clause limited Southern power, it did not enhance it.
Your posts have lacked substance or engagement on the issues at hand, reformed.
As I posted and then subsequently re-posted in the form of a quotation, the issue I raised with the compromise is that it raised the population of southern states above what it would have been had they not counted slaves at all. OF COURSE, it wasn't as great an increase as would have been had they counted all slaves. But that wasn't the point I made.
The most important point I made in my analysis - one to which you have not even hinted at a response - was not about the 3/5 compromise. It was about central importance of the source of electoral influence. Was it voters who voted? No. It was population.
Madison said the creation of the electoral college solved the "difficulty" of the fact that southern states had a lot of people who couldn't vote because they were slaves, and hence would have less electoral influence than northern states, who had larger free - i.e. voting - populations. The switch to a population-centered source of influence (electoral college) increased southern states' influence influence, which would have been less in a voting-center source of influence (direct national vote) because of those states' large slave populations (i.e. people who could not vote). ERGO, the electoral college DOES have real connections to slavery.
Please respond to that specific point, reformed, and not the 3/5 thing. Respond to my contention about the change from a votes cast- to a population-centered source of electoral influence, and how that change increased southern states' electoral influence. Comment directly on the fact that Madison overtly connected the nation's choice of an electoral college to the electoral "difficulty" slavery caused for southern states.
-
America's historical shame remains. "Any means necessary" for Money, Power, and Control; then and now. The hallmark of the Civil War and all wars. CM
-
@Bill_Coley said:
@reformed said:
My original post and every post thereafter. The 3/5 clause decreased the population of the Southern States, not increased it. If they had counted the actual population of the states they would have had EVEN MORE power then what they did. The 3/5 clause limited Southern power, it did not enhance it.
Your posts have lacked substance or engagement on the issues at hand, reformed.
As I posted and then subsequently re-posted in the form of a quotation, the issue I raised with the compromise is that it raised the population of southern states above what it would have been had they not counted slaves at all. OF COURSE, it wasn't as great an increase as would have been had they counted all slaves. But that wasn't the point I made.
The most important point I made in my analysis - one to which you have not even hinted at a response - was not about the 3/5 compromise. It was about central importance of the source of electoral influence. Was it voters who voted? No. It was population.
Yes, I don't see why this matters. It should be the population.
Madison said the creation of the electoral college solved the "difficulty" of the fact that southern states had a lot of people who couldn't vote because they were slaves, and hence would have less electoral influence than northern states, who had larger free - i.e. voting - populations. The switch to a population-centered source of influence (electoral college) increased southern states' influence influence, which would have been less in a voting-center source of influence (direct national vote) because of those states' large slave populations (i.e. people who could not vote). ERGO, the electoral college DOES have real connections to slavery.
But it was not made BECAUSE of slavery. You are moving the goalpost.
Please respond to that specific point, reformed, and not the 3/5 thing. Respond to my contention about the change from a votes cast- to a population-centered source of electoral influence, and how that change increased southern states' electoral influence. Comment directly on the fact that Madison overtly connected the nation's choice of an electoral college to the electoral "difficulty" slavery caused for southern states.
It only raised the electoral influence because there was this despicable idea to not count black slaves as people at all.
-
@reformed said:
It only raised the electoral influence because there was this despicable idea to not count black slaves as people at all.
Now that you have finally engaged something resembling the substance of my argument, reformed, we can invite other CD readers to compare the analysis I provided in my posts to the analysis you provided in yours, then decide for themselves which of us presented a more substantive and historically informed view of the issues.
[NOTE: I'd offer to return the favor and engage the substance of your argument, but the vast majority of your posts in our exchange have been one or two sentence headlines, which in my view, can't offer substantive critical analysis of issues.]
-
Advice: Never engage a Bad Faith Argument on the terms of the person making it.
-
@GaoLu said:
Advice: Never engage a Bad Faith Argument on the terms of the person making it.Liberals never act in good faith.
-
well, now there has been a lot of stuff about electoral college and slavery, but really none of it seems to really relate to being a reason for or being the main purpose, aim or goal for the so-called "American Civil War" ... I say "so-called" because even the little info thus far mentioned about what actually happened as cause of that war seems to indicate that this war was a war forced by the Union because they did not want to lose power over those states that had decided to secede and leave the Union and formed their own country.
This begs the question: May a people or states have a right to secede from their current country or other political construct if they desire to do so? or does the current political power have the a right to make war against people or state that have decided to be independent and their own country?
-
Democracy in Danger in Georgia
The right is using voter suppression to rig the governor’s race. -- Oct. 12, 2018
https://www.nytimes.com/2018/10/12/opinion/stacey-abrams-kemp-georgia-voters.html
@Wolfgang said:
well, now there has been a lot of stuff about electoral college and slavery, but really none of it seems to really relate to being a reason for or being the main purpose, aim or goal for the so-called "American Civil War" ... I say "so-called" because even the little info thus far mentioned about what actually happened as cause of that war seems to indicate that this war was a war forced by the Union because they did not want to lose power over those states that had decided to secede and leave the Union and formed their own country.This begs the question: May a people or states have a right to secede from their current country or other political construct if they desire to do so? or does the current political power have the a right to make war against people or state that have decided to be independent and their own country?
