3 ms·

Slavery existing at the time this country was founded does not make it a founding principle. The only constitutional component of slavery was intended to reduce

Slavery existing at the time this country was founded does not make it a founding principle. The only constitutional component of slavery was intended to reduce the power of slave states, and most of the country abolished slavery by 1804.

wayoutthere 5y ago
The entire structure of the senate is designed to give maximum power to the slave-holding states, and every political decision in the country before the civil war was made with the aim of preserving their power in mind (this counts for the electoral college too). This is the reason votes in rural areas count so much more than urban votes. Because rural areas in the south were heavily populated by enslaved people and the slavers (meaning not just the title holding slave owners; many people who did not own slaves were still fundamental players in the system of slavery) held a lot of influence.
- Stupulous 5y ago
  I think you're confusing cause and effect. The constitution was an agreement between states, and the senate was a compromise to ensure signers would retain power even if their population was dwarfed by other states. It is highly unlikely that it was intended to empower slave states; when it was created, only Massachusetts wasn't a slave state. Same goes for the electoral college. Also, in 1790 the US was much less urbanized. 5% of people lived in cities (vs 80+% today), and the economy was primarily agricultural. It was not a world in which the rural-urban divide was particularly significant. All states were rural states. If every political decision in the US before the Civil War was made with the aim of preserving slave state power, why is it the South that left the Union? Couldn't they have just used their power? I'd like to correct my previous comment. I said that the three-fifths compromise was the only consitutional component of slavery; in fact there were two others. The fugitive slave clause, and a clause forbidding the federal government from restricting the slave trade. I apologize for these errors.
  - wayoutthere 5y ago
    > If every political decision in the US before the Civil War was made with the aim of preserving slave state power, why is it the South that left the Union? Couldn't they have just used their power? They left because they were worried about losing their power — the northern population grew much faster than the south, and as the country expanded west most of the settlers were from free states, bringing attitudes about slavery with them. Things had reached a point where even deep compromises couldn’t tip the scales in the slavers’ favor, so the slavers decided to withdraw to attempt to preserve their power. There were a significant number of northerners who were active abolitionists and not involved in politics. John Brown is an American hero in my mind. Slavery was doomed regardless of the political order, but the political order tried to protect it nonetheless.

wayoutthere 5y ago

The entire structure of the senate is designed to give maximum power to the slave-holding states, and every political decision in the country before the civil war was made with the aim of preserving their power in mind (this counts for the electoral college too). This is the reason votes in rural areas count so much more than urban votes. Because rural areas in the south were heavily populated by enslaved people and the slavers (meaning not just the title holding slave owners; many people who did not own slaves were still fundamental players in the system of slavery) held a lot of influence.

Stupulous 5y ago
I think you're confusing cause and effect. The constitution was an agreement between states, and the senate was a compromise to ensure signers would retain power even if their population was dwarfed by other states. It is highly unlikely that it was intended to empower slave states; when it was created, only Massachusetts wasn't a slave state. Same goes for the electoral college. Also, in 1790 the US was much less urbanized. 5% of people lived in cities (vs 80+% today), and the economy was primarily agricultural. It was not a world in which the rural-urban divide was particularly significant. All states were rural states. If every political decision in the US before the Civil War was made with the aim of preserving slave state power, why is it the South that left the Union? Couldn't they have just used their power? I'd like to correct my previous comment. I said that the three-fifths compromise was the only consitutional component of slavery; in fact there were two others. The fugitive slave clause, and a clause forbidding the federal government from restricting the slave trade. I apologize for these errors.
- wayoutthere 5y ago
  > If every political decision in the US before the Civil War was made with the aim of preserving slave state power, why is it the South that left the Union? Couldn't they have just used their power? They left because they were worried about losing their power — the northern population grew much faster than the south, and as the country expanded west most of the settlers were from free states, bringing attitudes about slavery with them. Things had reached a point where even deep compromises couldn’t tip the scales in the slavers’ favor, so the slavers decided to withdraw to attempt to preserve their power. There were a significant number of northerners who were active abolitionists and not involved in politics. John Brown is an American hero in my mind. Slavery was doomed regardless of the political order, but the political order tried to protect it nonetheless.