Republican Leadership Is A Threat To America

[JaySecrets]

Here is, from what I could tell, my very first interaction with you. I will let the viewing public decide what this hints at:



And for context, this is what had raised my initial ire at you as you conveniently began running away:

I listed the facts as they in fact are. There are literally court documents. I chose not to engage further because you had no interest in facts.

And it is not conservatives that are whining about "words are violence" and other such bullshit. Your side owns that craziness. Conservatives actually stick around, fight for what we believe so long as there is intellectual engagement, and call for the freedom of anyone to disagree. We just ask that you do so with intellectual integrity and honesty.

My friend, your side is one giant snowflake. Me and mine are the last people who can be called that.

 

[JaySecrets]

Jay, you are fact free.

So lay out, with resources as I have, all those facts I am missing. Put up or shut up.

 

[bijedi]

You know why the founders never set this up as a popular vote? Because, for example in today's world, there would be no need to represent the bulk of the states. Just California, Texas, New York, and maybe Chicago. The bulk of America lives in Middle America with small town Middle America values. But you live in your East and and West Coast bubbles and can't comprehend why the rest of America looks at you as insane.

I pretty sure the delegates of the Constitutional Convention were not concerned with population of California, Texas and possibly Chicago.

For all the reverence the Electoral College is given today, it was a pretty unpopular idea amongst the delegates at the convention when it is was first proposed. The two proposals that had any real support at the beginning of the convention were direct election by popular vote and election by congress. The latter was rejected as it was seen as giving the legislative branch too much authority over the executive branch. The former was a little more complicated, but one of the biggest issues was the uneven diffusion of suffrage throughout the colonies, particularly in the south where over a third of the adult population could not vote. But even in the northern colonies, there were stark differences in who was given the vote franchise. So it was tabled until the very end of the convention and with time running out, the idea of the electoral college was reintroduced. It remained an unlikely solution until someone came up with the idea of tying the number of electors to the state's congressional representatives. This allowed the electoral college to benefit from the three fifths compromise, and with no better options it was adopted.

Rather than being some well thought out and debated electoral innovation, it was basically a band-aid that leveraged another band-aid to work around the biggest political obstacle of its time. It primarily exists because of the unequal distribution of suffrage amongst the colonies. In our modern day political climate with universal suffrage it is an anachronism whose continued existence is solely due to the fact that it endows a minority political faction outsized influence in presidential elections.

The idea that it protects the majority of the states from tyrannical minority of the larger states is propaganda. Anybody pushing this idea is either ignorant or lying. The total votes from CA, TX, FL, NY and IL in 2020 was about 54 million out of 155 million. More than twice as many votes were cast outside of those five states. So even if all of the votes in those five states went to one party, they wouldn't come close to being insurmountable. But the voters in those states don't just vote for one party. Even in CA, where more Californians voted for Trump than voters from any other single state. All the electoral college does is disenfranchise those voters, like it does the voters in all but the handful states where there is an actual competitive balance between the primary parties.

 

[BrightShinyGirl]

So there aren't skilled workers in small towns? What kind of ignorant, bubble-dwelling, bigoted nonsense is that? See, this is why you need to get out of your bubble or stop talking. Illiteracy is higher in big cities, your education systems notoriously bad, and one of the biggest "employers" in huge portions of those cities is street gangs. Carjackings are a normal occurrence. Hold ups and robberies are on the rise. Most of your citizens can't tell you anything about politics or the Constitution than they get spoon fed by the media, if that much. Unwed pregnancy and absentee fathers, the biggest contributing factor to school dropout and eventual criminal behavior, is at its all time highs in your big cities. But it's small towns that lack skilled labor? You are out your mind.

By the by, why did you happen on Gary, IN, a famously, possibly the most famously black population city, to call them a bunch of unskilled idiots? That's more than a little racist.

I picked Gary, Indiana at random because of the song about it from The Music Man. I know nothing about it as a real place.

 

[JaySecrets]

I pretty sure the delegates of the Constitutional Convention were not concerned with population of California, Texas and possibly Chicago.

For all the reverence the Electoral College is given today, it was a pretty unpopular idea amongst the delegates at the convention when it is was first proposed. The two proposals that had any real support at the beginning of the convention were direct election by popular vote and election by congress. The latter was rejected as it was seen as giving the legislative branch too much authority over the executive branch. The former was a little more complicated, but one of the biggest issues was the uneven diffusion of suffrage throughout the colonies, particularly in the south where over a third of the adult population could not vote. But even in the northern colonies, there were stark differences in who was given the vote franchise. So it was tabled until the very end of the convention and with time running out, the idea of the electoral college was reintroduced. It remained an unlikely solution until someone came up with the idea of tying the number of electors to the state's congressional representatives. This allowed the electoral college to benefit from the three fifths compromise, and with no better options it was adopted.

