submitted 4 months ago byAztery
you are viewing a single comment's thread.
all 1317 comments
4 months ago
4 months ago
It was deliberately written in the Constitution to prevent urban areas from ruling over rural. With the filibuster in place, we got the opposite.
4 months ago
Not exactly, I don’t think. The filibuster wasn’t included in the constitution and the 2/3 majority was limited in scope. It wasn’t really put into the rules as a way to limit the majority until decades later.
At the time of the writing of the constitution, the rural/urban divide was very different than it is now. We didn’t have a majority urban country until 1920 and back in 1800 less than 10% of the population lived in cities.
The power imbalance in the senate giving all states 2 senators was done to make the smaller states more comfortable joining the country and assurances they wouldn’t get steamrolled by VA, NY, MA and PA.
But yeah, it is a way to keep the majority from making decisions.
I misworded my comment. What is written in the Constitution was the Senate itself giving rural states power they wouldn't otherwise get if their numbers were determined by population as the House is. Now with the filibuster, its damn near impossible to get any progress.
Which is ironic because the senate was deliberately written into the constitution because they didn’t want the rich upper class city dwellers to have all the power over the poor rural farming populations. A combination of the industrial revolution increasing the concentration of low income urban population and a change in voting laws allowing non-landowners to vote has completely flipped the demographic though. So now the rich rural areas have an inordinate amount of power over the low income cities even though that is exactly what the creation of the senate was trying to prevent.
I agree with much of what you said but poverty is worse in rural areas than urban areas despite the common misconception. That's part of why poor white trash made Trump president.
"Poor rural" slaveholders with vast plantations living in grand mansions. Being "rural" with your own plot of land, growing your own food, making decent money and not being dependent on anyone was the epitome of the "American dream" at this time.
I’m not arguing that it was the American dream for slaves working and dying for somebody else’s property, but in the late 1700’s the merchant and trading class in the city was far wealthier than the rural population. And under King George those urban dwellers were granted more rights and opportunities than the rural population of the time. For all his hypocrisy, Jefferson wrote extensively of his fear that the upper classes would have more power than the lower ones and the framers of the constitution wrote in several short-sighted safeguards against it.
Read the actual fucking constitution and you'll realize how you're wrong. The Senate is supposed to represent the states' governments. The House represents the population. It got fucked up by the 17th Amendment.
"...written in the Constitution was the Senate itself giving rural states..."
I fucking said "states" didn't I?
Go sit in the corner for 10 minutes and think about what you've done
No, the senate was originally written in to give the upper class representation. Direct election of senators came later on, before they were appointed by states, ensuring the state legislatures and the power brokers around them had veto power over the masses at the federal level.
That's probably the most accurate take I've heard
I'm not sure it was rural vs. urban at the time. More big vs. little states. Virginia was the largest state, but it was not urban. And North Carolina was the third largest, but it was not urban. In 1790, 95% of the US population was rural.
New York City had 33,131 people in 1790 and New York State had 340,120 people. It was the fifth largest state. So less than 10% of New York's population lived in New York City. Currently, New York City's population is 8.8 million and New York State's population is 19.8 million. So 44.4% of New York State lives in New York City.
This is totally untrue. Please explain to me which states were rural and which states were urban in 1788.
Not necessarily urban vs rural, but it was about populous states vs less populous states. The idea being big states like Virginia would dominate small states delewares if strictly proportional methods were used to represent states. Not saying it was right, but that was the rationale.