The New York Times Wishes That the USA Never Existed

Readability

The New York Times Wishes That the USA Never Existed

And that the slaves were never freed

by baldilocks

There were all kinds of attempts to lure the GOP state elec­tors into vot­ing for some­one other than Don­ald Trump. A few took the bait, but so did some Demo­c­rat state elec­tors; Hillary Clin­ton lost even more elec­tors that Trump did. But, now that the Elec­toral Vote is done — yes­ter­day — and now that Trump is again the vic­tor, but Clin­ton won the pop­u­lar vote, there’s a new meme emerg­ing: that the Elec­toral Col­lege is racist. Yes, you read that correctly.

The New York Times leads the out­cry with a descrip­tion of the three-​fifths clause in the Con­sti­tu­tion and a dis­tor­tion of its rela­tion­ship to the Elec­toral Col­lege.[i]

The Elec­toral Col­lege, which is writ­ten into the Con­sti­tu­tion, is more than just a ves­tige of the found­ing era; it is a liv­ing sym­bol of America’s orig­i­nal sin. When slav­ery was the law of the land, a direct pop­u­lar vote would have dis­ad­van­taged the South­ern states, with their large dis­en­fran­chised pop­u­la­tions [Ed.: slaves and Indi­ans — and women]. Count­ing those men and women as three-​fifths of a white per­son, as the Con­sti­tu­tion orig­i­nally did, gave the slave states more elec­toral votes.

A more detailed description:

For the most part, those who opposed slav­ery only wanted to con­sider the free peo­ple [sic] of a pop­u­la­tion, while those in favor wanted to include slaves in the pop­u­la­tion count. This would pro­vide for slave hold­ers to have many more seats in the House of Rep­re­sen­ta­tives and more rep­re­sen­ta­tion in the Elec­toral College. (…)

The imple­men­ta­tion of the Three-​Fifths Com­pro­mise would greatly increase the rep­re­sen­ta­tion and polit­i­cal power of slave-​owning states. The South­ern states, if rep­re­sented equally, would have accounted for 33 of the seats in the House of Rep­re­sen­ta­tives. How­ever, because of the Three-​Fifths Com­pro­mise, the South­ern states accounted for 47 seats in the House of Rep­re­sen­ta­tives of the first United States Con­gress of 1790. This would allow for the South to gar­ner enough power at the polit­i­cal level, giv­ing them con­trol in Pres­i­den­tial elections.

How­ever, as time moved for­ward, the Three-​Fifths Com­pro­mise would not pro­vide the advan­tage for which the South­ern states and slave-​owners had hoped. The North­ern states grew more rapidly in terms of pop­u­la­tion than the South. Even though South­ern states had essen­tially dom­i­nated all polit­i­cal plat­forms prior to the Civil War, after­ward that con­trol would be relin­quished slowly but surely. It would not be until the Thir­teenth Amend­ment to the United States Con­sti­tu­tion was be enacted in 1865 that the Three-​Fifths Com­pro­mise would be ren­dered obsolete.

[cap­tion id=“attachment_93708” align=“alignright” width=“150”] Bloody Kansas Era Edi­to­r­ial Cartoon[/caption]

The Com­pro­mise was a trade-​off because no per­fect solu­tion to the slav­ery conun­drum was avail­able at the time. It was an advan­tage to the South at first, but over time, the advan­tages amounted to nil. (This also explains Bloody Kansas.) Strat­egy.

Thus was the infant USA not born the per­fect USA; it was born with a birth defect — an “orig­i­nal sin” just like every other nation on earth. ( The Orga­nized Left always wants to talk about “orig­i­nal sin” even when they don’t believe in real sins — at least not those com­mit­ted by their ide­o­log­i­cal allies.)

If the North had not com­pro­mised, one won­ders what would have hap­pened. Two nations would have likely been born and lasted about as long as 1812 — the year of the next war with the British. And that time esti­ma­tion is a gen­er­ous one.[ii] And even if those fan­tasy nations had lasted, one won­ders when the South­ern Nation would have ever abol­ished slav­ery. Sounds like a Democrat’s…er…Confederate’s dream, no?

So it is that the EC and the Com­pro­mise ensured that a USA was born, grew and matured and that her cit­i­zenry and lib­erty expanded.

But, it seems to me that the NYT edi­to­r­ial staff dreams of a never-​born United States of Amer­ica and believes it’s never too late to have an abor­tion. What a surprise.

[i] By the way, let’s not for­get that Alexan­der Hamil­ton was a lead­ing advo­cate and archi­tect of the Elec­toral Col­lege.