Rather than being some well thought out and debated electoral innovation, it was basically a band-aid that leveraged another band-aid to work around the biggest political obstacle of its time. It primarily exists because of the unequal distribution of suffrage amongst the colonies. In our modern day political climate with universal suffrage it is an anachronism whose continued existence is solely due to the fact that it endows a minority political faction outsized influence in presidential elections.

The idea that it protects the majority of the states from tyrannical minority of the larger states is propaganda. Anybody pushing this idea is either ignorant or lying. The total votes from CA, TX, FL, NY and IL in 2020 was about 54 million out of 155 million. More than twice as many votes were cast outside of those five states. So even if all of the votes in those five states went to one party, they wouldn't come close to being insurmountable. But the voters in those states don't just vote for one party. Even in CA, where more Californians voted for Trump than voters from any other single state. All the electoral college does is disenfranchise those voters, like it does the voters in all but the handful states where there is an actual competitive balance between the primary parties.

First, thank you for actually responding with actual information. I disagree with your conclusions and I will explain why, but you actually disagreed intelligently. That is rare on here, so thanks.

That said, a few things argue against your position. One, the founders hated the concept of democracy and called it mobocracy. They saw a majority rule governance as tyranny by the mob. And they weren't wrong. Look what happened in the French Revolution. Actual Democracy always leads to anarchy leads to tyranny. There is not one example you can point to otherwise. We were founded as a representative republic.

The founders, then did not want the seat of power to lie in one branch of government, nor did they want it to lie in a couple more populous states. Virginia deserved as much representation and voice as New Jersey (God help us all, Snookie deserves a voice too). The electoral college, while being a compromise, was far from being a bandaid. It was a best option to avoid the tyranny of the majority.

We are under an odd delusion that our government was supposed to run smoothly and easily. That's simply not the case. It is clunky and unwieldy on purpose. That helps keep its power limited. Including the powers of one state over another.

 

[JaySecrets]

I picked Gary, Indiana at random because of the song about it from The Music Man. I know nothing about it as a real place.

Yes I am familiar. That you don't know anything about it as a real place seriously shows how little you know about the Midwest or small towns, you know... Those places you and yours call "flyover country" and mock, without any real information, as backwards, redneck, and ignorant. Even though we have none of the crime, illiteracy, or homeless issues you "sophisticated" big cities do.

 

[Bn2f]

I pretty sure the delegates of the Constitutional Convention were not concerned with population of California, Texas and possibly Chicago.

This allowed the electoral college to benefit from the three fifths compromise, and with no better options it was adopted.

Rather than being some well thought out and debated electoral innovation, it was basically a band-aid that leveraged another band-aid to work around the biggest political obstacle of its time. It primarily exists because of the unequal distribution of suffrage amongst the colonies. In our modern day political climate with universal suffrage it is an anachronism whose continued existence is solely due to the fact that it endows a minority political faction outsized influence in presidential elections.

All the electoral college does is disenfranchise those voters, like it does the voters in all but the handful states where there is an actual competitive balance between the primary parties.

I'm not disagreeing with you, just humbly asking for a point of order in the future.

Ya gotta explicitly say the word for these dumb ass mofos! Otherwise they get to pontificate even more BS. Notice how he deftly avoids it with talk of an imperfect democracy and how we are a representative government. Please, I'm asking. Say it in the future to these disingenuous un-American traitors: slavery, SLAVERY, SLAVERY!

 

[bijedi]

First, thank you for actually responding with actual information. I disagree with your conclusions and I will explain why, but you actually disagreed intelligently. That is rare on here, so thanks.

Much appreciated.

That said, a few things argue against your position. One, the founders hated the concept of democracy and called it mobocracy. They saw a majority rule governance as tyranny by the mob. And they weren't wrong. Look what happened in the French Revolution. Actual Democracy always leads to anarchy leads to tyranny. There is not one example you can point to otherwise. We were founded as a representative republic.

