• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Fair voting, election guidelines and separation of powers

WHAT IS MEANT BY THE POPULAR VOTE?

What you seem to have missed from Civics class:

The Electoral college was designed to incorporate both the representation of the citizens and the representation of the states, which is why it seems lopsided in low population states. It is by design.

Any argument against the Electoral college is, by default, an argument against the Senate. Both create lopsided representation for low population states. But again, that is as designed.

Bollocks. You really need a course in American history!

The Electoral College, which decides the presidential elections, was slapped together by southern-states and foisted upon the north in order to obtain and sign a Constitution. Elements of the 12th Amendment that bonifies the Electoral College are to be found in the Constitution itself as signed in 1787.

You insist therefore in believing the crapola that the Constitution is like the Bible, handed down by God himself and therefore irrefutable. Wrong!

It's an historic document, and shows how the country was first formulated under pressure by southern-states to maintain slavery (which was the bedrock of their economy producing cotton for British and north American mills to make into cloth at the time a foremost necessity). It remains an historic document that is the backbone of our present democracy - but it is not a "patent".

It has mistakes and omissions that were later amended, but not all of them.

How so? With an Electoral College giving the southern-states the opportunity more votes than those states would EVER obtain in a popular-vote that was run uniformly and exclusively by a National Election Board across all american states at the time. (The means of communicating state presidential voting outcomes to Congress in DC was perilous at the end of the 18th century and the beginning of the 19th.)

What is meant by "popular-vote"? This:
In representative democracy, the popular vote is the total number or percentage of votes received by a party, candidate or group of candidates, as opposed to the number of seats they win in an election of a nation's Representative Legislatures or Executive (President or Prime Minister).

Today that popular-vote in the US is manipulated in two ways:
*By gerrymandering the vote for state-wide electoral office, and
*By the presidential-vote Electoral College that manipulates the ratio of popular-votes per EC-elector from state to state.

Gerrymandering exists since introduced in Massachusetts in 1812. As regards the latter, our founding-fathers originally established it in the Constitution as a compromise between election of the President by a vote in Congress and election of the President by a popular vote of qualified citizens. It was modified by means of the 12th Amendment into its present form. Which must be the longest historical-mistake of any "supposed democracy" on earth.

If depicted on a map where total-square feet size of a state were replaced by electoral-college vote percentages, t
he distortion of the popular-vote by the Electoral College would look like this:

bbelectoral_custom-d606bb11d654271171c21c20deddf6e9ae145098-s900-c85.jpg


Meaning Gerrymandering and the Electoral College are not only a corruptive distortions of election-voting reality, but also a fraud of the nation's democracy. Which is why the Electoral College must be discarded - and like every other democracy on earth today - replaced by a simple national popular-vote that decides the presidential election outcome ...
 
Last edited:
Your right, the word "democracy" is not written into the Constitution, there is a reason for that, we are not a democracy. However, the word Republic is written into the Constitution, Article 4 sec. 4. .

You are only the hundredth person on this forum to have stated the above inanity. "We are not democracy" is simply crapola promoted by idiots who do not understand the formation of American democracy (and refuse it in order to believe first-and-foremost in preferential local control of legislation).

The US is first and foremost a "supposed democracy"
and then by consequence a Republic constituted geographically of states. The EU today is the same thing but no citizen senses a profound necessity to call the EU also a "republic". Because though the EU is a collection of states, it also has a non-constitutional (since there is none) Legislature which governs its law-making pertinent to all states.

The Executive head-of-government in the US is called the PotUS; but in any European country the head of the majority party in its Legislature (Congress) is considered the Executive. That is the fundamental-difference between the democracies of the US and the European Union.

The representation of any democracy requires different levels as in City, State, Nation. Thus is necessary to assure that all constituents sense their duty to vote elected representatives at each level. But as regards lawmaking, all countries have and maintain "hierarchies" of governance for each level of City, State and Nation.

This is the real and only true nature of any democracy - whether said democracy exists presently in a Kingdom or a Nation or a nation that prefers to call itself a Republic*. In America, the "state" is geographical representation on a map of boundaries. National law in the US prevails over state-law for matters that are pertinent to all citizens regardless of where they live.

*Republic: late 16th century from French république, itself from Latin respublica. Thus from res meaning ‘entity or concern’ + publicus meaning ‘of the people, or public’. (Nothing in the definition of "republic" infers a hierarchy of dominance as regards importance afforded the "individual-state over the nation-of-states".)
 
