Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Pastimes : Let's Talk About Our Feelings!!! -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Edwarda who wrote (59583)	10/22/1999 8:26:00 AM
From: Ish	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 108807

<<is that landedness was once the legal definition of a person in terms of the right to vote. Duh? If one didn't own land, one was not a person? Carrying it further, if one was not a male landed individual, one was not a full person....>> Sounds right.

To: Edwarda who wrote (59583)	10/22/1999 9:50:00 AM
From: Neocon	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 108807

It did not define personality, but the right of suffrage. In any case, the fact that someone made a mistake centuries ago does not mean that any definition is a mistake. That is too obvious a fallacy to need commentary.....In the Constitution, even those without the right to vote (women, children, landless journeymen) were counted as persons in the census. The one debate was over the status of chattel slaves. If they were like cattle, how could they be counted as persons for the purposes of even indirect representation? The South, on the other hand, would have lost too much in the Federal balance of power if they were excluded entirely. Therefore, they compromised, and counted them as partial persons....