Except maybe for all those Continental Army soldiers who suffered through years of deprivation, freezing weather, often no pay, etc. (and those were the lucky ones who lived to see victory), without whom there would have been no property held by the Colonials-cum-Americans. My maternal ancestors were indentured servants who were so mistr…
Except maybe for all those Continental Army soldiers who suffered through years of deprivation, freezing weather, often no pay, etc. (and those were the lucky ones who lived to see victory), without whom there would have been no property held by the Colonials-cum-Americans. My maternal ancestors were indentured servants who were so mistreated by the property-owning master that they walked en masse from New Smyrna (FL) to the then-seat of government, St. Augustine, where their cause was supported by the Governor. So he would have been able to vote, but they wouldn't have (though this was in the late 1760s or early 1770s, so well before we were the U.S.). I don't think people should be able to vote to take other people's money and property, but it's hard to find that sweet spot that might keep the pendulum from swinging too far one way or the other.
Yes, typically 7 years, during which the master was able to vote in such a way as to retain power and make it difficult or impossible for newcomers to become property owners. Perhaps we can see powerful people doing the same today, which is why the working class have been such strong supporters of Trump. They've been on the wrong side the trends for some time now.
Except maybe for all those Continental Army soldiers who suffered through years of deprivation, freezing weather, often no pay, etc. (and those were the lucky ones who lived to see victory), without whom there would have been no property held by the Colonials-cum-Americans. My maternal ancestors were indentured servants who were so mistreated by the property-owning master that they walked en masse from New Smyrna (FL) to the then-seat of government, St. Augustine, where their cause was supported by the Governor. So he would have been able to vote, but they wouldn't have (though this was in the late 1760s or early 1770s, so well before we were the U.S.). I don't think people should be able to vote to take other people's money and property, but it's hard to find that sweet spot that might keep the pendulum from swinging too far one way or the other.
But, as you say, they were indentured, And articles of indenture--unless I am wrong--specified a time length of the servitude.
Yes, typically 7 years, during which the master was able to vote in such a way as to retain power and make it difficult or impossible for newcomers to become property owners. Perhaps we can see powerful people doing the same today, which is why the working class have been such strong supporters of Trump. They've been on the wrong side the trends for some time now.