Last edited:
WHAT IS MEANT BY THE POPULAR VOTE?



Bollocks. You really need a course in American history!

The Electoral College, which decides the presidential elections, was slapped together by southern-states and foisted upon the north in order to obtain and sign a Constitution. Elements of the 12th Amendment that bonifies the Electoral College are to be found in the Constitution itself as signed in 1787.

You insist therefore in believing the crapola that the Constitution is like the Bible, handed down by God himself and therefore irrefutable. Wrong!

It's an historic document, and shows how the country was first formulated under pressure by southern-states to maintain slavery (which was the bedrock of their economy producing cotton for British and north American mills to make into cloth at the time a foremost necessity). It remains an historic document that is the backbone of our present democracy - but it is not a "patent".

It has mistakes and omissions that were later amended, but not all of them.

How so? With an Electoral College giving the southern-states the opportunity more votes than those states would EVER obtain in a popular-vote that was run uniformly and exclusively by a National Election Board across all american states at the time. (The means of communicating state presidential voting outcomes to Congress in DC was perilous at the end of the 18th century and the beginning of the 19th.)

What is meant by "popular-vote"? This:

Today that popular-vote in the US is manipulated in two ways:
*By gerrymandering the vote for state-wide electoral office, and
*By the presidential-vote Electoral College that manipulates the ratio of popular-votes per EC-elector from state to state.

Gerrymandering exists since introduced in Massachusetts in 1812. As regards the latter, our founding-fathers originally established it in the Constitution as a compromise between election of the President by a vote in Congress and election of the President by a popular vote of qualified citizens. It was modified by means of the 12th Amendment into its present form. Which must be the longest historical-mistake of any "supposed democracy" on earth.

If depicted on a map where total-square feet size of a state were replaced by electoral-college vote percentages, t
he distortion of the popular-vote by the Electoral College would look like this:

bbelectoral_custom-d606bb11d654271171c21c20deddf6e9ae145098-s900-c85.jpg


Meaning Gerrymandering and the Electoral College are not only a corruptive distortions of election-voting reality, but also a fraud of the nation's democracy. Which is why the Electoral College must be discarded - and like every other democracy on earth today - replaced by a simple national popular-vote that decides the presidential election outcome ...



LOL!!! You could have just typed "You are right, Jmotivator" and accomplished the same task.

Your history of the US Constitution being flawed and not the word of God is rather pointless given that you and I can't argue the merits of the Twelfth Amendment without first agreeing on the existence of constitutional amendments... which are changes to the Constitution.

And how did you loop gerrymandering into this argument? Gerrymandering does absolutely nothing to the outcome of a presidential election. Ironically, though, it actually would have an impact on presidential elections if there was no Twelfth Amendment.

House seat apportionment, and therefor population based EC apportionment, is based on the census.... how have you gotten it so broken in your brain that gerrymandering would ever effect a state's population, and therefor EC representation? :roll:

You clearly don't understand the US law as well as you think you do.
 
You are only the hundredth person on this forum to have stated the above inanity. "We are not democracy" is simply crapola promoted by idiots who do not understand the formation of American democracy (and refuse it in order to believe first-and-foremost in preferential local control of legislation).

The US is first and foremost a "supposed democracy"
and then by consequence a Republic constituted geographically of states. The EU today is the same thing but no citizen senses a profound necessity to call the EU also a "republic". Because though the EU is a collection of states, it also has a non-constitutional (since there is none) Legislature which governs its law-making pertinent to all states.

The Executive head-of-government in the US is called the PotUS; but in any European country the head of the majority party in its Legislature (Congress) is considered the Executive. That is the fundamental-difference between the democracies of the US and the European Union.

The representation of any democracy requires different levels as in City, State, Nation. Thus is necessary to assure that all constituents sense their duty to vote elected representatives at each level. But as regards lawmaking, all countries have and maintain "hierarchies" of governance for each level of City, State and Nation.

This is the real and only true nature of any democracy - whether said democracy exists presently in a Kingdom or a Nation or a nation that prefers to call itself a Republic*. In America, the "state" is geographical representation on a map of boundaries. National law in the US prevails over state-law for matters that are pertinent to all citizens regardless of where they live.

