The Swamp logo

The Power of Our Vote

How this election showed how divided we are as a country, and why!

By Joseph Williams JrPublished 3 years ago 25 min read
3
POTUS 46

I was driving with my wife down Main Street when we heard over the radio that Joseph Biden was Elected at the 46th President of the United States. As I continued to drive, I began to cry. The feeling of anxiety I have been feeling for the past few months was finally lifted. Knowing that the possibility of having a President who will not continually use social media to deliver hate, lies and throw feces against the wall will be gone.

And as much as this news filled my heart with joy. It showed me that half of my fellow Americans really believe that the current President is the man they want to stay as the leader of our country.

I listen to reports that say it’s because “he is a great businessman, he talked to me, he understands me, he keeps his promises.

When looking into this, I reflect on the movie Star Trek VI: The Undiscovered Country, at the core of the film I think really applies to what we are going through now here in the US. And it is what Captain Kirk says at this moment bring clarity to what we are feeling.

Star Trek IV

He says, “It's about the future, Madam Chancellor. Some people think the future means the end of history. But we haven't run out of history just yet. Your father called the future - "the undiscovered country"... People can be very frightened of change.”

And this is where we are right now.

A moment in American History that is in so much flux and change. The core Trump voter is afraid of that our country may look like in the future. So, what does that leave them to grab on to?

A Presidential Candidate that tells them that they can make America to what they believe is Great, Again! And how does he do that? You tell them what they had Yesterday is the key. You tell suburban housewives that he is working to get their husbands back to work again!(Husbands!) Now how far is he talking about taking America back too? The Sixties? The Fifties? When you keep going back, you begin the remember that those years wasn’t to rosy for Black Americans. And that is putting very lightly.

When you look at what is driving the sitting president, you see that he is drunk with the power of the office. Considering his personality, you can see why. But what does his actions say about those that are sitting on the sidelines watching this happen.

The Presidency is part of the three-part system for the governing of our country. There is supposed to be co-equal branches and provide a check on each other. The Republicans in the Senate and The House of Representatives are putting their own desire of power and control before securing the fundamentals of our government and democracy. So why is the house burning tactics they are employing so important to the republican party. They fear of what the future holds if the inclusion of all Americans (different ethnicities) would do to our country. That is because if you really look at it, it is very simple. The White American power structure is very important to making sure this does not happen. And in Donald Trump, they have the poster boy of White male grievance. He keeps screaming out they are treating me unfairly. His messaging is all bout him. But what he is talking about is felt throughout most of his base. Even though, most of his supporters are White Americans, you can say that he does have support from Blacks, Hispanics and other minorities. There are many reasons they support him and resonate with this messaging. The reasoning is very different between the groups. But we need to stay on why this white male grievance, because it is very important to what they are trying to do. It is very simple to see. They want and wish America to remain in the control of White Americans Only.

This is a feeling that goes all the way back to when the country was young and new. White Europeans game over and took control of the land they saw here. They cleared the lands of the natural inhabitants so they could spread out. It then reached a point in this expansion that they didn’t what to listen to The King of Britain and wanted to set up their own lives apart from him.

During this expansion, they relied on the labors of Black Africans as slaves. To do the work they needed to have done. Treatment of slaves was characterized by degradation, rape, brutality, and the lack of basic freedoms. Punishment was often meted out in response to disobedience or perceived infractions, but sometimes abuse was carried out simply to reassert the dominance of the master or overseer.

Slaveholders whipped, shackled, hanged, beat, burned, mutilated, branded, and imprisoned slaves. Slave women were often subject to rape and sexual abuse.

The offspring of slave women with a man of any race were born into slavery, resulting in many mixed races, or mulatto, slaves. In contrast, many Southern societies strongly prohibited sexual relations between white women and black men to maintain “racial purity.”

And like all things, there was a division within the White Community. The good all North and South division. The Africans freed and reside in the northern states where freed and in the south, they where still held in servitude.

When it came to the point in history which lead to the crafting of the Constitution. This division what discussed. In establishing The Apportionment of Members among the states, they based this on the population of each states. There was great debate on how to do this. There was a series of article written by Alexander Hamilton and James Madison known as The Federalist papers. These articles are what many believe are the working arguments in fleshing out the Constitution to gain support for the New Constitution. I think every American, White, Black, Hispanic, Asian, every single one of us need to read what is written in these pages. This will help all of us to understand what the grounding foundation is for The Constitution. And why it is important for all of us.