This is mostly semantics, but yes, many of the founders had a low opinion of democracy as the primary means of implementing a government. But one should be mindful that in that time, democracy exclusively meant Athenian Assembly style direct democracy. There were not many, if any, examples of representative democracies they could point to. A far different situation where dozens if not hundreds of representative democracies have flourished (some republics, some not). So many that today the default meaning of democracy is that of a representative democracy and one must be specific if they mean Athenian Assembly style direct democracy. Unless they are a pedantic internet troll.

Additionally, despite their low opinion of 'democracy', they thought it was perfectly suitable for such trivial things as the selection of the people's representatives. So it is not like they're opposed to it in any and all cases. And what is the chief executive, if not the people's representative in the executive branch?

Also, one should be careful when discussing the founders and presenting them as unanimous in thoughts and opinions. They disagreed far more than they agreed. If you were to ask five of them a question about some detail in the constitution, you would likely get ten different answers.

The founders, then did not want the seat of power to lie in one branch of government, nor did they want it to lie in a couple more populous states. Virginia deserved as much representation and voice as New Jersey (God help us all, Snookie deserves a voice too). The electoral college, while being a compromise, was far from being a bandaid. It was a best option to avoid the tyranny of the majority.

Just because it was found to be the most acceptable compromise does not negate the fact that it is a bandaid. It was absolutely a bandaid. But don't take my word for it, James Madison himself was of the opinion that direct election by popular vote was the preferred method of electing the chief executive, but was unworkable in the political climate of the time. And the primary reason had nothing to do with the relative balance of power between the states or some theoretical tyranny of the majority. It was purely due to the unequal distribution of suffrage amongst the states, primarily the existence of large numbers of slaves in the south:

' The people at large was in his opinion the fittest in itself. It would be as likely as any that could be devised to produce an Executive Magistrate of distinguished Character. The people generally could only know & vote for some Citizen whose merits had rendered him an object of general attention & esteem. There was one difficulty however of a serious nature attending an immediate choice by the people. The right of suffrage was much more diffusive in the Northern than the Southern States; and the latter could have no influence in the election on the score of the Negroes. The substitution of electors obviated this difficulty and seemed on the whole to be liable to fewest objections'

https://avalon.law.yale.edu/18th_century/debates_719.asp

I would also note from the same document, some proposals for the Electoral College gave proportionally more power the populous states than the current version does. For example, one proposal gave more populous states 3 electoral college votes and smaller states 1 electoral vote. In a union of 13 states, if the four most populous states got 12 votes and the remaining 9 states get 9 votes, well that is hardly going to prevent a tyranny of the majority. So I reject this claim for the purpose of the electoral college. This just wasn't a major concern at the time, and certainly not in comparison to the other political issues of the day. I find this to be mostly a modern, post reconstruction era justification for the continued usage of the electoral college.

We are under an odd delusion that our government was supposed to run smoothly and easily. That's simply not the case. It is clunky and unwieldy on purpose. That helps keep its power limited. Including the powers of one state over another.

This I can agree with, at least to some degree. Although one must acknowledge that the necessity of the constitutional convention and the existence of the constitution itself is an argument that the states need a federal government with the powers required to allow the union to function as a modern nation state.

 

[bijedi]

I'm not disagreeing with you, just humbly asking for a point of order in the future.

Ya gotta explicitly say the word for these dumb ass mofos! Otherwise they get to pontificate even more BS. Notice how he deftly avoids it with talk of an imperfect democracy and how we are a representative government. Please, I'm asking. Say it in the future to these disingenuous un-American traitors: slavery, SLAVERY, SLAVERY!

Well, yes.

Perhaps I have been reading to much James Madison lately. He tended to couch the institution in some vague, if flowery, language.

 

[Bn2f]

Well, yes.

Perhaps I have been reading to much James Madison lately. He tended to couch the institution in some vague, if flowery, language.

I was angry more at JS than anything as I had been going back and forth with him previously.
I'm pretty sure that I have told you in the past how informative and well written your posts were, but that my complaint to you was that your posts were all too infrequent. That still is my stance. Lol but I get not wanting to swim too long in this cesspool.

 

[IrezumiKiss]

https://twitter.com/x/status/1819879034962001926

https://twitter.com/x/status/1819861240526647379

 

[Bray123]

Democrat leadership in a few states kept the Republican nominee off the ballot.

A reminder that the Republican nominee for the Office of President is not permitted to vote.

 

[DeluxAuto]

Trump congratulates Putin over deal that brought Evan Gershkovich home

https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2024/08/03/trump-putin-prisoner-swap-gershkovich/

Russian assets gotta asset.

 

[JaySecrets]

Much appreciated.

This is mostly semantics, but yes, many of the founders had a low opinion of democracy as the primary means of implementing a government. But one should be mindful that in that time, democracy exclusively meant Athenian Assembly style direct democracy. There were not many, if any, examples of representative democracies they could point to. A far different situation where dozens if not hundreds of representative democracies have flourished (some republics, some not). So many that today the default meaning of democracy is that of a representative democracy and one must be specific if they mean Athenian Assembly style direct democracy. Unless they are a pedantic internet troll.

Show me one place where the founders who gave us the Constitution ever said this was a democracy of any kind? The idea of America as a democracy came further down the road from the original intent. Hell, even the pledge (and, yes, I know that came later as well, but it uses the language the founders used) says it: to the REPUBLIC for which it stands.

Indeed, there was ONE place where majority held away. The house of representatives. But that's the only place where the elected had direct accountability to the people. The house voted for Senate, the electors, based on congressional votes, voted for president. The one who got the most votes was president, the second most votes, VP. The founders didn't want anyone outside of the house to be directly beholden to the populace because the populace is fickle, easily swayed, and they didn't want the president to be unable to act rightly according to conscience because it might be unpopular. The founders, because they understood human nature, put no faith or trust in an easily swayed popular opinion.

Additionally, despite their low opinion of 'democracy', they thought it was perfectly suitable for such trivial things as the selection of the people's representatives. So it is not like they're opposed to it in any and all cases. And what is the chief executive, if not the people's representative in the executive branch?

Also, one should be careful when discussing the founders and presenting them as unanimous in thoughts and opinions. They disagreed far more than they agreed. If you were to ask five of them a question about some detail in the constitution, you would likely get ten different answers.

Absolutely correct. But they were working off similar views of God, man, and the source of liberty, with a very clear view of how easily it is lost... or, better put, traded away for the sake of popularity or security. What they disagreed on was the details of how to deal with the issue. It's why they gave us a Constitution of principles, not specific applications. It's also why they left many, many writings explaining what their intent was in the application of those principles.

Just because it was found to be the most acceptable compromise does not negate the fact that it is a bandaid. It was absolutely a bandaid. But don't take my word for it, James Madison himself was of the opinion that direct election by popular vote was the preferred method of electing the chief executive, but was unworkable in the political climate of the time. And the primary reason had nothing to do with the relative balance of power between the states or some theoretical tyranny of the majority. It was purely due to the unequal distribution of suffrage amongst the states, primarily the existence of large numbers of slaves in the south:

' The people at large was in his opinion the fittest in itself. It would be as likely as any that could be devised to produce an Executive Magistrate of distinguished Character. The people generally could only know & vote for some Citizen whose merits had rendered him an object of general attention & esteem. There was one difficulty however of a serious nature attending an immediate choice by the people. The right of suffrage was much more diffusive in the Northern than the Southern States; and the latter could have no influence in the election on the score of the Negroes. The substitution of electors obviated this difficulty and seemed on the whole to be liable to fewest objections'

https://avalon.law.yale.edu/18th_century/debates_719.asp

The issue of slavery was one of the prime examples of why a democracy was considered unworkable and dangerous. (Thank you, by the way, for acknowledging that the fraction of a person clause was not something used AGAINST blacks, but rather put in place to protect them. It was the Abolitionists move to pave the way to gain enough sway to end slavery.) Slavery was a very popular institution, not only in America, but across the globe, and had been for centuries. It was just normal life. Those opposing it on a national and international stage were in the minority. If democracy would have been what they gave us, slavery would have stayed much longer.

By the way, slavery in America, that was the Dems. As was the KKK. Gun control laws were put in place in the South to try to keep freed slaves from arming themselves. In other words, Dems are the ones who really shouldn't be bringing the subject up. Republicans, the party literally founded to end slavery, have no issues talking about it.

I would also note from the same document, some proposals for the Electoral College gave proportionally more power the populous states than the current version does. For example, one proposal gave more populous states 3 electoral college votes and smaller states 1 electoral vote. In a union of 13 states, if the four most populous states got 12 votes and the remaining 9 states get 9 votes, well that is hardly going to prevent a tyranny of the majority. So I reject this claim for the purpose of the electoral college. This just wasn't a major concern at the time, and certainly not in comparison to the other political issues of the day. I find this to be mostly a modern, post reconstruction era justification for the continued usage of the electoral college.

Because some didn't like the structure of it, the need for it wasn't negated. Thank God the wiser heads ruled the day.

