Nancy that has to hurt

Discussion of current events
neverfail
Posts: 5828
Joined: Sun Dec 18, 2016 3:47 am
Location: Singapore

Re: Nancy that has to hurt

Post by neverfail » Thu Feb 13, 2020 1:25 am

cassowary wrote:
Wed Feb 12, 2020 3:50 pm
I already answered your question, Neverfail. The Southern argument was that the slaves were economically productive growing cotton which was sold to Europe and contributing to the prosperity of America.
(As though the slaves derived any benefit.)

So what? The southern delegates were bargaining to get what they wanted and were obviously devoid of scruples when it came to lobbying for it. Spurious argument!

It amazes me that any allegedly intelligent man of today could still emphasize with the self-serving argument fielded by scoundrels over two centuries ago.

User avatar
cassowary
Posts: 4279
Joined: Thu Dec 15, 2016 11:30 pm

Re: Nancy that has to hurt

Post by cassowary » Thu Feb 13, 2020 7:04 am

neverfail wrote:
Thu Feb 13, 2020 1:25 am
cassowary wrote:
Wed Feb 12, 2020 3:50 pm
I already answered your question, Neverfail. The Southern argument was that the slaves were economically productive growing cotton which was sold to Europe and contributing to the prosperity of America.
(As though the slaves derived any benefit.)

So what? The southern delegates were bargaining to get what they wanted and were obviously devoid of scruples when it came to lobbying for it. Spurious argument!

It amazes me that any allegedly intelligent man of today could still emphasize with the self-serving argument fielded by scoundrels over two centuries ago.
Neverfail,

You never seem to understand anything. Let me try again. Imagine yourself in 1789. You are at the Constitutional Convention.

Let's say there was a Northern state, called Yankeeland and a Southern state called Dixieland. Each had 100,000 people. So let's say there were typically 1 Representative in the House for every 10,000 people. So each of these two states should have 10 House Representatives or what you call MPs.

But Yankeeland had 100,000 white people and Dixieland had 50,000 whites and 50,000 slaves. So how may Representatives should Dixieland have? The Northerners say that Dixieland should only have 5 since only 50,000 people are free. You should not count slaves for the purpose of deciding how many Representatives a state should have. The Southerner wanted 10, arguing that slaves were contributing to the prosperity of the Union.

You see, right from the start, there was already tension and rivalry between slave owning and non slave states. Both sides wanted more Representatives so that they have more power in Congress or what you call Parliament. In the end, they compromised. So each slave was counted as 3/5 of a free man. Thus the 50,000 slaves would count as 30,000 people. Population of Dixieland was regarded as 80,000 for the purpose of determining the number of House Representatives they should get. Thus Dixieland gets 8 House Reps.

How the Constitution developed was completely understandable. You seem to think it was done with evil intent. Must be part of your Marxist mindset.
The Imp :D

Jim the Moron
Posts: 1942
Joined: Thu Dec 15, 2016 9:51 pm

Re: Nancy that has to hurt

Post by Jim the Moron » Thu Feb 13, 2020 7:48 am

cassowary possesses the patience of Job.

User avatar
lzzrdgrrl
Posts: 697
Joined: Fri Dec 16, 2016 8:18 pm
Location: Okie Doke

Re: Nancy that has to hurt

Post by lzzrdgrrl » Thu Feb 13, 2020 10:03 am

cassowary wrote:
Thu Feb 13, 2020 7:04 am
neverfail wrote:
Thu Feb 13, 2020 1:25 am
cassowary wrote:
Wed Feb 12, 2020 3:50 pm
I already answered your question, Neverfail. The Southern argument was that the slaves were economically productive growing cotton which was sold to Europe and contributing to the prosperity of America.
(As though the slaves derived any benefit.)

So what? The southern delegates were bargaining to get what they wanted and were obviously devoid of scruples when it came to lobbying for it. Spurious argument!

It amazes me that any allegedly intelligent man of today could still emphasize with the self-serving argument fielded by scoundrels over two centuries ago.
Neverfail,

You never seem to understand anything. Let me try again. Imagine yourself in 1789. You are at the Constitutional Convention.

Let's say there was a Northern state, called Yankeeland and a Southern state called Dixieland. Each had 100,000 people. So let's say there were typically 1 Representative in the House for every 10,000 people. So each of these two states should have 10 House Representatives or what you call MPs.

