5 ms·

Americans had far more rights in 1788, as long as they weren't slaves [1]. And in 1788, people from anywhere in the world could escape to America (as it should

by javert 11y ago

Americans had far more rights in 1788, as long as they weren't slaves [1]. And in 1788, people from anywhere in the world could escape to America (as it should still be). [1] Many Americans were against slavery in 1776, but it would have meant losing the Southern colonies and thus losing the Revolutionary War. edit: I picked 1788 because that's the year the US Constitution was adopted.

rodgerd 11y ago
> Americans had far more rights in 1788, as long as they weren't slaves [1]. Or women. The omission does say a lot about you.
- javert 11y ago
  What rights did women not have in 1788 that you would want them to have? They couldn't vote, but voting isn't a right. They could own property, for example. Once married, they became basically legally merged with their husband, but I'm not sure what it would mean to share a household in 1788 and not have joint ownership of things. update: In fact, they would have been covered by all of the bill of rights, including 9 and 10, which we are not covered by today and which are really the most important ones. So I think I was probably right in my original statement, even including women. I mean, I'm not an expert on femininity in the 18th century, though. update2: And you want to know what my omission says about me? It says that I think of people as people, rather than dividing them up by gender. I am not a feminist---I believe in equal rights for all people, not priviliges and special treatment for women.
  - dragonwriter 11y ago
    > What rights did women not have in 1788 that you would want them to have? They couldn't vote, but voting isn't a right. I think that most people today -- and most of the founders that you seem to deify as paragons of philosophic virtue -- would recognize both the right to participate in the government to which one is subject (the basis for the slogan, "no taxation without representation") and the right to equal treatment under the law -- both of which women did not have in 1788 -- to be moral rights. Certainly, both are actually legal rights which are extended to women in the US now that were not, in the same way, extended to them in 1788. > They could own property, for example. Unmarried women could own property, but under the common law doctrine of coverture, married women could neither own property, nor enter into contracts, nor earn a salary. Her husband could do all those things -- acting on his sole discretion -- including entering into contracts which called for performance by the wife, or exercising all rights relating to property which she had owned prior to the marriage. > Once married, they became basically legally merged with their husband, but I'm not sure what it would mean to share a household in 1788 and not have joint ownership of things. They didn't have joint ownership of things -- the concept of joint ownership in marriage in the US is a result of laws beginning in the 19th century which allowed a married women to own property at all. Prior to that, the husband owned any property and could dispose of it at will without the consent of the wife, but the reverse was not true. It was sole ownership by the husband, not joint ownership by the couple. The same was true of the power of contract, and basically all other beneficial aspects of legal personhood. > In fact, they would have been covered by all of the bill of rights, including 9 and 10, which we are not covered by today Both halves of this are wrong: while the Ninth and Tenth Amendments remain in effect today, they were formally proposed by the first Congress operating under the new Constitution in 1789 and were ratified in 1791, so they didn't apply to women or anyone else in 1788. In any case, the Bill of Rights is not the only part of the Constitution that provides rights; among the amendments ratified after 1791 that provide rights are amendments 13, 14, 15, 19, 23, 24, and 26.
    - javert 11y ago
      If you want to win the war of nit-picking, you win. You are right that the Constitution was not operative yet in 1788. > Unmarried women could own property, but under the common law doctrine of coverture, married women could neither own property That's what I said. (And not entering into contracts or earning salary are corollaries of that.) By "joint ownership," I didn't mean some specific conception of joint ownership that you seem to be referring to. I meant that they owned things together, which means that whoever was more dominant in the marriage would have say---and legally, the husband would be free to completely dominate if he wanted. > while the Ninth and Tenth Amendments remain in effect today Go read them---they are not in effect in practice. I don't care to continue this discussion, so I won't continue discussing it. It's pointless anyway, we are too philosophically different. If we want to argue we should argue about philosophy. Arguing on this level accomplishes nothing.
dragonwriter 11y ago
> Americans had far more rights in 1788, as long as they weren't slaves No, they didn't. Even white male Americans didn't have more rights in 1788. The federal government, true, had smaller scope, but there were, for example, fewer rights protected against infringement by State government than now.