At this moment, I want to concentrate on Article 54 – The Apportionment of Members Among the States. It reads like this:

The Federalist No 54

The Apportionment of Members Among the States

From the New York Packet.

Tuesday, February 12, 1788.

Author: Alexander Hamilton or James Madison

To the People of the State of New York:

THE next view which I shall take of the House of Representatives relates to the appointment of its members to the several States which is to be determined by the same rule with that of direct taxes. It is not contended that the number of people in each State ought not to be the standard for regulating the proportion of those who are to represent the people of each State. The establishment of the same rule for the appointment of taxes, will probably be as little contested; though the rule itself in this case, is by no means founded on the same principle. In the former case, the rule is understood to refer to the personal rights of the people, with which it has a natural and universal connection.

In the latter, it has reference to the proportion of wealth, of which it is in no case a precise measure, and in ordinary cases a very unfit one. But notwithstanding the imperfection of the rule as applied to the relative wealth and contributions of the States, it is evidently the least objectionable among the practicable rules, and had too recently obtained the general sanction of America, not to have found a ready preference with the convention. All this is admitted, it will perhaps be said; but does it follow, from an admission of numbers for the measure of representation, or of slaves combined with free citizens as a ratio of taxation, that slaves ought to be included in the numerical rule of representation? Slaves are considered as property, not as persons.

They ought therefore to be comprehended in estimates of taxation which are founded on property, and to be excluded from representation which is regulated by a census of persons. This is the objection, as I understand it, stated in its full force. I shall be equally candid in stating the reasoning which may be offered on the opposite side. "We subscribe to the doctrine," might one of our Southern brethren observe, "that representation relates more immediately to persons, and taxation more immediately to property, and we join in the application of this distinction to the case of our slaves. But we must deny the fact, that slaves are considered merely as property, and in no respect whatever as persons. The true state of the case is, that they partake of both these qualities: being considered by our laws, in some respects, as persons, and in other respects as property. In being compelled to labor, not for himself, but for a master; in being vendible by one master to another master; and in being subject at all times to be restrained in his liberty and chastised in his body, by the capricious will of another, the slave may appear to be degraded from the human rank, and classed with those irrational animals which fall under the legal denomination of property. In being protected, on the other hand, in his life and in his limbs, against the violence of all others, even the master of his labor and his liberty; and in being punishable himself for all violence committed against others, the slave is no less evidently regarded by the law as a member of the society, not as a part of the irrational creation; as a moral person, not as a mere article of property.

The federal Constitution, therefore, decides with great propriety on the case of our slaves, when it views them in the mixed character of persons and of property. This is in fact their true character. It is the character bestowed on them by the laws under which they live; and it will not be denied, that these are the proper criterion; because it is only under the pretext that the laws have transformed the negroes into subjects of property, that a place is disputed them in the computation of numbers; and it is admitted, that if the laws were to restore the rights which have been taken away, the negroes could no longer be refused an equal share of representation with the other inhabitants. "This question may be placed in another light. It is agreed on all sides, that numbers are the best scale of wealth and taxation, as they are the only proper scale of representation. Would the convention have been impartial or consistent, if they had rejected the slaves from the list of inhabitants, when the shares of representation were to be calculated, and inserted them on the lists when the tariff of contributions was to be adjusted? Could it be reasonably expected, that the Southern States would concur in a system, which considered their slaves in some degree as men, when burdens were to be imposed, but refused to consider them in the same light, when advantages were to be conferred? Might not some surprise also be expressed, that those who reproach the Southern States with the barbarous policy of considering as property a part of their human brethren, should themselves contend, that the government to which all the States are to be parties, ought to consider this unfortunate race more completely in the unnatural light of property, than the very laws of which they complain? "It may be replied, perhaps, that slaves are not included in the estimate of representatives in any of the States possessing them. They neither vote themselves nor increase the votes of their masters. Upon what principle, then, ought they to be taken into the federal estimate of representation? In rejecting them altogether, the Constitution would, in this respect, have followed the very laws which have been appealed to as the proper guide. "This objection is repelled by a single observation. It is a fundamental principle of the proposed Constitution, that as the aggregate number of representatives allotted to the several States is to be determined by a federal rule, founded on the aggregate number of inhabitants, so the right of choosing this allotted number in each State is to be exercised by such part of the inhabitants as the State itself may designate. The qualifications on which the right of suffrage depend are not, perhaps, the same in any two States. In some of the States the difference is very material. In every State, a certain proportion of inhabitants are deprived of this right by the constitution of the State, who will be included in the census by which the federal Constitution apportions the representatives. In this point of view the Southern States might retort the complaint, by insisting that the principle laid down by the convention required that no regard should be had to the policy of particular States towards their own inhabitants; and consequently, that the slaves, as inhabitants, should have been admitted into the census according to their full number, in like manner with other inhabitants, who, by the policy of other States, are not admitted to all the rights of citizens. A rigorous adherence, however, to this principle, is waived by those who would be gainers by it. All that they ask is that equal moderation be shown on the other side. Let the case of the slaves be considered, as it is in truth, a peculiar one. Let the compromising expedient of the Constitution be mutually adopted, which regards them as inhabitants, but as debased by servitude below the equal level of free inhabitants, which regards the SLAVE as divested of two fifths of the MAN. "After all, may not another ground be taken on which this article of the Constitution will admit of a still more ready defense? We have hitherto proceeded on the idea that representation related to persons only, and not at all to property.

