Show & Tell
untitled
I'd rather be in outer space šø
šŖ¼

Love Begins
almost home
occasionally subtle

tannertan36
todays bird
Claire Keane

⣠Chile in a Photography ā£

#extradirty
Aqua Utopiaļ½ęµ·ć®åŗć§čØę¶ćē“”ć
$LAYYYTER
EXPECTATIONS

Kaledo Art
"I'm Dorothy Gale from Kansas"
KIROKAZE

No title available
art blog(derogatory)

seen from Japan
seen from United States
seen from Nepal
seen from Paraguay

seen from Malaysia
seen from Uganda
seen from Spain
seen from Netherlands
seen from Germany

seen from United States
seen from United States

seen from Malaysia
seen from Saudi Arabia

seen from United States
seen from Australia
seen from United States

seen from Congo - Brazzaville

seen from United States
seen from United States
seen from Uzbekistan
@internetphilosipher-blog
āļø
For more Visit MY BLOG HERE.
This blog will make you feel at peace
ā
Speyer, Rhineland-Palatinate, Germany by Helmut Reichelt
until i saw those posts from @publius-esquireā i had literally no idea that women and free black americans (with property) had the vote in some states when the constitution was ratified and they lostĀ those rights. and this wasnāt something theoretical, women and black people did vote. and it wasnāt like the states had just forgotten to specify they meant white men, laws in new jersey passed in 1790 and 1797 referred to voters as āhe or she.āĀ
historyā consistent progress, and thinking that it does helps excuse past intolerance/oppression as an inevitable stepping stone towards enlightenment and tolerance. if schools taught american history differently, maybe more students would realize that oppression is a product of hate, not ignorance. i wish i could be more articulate. iām so fucking angry no one ever taught me this.
I was never taught it, either. Iāve never seen a greater argument against statesā rights. From what Iāve been able to find, the states that had once allowed free African American male suffrage (and in the case of New Jersey, also single female suffrage) with property qualifications, and the years they were taken away in almost all cases under Jeffersonian Republican or Jacksonian Democrat administrations.
Delaware (1792)
Kentucky (1799)
Maryland (1801)
New Jersey (1807)
Connecticut (1814)
New York (1821 property qualifications taken away for white men and raised for black men, effectively killing the black vote)
Rhode Island (1822) (reinstated in 1842 with property qualifications only for black men)
Tennessee (1834)
North Carolina (1835)
Pennsylvania (1838)
And the states, to my knowledge (correct me if Iām wrong), that granted free African American male suffrage and never took it away all through the Fifteenth Amendment:
Massachusetts
Vermont
New Hampshire
Maine
So the states that had a combined black population of about 4%.
Its prbly obvious but for the opās comment *white women
Technically speaking, no. In New Jersey, where women could vote until 1807, free black women were not excluded by the State Constitution (again, the laws still didnāt let slaves vote). The requirements for voting in New Jersey were as follows:
The voter must have reached the age of majorityĀ
The voter must be āworth fifty pounds proclamation money, clear estate in the same.ā
The voter must have lived within the county for at least a year
Gender and race were not considered limiting factors, which meant that free black people who had attained a certain threshold of wealth were eligible. Married women could not technically own property, so they werenāt eligible, but single women and widows were. If there happened to be a free black woman in the state of New Jersey between 1776 (when their Constitution was drafted) and 1807 (when gender and race restrictions were put in place), and she was not married, and she had attained the necessary threshold of wealth, she was eligible.Ā
It would be very difficult to find out if anyone like this ever existed, and if they did, whether they voted in any elections, but itās entirely possible. Black women faced more stringent voting restrictions because unlike white women they needed to be free in addition to being unmarried, and in a racist society it was likely much harder for them to acquire the necessary wealth and property. Still, they were eligible.
While looking into this I made a cursory attempt to find a record of any unmarried, property-owning free black women in New Jersey. I didnāt see much, but I did run across something thatās probably of interest to people:
Elizabeth FreemanĀ was born a slave around 1744 in New York, and essentially brought about the end of slavery in Massachusetts single-handedly. Just as an example of the kind of woman Freeman was, at one point she shielded a young girl from the attack of their mistress,Ā Hannah Ashley, and received a bad wound on her arm. Hereās what Freeman had to say about that:Ā āI had a bad arm all winter, but Madam had the worst of it. I never covered the wound, and when people said to me, before Madam, āBetty, what ails your arm?ā I only answered - āask missis!ā Which was the slave and which was the real misses?ā
In 1780, Freeman heard a public reading of the Massachusetts Constitution and was struck by the first article, which begins, āall men are born free and equal.ā She sought out a lawyer and sued the state for her freedom, pointing out that the wording of the State Constitution conflicted with slavery. Slavery in Massachusetts was declared unconstitutional as a result of this case (though it still took some time for slavery to fully end, by 1790 there were no recorded slaves in the state), and Freeman was given her freedom (and was compensated for her laborā¦nice).Ā
Freemanās old masters asked her to come back to their house and work for a wage, but she basically told them to go fuck themselves and went to work for the attorney who represented her,Ā Theodore Sedgwick, as a paid servant and governess. Eventually she became a popular and in-demand midwife and nurse, and she and her daughter bought a house in Stockbridge. She died around 85, and was buried in the Sedgwick family plot.
Anyway, Elizabeth Freeman seems like an absolutely amazing and fascinating person, and sheās a good example of a politically active, property-owning black woman in early America, though Iām sure thereās no shortage of others.
Nope, black women could vote in New Jersey, too:
- Hanes Walton, et al, The African American Electorate: A Statistical History
history is not a trajectory of linear *progress.*
Iām reblogging this (American History) post today because itās a concrete example of what Iām always trying to tell people: what we ASSUME is true about history and what is ACTUALLY TRUE are often very, very different.
So itās worthwhile to ask ourselves, why are we encouraged to believe that things in the past are always āworseā, and that our present must always somehow, of necessity, be ābetterā? Who benefits from this process, and who is disenfranchised by it?