This I can agree with, at least to some degree. Although one must acknowledge that the necessity of the constitutional convention and the existence of the constitution itself is an argument that the states need a federal government with the powers required to allow the union to function as a modern nation state.

Yet that federal government was supposed to be extremely limited in its scope and powers.

 

[JaySecrets]

https://twitter.com/x/status/1819879034962001926

https://twitter.com/x/status/1819861240526647379

Play the WHOLE video... Without cuts. You know, context. Your side does some amazing creative editing.

 

[lovecraft68]

Says the party happy to be at war with the entire world while destroying the country from within.

Also, PSA-there is a white person who has been pretending to be black in this thread above me.

 

[JaySecrets]

Trump congratulates Putin over deal that brought Evan Gershkovich home

https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2024/08/03/trump-putin-prisoner-swap-gershkovich/

Russian assets gotta asset.

Anyone who thinks the deals made here were good ones doesn't understand the first thing about such situations. Make the wrong deal, the wrong way, and you incentivise more hostage taking from both Russia and other hostile nations. And cost the US more treasure and precious blood trying to get them back. And it only ramps up. You may not like how he said it, but he wasn't wrong.

 

[JaySecrets]

Says the party happy to be at war with the entire world while destroying the country from within.

Also, PSA-there is a white person who has been pretending to be black in this thread above me.

The Conservatives are the only ones left on the political scene who actually give a rat's ass about rescuing it from your toxic wokism.

And I have never once claimed to be black. Maybe at least research your claims and smears before you make them.

 

[Pad_Foot]

View attachment 2373225

States with a smaller population than L.A. County. The bulk of America doesn’t live in small towns. Most of us live in big cities and subsidize the small towns.

Don’t tell The State of Jefferson! They will be fine on their own with less taxes and the Federsl government paying for their whole infrastructure

 

[Pad_Foot]

The biggest problem urban areas face is the high cost of housing. We haven’t been building new apartments fast enough to keep up with large number of people who want to live here. Fortunately some cities are getting the message. L.A. is in the middle of a building boom and as our new train lines are completed the city will be more affordable and livable.

All those lovely big office buildings need to be converted to partially residential. Lots of investment!

 

[YDB95]

Yes I am familiar. That you don't know anything about it as a real place seriously shows how little you know about the Midwest or small towns, you know... Those places you and yours call "flyover country" and mock, without any real information, as backwards, redneck, and ignorant. Even though we have none of the crime, illiteracy, or homeless issues you "sophisticated" big cities do.

You're kidding, right?

You are not seriously arguing that Gary, Indiana doesn't have crime, illiteracy, or homelessness, are you? You claim to have spent time in Chicago, which means you must be aware that's absolute nonsense.

 

[Aglaopheme]

https://twitter.com/x/status/1819879034962001926

https://twitter.com/x/status/1819861240526647379

“Did you see the deal we made?”

The deal with Biden/Harris and Putin/Trump?

 

[DeluxAuto]

Anyone who thinks the deals made here were good ones doesn't understand the first thing about such situations. Make the wrong deal, the wrong way, and you incentivise more hostage taking from both Russia and other hostile nations. And cost the US more treasure and precious blood trying to get them back. And it only ramps up. You may not like how he said it, but he wasn't wrong.

Please enlighten us as to how exactly these were not good deals.

Before you deflect, flail, and lie -- remember that trump desperately tried to make these same deals.


Ready? Go!

 

[DeluxAuto]

“Did you see the deal we made?”

The deal with Biden/Harris and Putin/Trump?

Trumpers really speak before they know the facts.

I wonder where they got that from?

 

[bijedi]

Do you just regurgitate dogma or do you ever back up your dogma with actual data? I have seen exclusively the former from you and none of the latter.

Show me one place where the founders who gave us the Constitution ever said this was a democracy of any kind? The idea of America as a democracy came further down the road from the original intent. Hell, even the pledge (and, yes, I know that came later as well, but it uses the language the founders used) says it: to the REPUBLIC for which it stands.

Did you read what I said? I am not going to get into a pedantic argument over the meaning of the word democracy. As I pointed out, what the word meant then is different than what the word means now. However, I did give you a quote of James Madison endorsing the democratic election of the president. And I didn't point it out because I was paraphrasing him, but Madison also stated in one of his letters that democracy can be useful in trivial matters such as the selection of representatives (although he was talking about state legislatures at the time). There are other quotes from Madison where he recognizes that self governance necessarily implies some type of democratic institution, but the difficulties and shortcomings of direct democracy cause some serious cognitive dissonance.

