Go to end of page
Statements posted here are those of our readers and do not represent the BaseballThinkFactory. Names are provided by the poster and are not verified. We ask that posters follow our submission policy. Please report any inappropriate comments.
Page 7 of 7 pages
598. cercopithecus aethiops Posted: April 11, 2014 at 03:54 PM (#4684636)
am not getting how you could count a female as a free person for voting purposes seeing as how she was not free and could not vote and had no more rights than a horse. same with indians. did northern states let free Blacks vote?
Because she could only be owned by relatives?
But kidding aside, like BDC says it was about representation, not about voting. Indians were not counted. Northern states were all over the place in terms of voting rights for free blacks. The south wanted slaves to count so they would have greater representation in Congress. The north's opposition wasn't so much about the morality of slavery as it was about not wanting their representation diluted. A few years earlier there had been a proposal to amend the Articles of Confederation to count slaves for purposes of apportioning taxation among the states. as you might guess, in that case it was the southern states that didn't want them counted and the Northern states that did.
602. BDC Posted: April 11, 2014 at 04:22 PM (#4684670)
And of course the theory was that the propertied adult white male would vote on behalf of his wife and children and tenants and valet and whatnot, so those folks were "represented" without individual votes.
A very different notion of democracy, but radical enough for its time
I prefer Kelvin, and am reminded why yet again as Jeter's range approaches absolute zero.
- was this any different from how the house of commons was in england? i seriously doubt that females had any rights or were allowed to vote there in the late 1700s neither
i think it was a GOOD 100 years later that they came up with the law about how a female was allowed to keep all to herself any property she already had when she got married and it would not immediately turn into the husband's property like she herself did
(got this feeling that not real too many females managed to not be bullied/beaten into turning over control of it to the man)
- based on
what's good for me IS good for them, or
what's good for me is good for me, who gives a shtt about them
i think that england was different from the other european countries even then. the rest of them, best i can tell, me not exActly being this history expert, had about the same oppression of most of the population and all of the females. although i am sure there always were a few rebels who were sold into prostitution or marriage, whichever their owner could get more money from.
I wish I could reciprocate, but my current academic research concerns the representation of basketball in The Walking Dead. Anything you need to know about zombie hoops, though, I'm your guy.
you always have the most INTERESTING stories
i would bet that if those had been 2 poor slave families, it would not have ended up like that. on the other hand, i think that us females are smarter than males even now give us credit for...
You must be Registered and Logged In to post comments.
Login to Join (9 members)
Page rendered in 0.4066 seconds, 57 querie(s) executed