*Republic: late 16th century from French république, itself from Latin respublica. Thus from res meaning ‘entity or concern’ + publicus meaning ‘of the people, or public’. (Nothing in the definition of "republic" infers a hierarchy of dominance as regards importance afforded the "individual-state over the nation-of-states".)


There is no real comparison to the Parliament form of government and the U.S. form of government.

The Parliament form of government give power to the parties and the PM is selected from this party majority and the PM selects the Ministers base on party. The U.S. form of government, the POTUS is selected independently of Congress, therefore, you can have a Congress comprised completely of a different party than the POTUS. The legislative branch is independent of the executive branch thus creating a separation of powers, in a Parliamentary system there is no real separation powers.

In the U.S. form of government there are two legislative branches of congress and both have considerable power, more power than the POTUS. The powers of the President are clearly defined in the Constitution, whereas the powers of the Congress are not. The Executive branch is only in charge of the administrative branch of the government, the President can issue E/O's however, these only effect the administrative operation of the government. The Senate was designed to assist the President in matters dealing with the Union as a whole and foreign policy, this was the reason for the Senators being appointed by the State legislatures. The House deals with the matters that effect the People in general, this is why all bills dealing with revenue are originated in the House and this is why the House is directly elected by popular vote. Congress can, if it chooses, grant more power to the POTUS, and Congress likewise, take away power from the POTUS if it sees fit to do so. Try doing that in a Parliamentary form of government.
 
The legislative branch is independent of the executive branch thus creating a separation of powers, in a Parliamentary system there is no real separation powers.

The Executive Branch of a Parliamentary system of governance is dependent upon a majority in parliament. That is sufficient in any democracy to have balance and refuse the assimilation of absolute-power in any one individual (or group of individuals).

Whether or not the tripartite sharing of power (Executive, Legislative and Judicial) is worth the effort is seriously under question nowadays, given Donald Dork's present behaviour as PotUS. (He could be brought before the Supreme Court, but with a Replicant court, that would amount to what finally? Not much.)

Americans wanted the Replicants - they got 'em. (Right up the you-know-what!)

The necessity of a PotUS to somehow "balance power" is nowhere truly evident. The US just gets on with it. But, admittedly, the PotUS was not at first imagined in the Constitution.

From here:
When the founders were writing the Constitution in the 1780s, they had no idea what to call the executive officer. King? Absolutely not. They wanted something that sounded impressive but not all-powerful.

Enter the word "president". It was floating around at the time, but its uses weren't too lofty.

From here: Why President? How The U.S. Named Its Leader - excerpt:

"It comes from 'praesidere,' which literally means 'to sit before,' " says linguist Ben Zimmer, executive editor of Vocabulary.com. "It referred to an officer who would sit before a gathering and would serve as the presiding officer."

At the time, the word was generally used kind of like chairman or foreman, although it was used somewhat in more institutional contexts. In 1774, the presiding officer of the Continental Congress was also called "president," but it was very much a ceremonial title. So Article Two of the Constitution gave the word "president" a whole new meaning.

"They were charting new terrain here," Zimmer says. "This title really didn't fit perfectly well."

And once George Washington was elected to fill the role, Congress had a bit of a panic about it.

"In April of 1789, Washington was making his way to New York City to be inaugurated, and Congress started to have this discussion about how are we going to address him once he gets here?" says Kathleen Bartoloni-Tuazon, a historian with the First Federal Congress Project.

The king was "Your Majesty," while governors at the time were addressed as "Your Excellency." What would they call Washington?

"[Washington] had been 'General' and 'Your Excellency' as commander of the Revolutionary forces," Bartoloni-Tuazon says.

President just seemed too plain to the Senate, and they brainstormed a bunch of alternatives.

Etc., etc., etc.

Then, when the south finally understood that the North wanted to forbid Slavery, it insisted that an Electoral College be instituted to prevent such happening. Thus derailing the absolute certainty of the Popular-vote and why - to this day - five presidential candidates won the popular-vote but never presided!

Only in America is there such a "democracy" ...

PS: And spare me please the nonsense about the US being a Republic and not a Democracy.
 
Last edited:
And how did you loop gerrymandering into this argument? Gerrymandering does absolutely nothing to the outcome of a presidential election..

Your mastery of the matter (of gerrymandering) is showing its deficiencies.

