Nancy that has to hurt

Discussion of current events
User avatar
cassowary
Posts: 4279
Joined: Thu Dec 15, 2016 11:30 pm

Re: Nancy that has to hurt

Post by cassowary » Fri Feb 14, 2020 3:32 am

neverfail wrote:
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!
The electoral college votes was the sum of total number of Representatives plus 2. The two was for the two senators from each state. So the 3/5 rule did affect the number of electoral college vote. As we now both seem to agree, the 3/5 rule was a compromise between north and south. The south wanted the slaves to be counted in full initially while the north wanted slaves not to be counted at all.

Of course, the states had to have a say in how the President was elected. If the state did not agree on this important matter, the state would not join the union.
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 3:19 pm

cassowary wrote:
Fri Feb 14, 2020 3:32 am



The electoral college votes was the sum of total number of Representatives plus 2. The two was for the two senators from each state.
And how did they decide the number of representatives each state was entitled to? In the case of the slave owning states by padding their population statistics with numbers of slaves.

Bear in mind that black slaves were in those days not considered in the South to be "people" but as chattels: privately owned property to be bought and sold. In our day a sparsely populated state like Montana is not awarded additional electoral college votes because it hosts a large herd of cattle, now does it?

Same rule should have applied back in 1789!

cassowary wrote:
Fri Feb 14, 2020 3:32 am
So the 3/5 rule did affect the number of electoral college vote. As we now both seem to agree, the 3/5 rule was a compromise between north and south. The south wanted the slaves to be counted in full initially while the north wanted slaves not to be counted at all.

Of course, the states had to have a say in how the President was elected. If the state did not agree on this important matter, the state would not join the union.
We agree there Cass. The Southern delegates drove a very hard bargain which the USA then paid for 8 decades later in the utter catastrophe of the American Civil War.

I sometimes wonder whether it would have been (with hindsight) better had the northern delegates called the bluff of the southerners and simply allowed the slave owning states to go their own way and form a separate confederacy there and then? Let the slave owning states wallow in their own filth and eventually bring about their own downfall without dragging the United States down into the abyss with them.

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

Re: Nancy that has to hurt

Post by cassowary » Sat Feb 15, 2020 12:04 am

neverfail wrote:
Fri Feb 14, 2020 3:19 pm
cassowary wrote:
Fri Feb 14, 2020 3:32 am



The electoral college votes was the sum of total number of Representatives plus 2. The two was for the two senators from each state.
And how did they decide the number of representatives each state was entitled to? In the case of the slave owning states by padding their population statistics with numbers of slaves.
Well, blacks were people too and so should be counted in full, as they were in the North. But that would give the south too much power. The Northerners did not want the south to reinforce slavery with more Representatives in Congress. So they needed to lower the number of representatives from the south.

It was the south who wanted to count blacks in full. But they settled for less Reps than they deserve by counting blacks as 3/5 while they were counted as 5/5 in the North.

Excerpt from link:
Article I, Section 2 of the U.S. Constitution states: “Representatives and direct Taxes shall be apportioned among the several States which may be included within this Union, according to their respective Numbers, which shall be determined by adding to the whole Number of free Persons, including those bound to Service for a Term of Years, and excluding Indians not taxed, three fifths of all other Persons.” The “other Persons” were slaves.
Since the North did not have slaves, it follows that blacks living there were counted in full.
Bear in mind that black slaves were in those days not considered in the South to be "people" but as chattels: privately owned property to be bought and sold. In our day a sparsely populated state like Montana is not awarded additional electoral college votes because it hosts a large herd of cattle, now does it?

Same rule should have applied back in 1789!
That sounds racist. Blacks are compared to cattle. Blacks, even though slaves, could talk, be taught to read and write. Cows cannot.

cassowary wrote:
Fri Feb 14, 2020 3:32 am
So the 3/5 rule did affect the number of electoral college vote. As we now both seem to agree, the 3/5 rule was a compromise between north and south. The south wanted the slaves to be counted in full initially while the north wanted slaves not to be counted at all.

Of course, the states had to have a say in how the President was elected. If the state did not agree on this important matter, the state would not join the union.
We agree there Cass. The Southern delegates drove a very hard bargain which the USA then paid for 8 decades later in the utter catastrophe of the American Civil War.

I sometimes wonder whether it would have been (with hindsight) better had the northern delegates called the bluff of the southerners and simply allowed the slave owning states to go their own way and form a separate confederacy there and then? Let the slave owning states wallow in their own filth and eventually bring about their own downfall without dragging the United States down into the abyss with them.
It is difficult to say what would have happened had each side went their own way. Perhaps, the South would be like Haiti. The blacks revolted there and overthrew their white masters. The southern states might have become 98% black and of course very poor like Haiti.

There might also have been wars between the white north and the black south. But it won't be a Civil War. Does that makes things better?