But Yankeeland had 100,000 white people and Dixieland had 50,000 whites and 50,000 slaves. So how may Representatives should Dixieland have? The Northerners say that Dixieland should only have 5 since only 50,000 people are free. You should not count slaves for the purpose of deciding how many Representatives a state should have. The Southerner wanted 10, arguing that slaves were contributing to the prosperity of the Union.

You see, right from the start, there was already tension and rivalry between slave owning and non slave states. Both sides wanted more Representatives so that they have more power in Congress or what you call Parliament. In the end, they compromised. So each slave was counted as 3/5 of a free man. Thus the 50,000 slaves would count as 30,000 people. Population of Dixieland was regarded as 80,000 for the purpose of determining the number of House Representatives they should get. Thus Dixieland gets 8 House Reps.

How the Constitution developed was completely understandable. You seem to think it was done with evil intent. Must be part of your Marxist mindset.
The analogy would have a bit more edge if you posited, say 65,000 freemen and 50,0000 slaves for a purported total population of Dixieland at 115,000 as opposed to Yankeeland at 100,000. Then you would see how a captive population could be used to gain domination and control, let alone parity. Also reflects how the southern states had a bit more economic clout than the northside before the beginning of the Civil War........
I have a certain notoriety among the lesser gods........

neverfail
Posts: 5828
Joined: Sun Dec 18, 2016 3:47 am
Location: Singapore

Re: Nancy that has to hurt

Post by neverfail » Thu Feb 13, 2020 1:06 pm

cassowary wrote:
Thu Feb 13, 2020 7:04 am

Neverfail,

You never seem to understand anything.
I understand your contention with crystal clarity and I REJECT it!

neverfail
Posts: 5828
Joined: Sun Dec 18, 2016 3:47 am
Location: Singapore

Re: Nancy that has to hurt

Post by neverfail » Thu Feb 13, 2020 1:33 pm

lzzrdgrrl wrote:
Thu Feb 13, 2020 10:03 am

The analogy would have a bit more edge if you posited, say 65,000 freemen and 50,0000 slaves for a purported total population of Dixieland at 115,000 as opposed to Yankeeland at 100,000. Then you would see how a captive population could be used to gain domination and control, let alone parity. Also reflects how the southern states had a bit more economic clout than the northside before the beginning of the Civil War........
Well stated, lzzrdgrrl.

I think that the argument that the slaveholding southern states had more economic clout than the free northern states would have been somewhat spurious. For years after the end of the War of Independence Britain imposed savage tariffs on imports from the United States as retaliation over the succession of the 13 colonies from the British empire - which meant that the only feasible external market for most of the South's surplus cotton and tobacco was closed.

Meantime, the north was growing food and producing a variety of (mainly hand crafted?) manufactures for the domestic market - therefore not disaffected by the British embargo of American goods. Indeed, the (retaliatory) elimination of former imports from Britain might have even helped these gain market share.

I suggest that South only gained it's economic "edge" decades later with the invention of the cotton gin and its widespread usage in the by then expanding cotton belt. Britain, probably as part of their 1815 peace deal with the United States and in their own best interests (their expanding mechanized textiles industry in Lancashire needed inputs of cheap, raw cotton) would have removed the earlier imposed tariffs on American goods for the benefit of their own cotton weaving mills. At which point the golden age of King Cotton in America began.

But of course, all of this was to come about decades into the future. The founders of the US constitution in 1789 would not have been endowed with powers of prophecy.

User avatar
cassowary
Posts: 4279
Joined: Thu Dec 15, 2016 11:30 pm

Re: Nancy that has to hurt

Post by cassowary » Thu Feb 13, 2020 6:22 pm

neverfail wrote:
Thu Feb 13, 2020 1:06 pm
cassowary wrote:
Thu Feb 13, 2020 7:04 am

Neverfail,

You never seem to understand anything.
I understand your contention with crystal clarity and I REJECT it!
Without explaining what is wrong with it.
The Imp :D

neverfail
Posts: 5828
Joined: Sun Dec 18, 2016 3:47 am
Location: Singapore

Re: Nancy that has to hurt

Post by neverfail » Thu Feb 13, 2020 7:51 pm

cassowary wrote:
Thu Feb 13, 2020 6:22 pm
neverfail wrote:
Thu Feb 13, 2020 1:06 pm
cassowary wrote:
Thu Feb 13, 2020 7:04 am

Neverfail,

You never seem to understand anything.
I understand your contention with crystal clarity and I REJECT it!
Without explaining what is wrong with it.
Are you trying to give me the shits with pretended ignorance?

