Universal suffrage for ANYONE was unthinkable in 1787. It's still a "joke" that furthers the stupid notion that people were declared 3/5 of human, which is probably a majority held fallacy by now.
Universal suffrage for ANYONE was unthinkable in 1787. It's still a "joke" that furthers the stupid notion that people were declared 3/5 of human, which is probably a majority held fallacy by now.
In America for white, landowning men. Land ownership, at that time, being something that was at least possible if you were a white man. Certainly not unthinkable, as it was for pretty much any other grouping of people.
The franchise in early America was neither as open nor closed as many suppose. Before the early 1700s, if you came to America, the odds you came in chains were about 75% Of ANY class or color. The British exported the working poor because they didn't have enough "work houses" or "poor houses" to deal with them all. Australia gets all the smack for this, but American colonies were more Jamestown, which was hell on earth for most, and less Plymouth. The point is that participation was land ownership, not white land ownership. And covenants forbidden the sale of land to anyone but whites was a much later thing.
тАЬBefore the early 1700s, if you came to America, the odds you came in chains were about 75% Of ANY class or color.тАЭ
Okay, IтАЩll bite. Any data for that 75% figure? Are you arguing that there was an even *roughly* equal chance in the early 1700s that a slave in America would be white or black?
And no, to begin with, suffrage was limited specifically to white, land owning men. Then extended to white men whether they owned land or not, and only later to black people and women.
Sorry, werenтАЩt you the one who specified the early 1700s? Now youтАЩre talking about 1836?
Also, I take it thatтАЩs a тАЬnoтАЭ on the data for the 75% thing. You criticise me for making a joke about the 3/5 compromise, but then pull figures completely out of thin air?
Look, I get that American history isn't your thing, but conflating the 2 different things on dates on different topics is beneath your usually pristine logic. Which means you're gasping for breath here. This isn't Britain. There wasn't one law about almost anything, especially voting. But you can't find me a law that said black people cannot own property. There were even some in the South.
ЁЯШЕЁЯШЕThis may well be the most DARVO response IтАЩve ever seen.
You specified the 1700s both for suffrage/enfranchisement and тАЬcoming to America in chains.тАЭ
ItтАЩs okay to admit youтАЩre wrong sometimes David. This level of intellectual dishonesty is unbecoming. I seem to remember ending a separate conversation with you for the same reason.
I invoked PROPERTY availability in the early 1700s. NO ONE had the franchise then. You might have heard, there was this thing called The King, who had absolute power to appoint officials who represented the Crown in the colonies. It was in all the papers... The point is that the Crown used America in the early 1700s much like they would later use Australia. The Pilgrim Myth might be closer to the truth for THEM (read Philbrick's Mayflower) but that colony was the exception. Jamestown was closer to the average experience. Admit you know nothing about the period and learn something with all that intellectual honesty.
Got something that says that suffrage was ONLY white landowners? In local elections?
Remember, direct voting for anything else was party conventions and call kinds of complicate things. Women, for instance, voted in plenty of places before the Amendment, just as many had abortions before Roe Vs. Wade. Milestone universal dates are about as useful as acting like the Magna Carta had real significance to Welsh coal miners. Chains and slavery are NOT the same things. But read something real about Jamestown. White laborers could be killed for trying to escape, for one thing.
Ah, what a surprise youтАЩre eager to тАЬreject it out of handтАЭ because of an opinion you dislike instead of addressing the facts. Maybe American history isnтАЩt your thingЁЯШЙ
Anyway, IтАЩm sure thereтАЩs something equally trivially unacceptable with all of these sources that all say the same thingтАж
Such a surprise that you know more about American voting than you do, since managing campaigns in all kinds of areas from urban to rural is my JOB. But go ahead, enlighten on how it's just my OPINION on how hard it is to vote in the US. So yes, I can reject it out of hand, just like a physicist might be able to tell you from a stupid title that an article is wrong.
тАЬ It's still a "joke" that furthers the stupid notion that people were declared 3/5 of humanтАЭ
Wait, do you seriously think the notion that slaves were 3/5 of a human is WORSE than the notion that they were property in perpetuity? Do you think the 3/5 compromise is somehow MORE debasing????
Universal suffrage for ANYONE was unthinkable in 1787. It's still a "joke" that furthers the stupid notion that people were declared 3/5 of human, which is probably a majority held fallacy by now.
тАЬ Universal suffrage for ANYONE was unthinkable in 1787тАЭ
And no, this is obviously untrue. You know this.
Name a place where it was.
