- Joined
- 18 Jan 07
- Moves
- 12477
30 Jan 21
@suzianne saidBut... it's nothing to do with women, or slaves. Let alone former slaves - this was a time when slavery still was a USA institution. Unlike some, I do not confuse Washington with Lincoln - slaves, to the Founding Fathers, weren't even people, let alone plebs! (Although, to be fair, some states apparently allowed the vote to free black men and, horror of horrors, indepentent women, even back then. Surprised me positively when I found out.)
Yes, I do, but it is obvious that they didn't look beyond the concept that all voters were male land-owning citizens. What's not obvious to me is if they really thought much about women gaining the vote, nor former slaves or their descendants, much less immigrants from other countries. What IS clear is that ALL citizens MUST be allowed equal protection by law, as codified ...[text shortened]... of the law is fair is another debate. I agree that it is not always fair. This is what needs work.
As for the fourteenth(!) amendment, that happened nearly a century after your constitution, and your entire political system, was founded. It has nothing to do with the original intent.
The problem is not that the USA Constitution, back then, limited voting powers to male land-owners. Nearly all countries (maybe even all? I dunno, there may have been an exception somewhere in Switzerland or some small Italian republic) did so, back then. However, not every country made absolutely sure that only the right kind of male land-owner got any real power. England did and still does; the USA did and still does.
England allows Caroline Lucas, because she's charming but harmless. If the Lib Dems get uppity, though, they're hammered over the head. The USA doesn't even go that far. Your system is designed to keep the few in power. Designed to, from the start. It never had anything to do with gender or race (although that later had a part) originally. It's all, all, about class. You've been played, and are still being played, by the upper middles.
30 Jan 21
@shallow-blue saidSwitzerland gave women the right to vote in 1971
The problem is not that the USA Constitution, back then, limited voting powers to male land-owners. Nearly all countries (maybe even all? I dunno, there may have been an exception somewhere in Switzerland or some small Italian republic)
Not very progressive of them.
30 Jan 21
It never fails to amuse me when non-US-citizens try to assume the Founder's intent. And again when they project that into the present and future.
This is why they made the Constitution a changeable document.
Don't get me wrong. Some criticism is valid. But to throw the baby out with the bathwater is irresponsible.
31 Jan 21
@shallow-blue saidSlaves were, of course, considered "persons" at the time of the Constitution as its wording clearly indicates:
But... it's nothing to do with women, or slaves. Let alone former slaves - this was a time when slavery still was a USA institution. Unlike some, I do not confuse Washington with Lincoln - slaves, to the Founding Fathers, weren't even people, let alone plebs! (Although, to be fair, some states apparently allowed the vote to free black men and, horror of horrors, i ...[text shortened]... all, all, about class. You've been played, and are still being played, by the upper middles.
"Representatives and direct Taxes shall be apportioned among the several States which may be included within this Union, according to their respective Numbers, which shall be determined by adding to the whole Number of free Persons, including those bound to Service for a Term of Years, and excluding Indians not taxed, three fifths of all other Persons."
US Constitution, Article I, Section 2
"Section. 9.
The Migration or Importation of such Persons as any of the States now existing shall think proper to admit, shall not be prohibited by the Congress prior to the Year one thousand eight hundred and eight, but a Tax or duty may be imposed on such Importation, not exceeding ten dollars for each Person."
Article I, Section 9
"No Person held to Service or Labour in one State, under the Laws thereof, escaping into another, shall, in Consequence of any Law or Regulation therein, be discharged from such Service or Labour, but shall be delivered up on Claim of the Party to whom such Service or Labour may be due."
Article IV, Section 2
31 Jan 21
The post that was quoted here has been removedJohn Hoover of North Carolina was convicted of murder of "his" female slave. http://moglen.law.columbia.edu/twiki/pub/AmLegalHist/TedProject/Hoover.pdf
"On Friday, May 15, 1840 ........................... Mr. John Hoover was publicly hanged in Statesville, North Carolina." https://digitalcommons.law.yale.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1017&context=student_papers pp. 8-9