June 29, 2011
His blog is called, remarkably, "Bridging the Gap." Why? Because, apparently, he wants both sides to "come together" to solve our nation's problems. We're talking about our old pal Perry. However, much like the LGOMB, he doesn't really mean it. They are just words.
Take a look at Perry today in a thread over at Common Sense Political Thought:
Now I am no history buff, but I do know this: Many of the Founders were slave owners, women were not permitted to vote, and the Founders conceived of an electoral college to protect the powerful from the will of the people should the people get too much out of line with their voting. (Link.)
This premise was then challenged by me, among others. Perry refused to back back up his claim about the Electoral College.
I then wrote this about the Founding Fathers and slavery:
It is quite obvious you’re not a history buff, Herr Fossil, for you, like way too many faux “progressives,” seek to impose 21st century values upon what were indeed very forward-thinking people. Though many owned slaves (an accepted practice back then, BTW), many spoke out against it and began efforts to cease the practice.
GOP presidential candidate Michelle Bachmann recently got heat from the MSM (surprise, that) for a remark she made about the Founders working to end slavery. The fact is, she is correct. Even Abraham Lincoln backs this up, as well as the words of many of the Founders themselves.
But this doesn't matter to Perry. He responds:
Making a law which made a black man 3/5 of a white man is hardly “working hard to end slavery”, in my view. That slavery persisted for another 70 plus years, with the vestiges of slavery evident to this very day, can hardly be construed as working hard enough to end slavery for once and for all. Moreover, it appears to me that racism remains alive today – ask most any black person about that. Better is not good enough!!!
When I asked Perry just why the 3/5 Compromise was constructed, here is what we get in reply:
The very existence of a 3/5 compromise apparently is fine with you, Hube, regardless of when it was instituted. I note that Repubs like yourself are more than happy to strive to restore that 3/5 fraction again, by your actions against ACORN and your current efforts to suppress the vote. Racism is not dead yet in the Republican Party.
That sure is some "gap bridging" there, is it not??
For those who may not know much about the 3/5 Compromise (and are modest enough not to make fools of themselves, like Perry did), take a look. And if Perry is reading, you especially need to look here:
The following false statements are just three examples of inaccurate interpretations that persist regarding the three/fifths compromise :
- the 3/5s compromise of 1788 . . . enshrined slavery in the United States Constitution
- African Americans in this country were considered only 3/5s human at one point in history.
- We tried "compromise" and declared blacks to be 3/5s human.
The gap that Perry really needs to bridge is the one that exists in his head.
(Cross-posted at TBD.)
Posted by Hube at June 29, 2011 08:43 PM
Let's look at a couple of things here.
First, regarding the 3/5 Compromise, Perry needs to consider what actually happened at the Constitutional Convention. There was a deadlock on how to deal with slaves, who EVERYONE acknowledged were every bit as human as white people. Both Northern and Southern delegates wanted to count them as whole persons -- just for different purposes. Southerners wanted them counted 100% for purposes of representation -- but not at all for purposes of taxation (the Constitution established a capitation tax), while the Northerners wanted slaves counted not at all for purposes of representation and 100% for purposes of taxation. Compromise was necessary in order to get the Constitution adopted, lest the new nation fragment -- so slaves were counted as 3/5 of a person for both purposes. The effect was to penalize slave states -- both financially and in terms of representation -- for the peculiar institution.
As for Perry's assertion regarding the Electoral College -- Perry does have something of a point. The idea was that the electors would be independent of the voters, and that they could overrule the people of their state if they chose poorly. But when one considers that the Constitution nowhere gives the people any guaranteed right to vote for President at all (a state legislature could Constitutionally choose to abolish the practice of voting for President and instead appoint the electors directly with no ballot by the people), part of the goal was to keep the republic from descending into what Madison and others called a "mobocracy".
As i pointed out at my site, Bachmann does flub a bit on her history. However, her biggest error -- the John Quincy Adams thing -- is not so glaring as to raise a question about her intellect. After all, she knows how many states there are, unlike Barry Hussein.
RWR: I don't think Perry has as much of a point as you think. He says the EC was "to protect the powerful from the will of the people," which when considering the Founders beliefs about government and power, it just appears ludicrous on its face.
If anything, just like his inane comments about slavery, he is imposing a 21st century "progressive" belief system upon the Founders. Though the Founders' reasons for instituting the EC back then were probably much more viable than today (our contemporary populace has much more access to information and is better educated), the Founders feared Perry's so-called "protection of the powerful" as much as a "mobacracy." I think what Perry was referring to, if anything, would be the perceived effect of the EC not voting the way "it should," not the actual purpose of it.
Excellent post, Hube. Another reason this is one of my daily go-to sites. Hope you're doing well. Let me know next time you're in Indy. I owe you dinner. :)
Well, Hube, I was trying to be charitable with that argument. But the idea was to provide what they considered to be the natural ruling class with the ability to correct the unwise exercise of the passions of the lower classes.
Heck, if one looks at elections in the earliest part of US history, it isn't until the election of Andrew Jackson that the people are ever really able to seize control of the machinery of government and elect a president they truly chose over the candidate of the political elite.