But is it a just idea?

Government is instituted no less for protection of the property, than of the persons, of individuals. The one as well as the other, therefore, may be considered as represented by those who are charged with the government. Upon this principle it is, that in several of the States, and particularly in the State of New York, one branch of the government is intended more especially to be the guardian of property, and is accordingly elected by that part of the society which is most interested in this object of government. In the federal Constitution, this policy does not prevail. The rights of property are committed into the same hands with the personal rights. Some attention ought, therefore, to be paid to property in the choice of those hands. "For another reason, the votes allowed in the federal legislature to the people of each State, ought to bear some proportion to the comparative wealth of the States. States have not, like individuals, an influence over each other, arising from superior advantages of fortune. If the law allows an opulent citizen but a single vote in the choice of his representative, the respect and consequence which he derives from his fortunate situation very frequently guide the votes of others to the objects of his choice; and through this imperceptible channel the rights of property are conveyed into the public representation. A State possesses no such influence over other States. It is not probable that the richest State in the Confederacy will ever influence the choice of a single representative in any other State. Nor will the representatives of the larger and richer States possess any other advantage in the federal legislature, over the representatives of other States, than what may result from their superior number alone. As far, therefore, as their superior wealth and weight may justly entitle them to any advantage, it ought to be secured to them by a superior share of representation. The new Constitution is, in this respect, materially different from the existing Confederation, as well as from that of the United Netherlands, and other similar confederacies. In each of the latter, the efficacy of the federal resolutions depends on the subsequent and voluntary resolutions of the states composing the union. Hence the states, though possessing an equal vote in the public councils, have an unequal influence, corresponding with the unequal importance of these subsequent and voluntary resolutions. Under the proposed Constitution, the federal acts will take effect without the necessary intervention of the individual States. They will depend merely on the majority of votes in the federal legislature, and consequently each vote, whether proceeding from a larger or smaller State, or a State more or less wealthy or powerful, will have an equal weight and efficacy: in the same manner as the votes individually given in a State legislature, by the representatives of unequal counties or other districts, have each a precise equality of value and effect; or if there be any difference in the case, it proceeds from the difference in the personal character of the individual representative, rather than from any regard to the extent of the district from which he comes. "Such is the reasoning which an advocate for the Southern interests might employ on this subject; and although it may appear to be a little strained in some points, yet, on the whole, I must confess that it fully reconciles me to the scale of representation which the convention have established. In one respect, the establishment of a common measure for representation and taxation will have a very salutary effect. As the accuracy of the census to be obtained by the Congress will necessarily depend, in a considerable degree on the disposition, if not on the co-operation, of the States, it is of great importance that the States should feel as little bias as possible, to swell or to reduce the amount of their numbers. Were their share of representation alone to be governed by this rule, they would have an interest in exaggerating their inhabitants. Were the rule to decide their share of taxation alone, a contrary temptation would prevail. By extending the rule to both objects, the States will have opposite interests, which will control and balance each other, and produce the requisite impartiality.

