Slavery Was Irrelevant to the Creation of the Electoral College

I was just reading Max Farrand's (1913)  Framing of the Constitution of the United States (Palladium Press reprint, 2000) in order to get a sense of the basis of the claim that I have seen in various newspapers that the creation of the Electoral College in the Constitutional Convention of 1787 was somehow relevant to slavery.  There is no basis for this claim. It is fiction, fake news, bunkum, or whatever you wish to call it.  (For an example of the bunkum, see this, which erroneously claims that the three-fifths rule was important to the Constitutional debate and also erroneously seems to claim that the free populations of states like Virginia and North Carolina were smaller rather than larger than Northern states like New Jersey and Rhode Island.)

Wikipedia lists the states by 1790 population, and the eight states with the fewest free white males were Delaware, Georgia, Kentucky, Rhode Island, Vermont Maine, South Carolina, and New Hampshire--half Northern, half Southern.  However, the debate at the Convention and the use of the terms "small states" and "large states" didn't exactly follow the population numbers.

Farrand's book is eminently readable and held my attention for about 200 pages.  His answer is clear: Slavery was irrelevant to the great compromise and the creation of the Electoral College.  He notes that, with respect to the great compromise--concerning the assignment of two senators per state and proportional representation for the House, to appease the large states--there had been fallacious speculation by historians in the 19th century concerning a role for the slavery issue, but  it was not at issue.

The famous three-fifths rule had already been in effect under the Articles of Confederation, and much of the Constitution was taken from the Articles as well as other preexisting state constitutions, especially that of New York.  When I had first read New York's constitution several years ago for the first time, I had supposed that the state had copied the federal Constitution, but it was the other way around.

In sum, in the 1787 Constitutional Convention there was little discussion about the existing three-fifths rule, and it was irrelevant to the great compromise and the Electoral College.

The small state-versus-large-state dispute had its roots in the small states' fear of absorption by the largest states.  The three largest  states in order of increasing size were Massachusetts, Pennsylvania,  and Virginia.  The large states had claims to Western lands, and those claims distinguished them from the smaller states.  Although Georgia was a small state in population, it too thought it might have claims on Western lands, so it voted with the large states.

The smaller states included New Jersey, New York, Connecticut, Delaware, and Maryland.  New Hampshire and Rhode Island were missing from the convention debate, but they would have been in the small-state category. Delaware and Maryland were relatively slave states.

Slavery existed in all states in 1787, and there was no abolition debate to speak of.  The claim that there were slave states and free states is false. All states in 1787 were slave states.  Moreover, slavery became much more important after Eli Whitney's invention of the cotton gin in 1793.

Hence, slavery was not much discussed in the Constitutional debate.  At one point Madison raised the point that the North-South divide was more important than the small-state-large-state divide, but the delegates were concerned with the latter, not the former.   The small-state-large-state debate was important with respect to the compromise concerning proportional representation of the House and fixed representation in the Senate. It was also relevant to the creation of the Electoral College.

The original plan for the Electoral College was that the electors of each state would vote for two people, one of whom could not be an inhabitant of that state.  The person having a majority of votes would win, but if there was no majority, the decision would be made in the Senate. In the final version the House rather than the Senate was to break ties.

Virtually no one in the Constitutional Convention believed in popular, direct election of the president.   Instead, the electors would have independent thought in their vote.  Farrand writes:

It was expected that the electors would naturally vote for men from their own state...each elector was expected to vote independently according to his own judgment...it was expected that the vote would be so scattered as to not give a majority to any one person. This would throw the election to the Senate.  In other words, and it was so explained again and again, and by such men as Madison, Sherman, King, and Gouverneur Morris, under this system the large states would nominate the candidates and the eventual election would be controlled by the small states

The convention acted on the assumption that this would happen in the great majority of cases. 'Nineteen times in twenty,' Mason asserted in the federal convention, and a little later in the Virginia state convention he claimed forty-nine times out of fifty--the vote of the electors would NOT be decisive.

In other words, they thought the Senate would control the election of president.  Farrand adds, " It is quite possible here, as in so many other questions, the large states accomplished their purpose under a veil of concession."  The use of the House rather than the Senate was accepted without much debate.

The issue of slavery had as little to do with the creation of the Electoral College as did the price of tea in China.

More on Slavery

 In response to a comment:

One of the more blatant lies taught in American schools is that the Civil War was fought over slavery. A reading of DiLorenzo's and Hummel's books will disabuse you of that myth.

First of all, four slave states fought on the side of the North--Maryland, Delaware, Missouri, and Kentucky. They did not abolish slavery even after the war ended. It took the Thirteenth Amendment passed by the radical, post-war Congress.

Second, four secessionist states that in total had a greater population than the seven that seceded when Lincoln was elected, most importantly Virginia, did not secede until Lincoln attacked the South after he was elected. The reason was specifically Lincoln's violent imposition of the federal government on the secessionist states.

Third, Lincoln repeatedly said that he did not aim to repeal slavery. In fact, he said that he favored a constitutional amendment that would have prohibited the abolition of slavery. He said this repeatedly.

