The origins of the Great Compromise and Electoral College aren’t solely nor primarily resultant from concessions to slaveholders. The transcripts directlyfrom the period demonstrate that there is substantially more evidence that those decisions were primarily based in concerns for balancing the rights of people with state governance and that there is reason to avoid a tyranny of the majority.
Citing propaganda from bygone centuries is still just citing propaganda. I can cite opinions from that time as well; here’s what Madison said:
There was one difficulty however of a serious nature attending an immediate choice by the people. The right of suffrage was much more diffusive in the Northern than the Southern States; and the latter could have no influence in the election on the score of Negroes. The substitution of electors obviated this difficulty and seemed on the whole to be liable to the fewest objections.
In other words: because slavery. Even if you believe other factors were at play, the great compromise and electoral college would not look exactly the way they did if slavery were not a consideration. Slavery was at least a factor and, as such, both the great compromise and electoral college were and are moral failings.
It is neither arbitrary nor racist. The first-hand accounts on this subject are very specific as to a distrust in foreigners commanding our armed forces.
First-hand accounts from the time are irrelevant; their intentions at the time are a non-sequitur. This qualification for the presidency still exists today, and is, in practice, racist. I’ve demonstrated why quite clearly. It privileges white people and prevents an entire class of citizens who are disproportionately non-white from access to the highest office in the nation. Beyond that, it is a form of taxation without representation. Foreign-born Americans have to pay taxes just like everyone else, yet they cannot select one of their own to represent them in the highest office of government. This absolutely is arbitrary, because those people did nothing to earn this second-class status.
The intention isn’t born out of unsubstantiated fear of foreigners it is born out of consideration for the stakeholders.
Again, intentions aren’t relevant if something is racist in practice.
The racism argument here is that it is racist because there are more white people who are naturally-born citizens and therefore more likely to become president? But removing the requirement would just advantage another race — so how is that not equally racist?
Because white supremacy is real. Immigrant supremacy is not real.
Actually, when considering that white Americans are expected to be outnumbered in the coming decades and that for the majority of the international community mounting a Presidential campaign in America is untenable (that, if we consider income, the segment of the international community most likely to run is light-skinned), I would think that such a move to expand the field is actually more likely to undermine the influence of colored people.
There is no logical bridge between the first and last part of this sentence. Just because there will be fewer white people decades from now, and just because most immigrants lack the resources to mount a presidential campaign, this does not suggest removing this qualification will hurt people of color. (PS — if you’re going to call yourself progressive, at least get it right with regard to ‘people of color’ vs. ‘colored people.’)
If the definition of racism is anything that privileges one race over another then are we to consider HBCUs, the NAACP, Indian retirement communities, the Palestine Children’s relief fund, Islamic relief USA, the Ainu Association of Hokkaido, etc. to be racist? I honestly have a hard time subscribing to such definitions of racism (and sexism) that don’t maintain the requirement of an (unfounded) belief in superiority — that don’t consider intent. Without intent things that are meant to have a positive effect would logically be grouped with negative elements. It means that advertising or shopping spaces geared towards women is necessarily sexist simply because it differentiates between biological sex.
Again, white supremacy is real. Members of Indian retirement communities do not hold a disproportionate amount of representation in the United States government. White people do. Ergo, legislation to keep that intact is racist. If there is ever a serious push to have members of Indian retirement communities or members of the NAACP be the only people who can hold the office of president, I’ll obviously object.
Despite all of these ancillary points you have brought up, you still can’t make any argument for why this qualification should not be lifted. Do you not want to be able to choose the best candidate from among all potential candidates? Do you not acknowledge that it is at least possible for an immigrant to be a better candidate than any given natural-born citizen at any given point in time and, therefore, that it is illogical and counterproductive to limit Americans’ choice in the matter this way? What possible justification is there for retaining this now? All of your arguments are based on irrelevant things like the framers’ intentions, rather than what’s actually the best policy for Americans today.