[ii] There were three wars between the end of the Rev­o­lu­tion (1783) and the War of 1812: The First Bar­bary War, The 1811 Ger­man Coast Upris­ing, and Tecumseh’s War.

RELATED: Elec­toral Col­lege Mis­sion Accom­plished All Around Left, Media and Right

Juli­ette Akinyi Ochieng blogs at baldilocks. (Her older blog is located here.) Her first novel, Tale of the Tigers: Love is Not a Game, was pub­lished in 2012. Her sec­ond novel will be done one day soon! Fol­low her on Twit­ter.

Please con­tribute to Juliette’s JOB: Her new novel, her blog, her Inter­net to keep the lat­ter going and COF­FEE to keep her going!

Or hit Da Tech Guy’s Tip Jar in the name of Inde­pen­dent Journalism!

baldilocks

And that the slaves were never freed

by baldilocks

There were all kinds of attempts to lure the GOP state electors into voting for someone other than Donald Trump. A few took the bait, but so did some Democrat state electors; Hillary Clinton lost even more electors that Trump did. But, now that the Electoral Vote is done—yesterday—and now that Trump is again the victor, but Clinton won the popular vote, there’s a new meme emerging: that the Electoral College is racist. Yes, you read that correctly.

The New York Times leads the outcry with a description of the three-fifths clause in the Constitution and a distortion of its relationship to the Electoral College.[i]

The Electoral College, which is written into the Constitution, is more than just a vestige of the founding era; it is a living symbol of America’s original sin. When slavery was the law of the land, a direct popular vote would have disadvantaged the Southern states, with their large disenfranchised populations [Ed.: slaves and Indians—and women]. Counting those men and women as three-fifths of a white person, as the Constitution originally did, gave the slave states more electoral votes.

A more detailed description:

For the most part, those who opposed slavery only wanted to consider the free people [sic] of a population, while those in favor wanted to include slaves in the population count. This would provide for slave holders to have many more seats in the House of Representatives and more representation in the Electoral College. (…)

The implementation of the Three-Fifths Compromise would greatly increase the representation and political power of slave-owning states. The Southern states, if represented equally, would have accounted for 33 of the seats in the House of Representatives. However, because of the Three-Fifths Compromise, the Southern states accounted for 47 seats in the House of Representatives of the first United States Congress of 1790. This would allow for the South to garner enough power at the political level, giving them control in Presidential elections.

However, as time moved forward, the Three-Fifths Compromise would not provide the advantage for which the Southern states and slave-owners had hoped. The Northern states grew more rapidly in terms of population than the South. Even though Southern states had essentially dominated all political platforms prior to the Civil War, afterward that control would be relinquished slowly but surely. It would not be until the Thirteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution was be enacted in 1865 that the Three-Fifths Compromise would be rendered obsolete.

Bloody Kansas Era Editorial Cartoon

The Compromise was a trade-off because no perfect solution to the slavery conundrum was available at the time. It was an advantage to the South at first, but over time, the advantages amounted to nil. (This also explains Bloody Kansas.) Strategy.

Thus was the infant USA not born the perfect USA; it was born with a birth defect—an “original sin” just like every other nation on earth. ( The Organized Left always wants to talk about “original sin” even when they don’t believe in real sins—at least not those committed by their ideological allies.)

If the North had not compromised, one wonders what would have happened. Two nations would have likely been born and lasted about as long as 1812—the year of the next war with the British. And that time estimation is a generous one.[ii] And even if those fantasy nations had lasted, one wonders when the Southern Nation would have ever abolished slavery.  Sounds like a Democrat’s…er…Confederate’s dream, no?

So it is that the EC and the Compromise ensured that a USA was born, grew and matured and that her citizenry and liberty expanded.

But, it seems to me that the NYT editorial staff dreams of a never-born United States of America and believes it’s never too late to have an abortion. What a surprise.

[i] By the way, let’s not forget that Alexander Hamilton was a leading advocate and architect of the Electoral College.

[ii] There were three wars between the end of the Revolution (1783) and the War of 1812: The First Barbary War, The 1811 German Coast Uprising, and Tecumseh’s War.

RELATED: Electoral College Mission Accomplished All Around Left, Media and Right

Juliette Akinyi Ochieng blogs at baldilocks. (Her older blog is located here.) Her first novel, Tale of the Tigers: Love is Not a Game, was published in 2012. Her second novel will be done one day soon! Follow her on Twitter.

Please contribute to Juliette’s JOB:  Her new novel, her blog, her Internet to keep the latter going and COFFEE to keep her going!

Or hit Da Tech Guy’s Tip Jar in the name of Independent Journalism!

baldilocks