To continue where I left off here…
Now, of course, in the 18th century, the majority of property owners were most assuredly men. But there were a few women who indeed owned their own property – either from inheritance or their own efforts, and they were also extended the franchise to vote.
And there are historical records notating that in fact women did vote in State elections in the past, prior to the temperance movement and the 19th amendment.
Nevertheless, it is a common belief amongst today’s society to accept the notion that women were denied the right to vote because of the feminist movements revisionist interpretation that historically, men deliberately denied women the vote to oppress them.
That until the 19th amendment…women in America were subjugated and powerless. Beholden to the whim’s of beastly, misogynistic and abusive men.
Just as the “Wage Gap” has been deliberately distorted — where raw numbers of wage discrepancies between gender are automatically referred to as the result of sexism…rather than delving further into the topic and discovering that it is not sexism at all…but women’s own lifestyle choices and how they exercise them as the primary determinant of the so-called “wage gap.” –, so too is the past’s legal and social norms ignored and unconsidered. Nay, not even considered, but rather simply attributed to the barbaric state of misogyny of the unjust patriarchal hegemony of the male dominated culture of the past.
The most important thing to consider first, was the widely held belief system that was accepted by society at large in the bad old days of Patriarchal oppression…primarily with regards to marriage. Before the sexual revolution and cultural upheaval of the 1960’s, America was widely understood to be a Christian nation. Most Americans were church going citizens and the moral code of the Bible and it’s 10 commandments and the New Testament’s “golden rule” were the accepted ’social contract’ of moral principles.
Why is this relevant? Because the basic principle of a Christian-based society like the early America was the idea that marriage was the merging of a man and woman into a single entity. One unit. In the physical, spiritual and legal sense of the word.
Signer of the Declaration of Independence and also one of the framers of the Constitution, James Wilson, wrote about how Marriage was considered under the eyes of the law:
The most important consequence of marriage is, that the husband and the wife become, in law, only one person: the legal existence of the wife is consolidated into that of the husband. Upon this principle of union, almost all the other legal consequences of marriage depend.
This was the true essence of the reasoning why women were never specifically designated as a separate, legal entity, apart from her husband in manners concerning society. In other words, the prevailing cultural attitude of the times was that in terms of civic duties, the vote was designated as one vote per family…one vote per household…or one vote per single entity – that single entity being a married couple.
And in the past, the vast majority of women did get married. Only a few women in any given community became “old maids” and spinsters. It was simply the cultural norm for women to get married and have children. Therefore, one vote, one household (provided the man of the house owned property).
Of course we live in much different times today…we now have a society that has devalued and decimated marriage. It might even be argued that the first fault lines in the institution of marriage were indeed effected by the female driven temperance movement that sought to create the separate legal status between a husband and a wife in terms of voting.
Despite this cultural and social mores of the time of the nation at founding that regarded a husband and wife as a single, legal entity; John Adam’s wife, Abigail, implored her Husband to consider separate legal status for women while Adams was taking part in the framing of the Constitution…note the implications of Abigail’s letter here:
I long to hear that you have declared an independancy—and by the way in the new Code of Laws which I suppose it will be necessary for you to make I desire you would Remember the Ladies, and be more generous and favourable to them than your ancestors. Do not put such unlimited power into the hands of the Husbands. Remember all Men would be tyrants if they could. If particuiar care and attention is not paid to the Ladies, we are determined to foment a Rebellion, and will not hold ourselves bound by any Laws in which we have no voice, or representation.
That your Sex are Naturally Tyrannical is a Truth so thoroughly established as to admit of no dispute, but such of you as wish to be happy willingly give up the harsh title of Master for the more tender and endearing one of Friend. Why then, not put it out of the power of the vicious and the Lawless to use us with cruelty and indignity with impunity. Men of Sense in all Ages abhor those customs which treat us only as the vassals of your Sex. Regard us then as Beings placed by providence under your protection and in imitation of the Supreme Being make use of that power only for our happiness.
Modern day feminists and their mangina lackeys have read Abigail’s letter to her husband and have seized upon it as some kind of proof that men were all tyrants that oppressed females, and that denying women the right to vote was the proof of this.
John essentially laughs at her contentions and points out in his response where the true tyranny resides…
As to your extraordinary Code of Laws, I cannot but laugh. We have been told that our Struggle has loosened the bands of Government every where. That Children and Apprentices were disobedient—that schools and Colleges were grown turbulent—that Indians slighted their Guardians and Negroes grew insolent to their Masters. But your Letter was the first Intimation that another Tribe more numerous and powerful than all the rest were grown discontented.—This is rather too coarse a Compliment but you are so saucy, I won’t blot it out.
Depend upon it, We know better than to repeal our Masculine systems. Although they are in Full force, you know they are little more than Theory. We dare not exert our Power in its full Latitude. We are obliged to go fair, and softly, and in Practice you know We are the subjects. We have only the Name of Masters, and rather than give up this, which would completely subject Us to the Despotism of the peticoat, I hope General Washington, and all our brave Heroes would fight….
Now what exactly do you think John meant by this?
Yup…John was alluding to the power of the wife’s pussywhip.
John’s defense of the “masculine systems” was certainly an admission that women have ALWAYS had the true power in a society, because it is the women’s influence over her husband and children that is the true exercise of power.
Just as John Adam’s predicted in his long ago love letter to his wife, should women gain influence in the sphere of politics and public life, she would than have total control over everything…the despotism of the petticoat.
And to those of us that know better…those of us that have taken the red pill and seen our socially engineered, gyno-centric matriarchal matrix for what it is, can we not now say that John Adam’s response to his wife was in fact prophetic, as we now most certainly live under the despotism of the petticoat?