Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
The South wanted to count slaves as a full person in the Census. This would have given them more representation in the Congress. And it would have promised that no vote to amend the Constitution and abolish slavery would pass.
The North wanted to not count slaves in the Census at all. This would have led to an opposite effect. They figured that slavery would be abolished peacefully in a few decades due to economic and social changes. But they had to make sure the North had the votes to do it.
In order to compromise slaves were counted as 3/5ths in the Census. Only slave holders wanted them counted as more.
So if you think slaves should have been counted in the Census as a full person you agree with slave holders.
All this whining about "only being 3/5ths of a person" is nothing more than liberals rewriting history. Typical of them though.
The south wanted to "have their cake and eat it too". They wanted slaves counted for their representation purposes, but they did not want to treat them like human beings.
Quote:
Originally Posted by BentBow
Just to set the record straight, It was a state issue, as the constitution did not specify the vote of a woman, only an individual.
New Jersey granted women the vote (with the same property qualifications as for men, although, since married women did not own property in their own right, only unmarried women and widows qualified) under the state constitution of 1776, where the word "inhabitants" was used without qualification of sex or race. New Jersey women, along with "aliens...persons of color, or negroes," lost the vote in 1807, when the franchise was restricted to white males, partly in order, ostensibly at least, to combat electoral fraud by simplifying the conditions for eligibility.
The territory of Wyoming passed their suffrage law on December 10, 1869, and the following year, women begin serving on juries in the territory. This became the first time the right to vote for women was protected by law and was never taken away. Wyoming became a state in 1890, and the suffrage law just carried over into its state constitution. Although suffrage was granted to the women of Wyoming first, Utah was the first place where women were allowed to vote under the law. However the United States Congress disenfranchised Utah women, and took away their voting rights, with the Edmunds-Tucker Act of 1887. It was not until Utah was granted statehood in 1896 that women were again allowed to vote.
In 1893 the state of Colorado adopted an amendment granting women the right to vote. A few other States and Territories would soon grant women the right to vote (full suffrage), yet some states would allow women to vote on just a few things such as a presidential election (this is called partial suffrage).
I knew all that. So what? Could women vote in 1789? Only in New Jersey and only until 1807, when that right was rescinded.
" If all men are created equal, as the Declaration of Independence states, Palin said, then there are "no Hispanic issues or African-American issues or women's issues — there are only American issues."
Uh, say what? And at the time that was written, women were basically non-persons, and blacks were only 3/5 of a person. And someone thinks she kicked butt? More like shot herself in the foot!
Agreed with your general point but men was used back then to generally mean people not just men (as it does today in Romance languages). Take the Massachusetts Constitution which used similar language and was written around the same time (1780), but unlike the Declaration of Independence had (and has) the force of law here:
All men are born free and equal, and have certain natural, essential, and unalienable rights; among which may be reckoned the right of enjoying and defending their lives and liberties; that of acquiring, possessing, and protecting property; in fine, that of seeking and obtaining their safety and happiness.
—Massachusetts Constitution, Article 1.
A female slave in Massachusetts, after hearing the constitution read in town, sued for her freedom in court. She told him, "I heard that paper read yesterday, that says, all men are created equal, and that every man has a right to freedom. I'm not a dumb critter; won't the law give me my freedom?" The jury ruled in her favor and awarded her damages for her labor, and it sounds unlikely that the constitution that the defense could argue that the loss of her liberty was legal since she was not a man, the language was different back then.
Agreed with your general point but men was used back then to generally mean people not just men (as it does today in Romance languages). Take the Massachusetts Constitution which used similar language and was written around the same time (1780), but unlike the Declaration of Independence had (and has) the force of law here:
All men are born free and equal, and have certain natural, essential, and unalienable rights; among which may be reckoned the right of enjoying and defending their lives and liberties; that of acquiring, possessing, and protecting property; in fine, that of seeking and obtaining their safety and happiness.
—Massachusetts Constitution, Article 1.
A female slave in Massachusetts, after hearing the constitution read in town, sued for her freedom in court. She told him, "I heard that paper read yesterday, that says, all men are created equal, and that every man has a right to freedom. I'm not a dumb critter; won't the law give me my freedom?" The jury ruled in her favor and awarded her damages for her labor, and it sounds unlikely that the constitution that the defense could argue that the loss of her liberty was legal since she was not a man, the language was different back then.
Also, the 3/5 compromise was about 13 years later after the Declaration of Independence was written.
Big whoop about the "men" as generic usage in times past. I was aware of that. Sarah Palin said that last night (quoting the declaration of independence, which I am surprised she's ever heard of). However, the Dec of Ind is not law.
It was not until 1868 that slavery was officially abolished and blacks and whites were equal in the law. The 3/5 compromise didn't work too well. It took a war and a constitutional amendment to change things.
Big whoop about the "men" as generic usage in times past. I was aware of that.
Fine. I didn't realize you were. I thought it was interesting, as well the other stuff I mentioned in that post.
Quote:
Sarah Palin said that last night (quoting the declaration of independence, which I am surprised she's ever heard of). However, the Dec of Ind is not law.
It was not until 1868 that slavery was officially abolished and blacks and whites were equal in the law. The 3/5 compromise didn't work too well. It took a war and a constitutional amendment to change things.
if anyone would like to jump in with "racism has nothing to do with it"....... please feel free.
I noticed the shamelessness of that post too. I don't understand why that poster doesn't just admit that the reason he clings to birtherism is just an excuse because the bottom line seems to be that the real issue for him is that this President is a black man.
Did you forget where you were and think you were posting on Stormfront or Free Republic again?
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
I don't understand why that poster doesn't just admit that the reason he clings to birtherism is just an excuse because the bottom line seems to be that the real issue for him is that this President is a black man.
