Quiz: Who said the following?
I think that one of the greatest mistakes that America made was to allow women the opportunity to vote. We should’ve never turned this over to women. … And these women are voting in the wrong people. They’re voting in people who are evil who agrees with them who’re gonna take us down this pathway of destruction.
And this probably was the reason that they didn’t allow women to vote when men were men. Because men in the good old days understood the nature of the woman. They were not afraid to deal with it. And they understood that, you let them take over, this is what would happen. …
Wherever women are taking over, evil reigns.
Was it:
Some dude on The Spearhead?
A regular guest on Sean Hannity’s show on Fox News?
Well, yeah, you guessed it: it’s door number three. Rev. Jesse Lee Peterson, a Tea Party activist and founder of the group Brotherhood Organization of A New Destiny (BOND), said all of the above, and quite a lot of other outrageously misogynistic things, in a talk this March, and which is available on YouTube. Yet Hannity, who serves on the board of Peterson’s group, had him back on his show earlier this month, for an appearance during which Peterson described “liberal Democrat women” as “whores.” Raw Story, which discovered Peterson’s unlisted video on YouTube, offers many more delightful misogyny nuggets from Peterson.
Here’s the video of Peterson’s talk. The stuff about women and voting starts at about 8:30 in. But I suggest you watch the whole thing from the start; it’s a virtual smorgasbord of misogyny, seasoned with a bunch of stuff he simply made up about Sandra Fluke’s famous congressional testimony on birth control.
It would be nice if this sort of stuff was confined to the fringes of the manosphere, but alas, it’s everywhere.
Argent writes ‘Initially the right to vote was limited to free, land owning, white men’
And where is that in the US Constitution? There is no mention of white men, land owning or slaves in the Constitution.There is a section having to do with taxation and an enumeration for the purpose of representation in Congress. For this purpose it reads ‘Representatives and direct Taxes shall be apportioned among the several States which may be included within this Union, according to their respective Numbers, which shall be determined by adding to the whole Number of free Persons, including those bound to Service for a Term of Years, and excluding Indians not taxed, three fifths of all other Persons.
So basically free persons and indentured persons were counted; Indians who lived in the civilised areas and paid taxes were counted;and all others were counted as 3 persons for every 5. Of course the 3:5 persons was a compromise because the northeners did not want to count the Negroes who were servants for life at all. The reason was to limit the number of seats in Congress for the areas of the US where these life servants still existed and somehow eliminating this practise in certain States where people would keep these life servants bound to them.I’m afraid that a very bad precedent was set by the first person who owned slaves, a Negro by the name of Anthony Johnson, when he refused to release his Negro servant John Casor from being an indentured servant after 5 years. Before 1654 all servants were indentured servants and were released after a period of time by this Negro Johnson changed this when he brought the case to court and refused to release his servant.
The Poll Tax?
The reason for this is that many well off persons may not have owned land and therefore didn’t pay taxes (except for excise tax etc) and before these new income taxes weren’t yet levied on the more ccompetent, so in order to show that they did pay taxes and were eligible to vote they’d pay this poll tax of perhaps a dollar and that would qualify them as a taxpayer.
Um what? You are trying to lay blame for black slavery in America at the feet of one black man? Or is it just really that late over here?
Um, Sandra? You’re not helping.
@John, ignoring that you got my SN wrong in the hopes it’s just a typo — do you have a basic understanding of how US law works? Because the answer to “And where is that in the US Constitution?” is that it’s implied if they needed Amendments to change it (try seeing “all men are created equal” and wtf they meant in context for “where”, though that’s the Declaration of Independance, not the Constitution)
Please see wiki regarding the claim Native Americans were allowed to vote from the beginning (that’d be funny if it wasn’t painfully wrong) — my history lesson stopped with poll taxes because Native American voting rights were an even bigger mess:
So depending how old you are John, it’s possible Native Americans got the right to vote within your lifetime
And that’s hilarious about poll taxes, “they weren’t to prevent the poor from voting, they were so the well off could proof how well off they are!” — from my link in my last history lesson:
$15 =/= $1
Sandra, this isn’t a do or die scenario. If our society does evolve to become more inclusive and egalitarian, then these guys are going to find themselves in increasingly smaller social circles. That’s all.
The do or die scenario is being used to make martyrs out of men who are publically killing themselves in protest of the changes they don’t like.
Either that, or the dying part is foisted on innocent women, knifed in cold blood simply for walking down a public street.
@Sandra-there are a handful of these so called White Nationalists and I have yet to meet one in real life. But this Rev. and hundreds of other disparate people of all races, religions,classes and political parties seem to believe a lot of what this Rev is saying so it is by no means some sort of fringe thinking.
