It's really demographics that control Senate races, the Electoral College and the like. They were originally designed to give the Southern states, with their much lower populations [even with the nauseating '3/5 rule'] more political power as states rather than according to population. This was bad enough then, but since today we have all these predominantly rural states in the non-coastal west, the increasing blueness of Southern states like Virginia, Georgia, North Carolina, etc. (Florida and Texas — both of which have large populations that are mainly due to a handful of urban areas — would have been blue long ago were it not for the corruption of their state Republican parties, impressive even by Republican standards) isn't enough to make up for the effect of the 'rural votes count for more' compromise. And Republicans, who care only about their own power (and who couldn't retain power without the advantage they get from this rural-privilege system), will go to any length necessary to prevent us from fixing this blatantly undemocratic setup.
Big topic, many debates. The Founders themselves floated other options in letters and The Federalist Papers. The French Revolution found the cojones to abolish slavery just a few years later (restored by that fuck Napoleon ).
The economics of slavery were probably not as critical to the South at the time as they became later. The slave states blackmailed the Convention, and the Convention caved. Whether the slave states would really have refused to join the Union is debated. Whether that would have made the smaller Union unviable is debated. Many books have been written.
They contend that the "real" reason for the Revolutionary War was so the Colonies could keep their slaves. I've never heard of this! Neither have many scholars. All of Europe was active in the slave trade even up until the Civil War.
Ok, this is easy. Did Britain abolish slavery by 1776? If not, what is your evidence that it wasn't going to, or the colonists had no reason to think it was going to?
I'll let you slide (_for now_) omy second question.
It took having a child before I realized the level of actual propaganda necessary to teach slavery to kids without them being repulsed. My kid thinks it’s wrong that women weren’t allowed to vote or run for president for so long. You really have to work to put into some “historical context” why people we’re supposedly celebrating did awful things.
Small correction:"by 1800 it was getting harder to capture people in West Africa and kidnap them."No-one was capturing people in West Africa and kidnapping them. The Atlantic slave trade operated by the various states along the west African cost using European-supplied firearms (paid for in slaves) to attack the poorer and less well armed states in central Africa and capture people and kidnap them there (or use extortion and bribery to persuade the central African states to supply them with people) and then sell those slaves to Europeans. Thanks to European money the entire economy of the west coast of Africa was dependent on the slave trade. Note that the states along the east coast of Africa were equally dependent on selling slaves to the Arab states and India (this trade had been going on for centuries longer) so the poor sods in central Africa got it from both directions.
So, let's try to get back on track. You're attacking the claim that the colonies rebelled against the British to preserve slavery. What is 1619's basis for this claim? What is your basis for criticizing them?
Yep. They were all well-educated men who were plenty familiar with the arguments for abolition, and many of them agreed with those arguments. But mostly they chose their own comfort over, you know, NOT perpetuating a human rights catastrophe.
I've never heard of this before! That is until the 1619 project said it. It's such a drastic departure from what I have been taught since I was in grammar school. I've never heard of Nicole Hannah-Jones either (who is an investigative journalist and not a history scholar). The people involved in the 1619 Project have also been elusive and the project itself doesn't seem to have rigorous peer-review and their main defense seems to be straw-manning.
I mentioned that I am a nurse. All through this pandemic I have had people online trying to school me about mask-wearing, vaccines, epidemiology, virology, the disease process - you name it! When people tell me something that is such a radical departure from my training and experience they tell me that I don't know it because I ain't whatever the right-wing version of "woke" is.
That is certainly not how the Republicans are behaving.
People are talking right now about MS having passed this outrageous F"law" in "blatant defiance of 50 years of established precedent" and I'm thinking "Why would any reasonable person think any 2021 Republican would give a hot damn about PRECEDENT? Didn't they see what Beer Kavanaugh and Amy Covid Barrett did last session??"
I don't understand these "reasonable" people who seem incapable of comprehending the extent to which their political adversaries are completely unreasonable and will do absolutely everything and stop at absolutely nothing in their quest for power.
It's almost driving me insane listening to the "reasonable" people, because in the depths of their ostensible denial THEY do not sound sane.
The only people who sound sane right now are the AMerican Muslims pointing out that the U.S. government just approved another $735 billion in arms to commit genocide for Israel.
