** And if the ratios used in 1790 still applied today, we’d have thousands of Congressmen. *That point is meaningless. The 435 cap is legislated as a total number of seats, NOT an allocation per X hundred thousand population. * You start from the total THEN divide. If half the US were wiped out tomorrow Congress would still add up to 435, they’d just be redistributed in the next census.
Besides, the 435 cap was not passed until 1911 for the admission of NM and AZ and the Constitution mandates the least populated state to get no less than one Representative, so before 1911 the practice was give the handfull of smallest states one each and then add multiples from there on the cap was enacted when they (a) realized mass immigration was creating a population boom that could conceivably lead to some states having hundreds of seats if strict ratio were applied and (b) thought they were done adding states, having “filled in” the continental states.
I was wondering if Hectorik would be the “never show up again” kind of OP or “keep arguing and ignoring all the posts that completely raze his position and salt the earth so nothing else can grow.” Looks like it’ll be #1.
I do not believe this happened. No part of this story makes sense.
For one thing, there is nothing to do with “political correctness” about the answer to your question. The two parties’ names do not have anything at all to do with what they stand for, as a moment’s thought or ten minutes of research will show. The Democratic Party (not “Democrat Party”) is called that because it started as the “Democratic-Republican Party,” a name chosen at the time as being in opposition to the Federalist Party. In 1824 the party split, with one part taking the name Democratic and the other merging with some other folksto become the curiously named Whig Party.
The Republican Party was formed in 1852 as a coalition of various groups (including Whigs) and chose the name, in all honesty, because it sounded good.
Since both parties stand for completely different things than they used to, the names don’t mean anything. They are brands. All Democrats believe in republicanism (the running of a country by means other than hereditary rule) and all Republicans believe in democracy (the selection of leaders by some form of voting.)
Its a boring answer, but there it is. Do you feel better now?
I’m glad that I’m not a social studies or government teacher, because those guys have a difficult needle to thread to teach a lot of issues without inappropriate influence from their own views. But that said, a question like the OP’s is really, really easy to answer neutrally. You go to the parties themselves, and see what their official platforms say. Or you present stump speeches from the most recent candidates from each party for a variety of offices, or transcripts of debates. Granted, this sort of thing is a little easier now than it used to be, with the Internet, but I’d expect a US Government teacher to have known where to find them.
Sometimes, things really are as simple as they appear.
Secession was about slavery. It wasn’t some minor side issue, it was THE issue. And in 1861, EVERY major figure in the Confederacy would have told you so proudly!
Read the Cornerstone Speech. Confederate VP Alexander Stephens stated forthrightly that the Confederacy was dedicated primarily to the proposition that blacks are an inferior race, naturally fit for nothing but slavery.
If anyone in the South disagreed, he kept that to himself. It’s only since the South was defeated that Confederatecapologusts started pretending secession was about something, anything else.
Examiner: All right, here’s your last question. What was the cause of the Civil War?
Apu: Actually, there were numerous causes. Aside from the obvious schism between the abolitionists and the anti-abolitionists, there were economic factors, both domestic and inter…
Every state that seceded mentioned slavery in their declaration. Every single one. On the other side of the argument we have a cartoon that was funny for a couple of seasons 25 years ago.
What about the cotton issue…i realize this the reason slaves were held…doesnt that in itself make cotton the main issue…no huge plantations…no need for labor of any kind…imho.
It wasn’t about cotton. You can grow cotton without slavery, as was proven after the Civil War ended. It’s just that in the south cotton was invariably grown using slave labor. Aside from the land itself, the slaves owned by the plantation owners was the largest amount of capital in the south.
Lincoln hadn’t even been inaugurated when the southern states began to secede. And why? Because they knew Lincoln was against the expansion of slavery. If all new states added to the union were free states, the slave states would be outnumbered and outvoted. And what would become of the peculiar institution then?
Slavery was under no immediate threat, but everyone knew that the country could not continue half slave and half free. It would have to become all one or all the other. And the election of Lincoln showed that the inevitable future of the United States was all free. And that was intolerable to the planters who controlled the governments of the southern states. And so, to preserve their property (in slaves), their rights (to own slaves) and their economic interests (in slave plantations) they seceded.
Agreed that it wasn’t directly and immediately under attack. Lincoln hadn’t even been inaugurated.
But the election of Lincoln really was a threat to slavery–eventually. Lincoln was never going to advocate for immediate abolition, but he surely would have fought like anything to prevent the admission of more slave states to the union. And that would have doomed slavery–eventually.
Yes – slavery was in danger in the long term. From the point of view that slavery must be preserved forever, starting a war for secession was a reasonable point of view.
Of course, that point of view is utterly monstrous, morally speaking.
It was all about sovereignty. Before the American Civil War the states (both north and south) were sovereign with the power to deny the federal government the power to collect or spend money.
As such, the states had the authority to maintain - or relinquish - their membership in the Union. There was a strong push to centralize power, whereby states would become more like ‘counties’ under the authority of a sovereign federal government.
The federal government usurped the sovereignty of the states, saying that they had no legal right to challenge a centralized government. The ‘centralizers’ won the war in 1865 and states have been subservient to the feds ever since.
The Civil War was completely unnecessary as far as slavery was concerned. It would have been far cheaper for the federal government to buy all the slaves and free them than to engage in a 4-year war.
The federal government cannot stop growing because the states no longer have power to limit its ability to collect and to spend money. The victor of a conflict writes the history - and if the victor says that it fought a war against its own citizens for the good of humanity, then that’s what is written and it becomes the ‘new truth’ of common knowledge.
The concept of a limited central government was adopted by Switzerland, modelling its organization of power on the United States of America (before the Civil War). We lost that concept here and Switzerland utilized it as an outpost of limited central government in Europe.
Or more to the point, the right of states to not maintain slavery. To the South, it was intolerable that any new states be added to the Union that were not slave states. No matter what the people of the new state might think, the South believed that slavery should be instituted over those states’ objections.
Hectorik, the centralizers didn’t win in the Civil War; they won in 1789. The Constitution, ratified by all of the states, quite clearly stated that the federal government was supreme over the states. The traitors in the 1860s just pretended that it didn’t.
And where do you get the notion that the states had the power to prevent the federal government from collecting or spending money?