117th United States Congress: #CancelGate

[Zealot]

In a sane system 1 member of one party would not be able to block legislation everyone else has agreed upon, but our system was set up to make sure the majority could never override slavery just because most people wanted to.

Sent from my SM-N981U using Tapatalk

[Andalusian girls]

truly it sucks that legislation cannot pass without a (checks notes) majority

[Andalusian girls]

and the majority of Americans did not favor abolition when the Constitution was drafted, nowhere close to it really, and the adoption of a bicameral legislature had little to do with preserving the institution, but rather stemmed from fears of a unicameral legislature being prone to a tyranny of the majority.

[Zealot]

No, the fear at the time of founding was that the abolition movement, which had already begun to take hold in the more populous North, would eventually overpower the will of the less-populated Southern states. The 3/5ths compromise is in the Constitution specifically to appease Southerners who refused to ratify it without assurances that they would be able to override northern majorities and preserve slavery.

Sent from my SM-N981U using Tapatalk

[Andalusian girls]

tight but the 3/5ths Compromise has nothing to do with the bicameral legislation of which you are complaining. if anything your frustration with the Senate ought be laid at the feet of small states, big states vs small states being one of the critical divides that wound up so empowering Senators with a small number of constituents. and as far as it went that favored the North back when as they had more smaller colonies (3 of the 4 smallest colonies being Northern). but the regional divide wasn't really a thing in that debate, miniscule population states in Georgia and Rhode Island allied together to get their 2 senators regardless of population density. and an attempt to superimpose a slave vs free narrative onto the framework of legislative composition is ahistorical and revisionist and presumably 1619 regurgitation. i mean, anti-slave John Adams of abolitionist Massachusetts was the most prominent architect of the bicameral legislature.

of course, the Constitution did deal with slavery in other capacities, as you say the 3/5ths Compromise was a way for high-slave states to disproportionately accentuate their political and economic power, and the slave trade was specifically protected for two decades. but Senator Joe Manchin of West Virginia blocking a piece of legislation 49-51 is not a legacy of any of that. indeed there are few political bodies on earth that pass legislation 49-51.

and for what it's worth you are getting the population concentrations in the colonies at the time of foundation wrong, citizens in slave states considerably outnumbered those in free states. Virginia was by far the most populous state which is a significant reason why 4 of our first 5 presidents came from there. the North would experience its population boom in the decades to come as it experienced both industrialization and waves of immigration while the South proved hostile to the latter and remained a lower population density agrarian society.

[6souls]

Liz Warren got the covid

[Cantih]

And people wondered why the Hyper Left didn't want to vote on the other bill until this one passed. It happened just like they said it would.

[Mertron]

Liz Warren got the covid

that’s a shame but to be expected since covid seems to disproportionately affect minority communities

[Day]

that’s a shame but to be expected since covid seems to disproportionately affect minority communities

lmao

[Mertron]

what’s 1/16th of covid

[NynJa]

COVID-1.1875

[Mertron]

oh

[Zealot]

tight but the 3/5ths Compromise has nothing to do with the bicameral legislation of which you are complaining. if anything your frustration with the Senate ought be laid at the feet of small states, big states vs small states being one of the critical divides that wound up so empowering Senators with a small number of constituents. and as far as it went that favored the North back when as they had more smaller colonies (3 of the 4 smallest colonies being Northern). but the regional divide wasn't really a thing in that debate, miniscule population states in Georgia and Rhode Island allied together to get their 2 senators regardless of population density. and an attempt to superimpose a slave vs free narrative onto the framework of legislative composition is ahistorical and revisionist and presumably 1619 regurgitation. i mean, anti-slave John Adams of abolitionist Massachusetts was the most prominent architect of the bicameral legislature.

The states with smaller populations that you cite also had almost no slave presence - sure, South Carolina's population was 4x that of Rhode Island, but 43% of that number were slaves. What would be ahistorical is to pretend that a top priority in the formation of government among southerners at the time of the Constitution's signing was not doing all they could to protect the institution of slavery. Also we had a disconnect in that I was not specifically railing against bicameral government, which should have been apparent when I stated that protecting minority viewpoints actually is a noble endeavor, I was railing against the systems put in place in our specific form of bicameral government which allow the levers of our democracy to be easily circumvented, which have their origins in preserving the power of southern lawmakers.

of course, the Constitution did deal with slavery in other capacities, as you say the 3/5ths Compromise was a way for high-slave states to disproportionately accentuate their political and economic power, and the slave trade was specifically protected for two decades. but Senator Joe Manchin of West Virginia blocking a piece of legislation 49-51 is not a legacy of any of that. indeed there are few political bodies on earth that pass legislation 49-51.