Gerrymandering has been for two-hundred years the mainstay political manipulation of the voting process - both at state and national levels. From here: Gerrymandering - excerpt:
Two principal tactics are used in gerrymandering: "cracking" (i.e. diluting the voting power of the opposing party's supporters across many districts) and "packing" (concentrating the opposing party's voting power in one district to reduce their voting power in other districts).

In addition to its use achieving desired electoral results for a particular party, gerrymandering may be used to help or hinder a particular demographic, such as a political, ethnic, racial, linguistic, religious, or class group, such as in U.S. federal voting district boundaries that produce a majority of constituents representative of African-American or other racial minorities, known as "majority-minority districts". Gerrymandering can also be used to protect incumbents.
240px-DifferingApportionment.svg.png
 
Your mastery of the matter (of gerrymandering) is showing its deficiencies.

Gerrymandering has been for two-hundred years the mainstay political manipulation of the voting process - both at state and national levels. From here: Gerrymandering - excerpt:

Gerrymandering is a redrawing of districts in order to assist in getting one party or another elected to Congress (Federal or State)... or to help a minority community get minority representation (Federal or State). That effects the party makeup in the House. Congressional seats are apportioned based on the percentage of the total US citizens who live within that state, with a minimum of 1 seat. Whatever that number comes to gets 2 added to it to make the total number of Delegates apportioned to that state in the Electoral College. So the minimum of Electoral Votes is 3 per state, and the District of Columbia. There are 153 Electoral votes that are evenly distributed between the 50 states and DC, and the remaining 385 EC seats distributed based on population distribution among the states determined by the census.

Gerrymandering has absolutely nothing to do with a Presidential election. N.O.T.H.I.N.G.

Electoral votes change once a decade based on who moved in and out of a state, not by redrawing state lines. :roll:
 
Lafayette I will not argue the difference between a Republic and a Democracy, it's painfully clear to me that you don't understand the difference, I will just leave it at that.
 
Gerrymandering is a redrawing of districts in order to assist in getting one party or another elected to Congress (Federal or State)... or to help a minority community get minority representation (Federal or State). That effects the party makeup in the House. Congressional seats are apportioned based on the percentage of the total US citizens who live within that state, with a minimum of 1 seat. Whatever that number comes to gets 2 added to it to make the total number of Delegates apportioned to that state in the Electoral College. So the minimum of Electoral Votes is 3 per state, and the District of Columbia. There are 153 Electoral votes that are evenly distributed between the 50 states and DC, and the remaining 385 EC seats distributed based on population distribution among the states determined by the census.

Blah, blah, blah and more blah.

You just don't understand factual evidence as shown in the distorted EC-map, do you?

I give up - moving right along.

(Yeah, come on, have your LAST WORD. Dorks like you must have the last word ...)
 
Blah, blah, blah and more blah.

You just don't understand factual evidence as shown in the distorted EC-map, do you?

I give up - moving right along.

(Yeah, come on, have your LAST WORD. Dorks like you must have the last word ...)

LOL. I know exactly what you are trying to say, you just don't understand even a little bit about why electoral maps will always look like that, and why it came to be designed like that, and you are fooling yourself into bogus conclusions built on fundimental misunderstanding of concepts like gerrymandering. I'm here to educate you on the actual concepts you currently don't undrstand and let nature take its course.
 
LOL. I know exactly what you are trying to say, you just don't understand even a little bit about why electoral maps will always look like that, and why it came to be designed like that, and you are fooling yourself into bogus conclusions built on fundimental misunderstanding of concepts like gerrymandering. I'm here to educate you on the actual concepts you currently don't undrstand and let nature take its course.

More blah, blah, blah from a know-nothing who thinks that five candidates who won the national popular-vote but NEVER BECAME POTUS is just a fluke of history.

Nowhere else amongst developed nations does that happen at the Executive level of governance. Nowhere.

The list of countries with Electoral Colleges: Burundi, Estonia, Kazakhstan, Madagascar, Myanmar, Pakistan, Trinidad and Tobago, Vanuatu and Uncle Sam.

Great company for Uncle Sam ... !
 
Last edited:
More blah, blah, blah from a know-nothing who thinks that five candidates who won the national popular-vote but NEVER BECAME POTUS is just a fluke of history.

Nowhere else amongst developed nations does that happen. Nowhere ...

