snopes.com  

Go Back   snopes.com > SLC Central > Rantidote

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1  
Old 07 November 2018, 10:44 PM
crocoduck_hunter's Avatar
crocoduck_hunter crocoduck_hunter is offline
 
Join Date: 27 May 2009
Location: Roseburg, OR
Posts: 12,811
D'oh! I can't even.

So today I stopped for lunch at local restaurant.

Two guys sat down at the table next to mine shortly after I got there and began talking about yesterday's election.

They were complaining about the failure of Ballot Measure 106, which would have ended state funding for abortions (predictably, it lost by a very wide margin).

One of the guys said "if you can't afford to have kids, you can't afford to have them aborted" as if there was some insane form of logic in which the statement made sense.

Then the other guy said "well, the problem is that the Founding Fathers only ever intended for landowners to be allowed to vote. Ending that was how we got this mess."

Uuuugh.
Reply With Quote
  #2  
Old 07 November 2018, 11:14 PM
RichardM RichardM is offline
 
Join Date: 27 March 2004
Location: Las Cruces, NM
Posts: 4,550
Default

Male, white land owners.
Reply With Quote
  #3  
Old 07 November 2018, 11:54 PM
crocoduck_hunter's Avatar
crocoduck_hunter crocoduck_hunter is offline
 
Join Date: 27 May 2009
Location: Roseburg, OR
Posts: 12,811
Default

Well, all land owners were male and white. And neither guy said male or white out loud.
Reply With Quote
  #4  
Old 08 November 2018, 12:10 AM
E. Q. Taft's Avatar
E. Q. Taft E. Q. Taft is offline
 
Join Date: 30 July 2003
Location: San Diego, CA
Posts: 14,292
Default

I have attempted to use the argument that one reason that insurance (including government insurance) should cover abortion, and birth control for that matter, is that people who can't afford them on their own, certainly can't afford to pay the much larger costs of pre-natal care and maternity services, not to mention the long-term costs of raising a child. So it's going to cost all of us a lot more in the long run than the birth control or, if necessary, abortion services would.

But that's not quite the same argument.
Reply With Quote
  #5  
Old 08 November 2018, 12:53 AM
GenYus234's Avatar
GenYus234 GenYus234 is offline
 
Join Date: 02 August 2005
Location: Mesa, AZ
Posts: 26,357
Default

Also, the founding fathers did not intend that only (white male) landowners could vote. Many thought that women and free blacks should vote as well.

http://message.snopes.com/showpost.p...&postcount=122
Reply With Quote
  #6  
Old 08 November 2018, 01:03 AM
RichardM RichardM is offline
 
Join Date: 27 March 2004
Location: Las Cruces, NM
Posts: 4,550
Default

Thanks for that clarification. But I'm sure the 2 overheard speakers thought that it was white and male.
Reply With Quote
  #7  
Old 08 November 2018, 02:32 AM
ganzfeld's Avatar
ganzfeld ganzfeld is offline
 
Join Date: 05 September 2005
Location: Kyoto, Japan
Posts: 23,654
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by GenYus234 View Post
Many thought that women and free blacks should vote as well.
Many? Who, for example? I'm going to have to ask for a cite, please, on that. I don't see where the ones in the linked post support that.
Reply With Quote
  #8  
Old 08 November 2018, 04:13 AM
jimmy101_again jimmy101_again is offline
 
Join Date: 29 December 2005
Location: Greenwood, IN
Posts: 6,912
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by ganzfeld View Post
Many? Who, for example? I'm going to have to ask for a cite, please, on that. I don't see where the ones in the linked post support that.
Does the state constitution of New Jersey count as many?
https://www.nps.gov/articles/voting-...h-and-19th.htm
Reply With Quote
  #9  
Old 08 November 2018, 07:20 AM
ganzfeld's Avatar
ganzfeld ganzfeld is offline
 
Join Date: 05 September 2005
Location: Kyoto, Japan
Posts: 23,654
Default

I read his "should" and "and" as to mean there were many advocating the rights of both groups.

I don't think that particular case indicates many people advocating the right for both. The explicit removal from both groups at the same time also doesn't seem to have instigated any strong opposition. (The claim that it was merely political notwithstanding.)

That said, that some laws were explicitly adapted to the clause (at least in the case of women) and its survival for many years lends support to the slightly weaker claim that many in NJ were not opposed to allowing it. Which certainly is notable but the same.
Reply With Quote
  #10  
Old 08 November 2018, 02:45 PM
GenYus234's Avatar
GenYus234 GenYus234 is offline
 
Join Date: 02 August 2005
Location: Mesa, AZ
Posts: 26,357
Default

The founding fathers didn't need to advocate for those rights in many states as women and free black people could already vote.

While New Jersey was the only state to explicitly permit women to vote, women were allowed to vote in Rhode Island, Connecticut, and Delaware under the same requirements as men. Delaware, Maryland, New Hampshire, New York, Pennsylvania, and Massachusetts all explicitly gave the right to vote to black people in their state constitutions when the US Constitution was enacted and only three states (Virginia, South Carolina, and Georgia) specifically barred black people from voting.

ETA: It may not be enough for "many" to properly apply, but I think it is certainly enough to show that the founding fathers were not universally (or even overwhelming majorityly) in favor of only landowning, white men suffrage.
FETA: That sounds snarky, it is not meant to be.

Last edited by GenYus234; 08 November 2018 at 02:54 PM.
Reply With Quote
  #11  
Old 10 November 2018, 12:18 AM
ganzfeld's Avatar
ganzfeld ganzfeld is offline
 
Join Date: 05 September 2005
Location: Kyoto, Japan
Posts: 23,654
Default

I don't find the argument that their silence was tacit approval the least bit convincing for several reasons. 1) When we do have a record of founders' opinions on the matter they were opposed or ambivalent. 2) Cases of actual voting would have been rare for the reasons discussed in the articles you linked to so it's unlikely they were even aware it was going on. In many cases it was simply an oversight in the first place and other prohibitions, such as wealth or land ownership would have kept out all but a very very few brave and wealthy women and people of color. (In most of these cases, no record of such voting survives.) 3) As soon as it became apparent there would actually be any such voting once wealth and property restrictions were removed, nearly all of those states immediately explicitly revoked the right — causing, as far as the record shows, little or no reaction at all, never mind opposition. It wouldn't be for another 50 years or so before it was even seriously considered in most cases. If "many thought they should" why did they not at least a very few leave a record of any debate or discussion? The most plausible explanation is that very very few cared about the disenfranchisement of people they never knew had the right in the first place.

I guess what the cases mentioned show is that it is plausible that more than a few (maybe even many) privately were not opposed to the idea. It's possible (although given the evidence I think it unlikely) that many privately supported the idea. It certainly doesn't show that many or even a good number were definitely in favor of it.

Last edited by ganzfeld; 10 November 2018 at 12:26 AM.
Reply With Quote
  #12  
Old 10 November 2018, 12:38 AM
crocoduck_hunter's Avatar
crocoduck_hunter crocoduck_hunter is offline
 
Join Date: 27 May 2009
Location: Roseburg, OR
Posts: 12,811
Default

In any event, what the founding fathers actually intended isn't relevant here, as what the two guys from my original post thought the founding fathers intended was quite evident and what I was ranting about.
Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is On

Forum Jump


All times are GMT. The time now is 04:59 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2018, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.