Re-read my posts on the topic!

User avatar
cassowary
Posts: 4279
Joined: Thu Dec 15, 2016 11:30 pm

Re: Nancy that has to hurt

Post by cassowary » Thu Feb 13, 2020 10:10 pm

neverfail wrote:
Thu Feb 13, 2020 7:51 pm
cassowary wrote:
Thu Feb 13, 2020 6:22 pm
neverfail wrote:
Thu Feb 13, 2020 1:06 pm
cassowary wrote:
Thu Feb 13, 2020 7:04 am

Neverfail,

You never seem to understand anything.
I understand your contention with crystal clarity and I REJECT it!
Without explaining what is wrong with it.
Are you trying to give me the shits with pretended ignorance?

Re-read my posts on the topic!
Neverfail,

If we need to reread your posts, we have to start at the beginning.

If you click that link, you will see that i butted in to your discussion with Doc. You said that the electoral college system was a "filthy compromise" to entice the Southern states to join. It had nothing to do with that and I explained. why. The electoral college had nothing to do with slavery but with the election of the President.

As I said, it was implemented because the FF fathers distrusted democracy for good reasons which I gave. These include the lack of modern communications which rendered making an informed vote impossible for most voters. So it make sense to elect a bunch of electors who were expected to travel to Washington in familiarize with the candidates. I also pointed out that in the British Parliamentary system which the FF should be familiar with the PM also was not elected by popular vote but determined by the MPs.

I also generously mentioned the area of the Constitution where race was involved. It was not the electoral college which you claimed. It was the issue of how many representatives each state should have. As in Britain, the larger the population, the larger the number of Representatives or MPs. That is only fair. So should slaves be counted? I explained they decided on the 3/5 rule for the slaves. Then you replied to this.

Then true to your Marxist anti-American mindset, your reply here was that the FF must have looked down on the ordinary Americans. In line with your Marxist mindset, CLASS conflict must be at work. The rich Americans wanted to keep down the poor.

You DID NOT REFUTE the reasons I gave which were totally reasonable. No internet, TV, radio and high rate of illiteracy make it impracticable for universal franchise. It was not CLASS convict which your Marxist mind insists to see.

Then you gave a totally wrong and bizzare reply saying that the slave owners were going to vote on behalf of the slaves. Let me quote:
Instead the slave owners got to vote in the name of their slaves - which meant that they voted for whoever they wanted, not the way their slaves might have wanted them to vote.

It meant if a slave owner in Virginia or South Carolina (for instance) owned 5 slaves he got to cast 3 additional votes on election day in addition to the vote he was entitled to cast as a white property owner. A total of 4 votes.
Your facts were wrong. But it did fit in to your insistence to see class oppression (also race). You thought that the Northerners would actually accept a constitution that allows a Southern slave owner to have four votes while the Northerner has only one each. That was bizarre.

The Northerners detested the institution of slavery and would like to see it abolished. The Southerners wanted to preserve it. There was the issue of new states that will eventually join the Union from the original 13. So both sides wanted more power to curtail, regulate if not abolish or preserve the institution. So each side needed as many Representatives or what you call MPs as possible. The battle lines for the Civil War was already drawn at America's founding. So how could there be a constitution that allows the Southerner to have more votes?

Then I replied.

I had to repeat the UNREFUTED argument that the original reason for the electoral college was the LACK of modern communications and high illiteracy and not "snootiness" at lower classes or what a Socialist call "class oppression".

In this reply, I also explained how the 3/5 rule operated since it was clear you did not understand. NOrmally, the number of Representatives or what you call MPs should be based on population size. But should slaves be counted? I explained that the North only wanted it to be based on the free (white) population while the South wanted the slave population to be counted. They argued that the slaves contributed to the economic prosperity and so should be counted. In the end, the 3/5 compromise was agreed upon.

Then came your reply.

You only focused on one part of my reply. You did not REFUTE my reasons for using the electoral college (lack of modern communications etc). Nor did you admit you were wrong earlier in your contention that a Southern voter could end up with more than one vote.

