On Sep 14, 8:51 am, tomcervo wrote:
> On Sep 14, 8:31?am, George Peatty wrote:
>
> > What you never seem to get is what you claim is a higher moral plane isn't, and it's slowly
> > dismantling the country, its institutions, and the value system on which it is
> > founded.
>
> Would that be the 3/5's compromise?
> According to "the value system on which it is founded" neither of the
> two Democratic frontrunners for the presidency--almost now by
> definition the next president--could not even vote in an election.
Assuming we're talking about 1789 (when the Constitution took affect),
she (H. Clinton) could have voted in an election in New Jersey, while
he (B. Obama) could have voted in northern states in practice and
southern states in theory (except for South Carolina).
Of course, various property and/or religious qualifications might have
impeded said voting, as they might have for one of any gender/race.
This refers to voting for members of the House of Representative and
local offices. Senators were not subject to popular vote at that
time, and not all States allowed Presidential Electors to be selected
by popular vote.
|