[Fact Bomb] Electoral College: Invented to Protect Slavery, Is Stupid, Is Broadly Opposed

Only religious nuts decried slavery? Really?

That "Col. Mason" delivering an impassioned speech against "the evil of having slaves" was delivered by George Mason, a slave-owning Virginian!

 

Yes, he was an odd figure. He said slavery was evil, yet he owned slaves his entire life, and he was in favor of the electoral college because it protected slaveholding states like Virginia, and slaveholders like himself.

Some slaveholders had moral qualms about it, even back then.

As you were the guy who said "only Quakers and weirdos" opposed slavery in 1780 - do you still think this is an accurate statement (presuming you meant 1787 and not 1780, and not going to add some stupid dig about you mistyping the year) - after reading Mason's speeach as well as other speeches?

Is this the hill you're going to die on?

Yes, I read what I posted I was posting the Notes on the Federal COnvention of 1787, at which you insisted slavery "wasn't being challenged significantly" and "was so far from being a thing"

There's quite a bit of debate in teh COnstitutional Convention about slavery, specifically, the evils thereof, and the desire of certain delegates to restrict it, vs. the desires of other delegates to retain it in perpetuity. Ergo...it was a thing, frankly it was THE THING.

As for a statement that the "the slave trade" was a "separate issue from slavery" - that Fox News/Trump level of silly.

Again, why is this the rhetorical hill you want to die on?

 

LOL, this deserves its own post.

I posted some of the "Notes on the Debates of the Federal Convention of 1787" - this is James Madison's notes from the Constitutional Convention at Independence Hall.

If you look at all of them, they're pretty spartan on most subjects, except for slavery in which case the delegates speeches are transcribed at (relative) length.

Again, if you know of another or better primary sources, I welcome it. Or we can just call it "marginally related voluminous spam" - or as James Madison called it back then:

in pursuance of the task I had assumed I chose a seat in front of the presiding member, with the other members on my right & left hands. In this favorable position for hearing all that passed, I noted in terms legible & in abbreviations & marks intelligible to myself what was read from the Chair or spoken by the members; and losing not a moment unnecessarily between the adjournment & reassembling of the Convention I was enabled to write out my daily notes.​

Or if you can find a note that says "and by the way, slavery was not much discussed because it wasn't really all that important to us" - go for it. But otherwise, the record speaks for itself.

 

First, it's self-evidently wrong to differentiate a debate over "the slave trade" from a debate over slavery itself being inherently evil, the delegates themselves couldn't do it, see Mason and Elsworth's speeches, please read Gouverneur Morris' speech on the issue, which is most definitely not limited to the slave trade, rather on the 3/5 compromise and occurred 3 weeks earlier than the debate on the slave trade clause:

IT WAS A NEFARIOUS INSTITUTION-It was the curse of heaven on the States where it prevailed. Compare the free regions of the Middle States, where a rich & noble cultivation marks the prosperity & happiness of the people, with the misery & poverty which overspread the barren wastes of Va. Maryd. & the other States having slaves. Travel thro’ ye whole Continent & you behold the prospect continually varying with the appearance & disappearance of slavery. The moment you leave ye E[astern] Sts. & enter N[ew] York, the effects of the institution become visible; Passing thro’ the Jerseys and entering Pa.-every criterion of superior improvement witnesses the change. Proceed Southw[ar]dly, & every step you take thro’ ye great regions of slaves, presents a desert increasing with ye increasing proportion of these wretched beings.

Upon what principle is it that the slaves shall be computed in the representation? Are they men? Then make them Citizens & let them vote. Are they property? Why then is no other property included? The Houses in this city (Philada.) are worth more than all the wretched slaves which cover the rice swamps of South Carolina. The admission of slaves into the Representation when fairly explained comes to this: that the inhabitant of Georgia and S. C. who goes to the Coast of Africa, and in defiance of the most sacred laws of humanity tears away his fellow creatures from their dearest connections & dam(n)s them to the most cruel bondages, shall have more votes in a Govt. instituted for protection of the rights of mankind, than the Citizen of Pa. or N[ew] Jersey who views with a laudable horror, so nefarious a practice. He would add that Domestic slavery is the most prominent feature m the aristocratic countenance of the proposed Constitution.

The vassalage of the poor has ever been the favorite offspring of aristocracy. And what is the proposed compensation to the Northern States for a sacrifice of every principle of right, of every impulse of humanity. They are to bind themselves to march their militia for the defenses of the S[outhern] States; for their defence ag[ain]st those very slaves of whom they complain. They must supply vessels & seamen, in case of foreign Attack. The Legislature will have indefinite power to tax them by excises, and duties on imports: both of which will fall heavier on them than on the Southern inhabitants; for the bohea tea used by a Northern freeman, will pay more tax than the whole consumption of the miserable slave, which consists of nothing more than his physical subsistence and the rag that covers his nakedness.

On the other side the Southern states are not to be restrained from importing fresh supplies of wretched Africans, at once to increase the danger of attack, and the difficulty of defense; nay they are to be encouraged to it by an assurance of having their votes in the Natl. Govt. increased in proportion, and are at the same time to have their exports & their slaves exempt from all contributions for the public service. Let it not be said that direct taxation is to be proportioned to representation. It is idle to suppose that the Genl Govt. can stretch its hand directly into the pockets of the people scattered over so vast a Country. They can only do it through the medium of exports imports & excises. For what then are all these sacrifices to be made? He would sooner submit himself to a tax for paying for all the Negroes in the United States, than saddle posterity with such a Constitution.​

How do you read that speech, delivered at Independence Hall, on August 8, 1787, and post that, in 1787, slavery "wasn't being challenged significantly" and "was so far from being a thing"?

That's just embarrassing.

 

No it was invented to be used instead of popular election to protect slaveholding states, I think we can all agree it was wildly successful given that 8 of the first 9 presidential elections were won by slaveholders from Virginia.

Here's why you said it was invented

I think we can all agree it failed miserably, given that 8 of the first 9 presidential election winners were Virginians.

As mentioned previously though, Madison realized that eventually this would end, hence he pushed for the EC rather than direct election.

 

Even if you do live in a battleground state - the fact that your vote is diluted by orders of magnitude as opposed to Rhode Island or North Dakota is bullsh-t.

 

How does a Chicago vote count for more than any other vote in a direct election scenario?