I'm on my phone but look for the James Madison quote in the article and the context for why he said it.
-
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
How is it significant?
Kangaroo Feathers
Yea, it is written in the Book of Cyril...
... are you new?
The article explains it better than I have the time or will to. But here is another article, other than the time and PBS one: How the Electoral College Protected Slavery
Basically James Madison proposed the electoral college to give more power to the South against northern voting population against the federalist party because Jefferson would uphold slavery while Adam's was a known abolitionist. If it wasn't for the three fifths rule Madison proposed, Adam's would have become president. And ironically he used black population as part of the three fifths population to keep them shackled.
Ok... found it:
"When the founders of the U.S. Constitution in 1787 considered whether America should let the people elect their president through a popular vote, James Madison said that "Negroes" in the South presented a "difficulty … of a serious nature."
During that same speech on Thursday, July 19, Madison instead proposed a prototype for the same Electoral College system the country uses today. Each state has a number of electoral votes roughly proportioned to population and the candidate who wins the majority of votes wins the election."
I find this quite dubious for the following reasons:
1) It doesn't list the speech so it could be just quote mining;
2) Your posted article also says "Not all academics agree that slavery was the driving force behind the Electoral College", so they could have just mined the quote to support their position to eliminate the electoral college
3) My quote of another framer doesn't mention slavery at all and it is a full quote
4) His comment about "negroes" has no bearing on todays electoral college since every voter is still counted and is equal in all aspects. Color doesn't change votes. Each state is different, some have winner takes all, some don't so color doesn't change the outcome
What is the significance today?
Is it just like the Democratic Party originally being pro-slavery?
The mention was in regard to two members talking about how wise and future seeing the founding fathers were in creating the EC. I was illustrating how short-sighted and bigoted the founding fathers were in creating the EC.
tytlyf
Not Religious
There's no point in having a debate with someone who is all over the place and never gives a straight answer.
tytlyf
Not Religious
As long as you understand the DemoKKKrat party was started by conservatives.
Do you believe that slavery was the reason or just a reason for the EC?
If the former, I'd expect a case to be made for this.
Btw, I see the EC as non-essential.
no tears shed if it were given the boot.
I'm glad you finally see something my way.
And still run by them, ie, people who fight desperately to maintain the status quo.
Both of these aren't an argument unless you can actually demonstrate quote mining.
Your other framer didn't actually create the Electoral College, Madison did.
My comment is in regards to the naivete of assuming that the Electoral College was out of some farseeing Enlightenment on the behalf of the founding fathers. Rather than slave-owning jackasses looking to protect their own interests.
Now it's just regular Republican jackasses looking to secure their interests through a literal undemocratic system.
tytlyf
Not Religious
Confederate conservatives left the DemoKKKrat party long ago. Now they're in the republican party. Same ideology, different party. American history 101
Someone should tip off all the KKK members that their support of the republican party today is wrong and they need to go back to their roots!
Ask me any question and I'll give you an honest, straight answer. No deception involved.
Last edited:
Of the presidents I've seen he's a total basket case but he can be replaced by who?, the devil you know or some unknown quantity, I think put in would like him to stay but I voted go even though I'm a limey.
I disagree.
- Madison cannot create the Electoral College alone.
- Yes they are accepted arguments because it show absolutely no context of the full speech
- A very small quote that hooks two smaller quotes together hardly is evidence.
- Not all were slave owners.
Hamilton's quote contains the full thought and absolutely doesn't not reference slave ownership. I could use Madison's quote a lot differently that what the material says and still use his quotes.
These framers were a lot wiser than people give them credit for.
You really see that being an issue?
The founding fathers are conceived and presented as gods among men to Americans.
I think people give them their dues just fine.
But at the end of the day, they were only men, and they weren’t always immune to the prejudices of their time, or prescient enough to foresee all the problems that plague our present.
I'm not saying we don't have wise people today but as to the Forefathers--just one...
Benjamin Franklin leading author, printer, political theorist, politician, postmaster, scientist, inventor, humorist, civic activist, statesman, and diplomat.
Knew 6 languages
As a scientist, he was a major figure in the American Enlightenment and the history of physics for his discoveries and theories regarding electricity. As an inventor, he is known for the lightning rod, bifocals, and the Franklin stove, among other inventions.
He founded many civic organizations, including Philadelphia's fire department and the University of Pennsylvania.
United States Ambassador to France, he exemplified the emerging American nation.
Franklin was foundational in defining the American ethos as a marriage of the practical values of thrift, hard work, education, community spirit, self-governing institutions, and opposition to authoritarianism both political and religious, with the scientific and tolerant values of the Enlightenment.
Franklin became a successful newspaper editor and printer in Philadelphia, the leading city in the colonies, publishing the Pennsylvania Gazette at the age of 23.He became wealthy publishing this and Poor Richard's Almanack, which he authored under the pseudonym "Richard Saunders". After 1767, he was associated with the Pennsylvania Chronicle, a newspaper that was known for its revolutionary sentiments and criticisms of British policies.
He pioneered and was first president of Academy and College of Philadelphia which opened in 1751 and later became the University of Pennsylvania. He organized and was the first secretary of the American Philosophical Society and was elected president in 1769.
Franklin briefly investigated electrotherapy, including the use of the electric bath. This work led to the field becoming widely known.
Franklin was, along with his contemporary Leonhard Euler, the only major scientist who supported Christiaan Huygens's wave theory of light, which was basically ignored by the rest of the scientific community. In the 18th century Newton's corpuscular theory was held to be true; only after Young's well-known slit experiment in 1803 were most scientists persuaded to believe Huygens's theory.
Wikipedia.
I think they were a lot smarter than what kudos are given them today
I don’t think anyone doubts that they were smart and wise. I think it’s absurd that you think we don’t give them enough credence. If anything, I think we often go too far in our veneration and forget that they were just men— smart men— but men nonetheless.