So, in reading this, it comes down to the brass taxes of representation. The South wanted their slaves counted, to be counted as full citizens by numbers to give them the upper hand in regards selecting their number of representatives in the new congress.

And this where it happens.

The great Compromises.

The great 3/5th compromised.

The Three-Fifths Compromise is arguably the most controversial decisions in regard to the formation of our constitution, for its delegates that all slaves of a state are to be counted as three-fifths of a white person. The population of slaves would be counted as three-fifths in total when apportioning Representatives, as well as Presidential electors and taxes.

Now I would like you to really think about this notion. To put into the constitution at the creation of this country. That they will devalue black people by two fifths in the matter of awarding representatives in their respective southern states. Now if you can just push aside the idea of representing. From the moment of identifying that a Black individual is considered less than a white individual. Now, before this was debated there was already the understanding that the black slaves are to serve their white masters. That is already indoctrinated in-their societal hierarchy. Then, this is now established and written into the constitution. The white slave owners had children. They taught their children what they are to do and how to treat slaves. To run the plantation. And to remind you how they were treated, Slaveholders whipped, shackled, hanged, beat, burned, mutilated, branded, and imprisoned slaves. Slave women were often subject to rape and sexual abuse.

This indoctrination in the lives of their children, that Black people are less than white people is passed down from generation to generation. This imparted in them the idea that white people in this country rule the this country. No one is equal to them. And instills a sense of privilege that no one can take from them and what no one else deserves.

So as the country progressed and grew, the mindset of a growing community that equality should be given to all. I truly believe that the constitution was written as a way to course correct, the direction the country was heading. A way for the country to grow and evolve.

But this idea of inclusion has not resonated to many in the white community. This was evident in what is known as the Jim Crow era.

And to enforce this even more in the black slave community, the enforcement mechanism of men who formed back then, Slave Patrols. And they had rules for Slaves to follow or they will be repercussions for not following them.

And this was just an example of what they had to follow:

Established in a Patrol Regulation for one town read like this:

Rule 1 – Slaves residing in the country whose owners, Masters or mistresses for the time being do not live in town, other than such as have wives in town, shall not come to town on the sabbath day, unless to attend church, or in the night time without written permission from their owners, masters or mistresses for the time being, such permission stating the place or places such slaves shall visit- Provided that they may at all times come to town, in the business of their owner, master or mistresses for the time being, without written permissions.

Rule 2 - No slave after the hour of nine P.M., (a reasonable time being allowed for him and her to get home or to the place designated in his or her written permission after the ringing of the bell. Shall be on the streets, or absent from the premises of his or her owner, master or mistresses for the time being, or the premises of the owner, master or mistresses for the time being, of his wife – or the premises of the person, where he may be authorized by his written permission to go – unless he or she be on the business of his or her owner or master or mistress for the time being.

Rule 3 – if any slave shall violate the foregoing rules, the patrol shall have power and shall be their duty (any two of their number being present) to whip the said slave, either at the time of the offence being committed or at any time within three months the after, the number of stripes not to exceed fifteen, unless the said slave shall be guilty or insolent behavior or make his escape from the patrol in either of which cases the number of stripes shall not exceed thirty-nine.

This is what black people had to live with. This is the degradation they had to be submit to. And these slave patrols, in a way, they still exist today. Because these slave patrols was the blueprint for what is our current policing system.

According to Victor E. Kappeler, Ph.D., He wrote in his essay, A Brief History of Slavery and the Origins of American Policing he writes –“ The birth and development of the American police can be traced to a multitude of historical, legal and political-economic conditions. The institution of slavery and the control of minorities, however, were two of the more formidable historic features of American society shaping early policing. Slave patrols and Night Watches, which later became modern police departments, were both designed to control the behaviors of minorities”. He continues to note “Slave patrols helped to maintain the economic order and to assist the wealthy landowners in recovering and punishing slaves who essentially were considered property.”

Policing was not the only social institution enmeshed in slavery. Slavery was fully institutionalized in the American economic and legal order with laws being enacted at both the state and national divisions of government. Virginia, for example, enacted more than 130 slave statutes between 1689 and 1865. Slavery and the abuse of people of color, however, was not merely a southern affair as many have been taught to believe. Connecticut, New York and other colonies enacted laws to criminalize and control slaves. Congress also passed fugitive Slave Laws, laws allowing the detention and return of escaped slaves, in 1793 and 1850. As Turner, Giacopassi and Vandiver (2006:186) remark, “the literature clearly establishes that a legally sanctioned law enforcement system existed in America before the Civil War for the express purpose of controlling the slave population and protecting the interests of slave owners. The similarities between the slave patrols and modern American policing are too salient to dismiss or ignore. Hence, the slave patrol should be considered a forerunner of modern American law enforcement.”