I had basically the same thought the first time I saw that video though — that white people could say the same about him, but since I think voting is a universal right, I’ll get go WHAT!? instead of saying maybe his right to vote should disappear too. Sandra, if I understand, you’re not saying abolishing the 15th Amendment would be good, but noting the irony of hating the 19th coming from someone who benefited from the 15th?
Still, probably better not to say it in front of the likes of NWO.
Argenti-I’m not going to argue Law with an amateur but as you know, the Chinese within the US and who had lived for generations within the US were not citizens until the beginning of WWII. Do you know why?
The free landowning men thing..something carried over from British law?
Pillow-as I said to the other one, don’t argue Law. In England, the Crown theoretically owned all land.
Er, you do realize Ann Coulter has said the same thing, right? I don’t condone taking away the vote but it’s important to have those voices. I don’t want to live in an echo chamber. Nothing should be off the table in a free society (greatest country in the world!)
Oh pardon me my Lord, for overstepping my proper boundaries and speaking out of turn to make a simple inquiry.
Fuck you.
I wasn’t here to debate you, but to learn US history, seeing as I’m Canadian. And its shocking I know you little pissant, but we don’t learn the US constitution up here.
Um, John? One, unless you’re a lawyer, or training to be one, I’m just going to laugh at that amateur line, nice neg though!
Two — because racism in very old immigration laws that was struck down in the same law cited above re: Native Americans — or do you think I can’t read what I’m citing?
@pillowinhell — afaik, it’s common law, yeah.
lol pillowinhell, we don’t really learn it down here either, sadly
And tell me…does the Law also include that fact that no one can debate you on it?
Because it seems to me that if you were such a great authority on it, you wouldn’t mind the debate at all. Rather, you’d look forward to a debate as a meeting of minds and perhaps a chance to educate or gain a new perspective.
Also, you don’t put into Law what is simply common custom. And requiring land to vote literally goes back thousands of years.
English law is in fact built on the foundations of the Pax Romana. And roman law required ownership of property in order to have a vote of any significance. The headcount simply voted as they were told to by their patrons.
Argenti, it seems your constitution is worshipped in much the same way as the Bible. Including picking out the parts that serve your own needs best and ignoring the other parts, including the spirit in which the whole thing was written.
And where is Illiathana? She’ll make mincemeat out of this one.
So I guess that answers my question about john blaming one black man for initiating Black slavery in the US.
Unless you feel like going back to the topic you’re trying to run away from.
While we’re at it, why don’t you tell us how much one dollar could buy in the time of the poll tax. What was the typical wage of the working poor?
In my grandmothers childhood a nickle would buy you a least a coffee. She’s in her mid seventies.
@pillow: you have reminded me of something funny from my youth. We had lots of children’s TV shows I recall, with some main host-type character and other characters, and often puppets, cartoons, guests, and such. I remember one of many that suddenly made me sit up and go “WHAT!?” She was talking with the other characters about history, and explaining with great glee and gusto about how America LOST the war of 1812. She seemed so proud and delighted – so I did a little research. The show was – Canadian, being shown in the northeastern states of the US (well, it was cute and wholesome, so why not?). I think it was Polka Dot Door.
Pretty much, yeah. And “the spirit in which [it] was written” got me accused of the genetic fallacy by another MRA over the weekend. (I’m poking my nearly-a-laywer best friend for an answer to the land owning males question, as it seems common law had even more requirements than that)
About the Pax Romana though, the headcount was for census data more than voting — anyone with pater familias status could punish other family members and slaves for voting against his wishes, which I’m sure the MRAs would *love* to return to. IDK if murder for voting for the other guy ever happened, but the threat was ever present under pater familias. (And voting was a right of citizens only, but I was kinda half asleep for that class, Latin was boring)
Ah yes! The war of 1812!!! We spent an entire year in history on that one! Canadians mopped the floor with the US. And we burned the capital down. So disgraceful…having to whitewash your capital building in a desperate attempt to hide your shame.
The first nation to grant women the vote was little old New Zealand, in 1893. Thats still after all men in the US were able to vote, but in fairness we’d only been having elections at all for fifty years.
What you are missing Arks, is that there is nowhere that women have gotten the vote before men of the same social caste. And in the majority of cases, women wait decades after their same-caste brothers win the right.
Regarding the worth of $1 — 1964 — except the last poll tax was $2, which seems to be about 2 gallons of milk, or a bottle of aspirin. Given milk is price controlled though, I’d trust the inflation rate more than this comparison (it’d buy whatever $14 would buy now) — some of the other years on that site have the hourly min wage at just over $1, so just under two hours work ~ish.
Oddly enough, Mormon women were given the right to vote. But of course they were expected to use their vote to support Church issues. http://historytogo.utah.gov/utah_chapters/statehood_and_the_progressive_era/womenssuffrageinutah.html
BTW Pillow, I’ve been doing my genealogy and on my father’s father’s side I found out I’m Canadian. Well, Irish, Scottish and English ultimately, but via Ontario mostly.