Debates Forum

Debates Forum

  1. Joined
    04 Feb '05
    Moves
    29132
    14 Nov '18 22:44
    https://www.pbs.org/newshour/politics/electoral-college-slavery-constitution

    "Madison, now known as the “Father of the Constitution,” was a slave-owner in Virginia, which at the time was the most populous of the 13 states if the count included slaves, who comprised about 40 percent of its population.

    During that key speech at the Constitutional Convention in Philadelphia, Madison said that with a popular vote, the Southern states, “could have no influence in the election on the score of Negroes.” "


    Fascinating. The founding fathers were such nice people. Beacons of freedom. (snicker)
  2. Subscriberno1marauder
    Humble and Kind
    In the Gazette
    Joined
    22 Jun '04
    Moves
    39965
    14 Nov '18 23:10
    @zahlanzi said
    https://www.pbs.org/newshour/politics/electoral-college-slavery-constitution

    "Madison, now known as the “Father of the Constitution,” was a slave-owner in Virginia, which at the time was the most populous of the 13 states if the count included slaves, who comprised about 40 percent of its population.

    During that key speech at the Constitutional Convention in Philadelph ...[text shortened]... roes.” "


    Fascinating. The founding fathers were such nice people. Beacons of freedom. (snicker)
    Taking one part out of a sentence out of context usually makes for poor history and this is no exception. Madison generally thought the EC was a bad idea and consistently proposed alternatives to it:

    Madison expressed his preference for a national popular vote for president in a speech at the Convention, however, arguing that "the people at large was...the fittest " to choose an executive. Although he recognized that such a system would put southern states, including his native Virginia, at a major electoral disadvantage, Madison believed that "local considerations must give way to the general interest," and he was "willing to make the sacrifice" of his state's political power for the good of the American democracy. His fellow Southerners had no interest in such political martyrdom, though, and Madison was forced to support the Electoral College as a compromise.

    -----------------------------------------------------------------------

    In 1823, Madison wrote a remarkable letter to George Hay explaining his views of the Electoral College, his strong opposition to states voting as winner-take-all blocs and his view of the origins of the winner-take-all rule. In addition to disenfranchising districts that voted against the preference of the state, Madison worried that statewide voting would increase sectionalism and the strength of geographic parties. He wrote that his views were widely shared by others at the Constitutional Convention, and that the winner-take-all approach had been forced on many states due to its adoption in other states: "The district mode was mostly, if not exclusively in view when the Constitution was framed and adopted; & was exchanged for the general ticket [e.g., winner-take-all rule] & the legislative election, as the only expedient for baffling the policy of the particular States which had set the example."

    https://www.fairvote.org/why-james-madison-wanted-to-change-the-way-we-vote-for-president
  3. Joined
    04 Feb '05
    Moves
    29132
    14 Nov '18 23:56
    @no1marauder said
    Taking one part out of a sentence out of context usually makes for poor history and this is no exception. Madison generally thought the EC was a bad idea and consistently proposed alternatives to it:

    Madison expressed his preference for a national popular vote for president in a speech at the Convention, however, arguing that "the people at large was...the fitte ...[text shortened]... ample."

    https://www.fairvote.org/why-james-madison-wanted-to-change-the-way-we-vote-for-president
    uhuh, a slave owner wrote laws to benefit slave owners but he was, like, super conflicted about it. he felt really bad, and like, totally wrote a letter to someone.
  4. Subscriberno1marauder
    Humble and Kind
    In the Gazette
    Joined
    22 Jun '04
    Moves
    39965
    15 Nov '18 00:24
    @zahlanzi said
    uhuh, a slave owner wrote laws to benefit slave owners but he was, like, super conflicted about it. he felt really bad, and like, totally wrote a letter to someone.
    If you have any serious interest in the subject of Madison's views on slavery, I suggest you read this article: http://www.jamesmadisonmuseum.org/slavery.html

    There's plenty there for opinions either way regarding Madison.
  5. Garner, NC
    Joined
    04 Nov '05
    Moves
    27885
    15 Nov '18 17:58
    @zahlanzi said

    Fascinating. The founding fathers were such nice people. Beacons of freedom. (snicker)
    Yet somehow they formed a Republic in the times when the Europe was ruled by kings and consisted mostly of peasants and that Republic thrives 240+ years later. And caravans consisting of thousands walk over 1000 miles in hopes of adapting the place as their home.