The legacy of slavery and racism did not end after the Civil War. In fact it can be argued that extreme violence against people of color became even worse with the rise of vigilante groups who resisted Reconstruction. Because vigilantes, by definition, have no external restraints, lynch mobs had a justified reputation for hanging minorities first and asking questions later. Because of its tradition of slavery, which rested on the racist rationalization that Blacks were sub-human, America had a long and shameful history of mistreating people of color, long after the end of the Civil War. Perhaps the most infamous American vigilante group, the Ku Klux Klan started in the 1860s, was notorious for assaulting and lynching Black men for transgressions that would not be considered crimes at all, had a White man committed them. Lynching occurred across the entire county not just in the South. Finally, in 1871 Congress passed the Ku Klux Klan Act, which prohibited state actors from violating the Civil Rights of all citizens in part because of law enforcements’ involvement with the infamous group. This legislation, however, did not stem the tide of racial or ethnic abuse that persisted well into the 1960s.

Though having white skin did not prevent discrimination in America, being White undoubtedly made it easier for ethnic minorities to assimilate into the mainstream of America. The additional burden of racism has made that transition much more difficult for those whose skin is black, brown, red, or yellow. In no small part because of the tradition of slavery, Blacks have long been targets of abuse. The use of patrols to capture runaway slaves was one of the precursors of formal police forces, especially in the South. This disastrous legacy persisted as an element of the police role even after the passage of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. In some cases, police harassment simply meant people of African descent were more likely to be stopped and questioned by the police, while at the other extreme, they have suffered beatings, and even murder, at the hands of White police. Questions still arise today about the disproportionately high numbers of people of African descent killed, beaten, and arrested by police in major urban cities of America.

And since this paper was written, the amount of Black deaths at the hands of Police Officers have continue to grow. From Eric Garner to Breonna Taylor to George Floyd and the names continue to be added to that list. The reaction to the death of black Americans, and they are Americans! Have to cause us to consider, do White Americans still consider Black Americans at 3/5th a person. Yes we have the emancipation proclamation, the Voting Rights Act, all aimed to level the playing field. But if the white community see the act of leveling the playing field as going down to the level of a Black Person, and Blacks and minorities are looking to raise the bar to be equal to a white person. We will continue to not see eye to eye on what it will take for all of us here in The United States to the equal. And this is where we are when it comes to voting. The Republican believe and President Trump believes this, "if everyone votes, Republicans will never be voted back in office." This is why they continue to find ways to prevent all people the ability to vote. And The President is still working on trying to get votes thrown out in certain states in the hopes this will allow him to do a end run and find a way to win the election. Taking it from Joe Biden.

So the fear of enacting policies that would help all people, White, Black, Spanish, Oriental and more would be a good way to get people to believe in you and want to vote for you. But that is not what the Republicans want to do. Their policies are directed to empower rich White Americans and disenfranchise Black people and all that are not like them. No one wants a hand out. Everyone works hard to get what they feel they deserve. Not out of entitlement, but what they feel they are worth.

If we are all running the same race, we all should be on the starting line at the same time, black people should not be standing two steps back. And if there is to be a full engagement in the political process, then all votes should be counted. Laws should not be put in place to make it difficult.

Fear of change is what causing this continual division in our country. But it is this diversity that makes our country the strongest in the world. And that is why we have always been the country every other nation aspire to be.

At least before 2017.

And though there was movement forward to work toward a society of inclusion, politicians have worked very hard to limit these rights. And this has become to face of what the Republican banner has embraced.

voting
3

About the Creator

Joseph Williams Jr

Reader insights

Be the first to share your insights about this piece.

How does it work?

Add your insights

Comments

There are no comments for this story

Be the first to respond and start the conversation.

Sign in to comment

    Find us on social media

    Miscellaneous links

    • Explore
    • Contact
    • Privacy Policy
    • Terms of Use
    • Support

    © 2024 Creatd, Inc. All Rights Reserved.