In the end, both sides compromise and we got what we have today.
The Imp :D

User avatar
Doc
Posts: 4539
Joined: Thu Dec 15, 2016 7:09 pm
Location: Cradle To Grave

Re: Nancy that has to hurt

Post by Doc » Sat Feb 15, 2020 1:34 am

cassowary wrote:
Sat Feb 15, 2020 12:04 am
neverfail wrote:
Fri Feb 14, 2020 3:19 pm
cassowary wrote:
Fri Feb 14, 2020 3:32 am



The electoral college votes was the sum of total number of Representatives plus 2. The two was for the two senators from each state.
And how did they decide the number of representatives each state was entitled to? In the case of the slave owning states by padding their population statistics with numbers of slaves.
Well, blacks were people too and so should be counted in full, as they were in the North. But that would give the south too much power. The Northerners did not want the south to reinforce slavery with more Representatives in Congress. So they needed to lower the number of representatives from the south.

It was the south who wanted to count blacks in full. But they settled for less Reps than they deserve by counting blacks as 3/5 while they were counted as 5/5 in the North.

Excerpt from link:
Article I, Section 2 of the U.S. Constitution states: “Representatives and direct Taxes shall be apportioned among the several States which may be included within this Union, according to their respective Numbers, which shall be determined by adding to the whole Number of free Persons, including those bound to Service for a Term of Years, and excluding Indians not taxed, three fifths of all other Persons.” The “other Persons” were slaves.
Since the North did not have slaves, it follows that blacks living there were counted in full.
Bear in mind that black slaves were in those days not considered in the South to be "people" but as chattels: privately owned property to be bought and sold. In our day a sparsely populated state like Montana is not awarded additional electoral college votes because it hosts a large herd of cattle, now does it?

Same rule should have applied back in 1789!
That sounds racist. Blacks are compared to cattle. Blacks, even though slaves, could talk, be taught to read and write. Cows cannot.

cassowary wrote:
Fri Feb 14, 2020 3:32 am
So the 3/5 rule did affect the number of electoral college vote. As we now both seem to agree, the 3/5 rule was a compromise between north and south. The south wanted the slaves to be counted in full initially while the north wanted slaves not to be counted at all.

Of course, the states had to have a say in how the President was elected. If the state did not agree on this important matter, the state would not join the union.
We agree there Cass. The Southern delegates drove a very hard bargain which the USA then paid for 8 decades later in the utter catastrophe of the American Civil War.

I sometimes wonder whether it would have been (with hindsight) better had the northern delegates called the bluff of the southerners and simply allowed the slave owning states to go their own way and form a separate confederacy there and then? Let the slave owning states wallow in their own filth and eventually bring about their own downfall without dragging the United States down into the abyss with them.
It is difficult to say what would have happened had each side went their own way. Perhaps, the South would be like Haiti. The blacks revolted there and overthrew their white masters. The southern states might have become 98% black and of course very poor like Haiti.

There might also have been wars between the white north and the black south. But it won't be a Civil War. Does that makes things better?

In the end, both sides compromise and we got what we have today.
It would have been a race to see which could claim more of North America. Southerners wanted to expand into Mexico and point further south. The Western US would have been fought over as well. War would not have been avoided.
“"I fancied myself as some kind of god....It is a sort of disease when you consider yourself some kind of god, the creator of everything, but I feel comfortable about it now since I began to live it out.” -- George Soros

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

Re: Nancy that has to hurt

Post by neverfail » Sat Feb 15, 2020 2:21 am

Doc wrote:
Sat Feb 15, 2020 1:34 am

It would have been a race to see which could claim more of North America. Southerners wanted to expand into Mexico and point further south. The Western US would have been fought over as well. War would not have been avoided.
Anything might have happened doc!

Let us not forget the possibly of third players entering the picture. Like the United Kingdom forming a pact with the Confederacy to strengthen its influence in the Americas. Wedged between British North America and a British backed CSA the USA would have found itself hobbled.

I wonder whether this is the real reason why they did not want the slave states to become a separate sovereignty? To avoid possibility that one side might try to beggar the other by forming alliances to it's detriment with foreign powers?

User avatar
Doc
Posts: 4539
Joined: Thu Dec 15, 2016 7:09 pm
Location: Cradle To Grave

Re: Nancy that has to hurt

Post by Doc » Sat Feb 15, 2020 8:04 am

neverfail wrote:
Sat Feb 15, 2020 2:21 am
Doc wrote:
Sat Feb 15, 2020 1:34 am

It would have been a race to see which could claim more of North America. Southerners wanted to expand into Mexico and point further south. The Western US would have been fought over as well. War would not have been avoided.
Anything might have happened doc!

Let us not forget the possibly of third players entering the picture. Like the United Kingdom forming a pact with the Confederacy to strengthen its influence in the Americas. Wedged between British North America and a British backed CSA the USA would have found itself hobbled.