Wolfgang,
Yes and Yes! to both questions. They will, only, become a reality through propaganda, demonization, and much blood (many lives lost). Just the facts, Sir.Lastly, your concerns were answered. Please re-read Bill's posts and better yet, read for yourself. Warning! Beware of historical sources on the subject matter. To see what I and Bill have been saying so far. Read online an article referring "electoral college": # Democracy in Danger in Georgia -- The right is using voter suppression to rig the governor’s race. -- Oct. 12, 2018 https://www.nytimes.com/2018/10/12/opinion/stacey-abrams-kemp-georgia-voters.html
Enjoy the truth of the matter. CM
-
@C_M_ said:
Democracy in Danger in Georgia
The right is using voter suppression to rig the governor’s race. -- Oct. 12, 2018
https://www.nytimes.com/2018/10/12/opinion/stacey-abrams-kemp-georgia-voters.html
@Wolfgang said:
well, now there has been a lot of stuff about electoral college and slavery, but really none of it seems to really relate to being a reason for or being the main purpose, aim or goal for the so-called "American Civil War" ... I say "so-called" because even the little info thus far mentioned about what actually happened as cause of that war seems to indicate that this war was a war forced by the Union because they did not want to lose power over those states that had decided to secede and leave the Union and formed their own country.This begs the question: May a people or states have a right to secede from their current country or other political construct if they desire to do so? or does the current political power have the a right to make war against people or state that have decided to be independent and their own country?
Wolfgang,
Yes and Yes! to both questions. They will, only, become a reality through propaganda, demonization, and much blood (many lives lost). Just the facts, Sir.Lastly, your concerns were answered. Please re-read Bill's posts and better yet, read for yourself. Warning! Beware of historical sources on the subject matter. To see what I and Bill have been saying so far. Read online an article referring "electoral college": # Democracy in Danger in Georgia -- The right is using voter suppression to rig the governor’s race. -- Oct. 12, 2018 https://www.nytimes.com/2018/10/12/opinion/stacey-abrams-kemp-georgia-voters.html
Enjoy the truth of the matter. CM
The article is a bunch of nonsense.
-
@C_M_ said:
@Wolfgang said:
This begs the question: May a people or states have a right to secede from their current country or other political construct if they desire to do so? or does the current political power have the a right to make war against people or state that have decided to be independent and their own country?Wolfgang,
Yes and Yes! to both questions.This seems to be a self-contradictory reply as there really can NOT be any "Yes" to both questions ... Either people have the right to secession and thus there is no right for the other party to conduct a war based on the premise that there is no such right.
Only if there is no right to secession may there be a right to conduct a war against those who seek secession ... -
@Wolfgang said:
@C_M_ said:
@Wolfgang said:
This begs the question: May a people or states have a right to secede from their current country or other political construct if they desire to do so? or does the current political power have the a right to make war against people or state that have decided to be independent and their own country?Wolfgang,
Yes and Yes! to both questions.This seems to be a self-contradictory reply as there really can NOT be any "Yes" to both questions ... Either people have the right to secession and thus there is no right for the other party to conduct a war based on the premise that there is no such right.
Only if there is no right to secession may there be a right to conduct a war against those who seek secession ...Wolfgang,
Under normal circumstances and another country, you would be right in your response to me. America, as I said before, is an Enigma of Contradictions. Please re-read an earlier post in reflection to a video clip of George Takei's story:Mitch,
Mr. George Takei's story was sad, yet inspirational. America seems to have mastered the art of getting it "wrong" before she gets it right. This is reflective of her history. e.g. treaties with Native Americans, Slavery, Jim Crow Laws, Plessy vs Furgerson, Education System, Child Labor, Mass incarceration, unfair taxation (then and now), etc.America is slow about correcting her wrongs. She does it to the next generation, if at all, and not to the one she offended. Yet, she is called by some "a Christian Nation." On one hand, she brings out the best in some (Mr. Takei/family, Jessie Owens, Jackie Robertson, NASA, etc.). And, on the other hand, she brings out the worse in others (Robert E. Lee, Killing of MLK/ JFK, Tuskegee Syphilis Experiments, "Big Pharma", etc). Yet, people still desire to come to her shores with hopes, dreams and a willingness to endure treatment as Mr. Takei's Family encountered.
It has been said, "America, love her or leave her." I am not as articulate as Mr. George Takei, but adding my voice to his; I would say, America is an Enigma of Contradictions. CM
SOURCE:
Read the context of the earlier post:
https://www.christiandiscourse.net/discussion/comment/1892#Comment_1892 -
@C_M_ said:
Wolfgang,
Under normal circumstances and another country, you would be right in your response to me. America, as I said before, is an Enigma of Contradictions. Please re-read an earlier post in reflection to a video clip of George Takei's story:Sorry, I do not regard any country to be "exceptional" ... thus your argument here of portraying the USA as exception from normal circumstances or other countries doesn't count for me ...
I made a plain and simple point of general application to any country and any people ... -
@Wolfgang said:
@C_M_ said:
Wolfgang,
Under normal circumstances and another country, you would be right in your response to me. America, as I said before, is an Enigma of Contradictions. Please re-read an earlier post in reflection to a video clip of George Takei's story:Sorry, I do not regard any country to be "exceptional" ... thus your argument here of portraying the USA as exception from normal circumstances or other countries doesn't count for me ...
I made a plain and simple point of general application to any country and any people ...Wolfgang,
Are you trying to tell me that all the anti-social, blatant criminal historical lies/acts, and the slaughter of the Indians, slaves, poisoned people/water, unequal educational systems, and unfair housing and lending practices, America is not "exceptional"? America has spewed her vile bile of hatred and division for centuries under the cover of her so-called Constitution. Wolfgang, you don't see this as "exceptional"? Leave the Jews and Israel alone! CM
![[Deleted User]](https://secure.gravatar.com/avatar/fcddec765be35f238a0844bd23f54b59/?default=https%3A%2F%2Fvanillicon.com%2F8ce8323767a20f0f45db140c4cd2cea1_200.png&rating=g&size=200)