3 ms·

It's amazing to see how the narrative around decisiona/arguments about limiting democratic participation and continuing slavery have changed to that they have

It's amazing to see how the narrative around decisiona/arguments about limiting democratic participation and continuing slavery have changed to that they have been about state rights. The big one is the civil war obviously, but also the electoral college. The EL was never about state rights, that's what the senate is for. It was a compromise between the people who wanted more democracy, i.e. a popular vote of the president and the people who feared "mob rule" and did not trust the uneducated masses to vote properly. In particular it was though to get the Southern States on board who wanted a way for their power being counted based on population including slaves but did not want their slaves to vote (leading to the famous 3/5 compromise) https://www.history.com/news/electoral-college-founding-fathers-constitutional-convention https://www.history.com/news/electoral-college-founding-fath... https://time.com/4558510/electoral-college-history-slavery/ https://time.com/4558510/electoral-college-history-slavery/

dragonwriter 6y ago
> The EL was never about state rights, that's what the senate is for. Nothing was ever about “States Rights” distinct from slavery, “States Rights” entered the American political lexicon as a reference to slavery, and has always been a reference to either that or discriminatory policies meant to replace it after abolition.
- cycomanic 6y ago
  While I agree that the term state's rights is largely a reference to slavery, I did use it here for brievety. There were and are definitetly arguments about the distribution of power between state and federal branches of government and responsibilities. Part of that balance was why the senate was created, and similar structures were adopted by many other democracies in the world and I do see the arguments why it serves a purposeful role. On the other hand the EL was never about that balance, it was always largely about the southern state wanting a disproportionate say without giving slaves the power to vote. I'm also not aware of any other country adopting a similar system (probably somebody will point out a counter example though).

dragonwriter 6y ago

> The EL was never about state rights, that's what the senate is for. Nothing was ever about “States Rights” distinct from slavery, “States Rights” entered the American political lexicon as a reference to slavery, and has always been a reference to either that or discriminatory policies meant to replace it after abolition.

cycomanic 6y ago
While I agree that the term state's rights is largely a reference to slavery, I did use it here for brievety. There were and are definitetly arguments about the distribution of power between state and federal branches of government and responsibilities. Part of that balance was why the senate was created, and similar structures were adopted by many other democracies in the world and I do see the arguments why it serves a purposeful role. On the other hand the EL was never about that balance, it was always largely about the southern state wanting a disproportionate say without giving slaves the power to vote. I'm also not aware of any other country adopting a similar system (probably somebody will point out a counter example though).