I wonder whether this is the real reason why they did not want the slave states to become a separate sovereignty? To avoid possibility that one side might try to beggar the other by forming alliances to it's detriment with foreign powers?
Yes most likely the UK would have entered any war on the side of the confederates. The only reason it didn't happen during the civil war was the fear that the UK would lose Canada. But if the CSA was a country that the UK had relations with it could well have been different. Though I suspect it would have been a widely unpopular war in the UK.
“"I fancied myself as some kind of god....It is a sort of disease when you consider yourself some kind of god, the creator of everything, but I feel comfortable about it now since I began to live it out.” -- George Soros

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

Re: Nancy that has to hurt

Post by cassowary » Sat Feb 15, 2020 8:14 am

So the FF did the right thing to form a union with the Southern states.
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 » Sat Feb 15, 2020 2:40 pm

cassowary wrote:
Sat Feb 15, 2020 8:14 am
So the FF did the right thing to form a union with the Southern states.
Considering the alternatives, you are probably right.

Cass
: all things considered and upon further reflection, I am now able to move closer to your stated position.

Given the political realities of the time, the US Constitution as framed back in 1789 was likely the best possible outcome the negotiations could have arrived at.

Having stated that, I still consider it to be a flawed document; the foundations for a flawed federation.

The history of the resultant US republic up until 1861 reads like a chronicle of postponing then inevitable - the Missouri Compromise inaugurated by the Andrew Jackson administration being the most prominent signpost along that road.

The eruption of civil war in 1861 finally brought things to a head. The mass succession of all but four of the slave owning states arguably rendered the clauses incorporated into their constitution at the behest of the slave states back in 1789 (including the electoral college provision) null and void. The US constitution remains open to revision to this day.

The unilateral betrayal of that compact entered into by their forebears back in 1789 via mass-succession followed by the crushing military victory subsequently won by the Unionist North also demonstrated another unpleasant fact. That ultimately the American Federation could only be held together by force of arms - in other words by means of applied violence.

The Confederate states had to be forced back into the American Union at the point of a bayonet.

The Americans in the end did not have enough of a shared community of interest to hold their country together as a unitary whole. I sometimes wonder just how true this remains today?

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

Re: Nancy that has to hurt

Post by cassowary » Sat Feb 15, 2020 7:11 pm

neverfail wrote:
Sat Feb 15, 2020 2:40 pm
cassowary wrote:
Sat Feb 15, 2020 8:14 am
So the FF did the right thing to form a union with the Southern states.
Considering the alternatives, you are probably right.

Cass
: all things considered and upon further reflection, I am now able to move closer to your stated position.

Given the political realities of the time, the US Constitution as framed back in 1789 was likely the best possible outcome the negotiations could have arrived at.

Having stated that, I still consider it to be a flawed document; the foundations for a flawed federation.

The history of the resultant US republic up until 1861 reads like a chronicle of postponing then inevitable - the Missouri Compromise inaugurated by the Andrew Jackson administration being the most prominent signpost along that road.

The eruption of civil war in 1861 finally brought things to a head. The mass succession of all but four of the slave owning states arguably rendered the clauses incorporated into their constitution at the behest of the slave states back in 1789 (including the electoral college provision) null and void. The US constitution remains open to revision to this day.

The unilateral betrayal of that compact entered into by their forebears back in 1789 via mass-succession followed by the crushing military victory subsequently won by the Unionist North also demonstrated another unpleasant fact. That ultimately the American Federation could only be held together by force of arms - in other words by means of applied violence.

The Confederate states had to be forced back into the American Union at the point of a bayonet.

The Americans in the end did not have enough of a shared community of interest to hold their country together as a unitary whole. I sometimes wonder just how true this remains today?
Thanks Neverfail.

You are right the constitution was not perfect. Nothing made by man is. It was the best compromise possible at the time. The compromise lasted till 1860, which was resolved by force of arms. Slavery is no longer an issue which divides Americans.

The dividing line is between right and left today. Thus was traditionally resolved by elections. But the left increasingly rejects election results. That’s why you have the “Resistance “. And impeachment. And intolerance in colleges for conservative speakers.

.........................................................................................................

This reminds me of another bunch of people who did not accept election results. They were the commies in Malaya and Singapore from the end of WWII to the fall of Saigon (1975). - the commies led by Chin Peng and an enigmatic character called, “the Plen,”

It had to be settled by force of arms too - in the jungles of Malaya during the Malayan Emergency. In the case of Singapore there was no jungle. The landscape was urban, and it took undemocratic measures such as jail without trial to end the threat - one step better than shooting people. Otherwise all hope of democracy was gone.

Now it seems that the number of people who don’t accept election results is growing in America. The candidate for Senator in California using the guilottine as a symbol is a sign of the times.
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 » Sat Feb 15, 2020 7:42 pm

cassowary wrote:
Sat Feb 15, 2020 7:11 pm

Thanks Neverfail.

You are right the constitution was not perfect. Nothing made by man is. It was the best compromise possible at the time. The compromise lasted till 1860, which was resolved by force of arms. Slavery is no longer an issue which divides Americans.
But the legacy of slavery still does.

Post Reply