Certainly nobody White is making any kind of sense right now
It's really demographics that control Senate races, the Electoral College and the like. They were originally designed to give the Southern states, with their much lower populations [even with the nauseating '3/5 rule'] more political power as states rather than according to population. This was bad enough then, but since today we have all these predominantly rural states in the non-coastal west, the increasing blueness of Southern states like Virginia, Georgia, North Carolina, etc. (Florida and Texas — both of which have large populations that are mainly due to a handful of urban areas — would have been blue long ago were it not for the corruption of their state Republican parties, impressive even by Republican standards) isn't enough to make up for the effect of the 'rural votes count for more' compromise. And Republicans, who care only about their own power (and who couldn't retain power without the advantage they get from this rural-privilege system), will go to any length necessary to prevent us from fixing this blatantly undemocratic setup.
Big topic, many debates. The Founders themselves floated other options in letters and The Federalist Papers. The French Revolution found the cojones to abolish slavery just a few years later (restored by that fuck Napoleon ).
The economics of slavery were probably not as critical to the South at the time as they became later. The slave states blackmailed the Convention, and the Convention caved. Whether the slave states would really have refused to join the Union is debated. Whether that would have made the smaller Union unviable is debated. Many books have been written.
Thank you, corrected.
They contend that the "real" reason for the Revolutionary War was so the Colonies could keep their slaves. I've never heard of this! Neither have many scholars. All of Europe was active in the slave trade even up until the Civil War.
Ok, this is easy. Did Britain abolish slavery by 1776? If not, what is your evidence that it wasn't going to, or the colonists had no reason to think it was going to?
I'll let you slide (_for now_) omy second question.
Your use of the word "contend" is... interesting. Are you trying to telle they didn't present any evidence for such a strong claim?
It took having a child before I realized the level of actual propaganda necessary to teach slavery to kids without them being repulsed. My kid thinks it’s wrong that women weren’t allowed to vote or run for president for so long. You really have to work to put into some “historical context” why people we’re supposedly celebrating did awful things.
any time I get to kick in the general direction of Uber and Lyft, I will. fuck those fucking people.
I am a registered nurse. I tend to defer to scholars on matters like this. Are you a scholar on American History?
Contend is a common word. I don't see how it should raise suspicion.
You "defer to scholars" except the authors of the project?
I have difficulty seeing what my credentials, or lack thereof, have to do with anything.
Because people here on the internet seem to think that because they have Google that means they are scholars.
Small correction:"by 1800 it was getting harder to capture people in West Africa and kidnap them."No-one was capturing people in West Africa and kidnapping them. The Atlantic slave trade operated by the various states along the west African cost using European-supplied firearms (paid for in slaves) to attack the poorer and less well armed states in central Africa and capture people and kidnap them there (or use extortion and bribery to persuade the central African states to supply them with people) and then sell those slaves to Europeans. Thanks to European money the entire economy of the west coast of Africa was dependent on the slave trade. Note that the states along the east coast of Africa were equally dependent on selling slaves to the Arab states and India (this trade had been going on for centuries longer) so the poor sods in central Africa got it from both directions.
So, let's try to get back on track. You're attacking the claim that the colonies rebelled against the British to preserve slavery. What is 1619's basis for this claim? What is your basis for criticizing them?
Yep. They were all well-educated men who were plenty familiar with the arguments for abolition, and many of them agreed with those arguments. But mostly they chose their own comfort over, you know, NOT perpetuating a human rights catastrophe.
I've never heard of this before! That is until the 1619 project said it. It's such a drastic departure from what I have been taught since I was in grammar school. I've never heard of Nicole Hannah-Jones either (who is an investigative journalist and not a history scholar). The people involved in the 1619 Project have also been elusive and the project itself doesn't seem to have rigorous peer-review and their main defense seems to be straw-manning.
I mentioned that I am a nurse. All through this pandemic I have had people online trying to school me about mask-wearing, vaccines, epidemiology, virology, the disease process - you name it! When people tell me something that is such a radical departure from my training and experience they tell me that I don't know it because I ain't whatever the right-wing version of "woke" is.
That is certainly not how the Republicans are behaving.
People are talking right now about MS having passed this outrageous F"law" in "blatant defiance of 50 years of established precedent" and I'm thinking "Why would any reasonable person think any 2021 Republican would give a hot damn about PRECEDENT? Didn't they see what Beer Kavanaugh and Amy Covid Barrett did last session??"
I don't understand these "reasonable" people who seem incapable of comprehending the extent to which their political adversaries are completely unreasonable and will do absolutely everything and stop at absolutely nothing in their quest for power.
It's almost driving me insane listening to the "reasonable" people, because in the depths of their ostensible denial THEY do not sound sane.
The only people who sound sane right now are the AMerican Muslims pointing out that the U.S. government just approved another $735 billion in arms to commit genocide for Israel.
Certainly nobody White is making any kind of sense right now