Lol. The president has never been selected by popular vote. Also, wtf is "fluke history"? :lamo
 
Lol. The president has never been selected by popular vote.

Some dorks MUST HAVE the last word in debate.

You've had yours. Do you feel better now ... ?
 
This entire thread could be summed up as follows: some Americans demand mob rule.
 
More blah, blah, blah from a know-nothing who thinks that five candidates who won the national popular-vote but NEVER BECAME POTUS is just a fluke of history.

Nowhere else amongst developed nations does that happen at the Executive level of governance. Nowhere.

The list of countries with Electoral Colleges: Burundi, Estonia, Kazakhstan, Madagascar, Myanmar, Pakistan, Trinidad and Tobago, Vanuatu and Uncle Sam.

Great company for Uncle Sam ... !

You forgot germany among the list of countries with an electoral college, which is a developed country and has used the electoral college going back to the holy roman empire.
 
Lol. The president has never been selected by popular vote. Also, wtf is "fluke history"? :lamo

Not only has our president never been directly elected, neither has most of the civilized world done so, most countries with direct elections are in africa and south america, some of the poorest and most corrupt regions of the world. He makes an argument against the electoral college in favor of the rest of the civilised world, but the rest of the civilised world does not elect their executive at all, they elect their parliament either directly or through electoral college and their parliament votes for the executive, making america on par with the rest of the civilized world, actually better since americans have a say on president even if indirectly, while canada germany england etc have no say on who parliament votes, just on who they vote for parliament.
 
What we should have learned in a Civics Class:
*All democracies have three fundamental characteristics: The independence of the Executive, the Legislative and the Judicial powers. These three "independent" bodies are the only guaranties of real freedom of a nation from "usurpation" of political power.
*All such democracies employ the popular-vote to designate their representative to the Executive and Legislative positions, with the exception of the Judiciary (that is nominated by the Executive, but approved by the Legislature).
*All political offices (local, state and national) in a truly democratic nation will be obtained by means of the popular-vote and only the popular-voting process.
*The voting regulations will describe and conduct fair voting-procedures at regular intervals in order to assure the collective consent by means of a popular-vote of the nation's constituents of voting age.
*By "fair voting procedures" is meant:
**No voter with a proper identity card, of a stipulated age, and proving their residence will be forbidden to vote.
**No voting district will be "gerrymandered" to concentrate the vote favoring any political party
**Voting hours and procedures will be fair and honest to accommodate the largest number possible of all voters.

That is all fine and good but what happens when the democrats lose the popular then we have to change back because they are sore losers and cannot play by the rules.
 
That is all fine and good but what happens when the democrats lose the popular then we have to change back because they are sore losers and cannot play by the rules.

Defend and justify that apparent caricature with proof! You can't.

What's wrong with American politics is something that occurred along with the Industrial Revolution. It was the first time in our history that very large sums of money were aggregated to a small group of extremely wealthy people. They found out - "oh mah gawd" - that money could influence politics by means of the media!

The same "money-game" has been played by both sides since Day One in the latter half of the 19th century. It's been FIRST a scramble for the moulah and ONLY THEN a real contest for elected-office.

Money is the rot not only of our society but our governments (local, state and national). Nothing will change until we alter profoundly the electoral-funding process.

How do we do that? GOOD QUESTION!
 
Defend and justify that apparent caricature with proof! You can't.

The proof is there was no change to the rules when the democrats won the elections and had the ability to change the rules.

What's wrong with American politics is something that occurred along with the Industrial Revolution. It was the first time in our history that very large sums of money were aggregated to a small group of extremely wealthy people. They found out - "oh mah gawd" - that money could influence politics by means of the media!

So there were no rich and powerful rulers or leaders before the industrial revolution. George Washington was a poor man along with the founding fathers. The Kings, Queens, Nobles, Emperors, and even Popes of the past were all poor people. What history did you study. I believe a small group of rich and powerful people have been ruling the people as far back as written history goes.
 
The proof is there was no change to the rules when the democrats won the elections and had the ability to change the rules.

What rules, what elections?

Be more clear. I'm not a mind-reader ... !

So there were no rich and powerful rulers or leaders before the industrial revolution. George Washington was a poor man along with the founding fathers. The Kings, Queens, Nobles, Emperors, and even Popes of the past were all poor people. What history did you study. I believe a small group of rich and powerful people have been ruling the people as far back as written history goes.