Disagree for the reasons above. The legacy of one person having the power to prevent any sort of action can be traced right back to powers negotiated by the south at the time of the signing. Of course, the larger issue is why Manchin has this much power as a lone holdout in the first place when there are 50 Republican Senators in Congress as well and we've all just tacitly accepted that not a single one of them is to be expected to act in a rational or collaborative manner.

and for what it's worth you are getting the population concentrations in the colonies at the time of foundation wrong, citizens in slave states considerably outnumbered those in free states. Virginia was by far the most populous state which is a significant reason why 4 of our first 5 presidents came from there. the North would experience its population boom in the decades to come as it experienced both industrialization and waves of immigration while the South proved hostile to the latter and remained a lower population density agrarian society.

This part is just incorrect. The census of 1790 puts 561,337 voting-age white men in northern states and 251,028 of the same in the south. The census puts Virginia as the south's most populous state with 747,610 people compared to a meager 434,373 in the north's Pennsylvania, but Virginia's numbers include 292,627 slaves whereas Pennsylvania had 3,737 the same year. That puts VA at 454,983, almost exactly equal with PA. In fact while we're at it, let's look at the total slave population of the south (545,404 in 1790) and subtract that from the overall population of southern states (1,582,350) to get 1,036,946 - over a third of all people living in the south at the time of the nation's founding were slaves.

Applying the same math to the north, we take their combined population of 2,346,882 and subtract the total slave populace of 152,293, and we come up with a shit ton more people living in northern states (2,194,589 for accuracy's sake).

[Andalusian girls]

The states with smaller populations that you cite also had almost no slave presence - sure, South Carolina's population was 4x that of Rhode Island, but 43% of that number were slaves.

three of the four smallest population colonies were in New England and that remains true even if you exclude all slaves. it is simple historical fact the greatest empowerment of minority rights, the Senate and the two seats granted every state, was not enacted to protect southern slaveowners or Southern colonies at all, but to empower the small states that fiercely protected their autonomy.

they happened to reside in the North but, again, it was not a sectional divide. Pennsylvania, Virginia, and Massachusetts, by far the most populous colonies, were in a unified bloc that representation ought be proportional, and they were opposed in this by the other smaller states under the New Jersey Plan. indeed under the Virginian Plan, where representation in both chambers of Congress would have been based on population, the Joe Manchins of the world would not have the power they do and the country would be decidedly bluer.

What would be ahistorical is to pretend that a top priority in the formation of government among southerners at the time of the Constitution's signing was not doing all they could to protect the institution of slavery.

excellent application of both rubber glue and strawman.

Also we had a disconnect in that I was not specifically railing against bicameral government, which should have been apparent when I stated that protecting minority viewpoints actually is a noble endeavor

must have missed that

I was railing against the systems put in place in our specific form of bicameral government which allow the levers of our democracy to be easily circumvented, which have their origins in preserving the power of southern lawmakers.

that system being needing 50%+1 to pass legislation? nothing you are arguing or trying to lay at the feet of 1780s slave states is relevant to Joe Manchin blocking passage of legislation in the Senate because the Democrats have 50 seats and need 50 votes to pass legislation.

Disagree for the reasons above. The legacy of one person having the power to prevent any sort of action can be traced right back to powers negotiated by the south at the time of the signing.

it is 51 people preventing action, and, again, has nothing to do with the Constitutional Convention, except in the Senate's composition.

Of course, the larger issue is why Manchin has this much power as a lone holdout in the first place when there are 50 Republican Senators in Congress as well and we've all just tacitly accepted that not a single one of them is to be expected to act in a rational or collaborative manner.

noted.

This part is just incorrect. The census of 1790 puts 561,337 voting-age white men in northern states and 251,028 of the same in the south. The census puts Virginia as the south's most populous state with 747,610 people compared to a meager 434,373 in the north's Pennsylvania, but Virginia's numbers include 292,627 slaves whereas Pennsylvania had 3,737 the same year. That puts VA at 454,983, almost exactly equal with PA. In fact while we're at it, let's look at the total slave population of the south (545,404 in 1790) and subtract that from the overall population of southern states (1,582,350) to get 1,036,946 - over a third of all people living in the south at the time of the nation's founding were slaves.

Applying the same math to the north, we take their combined population of 2,346,882 and subtract the total slave populace of 152,293, and we come up with a shit ton more people living in northern states (2,194,589 for accuracy's sake)

i think we're talking past each other as you are speaking of Northern and Southern states while i am speaking of slave and free states. to wit at the time of the Constitutional Convention New Jersey and New York were slave states, and others like Maryland and Delaware remained slave states up to and beyond the Civil War despite being Northern (Union) states. within the germane historical context Northern did not automatically = free, and the citizens of slave states vastly outnumbered the citizens of free states. perhaps best seen in the many Northern delegates that took the side of slavery. indeed the 3/5ths Compromise itself was proposed by a slave-owning Pennsylvanian.