Fourth, on November 7, 1861 The London Times wrote an editorial expressing its and the British people's dislike of slavery. Britain at that time was the leading abolitionist nation in the world, for it  had abolished slavery a few decades earlier. Nevertheless, the Times editorialized, it was eminently clear that the Civil War was not being fought about slavery. As Lincoln repeatedly stated and made clear through direct action, the war's aim was to keep the union united. This was contrary to the aims of the American founders, and directly contradictory to Jefferson's statement in the Declaration of Independence that just government is derived FROM THE CONSENT OF THE GOVERNED. As a result, The London Times opined, most British citizens favored the South over the North because the North's war was an effort to enforce a government on a people who did not consent; The Times held that the Civil War had nothing to do with slavery.

Fifth, many leading abolitionists, including William Lloyd Garrison, had for years advocated NORTHERN SECESSION as a way TO END SLAVERY. In other words, leading opponents of slavery had believed all along that secession would by itself end slavery. Rather than give this idea a chance, Lincoln chose to kill 500,000 to 800,000 people, maim a million people, and conquer the South, forcing a tyranny on them.

Why might secession have ended slavery? Because the Fugitive Slave Law was a key impediment to slaves' escaping, and it would have been repealed with secession. The result would have been that slaves could escape and not be returned. That is what happened in Delaware. By the end of the war virtually all the slaves had left to enlist and could not be returned. Rather than let slavery die naturally, Lincoln, who  repeatedly said he favored continuation of slavery, fought a war to suppress the South and prevent them from seceding.

In sum, your belief that the Civil War was fought over slavery and that disagreement with the Civil War in some way suggests agreement with slavery is based on bad education, lies, misinformation, and propaganda that you probably learned in an American school. You did not get a good education, and I didn't either.


 In response to two political activists:

Dear     _________           :

 I have decided to disassociate myself from political activity.  Political activity requires some concern and common ground with the polity and the citizenry.  Having just read DiLorenzo’s Lincoln Unmasked and, worse, Jeffrey Hummel’s Emancipating Slaves, Enslaving Free Men, I have concluded that the United States is based on the false premise that a government can be derived from the barrel of a gun; consequently,  the American people and the American form of government are immoral; focusing concern or political emotion on them is misguided.  

The developments that occurred after the Civil War are a function of a people bent on violence, theft, and self-aggrandizement;  the establishment of the Federal Reserve Bank and Wall Street’s ongoing economic rape of the American people is a symptom of a deeper, underlying immorality on the American people’s part.  All con men know that it is greed that makes a mark susceptible to their cons.  Americans are those greedy marks.  

Americans have been satisfied with the violent compulsion that Lincoln imposed on the South (he did not oppose slavery, and four slave states fought on Lincoln’s side, which we are not told in in pro-government, progressive schools).  More generally, America is not a nation based on premises of freedom and consent of the governed; as a result, I do not support the current form of government, and I do not care what happens to an American people willing to use violence to impose their will on others.   I have zero interest in conservatism, in Republicans, in establishment candidates, or in opposing Andrew Cuomo with other, equal candidates.

Please remove me from your mailing list.

America No Longer a Free Country

The tipping point for freedom versus servitude is necessarily vague. Certainly, if we depend on the state for our livelihood, we cannot choose an alternative and so are not free. If James Turk's claim that 58% of Americans depend on some level of government for their livelihood is true, that means that the majority are no longer free. It is no longer a matter of choice as to how we make our living. Like slaves, the majority are compelled to live and die at the behest of masters.

Profit Margin on Slaves versus New York Tax Payers' Burden

I am not expert on economic history but I have a niggling feeling. The net profit margin on American slaves after deductions for their amortized cost and maintenance costs (food, rent, etc.) may have been less than New Yorkers' tax burden. The government gets a bigger percentage of your income than slave holders got as return from their investments in slaves. In New York, to be free from imprisonment and other forms of government violence you must ante up about half and for many more than half of your income in taxes to "the man." These include a large property tax burden that all homeowners regardless of income must pay and so falls hard on retirees; sales tax of about 8-9%; state income tax; city income tax if you live in Big Apple; and of course federal income tax. Did I leave out inflation, which is a wealth transfer device, premium taxes, capital gains taxes and death taxes? Of course, the New York Times owners, the Ochs Sulzbergers, have managed to dodge the last for five generations while advocating them for the middle class. And alas, dear reader, you can probably think of some additional ones, such as gasoline taxes.

Slavery existed from pre-historic times and many historians speculate that it was an economic and incidentally moral improvement over the earlier method of handling conquered tribes, namely, massacring them. Slavery is a horrific institution well beyond economic considerations. Nevertheless, it might be interesting to know whether federal, state and local government exploits its citizens economically to the same degree that slaves were exploited. Naturally, there are some government services that benefit citizens, such as defense, social security, roads and police. But a large share of government budgets is pure waste, pandering to special interests, support of inefficient and failed programs, make work jobs for powerful unions like the Service Employees International Union and pure corruption.

In conclusion, let us recall this 1966 Beatles' song from their Revolver album:



>Let me tell you how it will be;
There's one for you, nineteen for me.
'Cause I'm the taxman,
Yeah, I'm the taxman.

Should five per cent appear too small,
Be thankful I don't take it all.
'Cause I'm the taxman,
Yeah, I'm the taxman.
if you drive a car - I'll tax the street;
if you try to sit - I'll tax your seat;
if you get too cold - I'll tax the heat;
if you take a walk - I'll tax your feet.

Taxman
'Cause I'm the taxman,
Yeah, I'm the taxman.