In America for white, landowning men. Land ownership, at that time, being something that was at least possible if you were a white man. Certainly not unthinkable, as it was for pretty much any other grouping of people.
The franchise in early America was neither as open nor closed as many suppose. Before the early 1700s, if you came to America, the odds you came in chains were about 75% Of ANY class or color. The British exported the working poor because they didn't have enough "work houses" or "poor houses" to deal with them all. Australia gets all the smack for this, but American colonies were more Jamestown, which was hell on earth for most, and less Plymouth. The point is that participation was land ownership, not white land ownership. And covenants forbidden the sale of land to anyone but whites was a much later thing.
тАЬBefore the early 1700s, if you came to America, the odds you came in chains were about 75% Of ANY class or color.тАЭ
Okay, IтАЩll bite. Any data for that 75% figure? Are you arguing that there was an even *roughly* equal chance in the early 1700s that a slave in America would be white or black?
And no, to begin with, suffrage was limited specifically to white, land owning men. Then extended to white men whether they owned land or not, and only later to black people and women.
There were several black legislators in the US before the Civil War. The first was in 1836. Do you think he couldn't vote?
Sorry, werenтАЩt you the one who specified the early 1700s? Now youтАЩre talking about 1836?
Also, I take it thatтАЩs a тАЬnoтАЭ on the data for the 75% thing. You criticise me for making a joke about the 3/5 compromise, but then pull figures completely out of thin air?
Look, I get that American history isn't your thing, but conflating the 2 different things on dates on different topics is beneath your usually pristine logic. Which means you're gasping for breath here. This isn't Britain. There wasn't one law about almost anything, especially voting. But you can't find me a law that said black people cannot own property. There were even some in the South.
ЁЯШЕЁЯШЕThis may well be the most DARVO response IтАЩve ever seen.
You specified the 1700s both for suffrage/enfranchisement and тАЬcoming to America in chains.тАЭ
ItтАЩs okay to admit youтАЩre wrong sometimes David. This level of intellectual dishonesty is unbecoming. I seem to remember ending a separate conversation with you for the same reason.
And Jesus, DARVO? Look in the mirror, Bub.
I invoked PROPERTY availability in the early 1700s. NO ONE had the franchise then. You might have heard, there was this thing called The King, who had absolute power to appoint officials who represented the Crown in the colonies. It was in all the papers... The point is that the Crown used America in the early 1700s much like they would later use Australia. The Pilgrim Myth might be closer to the truth for THEM (read Philbrick's Mayflower) but that colony was the exception. Jamestown was closer to the average experience. Admit you know nothing about the period and learn something with all that intellectual honesty.
Got something that says that suffrage was ONLY white landowners? In local elections?
Remember, direct voting for anything else was party conventions and call kinds of complicate things. Women, for instance, voted in plenty of places before the Amendment, just as many had abortions before Roe Vs. Wade. Milestone universal dates are about as useful as acting like the Magna Carta had real significance to Welsh coal miners. Chains and slavery are NOT the same things. But read something real about Jamestown. White laborers could be killed for trying to escape, for one thing.
https://education.nationalgeographic.org/resource/voting-rights-throughout-history/
Yeah, anyone who says it's still hard to vote in the US if you're a citizen can be rejected out of hand. It's the kind of crap you debunk every day.
Ah, what a surprise youтАЩre eager to тАЬreject it out of handтАЭ because of an opinion you dislike instead of addressing the facts. Maybe American history isnтАЩt your thingЁЯШЙ
Anyway, IтАЩm sure thereтАЩs something equally trivially unacceptable with all of these sources that all say the same thingтАж
https://www.loc.gov/classroom-materials/elections/right-to-vote/the-founders-and-the-vote/
https://www.history.com/news/voter-registration-elections-president-midterms
https://constitutioncenter.org/blog/the-evolution-of-voting-rights-in-america
https://reagan.blogs.archives.gov/2022/03/29/road-to-the-voting-rights-act-voting-rights-from-1789-to-1869/
Such a surprise that you know more about American voting than you do, since managing campaigns in all kinds of areas from urban to rural is my JOB. But go ahead, enlighten on how it's just my OPINION on how hard it is to vote in the US. So yes, I can reject it out of hand, just like a physicist might be able to tell you from a stupid title that an article is wrong.
тАЬ It's still a "joke" that furthers the stupid notion that people were declared 3/5 of humanтАЭ
Wait, do you seriously think the notion that slaves were 3/5 of a human is WORSE than the notion that they were property in perpetuity? Do you think the 3/5 compromise is somehow MORE debasing????