Indeed, there was ONE place where majority held away. The house of representatives. But that's the only place where the elected had direct accountability to the people. The house voted for Senate, the electors, based on congressional votes, voted for president. The one who got the most votes was president, the second most votes, VP. The founders didn't want anyone outside of the house to be directly beholden to the populace because the populace is fickle, easily swayed, and they didn't want the president to be unable to act rightly according to conscience because it might be unpopular. The founders, because they understood human nature, put no faith or trust in an easily swayed popular opinion.

While Madison's Virginia plan did have the house selecting the Senate, this was never accepted at the Constitutional Convention. Senators were appointed by state legislatures until the passing of the 17th amendment. But that amendment simply codified what had become standard practice amongst all the states for some time. And electors were never selected by congressional votes. Why have the electoral college if the electors are selected by congress? Better just to have congress select the president and vice president. Instead, each state legislature is allowed to determine how electors are selected. Originally, the state legislatures just appointed electors, but by the late 1820's all states (except SC) had switched to using democratic elections for selecting electors. Note that this is still the case today. There is nothing that requires a state's electors to be chosen by popular vote. States could just as easily use a lottery, or an athletic tournament or any other system they choose to appoint electors.

It was originally envisioned that the electors would then independently vote for whom they personally believed should be president, but this never materialized. Electors would always vote for the candidates from their party. And yes, originally each elector had two votes, and each vote was President, but at least one vote had to be for a candidate from a different state than the elector's home state. This proved problematic, and the 12th amendment changed it so each elector had one vote for president and one vote for vice president.

And again, not all founders were as adamantly against the idea of popular elections of representatives as others. Several delegates to the constitutional convention were strongly in favor of democratically elected federal representation. A minority view, but so was the view that state legislatures should appoint all federal representatives.

Absolutely correct. But they were working off similar views of God, man, and the source of liberty, with a very clear view of how easily it is lost... or, better put, traded away for the sake of popularity or security. What they disagreed on was the details of how to deal with the issue. It's why they gave us a Constitution of principles, not specific applications. It's also why they left many, many writings explaining what their intent was in the application of those principles.

The issue of slavery was one of the prime examples of why a democracy was considered unworkable and dangerous. (Thank you, by the way, for acknowledging that the fraction of a person clause was not something used AGAINST blacks, but rather put in place to protect them. It was the Abolitionists move to pave the way to gain enough sway to end slavery.) Slavery was a very popular institution, not only in America, but across the globe, and had been for centuries. It was just normal life. Those opposing it on a national and international stage were in the minority. If democracy would have been what they gave us, slavery would have stayed much longer.

I would disagree to both characterizations of the 3/5ths compromise. It was just that, a compromise to keep the process of the constitutional convention going. One side wanted no political benefits for the owning of slaves, the other side wanted full political benefits for the owning of slaves. They compromised on partial benefits for owning of slaves. Everything else said about it is propaganda.

At the time of the founding, slavery was popular IN America (including the Caribbean), but it was less popular in Europe. Slavery had been banished inside England and Wales since the Somersett ruling in 1772, although slavery was still legal in other areas of the Empire. It wouldn't full be abolished throughout the empire until 1833. Slavery was abolished in Scotland in 1799. Slavery was abolished in France and all French colonies in 1794 (briefly brought back by Napoleon in the sugar-cane colonies). If the antislavery forces were a minority, they were a minority of the most powerful nations in the world.

By the way, slavery in America, that was the Dems. As was the KKK. Gun control laws were put in place in the South to try to keep freed slaves from arming themselves. In other words, Dems are the ones who really shouldn't be bringing the subject up. Republicans, the party literally founded to end slavery, have no issues talking about it.

Most of us are quite aware that the Democrats were the southern conservatives and the Republicans were the northern progressives during the Civil War era, and remained that way throughout most of the Reconstruction era and up through the early 20th century. This would be relevant if we were still in that era, but we are now in the early mid 21st century and things have changed a bit.

Because some didn't like the structure of it, the need for it wasn't negated. Thank God the wiser heads ruled the day.

Yet that federal government was supposed to be extremely limited in its scope and powers.

I wouldn't say extremely limited. They had tried a system with an extremely limited federal government and found it unmanageable, hence the need for the constitutional convention. They recognized the need for a strong federal government that balanced the needs of the nation with the rights of the states and the citizens.