Sorry, weren’t you the one who specified the early 1700s? Now you’re talking about 1836?
Also, I take it that’s a “no” 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?
Sorry, weren’t you the one who specified the early 1700s? Now you’re talking about 1836?
Also, I take it that’s a “no” 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.
😅😅This may well be the most DARVO response I’ve ever seen.
You specified the 1700s both for suffrage/enfranchisement and “coming to America in chains.”
It’s okay to admit you’re 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.
“Before the early 1700s, if you came to America, the odds you came in chains were about 75% Of ANY class or color.”
This is not a claim about "PROPERTY availability" or suffrage. It's a totally made up claim about slavery.
"Universal suffrage for ANYONE was unthinkable in 1787."
This is where you invoked suffrage. The United States was already independent of the King at this point. And yes, white, landowning men had suffrage. As I've provided ample evidence of.
"There were several black legislators in the US before the Civil War. The first was in 1836"
This is not proof of universal suffrage, and it's 49 years after 1787. Though yes, even in the 1780s there were limited examples of women and people of colour being able to vote in certain states, Universal suffrage didn't come for African Americans until the Fifteenth Amendment in 1870.
Okay, I'm done here. I like engaging with people with strong opinions David, I consider it an opportunity to learn. But it's such a waste of time when the other person is only interested in winning and not in thinking.
I'm actually perfectly happy to admit when I don't know something. There are lots of things I don't know. That's one reason why I spend so much time talking to people; to learn.
But as I've proven many times, I actually have a pretty good knowledge of American history. At least the areas that I write about. And when I *don't* know something, I don't make blanket statements, or pull statistics out of my ass, or try to DARVO my way out of situations where I'm wrong, which means I don't have to get all defensive when I learn something new.
Anyway, as I said, I'm done here. Enjoy the last word. I won't read it,
NOW who won't read things? YOU equated chains and slavery, not me. YOU are the only one marking the argument I said there was universal suffrage. I always said suffrage was a mixed bag, even after 1781 or 1787.
Indentured servants, and convicts were the majority of early labor imports. The breakup of the feudal system, 75-100 years after Henry VIII really put a dagger into it, had English cities overrun with the poor and unemployed. And it was criminal to be one. The first vagrancy laws were enacted, but then the work houses (which can only be described as slavery) were overflowing. The New World gave the Crown a place to put these people. Chattel slavery evolved as exclusively African as the cotton and tobacco markets expanded beyond the capacity for white labor-- and when Muslim slave traders made that an irresistible market choice for many big farmers, and enslaving--or the next best thing-- white people fell out of fashion.
Sorry, weren’t you the one who specified the early 1700s? Now you’re talking about 1836?
Also, I take it that’s a “no” 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.
😅😅This may well be the most DARVO response I’ve ever seen.
You specified the 1700s both for suffrage/enfranchisement and “coming to America in chains.”
It’s okay to admit you’re 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.
“Before the early 1700s, if you came to America, the odds you came in chains were about 75% Of ANY class or color.”
This is not a claim about "PROPERTY availability" or suffrage. It's a totally made up claim about slavery.
"Universal suffrage for ANYONE was unthinkable in 1787."
This is where you invoked suffrage. The United States was already independent of the King at this point. And yes, white, landowning men had suffrage. As I've provided ample evidence of.
"There were several black legislators in the US before the Civil War. The first was in 1836"
This is not proof of universal suffrage, and it's 49 years after 1787. Though yes, even in the 1780s there were limited examples of women and people of colour being able to vote in certain states, Universal suffrage didn't come for African Americans until the Fifteenth Amendment in 1870.
Okay, I'm done here. I like engaging with people with strong opinions David, I consider it an opportunity to learn. But it's such a waste of time when the other person is only interested in winning and not in thinking.
I'm actually perfectly happy to admit when I don't know something. There are lots of things I don't know. That's one reason why I spend so much time talking to people; to learn.
But as I've proven many times, I actually have a pretty good knowledge of American history. At least the areas that I write about. And when I *don't* know something, I don't make blanket statements, or pull statistics out of my ass, or try to DARVO my way out of situations where I'm wrong, which means I don't have to get all defensive when I learn something new.
Anyway, as I said, I'm done here. Enjoy the last word. I won't read it,
NOW who won't read things? YOU equated chains and slavery, not me. YOU are the only one marking the argument I said there was universal suffrage. I always said suffrage was a mixed bag, even after 1781 or 1787.
Indentured servants, and convicts were the majority of early labor imports. The breakup of the feudal system, 75-100 years after Henry VIII really put a dagger into it, had English cities overrun with the poor and unemployed. And it was criminal to be one. The first vagrancy laws were enacted, but then the work houses (which can only be described as slavery) were overflowing. The New World gave the Crown a place to put these people. Chattel slavery evolved as exclusively African as the cotton and tobacco markets expanded beyond the capacity for white labor-- and when Muslim slave traders made that an irresistible market choice for many big farmers, and enslaving--or the next best thing-- white people fell out of fashion.