That bit above is pure historical error. The Monarchs and Popes were all from rich families!

But just because monarchs (who owned large tracts of land and who could impose taxation on others) were the reason Washington and others fought them. They did not work to obtain their riches. They inherited them for the most part.

The very same happened again in the Industrial Revolution, when owners of industries combined to influence presidents and Congress to pass legislation favoring their businesses. You think that didn't happen?

Then see this, and open your eyes! Date: 1889 -
The_Bosses_of_the_Senate_by_Joseph_Keppler.jpg


Do you really think that Replicant interference in government to promote the ends of an upper-class of individuals is something new in America? Boy-oh-boy, have you ever got that wrong!

Wakey, wakey! It has been going on a long, long time! The super-rich of America are OUR ARISTOCRACY!

PS: Btw., if you would like to see where most of the exchange regarding revolution was taking place then you must visit the "Procope" restaurant in Paris (which still exists!) where Jefferson and Franklin met with counterpart French patriots in the early 1770s to discuss how to convince others to their cause. The French revolted 10 years after we did, but for the very same reason. To free themselves from the yoke of monarch.
 
Last edited:
The problem is with gerrymandering is neither party wants to get rid of it. Each party relishes the idea of using gerrymandering when they are in power. They write our election laws and as such they could do away with gerrymandering in a heartbeat if they had a mind to. They don't. Their rhetoric may say so, but it is one big lie.

After the 2010 census the Democrats gerrymandered the heck out of Illinois and New York, Republicans howled how unfair that was and gerrymandering had to end. But the Republicans gerrymandered Texas and North Carolina after the same 2010 census while the democrats ranted and raved at the injustice of the GOP gerrymandering those states. Each major party wants to make it unlawful for the other party to gerrymander while keeping gerrymandering legal for their party.

State legislatures draw the districts in most states, each state legislature could draw un-gerrymandered districts. They won't, they want to give their political party the best advantage possible. While I also think gerrymandering needs to end, I don't see it ever doing so. Not as long as gerrymandering can give one political party an advantage over the other.

Well said.
 
Not only has our president never been directly elected, neither has most of the civilized world done so, most countries with direct elections are in africa and south america, some of the poorest and most corrupt regions of the world. He makes an argument against the electoral college in favor of the rest of the civilised world, but the rest of the civilised world does not elect their executive at all, they elect their parliament either directly or through electoral college and their parliament votes for the executive, making america on par with the rest of the civilized world, actually better since americans have a say on president even if indirectly, while canada germany england etc have no say on who parliament votes, just on who they vote for parliament.

That's fluke history, sir! ;)
 
What rules, what elections?

Be more clear. I'm not a mind-reader ... !

The fact there was no problem with our electoral system as long as the democrats were winning elections. It is only when they lose elections that the we need to make changes to out electoral process.

That bit above is pure historical error. The Monarchs and Popes were all from rich families!.

George Washington along with most of our founding fathers were from wealthy families. The rich and powerful have been running this country since we became a country.

But just because monarchs (who owned large tracts of land and who could impose taxation on others) were the reason Washington and others fought them. They did not work to obtain their riches. They inherited them for the most part.

George Washington our first president inherited his wealth and large tracts of land. So did most of our founding fathers and the state leaders. Average men who did not own property, the poor, and women could not even vote. Slave trade was one of the most profitable businesses in the northern colonies make lots of wealthy people even more wealthy.

The very same happened again in the Industrial Revolution, when owners of industries combined to influence presidents and Congress to pass legislation favoring their businesses. You think that didn't happen?

Of course I knew it happened. The rich and powerful have been running our government since we became a country until today. Nothing has changed.

Then see this, and open your eyes! Date: 1889 -
The_Bosses_of_the_Senate_by_Joseph_Keppler.jpg

My great grand parents and their families worked for these rich and powerful. I used to listen to the stories about them when I was a teenager first hand from my great grandmother. Her brother started working in the coal mines when he was 8 and was dead at 12. She never knew her father because he died in the coal mines a few years after she was born. I got to hear it first hand from people who lived through those times. The house I live in today was my great grandfathers on my mom's side and was an old mine home from the 1890's. I own 2 other homes that were mine homes built in 1902. I know a lot from that era. All my ancestors were a part of it.
 
Back
Top Bottom