Not to protect slave states. Sorry to make you cry.Most important, once the possibility of direct popular election of the president was defeated, how much did the slaveholding states rush to support the concept of presidential electors? Not at all. In the initial vote over having electors select the president, the only states voting “nay” were North Carolina, South Carolina and Georgia — the three most ardently proslavery states in the convention.
But elections were pure then. Right?When it first took shape at the convention, the Electoral College would not have significantly helped the slaveowning states. Under the initial apportionment of the House approved by the framers, the slaveholding states would have held 39 out of 92 electoral votes, or about 42 percent. Based on the 1790 census, about 41 percent of the nation’s total white population lived in those same states, a minuscule difference. Moreover, the convention did not arrive at the formula of combining each state’s House and Senate numbers until very late in its proceedings, and there is no evidence to suggest that slavery had anything to do with it.
The more things change ...But didn’t the college, whatever the framers’ intentions, eventually become a bulwark for what Northerners would later call the illegitimate slave power? Not really. Some historians have revived an old partisan canard that the slaveholding states’ extra electoral votes unfairly handed Thomas Jefferson the presidency in 1800-01. They ignore anti-Jefferson manipulation of the electoral vote in heavily pro-Jefferson Pennsylvania that offset the Southerners’ electoral advantage. Take away that manipulation, and Jefferson would have won with or without the extra Southern votes.
Anyway, read the whole piece, it's short and well within your attention span.But the myth that the Electoral College began as a slaveholders’ instrument needs debunking —
https://www.nytimes.com/2019/04/04/opin ... e=Homepage
eta: Why this is true:
1- the author includes an obligatory dig at Trump viz.
2- the author is evidentially a jewish liberal proven by both... the system enabled the election in 2016 of precisely the kind of demagogic figure the framers designed the system to block
- his name Sean Wilentz
- his bald faced attempt to shill more books:
3- he is at an Ivy League den of dripping liberalism:which I hope to help with in my book’s revised paperback.
Brought to you as a Public Service by the management of Lake Ed "The Vivarium of all that is Exotic and Man-Eating"Sean Wilentz is a professor of history at Princeton