Not to be any more contentious than you are being, I suppose the same thing could be said of the US Constitution which seemed to be opposed to granting liberty to the women and Indians of their population.
So you can see that many minority populations were being marginalized by majorities....just the argument that Calhoun was making in the 1848 speech.
He was arguing for either political responsibility or constraints via law to protect against loss of rights.
Interpret that as you will.
The constitution only added the word “male” with the 14th amendment. Before then who could vote was up to the states. Indians were full citizens or not, depending on their tax status. The Rolf family, descended from Pocahontas, had long been important in Virginia. Assimilated Indians voted. Why would they not?
The constitution only added the word “male” with the 14th amendment. Before then who could vote was up to the states. Indians were full citizens or not, depending on their tax status. The Rolf family, descended from Pocahontas, had long been important in Virginia. Assimilated Indians voted. Why would they not?