Instead, you said that the number of House Reps reflected the number of voters and not population which was not true. I was only explaining a general rule that the larger the population, the more MPs or Representatives you should get. Your reply insists that the rule in the US congress is that it is based on the number of voters. This suggests to me that you did not understand what I wrote.

It was precisely this dispute on whether to count the slaves (who don't vote) that resulted in the 3/5 compromise. You wrote:
Instead, the system devised dishonestly rewarded the Southern states with gratuitous additional political power and influence for holding a significant section of their population in unrewarded, forced labour subjugation.
You see? Your Marxist mindset insists of seeing on seeing "labour subjugation", in this case of the slaves. Everything seems to filter through your Marxist lens, making it impossible to understand what was going on, despite my patient explanation.

Any explanation or fact that does not conform to class struggle or labour oppression is filtered out. That is why my explanation of the reasons for the electoral college (illiteracy and lack of modern communications) was not refuted but simply ignored. To you, it must be because of class oppression which in this case also involves race.

Then you asked, why should the South be given more representation than they deserved? This means that you did not understand or more likely ignored what I wrote about how the 3/5 rule came about. I now think you more likely ignored it. I suspect your mind simply filtered it out because it did not fit in to your Marxist labour oppression filter.

So I replied. It was a short reply. I did not want to repeat everything. So I simply pointed out that the slaves were contributing to the prosperity of the country. That was the argument the South gave for wanting to count them.

Then you replied.

There were no arguments. It was just accusations and of unscrupulous behavior by long dead southerners. No new additions of facts. No admission that you were wrong about the electoral college which started the whole chain of messages.

So I tried one more time.

But my explanation for the original reasons for the Electoral College (illiteracy and lack of communications) still stands because it was not refuted. That was what started out the whole chain of messages. The rest was getting you to understand how the 3/5 rule came about. I hope you finally understand that.
The Imp :D

neverfail
Posts: 5828
Joined: Sun Dec 18, 2016 3:47 am
Location: Singapore

Re: Nancy that has to hurt

Post by neverfail » Fri Feb 14, 2020 2:46 am

cassowary wrote:
Thu Feb 13, 2020 10:10 pm
But my explanation for the original reasons for the Electoral College (illiteracy and lack of communications) still stands because it was not refuted. That was what started out the whole chain of messages. The rest was getting you to understand how the 3/5 rule came about. I hope you finally understand that.
( :roll: sigh!)
https://www.history.com/news/electoral- ... convention

“The right of suffrage was much more diffusive [i.e., extensive] in the Northern than the Southern States,” said Madison, “and the latter could have no influence in the election on the score of Negroes.”

The result was the controversial “three-fifths compromise,” in which black slaves would be counted as three-fifths of a person for the purpose of allocating representatives and electors and calculating federal taxes. The compromise ensured that Southern states would ratify the Constitution and gave Virginia, home to more than 200,000 slaves, a quarter (12) of the total electoral votes required to win the presidency (46).
I will own up to one earlier mistake. In an earlier post I believed (wrongly) that the "three fifth compromise" referred to popular votes when it in fact refers to the number of electoral college votes awarded to each state . Same difference! The deal padded the southern slave states with enough additional electoral college votes to ensure that when the president elected was not a white southerner (like Jefferson, Madison or Andrew Jackson) then (like Van Buren) he would be a "tame" northerner who would know better than to try to take on the power of the southern plantation lobby.

It was a gerrymander whose purpose was to direct power into the hands to one particular sectional interest.

All of the other supportive arguments were bullshit.
....................................................................................................................................
https://www.history.com/news/electoral- ... convention

And even more important, the Constitution says nothing about how the states should allot their electoral votes. The assumption was that each elector’s vote would be counted. But over time, all but two states (Maine and Nebraska) passed laws to give all of their electoral votes to the candidate who wins the state’s popular vote count. Any semblance of elector independence has been fully wiped out.
That plantation lobby might have been wiped out during their Civil War but it still does not mean that the electoral college system produces fair results even today. The reason lies with tampering by the states. Those state "winner take all" laws ensure that the pro-rata of popular votes cast is NOT reflected in the pro-rata of electoral college votes for the presidential candidates.

I do not see what the election of a Federal government have to do with the states anyhow. The states by now should have been compelled to butt out. If Federal elections in Australia can be conducted by an independent electoral commission without any influence or input by our states then I do not see why they cannot do it in the USA as well.

There is no excuse!

Post Reply