The

liar

[Zealot]

It's bordering on fallacious to divide states by slave ownership at the time the Constitution was signed as every northern state would have abolished it within the next 16 years. In 1787 the divide between slave-owning states and free states was already becoming clear and there was no question which way the tide was turning. James Wilson, when he proposed the 3/5ths Compromise (which was the only way to get southern states to ratify the Constitution as it guaranteed they would have outsized power in choosing a President and House representatives despite being the minority), was already subject to Pennsylvania's Gradual Emancipation Act of 1780, which phased out all slavery in Pennsylvania over two decades.

Anyway, yes, I'll agree that the desire of smaller states not to be under-represented played a larger role in the founding of the Senate and I was wrong to link the Manchinian Candidate to the protection of slavery. Perhaps a better way of putting it would be that Joe Manchin's ability to derail his entire party is reminiscent of the outsized power southern states were given to derail any abolition agenda at the signing of the Constitution.

I suppose the real difference is that once they were given what they wanted, the slaveowners of 1787 actually followed through on what they promised.

[Andalusian girls]

well that's all i was objecting to ya dork!

but also you're right, obviously, to say the tide of history was on the North's side, emancipation would quickly come for most Northern states (Maryland and Delaware being the exceptions, and many did not abolish slavery but instead gradually phased it out; there were still legacy slaves in New Jersey when the Civil War broke out), and almost the entirety of the anti-slavery movement would be Northern as the lines solidified upon regional lines. but the Constitution was a specific document drafted at a specific time, and at the time some Northerners remained pro-slavery, while most simply didn't care enough to seriously fight for abolition. James Wilson, as a point of illustration, would free his slave, embrace abolition, and publicly condemn the Compromise he introduced, but that all came a bit shall we generously say late.

[Mertron]

No, the fear at the time of founding was that the abolition movement, which had already begun to take hold in the more populous North, would eventually overpower the will of the less-populated Southern states. The 3/5ths compromise is in the Constitution specifically to appease Southerners who refused to ratify it without assurances that they would be able to override northern majorities and preserve slavery.

Sent from my SM-N981U using Tapatalk

tight but the 3/5ths Compromise has nothing to do with the bicameral legislation of which you are complaining. if anything your frustration with the Senate ought be laid at the feet of small states, big states vs small states being one of the critical divides that wound up so empowering Senators with a small number of constituents. and as far as it went that favored the North back when as they had more smaller colonies (3 of the 4 smallest colonies being Northern). but the regional divide wasn't really a thing in that debate, miniscule population states in Georgia and Rhode Island allied together to get their 2 senators regardless of population density. and an attempt to superimpose a slave vs free narrative onto the framework of legislative composition is ahistorical and revisionist and presumably 1619 regurgitation. i mean, anti-slave John Adams of abolitionist Massachusetts was the most prominent architect of the bicameral legislature.

of course, the Constitution did deal with slavery in other capacities, as you say the 3/5ths Compromise was a way for high-slave states to disproportionately accentuate their political and economic power, and the slave trade was specifically protected for two decades. but Senator Joe Manchin of West Virginia blocking a piece of legislation 49-51 is not a legacy of any of that. indeed there are few political bodies on earth that pass legislation 49-51.

and for what it's worth you are getting the population concentrations in the colonies at the time of foundation wrong, citizens in slave states considerably outnumbered those in free states. Virginia was by far the most populous state which is a significant reason why 4 of our first 5 presidents came from there. the North would experience its population boom in the decades to come as it experienced both industrialization and waves of immigration while the South proved hostile to the latter and remained a lower population density agrarian society.

The states with smaller populations that you cite also had almost no slave presence - sure, South Carolina's population was 4x that of Rhode Island, but 43% of that number were slaves. What would be ahistorical is to pretend that a top priority in the formation of government among southerners at the time of the Constitution's signing was not doing all they could to protect the institution of slavery. Also we had a disconnect in that I was not specifically railing against bicameral government, which should have been apparent when I stated that protecting minority viewpoints actually is a noble endeavor, I was railing against the systems put in place in our specific form of bicameral government which allow the levers of our democracy to be easily circumvented, which have their origins in preserving the power of southern lawmakers.



Disagree for the reasons above. The legacy of one person having the power to prevent any sort of action can be traced right back to powers negotiated by the south at the time of the signing. Of course, the larger issue is why Manchin has this much power as a lone holdout in the first place when there are 50 Republican Senators in Congress as well and we've all just tacitly accepted that not a single one of them is to be expected to act in a rational or collaborative manner.



