To: AEMILIUS PAULUS
What I have described is close to what really was. Those attitudes are very alien today.
What you describe is the intent of the founders. Was their vision a perfect description of natural rights? e.g. does not an indentured servant have the same rights as the gentry?
posted on 08/31/2003 5:37:30 PM PDT
by NMC EXP
(Choose one: [a] party [b] principle.)
To: NMC EXP
Once again it will depend on the time period. Indentured servants did not have the right to vote. Property qualifications were the norm and this factor is the main feature limiting voting earlyin the Republic. As I recall even in the N.E. there were property qualifications. A good source is West's Digest one can trace the cases back to the 18th century. The problem being the brevity of the digest entries and then finding the volumes containing the actual cases. However, the Digests are an interesting source of law and underlying attitudes. There were groups of course that were precluded by law from voting i.e. women, blacks. In California the Chinese were precluded by law from juries, giving evidence in court, voting. This was true up until the late 1860's. In my lifetime there were laws forbidding miscegenation. As I said rights belonged only inter pares.
posted on 08/31/2003 6:46:51 PM PDT
by AEMILIUS PAULUS
(Further, the statement assumed)
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson