Voting rights of poor whites in the Antebellum South

[darklordoftech]

Were poor whites in the Antebellum South generally enfranchised or disenfranchised?

[Unconditional Surrender Truman]

The short answer is that it depends on the state and the decade. Kentucky for instance adopted universal manhood suffrage in 1792; this was later limited to universal white manhood suffrage after 1799. At the other extreme, Virginia still had a property requirement for voting as late as 1840, and North Carolina retained its property requirement until 1856. The latter state was notorious for its 1776 constitution which essentially gerrymandered the state legislature (which had the right to elect the governor and other state officers) in favor of the eastern coastal counties dominated by wealthy slaveholders. This resulted in a mass exodus of Quakers and poor whites from the state in the early 1800s, with tens of thousands resettling in Indiana and Ohio. By 1860 30% of all people born in North Carolina —some 276,000 —were living in other states.

[Statilius the Epicurean]

Yeah I think the main thing was gerrymandering in favour of the planter class and their slave populations rather than disenfranchisement of poor whites per se, at least by the eve of the Civil War. Some states like South Carolina had the three fifths rule for apportionment in the state legislature, which makes zero sense as it was supposed to be a clause in the federal constitution protecting slave states from free!

W.E.B. DuBois talks a bit about this and poor whites in the antebellum South in general in the first part of his excellent book Black Reconstruction.

[Samof94]

Yeah I think the main thing was gerrymandering in favour of the planter class and their slave populations rather than disenfranchisement of poor whites per se, at least by the eve of the Civil War. Some states like South Carolina had the three fifths rule for apportionment in the state legislature, which makes zero sense as it was supposed to be a clause in the federal constitution protecting slave states from free!

W.E.B. DuBois talks a bit about this and poor whites in the antebellum South in general in the first part of his excellent book Black Reconstruction.

South Carolina had electors chosen by state legislature for some reason back then.

[Unconditional Surrender Truman]

Yeah I think the main thing was gerrymandering in favour of the planter class and their slave populations rather than disenfranchisement of poor whites per se, at least by the eve of the Civil War. Some states like South Carolina had the three fifths rule for apportionment in the state legislature, which makes zero sense as it was supposed to be a clause in the federal constitution protecting slave states from free!

W.E.B. DuBois talks a bit about this and poor whites in the antebellum South in general in the first part of his excellent book Black Reconstruction.

South Carolina had electors chosen by state legislature for some reason back then.

Unsurprisingly, the ruling Slave Power in South Carolina were not big fans of democracy.

[Samof94]

Yeah I think the main thing was gerrymandering in favour of the planter class and their slave populations rather than disenfranchisement of poor whites per se, at least by the eve of the Civil War. Some states like South Carolina had the three fifths rule for apportionment in the state legislature, which makes zero sense as it was supposed to be a clause in the federal constitution protecting slave states from free!

W.E.B. DuBois talks a bit about this and poor whites in the antebellum South in general in the first part of his excellent book Black Reconstruction.

South Carolina had electors chosen by state legislature for some reason back then.

Unsurprisingly, the ruling Slave Power in South Carolina were not big fans of democracy.

Especially for black people.

[Unconditional Surrender Truman]

Yeah I think the main thing was gerrymandering in favour of the planter class and their slave populations rather than disenfranchisement of poor whites per se, at least by the eve of the Civil War. Some states like South Carolina had the three fifths rule for apportionment in the state legislature, which makes zero sense as it was supposed to be a clause in the federal constitution protecting slave states from free!

W.E.B. DuBois talks a bit about this and poor whites in the antebellum South in general in the first part of his excellent book Black Reconstruction.

South Carolina had electors chosen by state legislature for some reason back then.

Unsurprisingly, the ruling Slave Power in South Carolina were not big fans of democracy.

Especially for black people.

South Carolina was one of the first states to institute a racial requirement for voting, and prior to c. 1800 was one of only three states to bar free blacks from voting (the other two being Delaware and Virginia). As late as 1832, free black men in North Carolina and Tennessee could vote as long as they met the property or taxpaying requirement —which admittedly was not a large share of the black population, but it is an interesting feature of what was otherwise a very undemocratic political system in the former state.