    Perhaps they had more insight than the modern man who thinks in terms of 160 character sound bites.
  6. Germany
    Joined
    27 Oct '08
    Moves
    3118
    15 Nov '18 19:041 edit
    @techsouth said
    Yet somehow they formed a Republic in the times when the Europe was ruled by kings and consisted mostly of peasants and that Republic thrives 240+ years later. And caravans consisting of thousands walk over 1000 miles in hopes of adapting the place as their home.

    Perhaps they had more insight than the modern man who thinks in terms of 160 character sound bites.
    There were numerous republics in Europe in 1776, including the Republic of Venice which at that time had lasted for more than 1000 years.

    Currently the U.S. does not thrive as much as a dozen or so European sovereign states.

    Thousands of people are also walking (and swimming) thousands of miles in the hope of adapting Europe as their home.

    Perhaps you have been reading too many 160-character soundbites.
  7. Zugzwang
    Joined
    08 Jun '07
    Moves
    2120
    15 Nov '18 19:09
    @techsouth said
    Yet somehow they formed a Republic in the times when the Europe was ruled by kings and consisted mostly of peasants and that Republic thrives 240+ years later. And caravans consisting of thousands walk over 1000 miles in hopes of adapting the place as their home.

    Perhaps they had more insight than the modern man who thinks in terms of 160 character sound bites.
    (TechSouth replied to Zahlanzi.)

    _The Counter-Revolution of 1776: Slave Resistance and the Origins of the United States of America_
    by Gerald Horne

    "Prior to 1776, anti-slavery sentiments were deepening throughout Britain and in
    the Caribbean, rebellious Africans were in revolt. For European colonists in America,
    the major threat to their security was a foreign invasion combined with an insurrection
    of the enslaved. It was a real and threatening possibility that London would impose
    abolition throughout the colonies—a possibility the founding fathers feared would
    bring slave rebellions to their shores. To forestall it, they went to war.

    The so-called Revolutionary War, Horne writes, was in part a counter-revolution, a
    conservative movement that the founding fathers fought in order to preserve their
    right to enslave others."
    --Amazon (description of contents)
  8. Joined
    05 Sep '08
    Moves
    55377
    15 Nov '18 21:57
    The electoral college is a system which forces candidates for the presidency to win majority in a multitude of area not just win by an overwhelming amount in big states. Especially with an unnecessarily abrasive president one should see how such a system would be desirable. It is also worth noting that United Nations does not give votes based on population nor does the European Union. To characterize it as a racist system is purely stupid.
  9. Subscriberno1marauder
    Humble and Kind
    In the Gazette
    Joined
    22 Jun '04
    Moves
    39965
    15 Nov '18 21:57
    @duchess64 said
    (TechSouth replied to Zahlanzi.)

    _The Counter-Revolution of 1776: Slave Resistance and the Origins of the United States of America_
    by Gerald Horne

    "Prior to 1776, anti-slavery sentiments were deepening throughout Britain and in
    the Caribbean, rebellious Africans were in revolt. For European colonists in America,
    the major threat to their security was a foreign ...[text shortened]... rs fought in order to preserve their
    right to enslave others."
    --Amazon (description of contents)
    Slavery in the British Empire wasn't abolished until 1833 long after most of the States had enacted abolition statutes.https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Slavery_Abolition_Act_1833

    1777


    Vermont amends its constitution to ban slavery. Over the next 25 years, other Northern states emancipate their slaves and ban the institution: Pennsylvania, 1780; Massachusetts and New Hampshire, 1783; Connecticut and Rhode Island, 1784; New York, 1799; and New Jersey, 1804. Some of the state laws stipulate gradual emancipation.







    1787


    The Northwest Ordinance bans slavery in the Northwest Territory (what becomes the states of Ohio, Indiana, Illinois, Michigan, and Wisconsin). The ordinance together with state emancipation laws create a free North.

    https://www.mtholyoke.edu/~kmporter/slaverytimeline.htm
  10. Subscriberno1marauder
    Humble and Kind
    In the Gazette
    Joined
    22 Jun '04
    Moves
    39965
    15 Nov '18 22:34
    @quackquack said
    The electoral college is a system which forces candidates for the presidency to win majority in a multitude of area not just win by an overwhelming amount in big states. Especially with an unnecessarily abrasive president one should see how such a system would be desirable. It is also worth noting that United Nations does not give votes based on population nor does the European Union. To characterize it as a racist system is purely stupid.
    The EC is a dumb, antidemocratic system accepted late at the Constitutional Convention when no other electoral system for the Presidency received majority support. It's virtually certain that if the Framers had the technology that we have these days they would have opted for a more directly democratic system. The President and the Vice-President are the only elected officers who represent the whole People of the United States; to have them selected by anything other than a direct vote of the People is scandalous.
  11. Zugzwang
    Joined
    08 Jun '07
    Moves
    2120
    15 Nov '18 22:452 edits
    @no1marauder said
    Slavery in the British Empire wasn't abolished until 1833 long after most of the States had enacted abolition statutes.https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Slavery_Abolition_Act_1833