This part is just incorrect. The census of 1790 puts 561,337 voting-age white men in northern states and 251,028 of the same in the south. The census puts Virginia as the south's most populous state with 747,610 people compared to a meager 434,373 in the north's Pennsylvania, but Virginia's numbers include 292,627 slaves whereas Pennsylvania had 3,737 the same year. That puts VA at 454,983, almost exactly equal with PA. In fact while we're at it, let's look at the total slave population of the south (545,404 in 1790) and subtract that from the overall population of southern states (1,582,350) to get 1,036,946 - over a third of all people living in the south at the time of the nation's founding were slaves.

Applying the same math to the north, we take their combined population of 2,346,882 and subtract the total slave populace of 152,293, and we come up with a shit ton more people living in northern states (2,194,589 for accuracy's sake).

three of the four smallest population colonies were in New England and that remains true even if you exclude all slaves. it is simple historical fact the greatest empowerment of minority rights, the Senate and the two seats granted every state, was not enacted to protect southern slaveowners or Southern colonies at all, but to empower the small states that fiercely protected their autonomy.

they happened to reside in the North but, again, it was not a sectional divide. Pennsylvania, Virginia, and Massachusetts, by far the most populous colonies, were in a unified bloc that representation ought be proportional, and they were opposed in this by the other smaller states under the New Jersey Plan. indeed under the Virginian Plan, where representation in both chambers of Congress would have been based on population, the Joe Manchins of the world would not have the power they do and the country would be decidedly bluer.



excellent application of both rubber glue and strawman.



must have missed that



that system being needing 50%+1 to pass legislation? nothing you are arguing or trying to lay at the feet of 1780s slave states is relevant to Joe Manchin blocking passage of legislation in the Senate because the Democrats have 50 seats and need 50 votes to pass legislation.



it is 51 people preventing action, and, again, has nothing to do with the Constitutional Convention, except in the Senate's composition.



noted.



i think we're talking past each other as you are speaking of Northern and Southern states while i am speaking of slave and free states. to wit at the time of the Constitutional Convention New Jersey and New York were slave states, and others like Maryland and Delaware remained slave states up to and beyond the Civil War despite being Northern (Union) states. within the germane historical context Northern did not automatically = free, and the citizens of slave states vastly outnumbered the citizens of free states. perhaps best seen in the many Northern delegates that took the side of slavery. indeed the 3/5ths Compromise itself was proposed by a slave-owning Pennsylvanian.



liar

It's bordering on fallacious to divide states by slave ownership at the time the Constitution was signed as every northern state would have abolished it within the next 16 years. In 1787 the divide between slave-owning states and free states was already becoming clear and there was no question which way the tide was turning. James Wilson, when he proposed the 3/5ths Compromise (which was the only way to get southern states to ratify the Constitution as it guaranteed they would have outsized power in choosing a President and House representatives despite being the minority), was already subject to Pennsylvania's Gradual Emancipation Act of 1780, which phased out all slavery in Pennsylvania over two decades.

Anyway, yes, I'll agree that the desire of smaller states not to be under-represented played a larger role in the founding of the Senate and I was wrong to link the Manchinian Candidate to the protection of slavery. Perhaps a better way of putting it would be that Joe Manchin's ability to derail his entire party is reminiscent of the outsized power southern states were given to derail any abolition agenda at the signing of the Constitution.

I suppose the real difference is that once they were given what they wanted, the slaveowners of 1787 actually followed through on what they promised.

well that's all i was objecting to ya dork!

but also you're right, obviously, to say the tide of history was on the North's side, emancipation would quickly come for most Northern states (Maryland and Delaware being the exceptions, and many did not abolish slavery but instead gradually phased it out; there were still legacy slaves in New Jersey when the Civil War broke out), and almost the entirety of the anti-slavery movement would be Northern as the lines solidified upon regional lines. but the Constitution was a specific document drafted at a specific time, and at the time some Northerners remained pro-slavery, while most simply didn't care enough to seriously fight for abolition. James Wilson, as a point of illustration, would free his slave, embrace abolition, and publicly condemn the Compromise he introduced, but that all came a bit shall we generously say late.

the industrial revolution to me is just like a story i know called “the puppy who lost his way.” the world was changing, and the puppy was getting...bigger. so you see, the puppy was like industry, in that they were both lost in the woods. and nobody, especially the little boy—‘society’—knew where to find him. except that the puppy was a dog. but the industry, my friends, that was a revolution

[Andalusian girls]

i would like to submit a motion where we count Mert's vote on a 0/5ths ratio

[Mertron]

archi im sorry but we all know you’re just using those child tax credit bucks on cocaine and hunting trips

https://twitter.com/jbouie/status/14...786419214?s=21

[Day]

he literally just bought a peloton so....