Fort Towson

This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Elections and Referendums This article is within the scope of WikiProject Elections and Referendums, an ongoing effort to improve the quality of, expand upon and create new articles relating to elections, electoral reform and other aspects of democratic decision-making. For more information, visit our project page.Elections and ReferendumsWikipedia:WikiProject Elections and ReferendumsTemplate:WikiProject Elections and ReferendumsElections and Referendums articles

"male" seems to be a more appropriate designation.

Voting

Add *Support or *Oppose followed by an optional one-sentence explanation, then sign your vote with ~~~~

• OPPOSE, not all males have suffrage, as the articles states it, only males of majority have suffrage. 132.205.45.148 19:30, 15 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose - although a clumsy and possibly giggle-inducing term, it does appear to be correct (google). Rd232 ^talk 12:23, 27 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• OpposeDespite not liking how the word sounds, I think it IS the correct word here.81.99.198.116 12:35, 27 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose. Current name is correct. FearÉIREANN\^(caint) 02:03, 28 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion

Add any additional comments

Result

It was requested that this article be renamed but there was no consensus for it to be moved. WhiteNight ^{T | @ | C} 03:02, 28 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

According to multiple opinions at Talk:One man, one vote#Splitting proposal between One man, one vote and One person, one vote it seems One man, one vote and One person, one vote are same concept. Then it makes senso to merge Universal manhood suffrage into Universal suffrage. HudecEmil (talk) 18:47, 30 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

They are the same concept because until quite recently "man" could be understood as "human being" / "person" of any gender. But "Universal manhood suffrage" is a different concept from "Universal suffrage" because one half of humanhood is excluded. Rsk6400 (talk) 09:41, 4 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

In the 1820s and 1830s United States, the goal was to extend voting rights to all adult white males (which was actually a wider electorate than most other countries in the world at that time). I don't think this limited reform should be confused with later wider reforms. AnonMoos (talk) 20:21, 4 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Just to add: Not only was the electorate wider, but the laws were also more racist than in most other countries. Rsk6400 (talk) 20:53, 4 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The exact laws depended on the individual state. Racially homogeneous countries in the 1820s and 1830s didn't even face the issue. AnonMoos (talk) 21:32, 5 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

"Racially inhomogeneous" ? The correct term used by historians for most of the American South is "slave society". But we are off topic. Rsk6400 (talk) 14:04, 6 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

There were few slaves in the Northern States of the U.S. in the 1820s and the 1830s, and they were mostly getting kind of old... If you take pleasure in smugly condemning what you don't know much about, please do so at a location other than a Wikipedia article talk page. AnonMoos (talk) 06:17, 7 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]