2 ms·
Because at the time, basically only white land owners were voting. They were definitely the only ones putting the choices on the ballot. There wasn't any conce
by beerandt 5y ago
Because at the time, basically only white land owners were voting. They were definitely the only ones putting the choices on the ballot.
There wasn't any concern from the north over women, children, or (tax-paying) indians being denied voting rights, yet still being counted for apportionment. No, slaves didn't enjoy the same level of rights as those groups, but this also wasn't about voting power being synonymous with apportionment numbers.
It was a politically convenient power grab, not an altruistic hill-to-die-on.
- perl4ever 5y agoThere's nothing anti-racist about 0/5ths vs. 3/5ths, that's true. But I never heard anyone claim that so I don't know why it's worth refuting.