This meme seems to circulate every year or so, and it’s back again, so here’s the rebuttal. It claims that the electoral college was the South’s idea and was implemented to help slave states. This is dubious at best.
▪️During the Constitutional Convention in 1787, there was significant division over how to elect the president. Initially, some delegates did propose a direct election by the people. This was championed by James Madison, a southerner, and two northerners (James Wilson and Gouverneur Morris).
▪️However, this proposal was roundly rejected by the convention, and not because of slavery. One of the most outspoken members against direct election was Elbridge Gerry of Massachusetts, who feared that demagoguery could result in a monarch in a direct election, a common fear at the time. Most of the delegates, north and south, preferred an indirect election of the president.
▪️Several proposals were then put forward. At first, a majority thought Congress should select the president. This was ultimately rejected because it was feared it would make the president too subservient to Congress. Other proposals included having state legislatures or governors elect the president. Alexander Hamilton even floated the idea of having a president for life.
▪️During the initial vote over having electors select the president, the only states voting “nay” were NC, SC and GA, the three most ardently proslavery states in the convention. Clearly it was not their idea or something they were clamoring for.
▪️When it first took shape, the Electoral College wouldn’t have helped the South significantly. Under the initial apportionment of the House, the slaveholding states would have held 39 out of 92 electoral votes, or about 42%. Based on the 1790 census, about 41% of the nation’s total white population lived in those same states, a tiny difference.
▪️The Electoral College eventually came out of the Brearly Committee, which included a cross section of the delegates, slightly weighted to northern states. It included David Brearly (NJ), Nicholas Gilman (NH), Rufus King (MA), Roger Sherman (CT), Gouverneur Morris (PA), John Dickinson (DE), Daniel Carroll (MD), James Madison (VA), Hugh Williamson (NC), Pierce Butler (SC) and Abraham Baldwin (GA).
▪️Once decided, the Electoral College was met with general satisfaction and received little resistance from the state ratifying conventions. Northerners and anti-slavery proponents defended it, like Alexander Hamilton did in Federalist No. 68. It was, perhaps naively, held up by most as a way to ensure virtuous people made the decision instead of the mob. As Hamilton put it, the EC was “most likely to possess the information and discernment requisite to such complicated negotiations.”
▪️Ironically, it was the anti-slavery John Quincy Adams who first benefited from the system, when he won despite losing the popular (and electoral) vote to Andrew Jackson in 1824 (the House decided the election since neither had a majority). It was pro-slavery Jackson who became one of history’s most prominent critics of the EC, lambasting it for preventing the people “to express their own will.”
▪️The EC made no difference in deciding the presidency during the 36 years before the Civil War. Except in 1860, Lincoln had 39.9% of the vote (in a 4 person race) but won a crushing victory in electoral votes. Many in the South ran the numbers and realized the North would be able to continually crush them with the EC and quickly stampeded to secession.
▪️There’s little evidence to suggest the EC was implemented over slavery. The reality was at the time few wanted a direct election of the president, the primary question was how to devise an indirect system. After much debate, they decided on each state getting the amount of electors equal to their representatives plus Senators, and few objected to that. But to change it now would require an amendment, which many would object to, making it extremely unlikely.
https://www.nytimes.com/2019/04/04/opinion/the-electoral-college-slavery-myth.html
https://www.archives.gov/publications/prologue/2006/spring/gerry.html
https://teachingamericanhistory.org/static/convention/themes/8.html
https://avalon.law.yale.edu/18th_century/fed68.asp
https://constitutioncenter.org/debate/special-projects/a-madisonian-constitution-for-all/essay-series/the-constitution-the-presidency-and-partisan-democracy-congress-revises-the-electoral-college-1804#_ftn2
https://www.nationalaffairs.com/publications/detail/in-defense-of-the-electoral-college
Support:
memepoliceman.locals.com
www.patreon.com/memepoliceman
Tip jar/requests:
https://memepoliceman.com/support-via-paypal/
Bitcoin:
3Kbnj6FFG5xCWKy5CFuQh3CFTkJjjMeqHi
▪️The left keeps using this meme but they don’t actually believe it. If you believe SNAP subsidizes companies to pay below a “living wage” this implies that if you take food stamps away they would suddenly pay a higher, “living” wage. So why not get rid of food stamps, then?!
▪️Except they know, and everyone knows, this isn’t true. Wages are set by supply and demand, not some mythical “living wage” metric. Absent food stamps there would actually be downward, not upward, pressure on wages, because the reality is food stamps subsidize the poor to not work as much as they might otherwise need to.
▪️Without SNAP, some low income people would need to work more hours to make ends meet, increasing the availability of low-skilled labor and lowering wages (all else being equal).
▪️Plus, we all know the left loves and supports food stamps. Which means, by this meme’s logic, they love to subsidize corporate profits. But they don’t really, they just think this ...
▪️Wait, this is the guy libertarians and the new right rave about being a great historian?! This sounds like a clueless meme from The Other 98%, except they wouldn’t add in the bizarre defense of feudal lords. Feudalism didn’t deprive peasants of their livelihoods for abstract goals? This is total fantasy.
▪️Amazon employs 1.55M, so this is less than 2% of their workforce, although these cuts will be to corporate, which employs 350k, so 8.5% of that. The CEO says there is an excess of bureaucracy at Amazon, and AI can automate certain repetitive tasks. Also, much of the cuts will be to HR, which is expected shrink by 15%, yay. Managers and HR are peasants now?
▪️I don’t know the inner workings of Amazon, and neither does Darryl, but this seems to be normal management practice to keep a company efficient and competitive. Given the immense size of Amazon the numbers look large, but far bigger shakeups happen all the time in the private sector. Apparently, under the new ...
▪️This statistic is just made up. The reality is that there hasn’t been a real study on this since 2013, when Pew did a poll. They found that Democrats were actually more than twice as likely as Republicans to report ever using food stamps (22% vs 10%).
https://www.pewresearch.org/short-reads/2013/07/12/the-politics-and-demographics-of-food-stamp-recipients/
▪️Obviously, those percentages could have changed over the past decade, but it’s very likely that Dems still receive more SNAP benefits. Certainly, without an actual study or poll the claim should be thrown out, as it wildly contradicts a previous study.
▪️The meme probably comes from a 2024 analysis by Social Explorer, which found that 78.7% of US counties with the largest increase in SNAP since 2010 voted for Trump in 2020. But that tells us nothing about the actual number of Republicans (or Democrats) who are receiving benefits, just county-wide trends.
...