Are any of us necessarily better off right now than those who are like ourselves would have been in a previous time? How does history compare to today? Is it worthwhile to study the past and see for ourselves whether or not this is true?
The main reason in my opinion that things like this misinformation. that we get is that it doesn't fit the narrative that is being propagated by this new leftist group. The effects of enlightenment values can be seen through the last few hundred years. Classical liberalism has been slowly winning this fight for liberty. And in adding to that point about voting since it was based originally on land owners since basically the founding of the first colonies you can find proof of women voting clear into the 1600s. Something that I found very interesting is that in the original first wave feminist movement is that there was quiet a large group of women in opposition to the flat out right to vote because it was thought to come with certain responsibilities that they didn't want such as being added to the draft. Of course this didn't happen because the supposed existing "patriarchy" didn't see it as a plus to have women dying in wars. That isn't to say it's necessarily a bad thing that women were given the right to vote. on a broad terms it was a plus because it caused that you no longer need to be a property owner to vote. But yes many try to claim that women didn't have the right to vote at all is absolute Bullshit. It's simply a talking point used by the left to hold up there identity polotics. As a classical liberal I have trouble sometimes accepting that this is what the left has turned into. And find it almost strange that I've sided with conservatives on things simply because the left has turned into idiots. On the note of federalism vs anti federalism it does need to be stated that it is something that needs to be balanced on a knifes edge. Just look at the founding fathers while I'm not sure wether it was intentional or not they divided pretty evenly on either side of the debate.
Sometimes we lose our soulmates and thatās ok
Speak for yourself
Why comment & reblog if you donāt agree then šš @fabriquer-en-jamaique
Why lecture me for disagreeing with something and putting it on MY blog????
Donāt ruin MY post by commenting something irrelevant
If it was so irrelevant why did you come onto my blog to say something about it š¤š¤. Thereās like hundreds of notes in this post that support it so why donāt you focus on that and leave my āirrelevant commentsā alone?
There is 8 comments, out of about 489 notes. So let that sink in. Bye šš½
Ok you still focused on my one āirrelevant commentā but ok ššš
Bc you actually make it on the post
So it was relevant then? Not as irrelevant as you said it was before. Glad I did say something important and decided to share it with my followers. Cool
Thatās cool. Wasnāt important once again. Bye
Thatās why you come onto my blog though to say something. Itās ok I forgive you šš
I came on MY post which you commented on to tell your ass to stop saying irrelevant things on my post. CLEARLY Iām not the only one Iām speaking for considering over 500 people have liked and reblogged it and havenāt fought about my words. Thanks, but I donāt need forgiveness, I did nothing wrong.
You would think if these 500 disagreed the would of commented instead of watching fucking yin and yang going back and forth like fucking children. Just because your trying to sound deep doesnāt mean you are. Yes you may lose your soul mate but no that is not ok losing a loved one is never ok. So get off your high horse and quite trying to tell someone to get off your supposed post. For commenting in the opposition of your supposed deep thought.
Fuck off. Learn how to make put together a sentence because half of your āsentencesā didnāt even make sense.
Just because I simply because I donāt use consistent punctuation doesnāt change the truth in the words. And usually I find someone who reverts to that statement has no real argument
My argument is, I donāt care what you have to say, fuck off the post, learn how to write so people can understand what youāre even trying to say.
So your argument is i donāt put dots in the correct place therfore my argument is invalid mean while you butcher the English language with such idiocy as telling people who have lost there soul mates itās OK this happened and then the moment anyone says something against it. immediately tell them to fuck off. You seem to have a misunderstanding of how this whole freedom of speech laws are supposed to work as well as a basic understanding of how the human mind works. I didnāt realize I was arguing with an incompetent idiot who can read a word with out specific dots. I apologize I try to make a habit of not arguing with idiots.
So youāre arguing that the people who have lost soulmates are the only ones with a valid statement? Considering I have lost a soulmate and I can still make a post like this just shows that it is possible. Youāre arguing with an āidiotā who maintains a 4.5 GPA, but sure, Iām the idiot, right?
GPA has no showing on intelligence that only shows you know how to follow a few rules. And no that would be antifree speech I'm not saying you can't say it but telling someone to just fuck off is not necessarily the way to handle the situation. Just look at the comments that have come across in the notes. I'm not saying it hasn't hurt you maybe you have just finally accept it happens but to many it's not ok. And while death is one of the only consistent things in the world we shouldn't ever consider it ok. The moment we do that is the moment we give up on one of our species driving forces the fear of death wether for others or ourselves. The death of a sound mate for many will take a lifetime to deal with even then there's no garrauntee. There's a reason for the notion distance makes the heart grow fonder. What I'm trying to say is that your trivializing such a scaring event like losing your soul mate. Now this next part I apologize because this can only be said from my experience because I have lost mine and I know how hard it can be but the fact your able to so readily say that such a traumatizing thing is OK I wonder if you have. Again I am not in your shoes I can not say for certain wether that is true perhaps this was simply a post of you trying to deal with this issues for your self, but trust me when I say this is not something a few words will ever make ok but that In itself is OK you should feel that pain and be willing to not be OK with the fact there dead. Because perhaps that will drive you to do something that will cause less people to not have to deal with that.
This blog will make you feel at peace
Garibaldi Lake, British Columbia, Canada.. by IvanAndreevich