by javert 11y ago

rodgerd 11y ago

> Americans had far more rights in 1788, as long as they weren't slaves [1]. Or women. The omission does say a lot about you.

javert 11y ago
What rights did women not have in 1788 that you would want them to have? They couldn't vote, but voting isn't a right. They could own property, for example. Once married, they became basically legally merged with their husband, but I'm not sure what it would mean to share a household in 1788 and not have joint ownership of things. update: In fact, they would have been covered by all of the bill of rights, including 9 and 10, which we are not covered by today and which are really the most important ones. So I think I was probably right in my original statement, even including women. I mean, I'm not an expert on femininity in the 18th century, though. update2: And you want to know what my omission says about me? It says that I think of people as people, rather than dividing them up by gender. I am not a feminist---I believe in equal rights for all people, not priviliges and special treatment for women.
- dragonwriter 11y ago
  > What rights did women not have in 1788 that you would want them to have? They couldn't vote, but voting isn't a right. I think that most people today -- and most of the founders that you seem to deify as paragons of philosophic virtue -- would recognize both the right to participate in the government to which one is subject (the basis for the slogan, "no taxation without representation") and the right to equal treatment under the law -- both of which women did not have in 1788 -- to be moral rights. Certainly, both are actually legal rights which are extended to women in the US now that were not, in the same way, extended to them in 1788. > They could own property, for example. Unmarried women could own property, but under the common law doctrine of coverture, married women could neither own property, nor enter into contracts, nor earn a salary. Her husband could do all those things -- acting on his sole discretion -- including entering into contracts which called for performance by the wife, or exercising all rights relating to property which she had owned prior to the marriage. > Once married, they became basically legally merged with their husband, but I'm not sure what it would mean to share a household in 1788 and not have joint ownership of things. They didn't have joint ownership of things -- the concept of joint ownership in marriage in the US is a result of laws beginning in the 19th century which allowed a married women to own property at all. Prior to that, the husband owned any property and could dispose of it at will without the consent of the wife, but the reverse was not true. It was sole ownership by the husband, not joint ownership by the couple. The same was true of the power of contract, and basically all other beneficial aspects of legal personhood. > In fact, they would have been covered by all of the bill of rights, including 9 and 10, which we are not covered by today Both halves of this are wrong: while the Ninth and Tenth Amendments remain in effect today, they were formally proposed by the first Congress operating under the new Constitution in 1789 and were ratified in 1791, so they didn't apply to women or anyone else in 1788. In any case, the Bill of Rights is not the only part of the Constitution that provides rights; among the amendments ratified after 1791 that provide rights are amendments 13, 14, 15, 19, 23, 24, and 26.
  - javert 11y ago
    If you want to win the war of nit-picking, you win. You are right that the Constitution was not operative yet in 1788. > Unmarried women could own property, but under the common law doctrine of coverture, married women could neither own property That's what I said. (And not entering into contracts or earning salary are corollaries of that.) By "joint ownership," I didn't mean some specific conception of joint ownership that you seem to be referring to. I meant that they owned things together, which means that whoever was more dominant in the marriage would have say---and legally, the husband would be free to completely dominate if he wanted. > while the Ninth and Tenth Amendments remain in effect today Go read them---they are not in effect in practice. I don't care to continue this discussion, so I won't continue discussing it. It's pointless anyway, we are too philosophically different. If we want to argue we should argue about philosophy. Arguing on this level accomplishes nothing.

dragonwriter 11y ago

> Americans had far more rights in 1788, as long as they weren't slaves No, they didn't. Even white male Americans didn't have more rights in 1788. The federal government, true, had smaller scope, but there were, for example, fewer rights protected against infringement by State government than now.