How We Got Here - Post 4

Democracy Without Slavery (Sort of)

In Post 1 and 2, I discussed a lot about how American politics today are influenced by the debates of State's Right, tariffs, and slavery. Then in Post 3, I discussed how America transformed from a republic into a democracy and how the "culture wars" began. The Civil War is over, now and America is a democracy. Do I finally get to stop talking about slavery? Well sort of.

In the 3rd post, I stated that full democracy (for white males) was established in 1840 when the last state ended property requirements to vote. That's certainly how most historians describe it. However, I'm about to argue that this does not really happen until after the Civil War.

While I made a big deal about how the Electoral College gives a slight advantage to rural states (same as slave states at that time), there was another provision that gave slave states more power, the Three-Fifths Compromise. In all branches, the Constitution was written to give less populate (rural) states more representation than more populated (urban) ones. Here's what it looks like today, comparing the least populated, Wyoming, versus the most, California.

   Population Rep    Pop/Rep Ratio Elect  Pop/Elect Ratio
WY    585,501   1 585,501.00  1.26     3 195,167.00  3.66
CA 39,250,017  53 740,566.36  1.00    55 713,636.67  1.00

The House or Representatives was meant to be the most democratic, but still, a Wyoming vote counts as about 1.26 California votes. And as described before, the Electoral College is less representative. A Wyoming vote is worth 3.66 votes in California.^[1]

Now let's look at what happens when we use the Three-Fifths rule.^[2]

    Free Pop %Slaves Rep    Pop/Rep Ratio Elect  Pop/Elect Ratio
SC   301,302     57%   6  50,217.00  2.31     8  37,662.75  2.86
FL    15,090     44%   1  15,090.00  7.70     3   5,030.00 21.40
PA 2,906,215      0%  25 116,248.60  1.00    27 107,637.59  1.00

One vote in Florida counts as 7.7 and 21.4 votes in Pennsylvania because of their population of 44% slaves. Florida versus Pennsylvania of 1860 might be extreme, but then so is Wyoming versus California. If you need a better match consider South Carolina, not the lease populated state of the time but the one with the greatest percentage slave. While the Electoral College advantage is about the same, a South Carolinian vote was worth over double that of Pennsylvania in the House.

This advantage effectively ended with the 13th Amendment and was codified by the 14th and 15th Amendments. Removing the Three-Fifths Compromise actually increased the representation of southern states slightly (one is greater than three-fifths), but it greatly decreased the power of a white southerner. So, it's no wonder that white southerners felt like they were being oppressed.

Then again they were. The assassination of Lincoln and impeachment of Johnson redefined Reconstruction from the lenient gentle approach wished by Lincoln and Johnson to a more punitive one. On the bad side, that meant no leniency towards ex-Confederates, the removal of local governments, and occupation of the military. On the good side, that meant the protection of African Americans, including the destruction of the original KKK.

Talking about Reconstruction brings us into the same historic debate of preserving the Union versus fighting the injustice of slavery and white supremacy. But, I would like to put that off for now and describe the southern view of Reconstruction as I've come to understand it. Let me tell you about Lucas and Beauregard Duke.

They were just good men never wishing harm. Beyond what you’ve ever seen, they had trouble with the law since the day they were born. They were just good doing what they could. But, they stood against injustice and corruption like modern Robin Hoods.

Okay, enough of that. For those of you who haven’t caught on, I am talking about the 1970s TV show, The Dukes of Hazzard. The Duke brothers, under probation for moonshine-running, in the fictional Hazzard County of Georgia, continually thwarted the schemes of the corrupt county commissioner, Boss Hog. The show was really just an excuse for car stunts, a bit of southern country comedy, and daisy dukes. (Let me not forget the daisy dukes.) Now, there was nothing I see racist about this show. Boss Hog was even dressed in white. But, on top of the Dukes' car, there was a Confederate flag.

And while the Dukes of Hazzard was a show of the 1970s, that was the narrative of the Reconstruction and all the years after. The Confederate South was a defeated nation occupied by a hostile government. (Kind of true.) Weaken and vulnerable, it's people became the victims of northern exploitation and carpetbaggers. (Totally true.) Their leaders were failures and corrupt, so the only hope was the outlaw hero.

Many famous outlaws of the West, such as Jessie James, were ex-Confederate soldiers. (Often guerrilla fighters.) Disillusioned by the war, they used their skills as outlaws and became romanticized. It's become a standard American troupe. A veteran of a failed war wanders the country to become an outlaw hero. Think of Rambo, Jonah Hex, Firefly's Mal Reynolds, and even Jack Reacher.^[3] So, when southerners wave the Confederate flag, they're not idolizing rich slave owners, they're idolizing the outlaw hero. It is called the Rebel Flag after all.

Of course, there's the other side of the story. The first ten amendments, Bill of Rights, were passed two years after the Constitution was ratified. So, for 74 years (1791 to 1865) only two amendments had been added. However, the 13th, 14th, and 15th Amendments were passed in 5 years, which is a significant amount of change in a very short time. More importantly, these amendments expanded the power of the Federal government in a way the Founding Fathers had never expected.

I already mentioned how these three amendments significantly reduced the power of 'rural' states, but they also turned on its head the idea of states themselves. The Nullification Crisis had removed the idea that a state could countermand the Federal Government. The Civil War had destroyed the idea that states have any sovereignty. These three amendments and what was to follow ended the idea that local governments protect our rights.

When established, the Founding Fathers expected that the states would protect the rights of an individual against the government, just as the Separation of Powers would. But, that's not what happened. States did not end slavery, the Federal Government did. And states were not going to protect freedmen so the Federal Government would have to. Yes, Reconstruction did open the South to exploitation, but it also expanded and protected the rights of non-whites. The Federal Government was the expander and protector of Civil Rights. The states were the oppressors.

Reconstruction ended with the Compromise of 1877 and fell short of what was hoped. The South never fully economically recovered as the more lenient Republicans wanted. While you would not describe southern states as destitute, they are still less wealthy than northern states, and Reconstruction is one of the reasons. For the more stern Republicans who wanted to bring African-Americans to full enfranchisement, once Reconstruction ended persecution soon returned, and has only recently been pushed back. (Many, including myself, feel we have to remain vigilant).

And what about the Democrats. Well, most had been participants and leaders of the Civil War, so the party did not regain political influence until Reconstruction ended. Remember how I told you white supremacy had become a part of the democrat movement with Jackson, well that became an even more significant part of the Democratic Party. Redeemer democrats soon enacted Jim Crow laws that suppressed the African-American vote. Once again the white southerner gained the oversized representation they had with the Three-Fifths rule. The Democratic party embraced the contradiction. On one hand, they remained the party of the common man, but they were also the party of white supremacists. The Republicans, on the other hand, was the Party of Lincoln and at the same time the party of big business exploiting the common man.

I've talked a lot about State's Rights and slavery so far. This is the end I was reaching for. After the Civil War, slavery ended and State's Rights became either arcane legalese or just a political talking point. What did live on, however, was the Dukes of Hazzard myth, which is how many "rural" voters see themselves. They are outlaw heroes and the victims of oppression. What big government claims as good is just taking away from the hard working to give to the corrupt and less deserving. As for racism, that's just something city slickers and hippies come up with to take advantage of real Americans.

For many "urban" voters, they see themselves as the activist heroes, the descendants of abolitionists. They understand the government does not oppress men as much as men oppress other men. Those "rural" voters just don't understand the true nature of progress.

Which party would adopt which myths switched and mangle over time, but if you listen, you will hear these stories retold today.