    1777


    Vermont amends its constitution to ban slavery. Over the next 25 years, other Northern states emancipate their slaves and ban the institution: Pennsylvania, 1780; Massachusetts and New ...[text shortened]... te emancipation laws create a free North.

    https://www.mtholyoke.edu/~kmporter/slaverytimeline.htm
    https://www.uh.edu/class/history/faculty-and-staff/horne_g/

    "Gerald Horne, Moores Professor of History
    Dr. Horne holds the Moores Professorship of History and African American Studies.
    His research has addressed issues of racism in a variety of relations involving labor,
    politics, civil rights, international relations and war. He has also written extensively
    about the film industry. Dr. Horne received his Ph.D. in history from Columbia University
    and his J.D. from the University of California, Berkeley and his B.A. from Princeton University."

    Would the fanatically anti-British white American (racist) 'history troll' No1Marauder
    (who has a long record of extremely dishonest or hypocritical arguments on history)
    love to tell Gerald Horne (an African American) that he's completely wrong?
  12. Joined
    04 Feb '05
    Moves
    29132
    15 Nov '18 22:46
    @techsouth said
    Yet somehow they formed a Republic in the times when the Europe was ruled by kings and consisted mostly of peasants and that Republic thrives 240+ years later. And caravans consisting of thousands walk over 1000 miles in hopes of adapting the place as their home.

    Perhaps they had more insight than the modern man who thinks in terms of 160 character sound bites.
    they were slave owners who built a nation on the backs of slaves, a nation which had barely any advanced competitor nations, a nation which later committed genocide against the natives and stole land from them.

    They stole land, they stole lives, they stole resources. That continues to this day. You did some good things too but don't be deluded. Your nation came to be through the help of France and the rather big ocean between you and England and was built through theft and murder and the great fortune of being separated from other big countries by two large oceans.
  13. Zugzwang
    Joined
    08 Jun '07
    Moves
    2120
    15 Nov '18 22:501 edit
    @zahlanzi said
    they were slave owners who built a nation on the backs of slaves, a nation which had barely any advanced competitor nations, a nation which later committed genocide against the natives and stole land from them.

    They stole land, they stole lives, they stole resources. That continues to this day. You did some good things too but don't be deluded. Your nation came to be thr ...[text shortened]... ft and murder and the great fortune of being separated from other big countries by two large oceans.
    (Zahlanzi replied to TechSouth.)

    Many, if not most, white American Christians would gladly say that God's will was done
    (including the parts--to be censored from children--about racism, slavery, and genocide).
  14. Standard memberHandyAndy
    Non sum qualis eram
    At the edge
    Joined
    23 Sep '06
    Moves
    18031
    16 Nov '18 01:55
    @duchess64 said
    Would the fanatically anti-British white American (racist) 'history troll' No1Marauder
    (who has a long record of extremely dishonest or hypocritical arguments on history)
    love to tell Gerald Horne (an African American) that he's completely wrong?
    There goes another interesting debate... down the toilet.
  15. Zugzwang
    Joined
    08 Jun '07
    Moves
    2120
    16 Nov '18 03:483 edits
    @handyandy said
    There goes another interesting debate... down the toilet.
    https://www.uh.edu/class/history/faculty-and-staff/horne_g/

    "Gerald Horne, Moores Professor of History
    Dr. Horne holds the Moores Professorship of History and African American Studies.
    His research has addressed issues of racism in a variety of relations involving labor,
    politics, civil rights, international relations and war. He has also written extensively
    about the film industry. Dr. Horne received his Ph.D. in history from Columbia University
    and his J.D. from the University of California, Berkeley and his B.A. from Princeton University."

    I doubt that Gerald Horne would regard 'debating' with No1Marauder, an extremely
    arrogant lawyer without any degree in history, as anything but a complete waste of time.
    No1Marauder's too ignorant of history to find enough useful things to say.
    No1Marauder has a long record of appealing to his fellow white Americans through
    selective (rather than indiscriminate) jingoistic US flag-waving and race-baiting.
Back to Top