[Samof94]

Yeah I think the main thing was gerrymandering in favour of the planter class and their slave populations rather than disenfranchisement of poor whites per se, at least by the eve of the Civil War. Some states like South Carolina had the three fifths rule for apportionment in the state legislature, which makes zero sense as it was supposed to be a clause in the federal constitution protecting slave states from free!

W.E.B. DuBois talks a bit about this and poor whites in the antebellum South in general in the first part of his excellent book Black Reconstruction.

South Carolina had electors chosen by state legislature for some reason back then.

Unsurprisingly, the ruling Slave Power in South Carolina were not big fans of democracy.

Especially for black people.

South Carolina was one of the first states to institute a racial requirement for voting, and prior to c. 1800 was one of only three states to bar free blacks from voting (the other two being Delaware and Virginia). As late as 1832, free black men in North Carolina and Tennessee could vote as long as they met the property or taxpaying requirement —which admittedly was not a large share of the black population, but it is an interesting feature of what was otherwise a very undemocratic political system in the former state.

That was almost certainly gone by the time of the war.

[Unconditional Surrender Truman]

Yeah I think the main thing was gerrymandering in favour of the planter class and their slave populations rather than disenfranchisement of poor whites per se, at least by the eve of the Civil War. Some states like South Carolina had the three fifths rule for apportionment in the state legislature, which makes zero sense as it was supposed to be a clause in the federal constitution protecting slave states from free!

W.E.B. DuBois talks a bit about this and poor whites in the antebellum South in general in the first part of his excellent book Black Reconstruction.

South Carolina had electors chosen by state legislature for some reason back then.

Unsurprisingly, the ruling Slave Power in South Carolina were not big fans of democracy.

Especially for black people.

South Carolina was one of the first states to institute a racial requirement for voting, and prior to c. 1800 was one of only three states to bar free blacks from voting (the other two being Delaware and Virginia). As late as 1832, free black men in North Carolina and Tennessee could vote as long as they met the property or taxpaying requirement —which admittedly was not a large share of the black population, but it is an interesting feature of what was otherwise a very undemocratic political system in the former state.

That was almost certainly gone by the time of the war.

Yes, TN repealed black suffrage in 1834; NC followed suit in 1835. In 1861, only five states (New England less Connecticut) gave black men the right to vote unconditionally; three more (NY, MI, OH) allowed black men to vote if they met a property requirement, or only in certain elections.

[Samof94]

Yeah I think the main thing was gerrymandering in favour of the planter class and their slave populations rather than disenfranchisement of poor whites per se, at least by the eve of the Civil War. Some states like South Carolina had the three fifths rule for apportionment in the state legislature, which makes zero sense as it was supposed to be a clause in the federal constitution protecting slave states from free!

W.E.B. DuBois talks a bit about this and poor whites in the antebellum South in general in the first part of his excellent book Black Reconstruction.

South Carolina had electors chosen by state legislature for some reason back then.

Unsurprisingly, the ruling Slave Power in South Carolina were not big fans of democracy.

Especially for black people.

South Carolina was one of the first states to institute a racial requirement for voting, and prior to c. 1800 was one of only three states to bar free blacks from voting (the other two being Delaware and Virginia). As late as 1832, free black men in North Carolina and Tennessee could vote as long as they met the property or taxpaying requirement —which admittedly was not a large share of the black population, but it is an interesting feature of what was otherwise a very undemocratic political system in the former state.

That was almost certainly gone by the time of the war.

Yes, TN repealed black suffrage in 1834; NC followed suit in 1835. In 1861, only five states (New England less Connecticut) gave black men the right to vote unconditionally; three more (NY, MI, OH) allowed black men to vote if they met a property requirement, or only in certain elections.

Quite true. The Republic of Texas was founded on the idea that all black people residing there had to be slaves.