SHOE Archives

Societies for the History of Economics

SHOE@YORKU.CA

Options: Use Forum View

Use Monospaced Font
Show Text Part by Default
Show All Mail Headers

Message: [<< First] [< Prev] [Next >] [Last >>]
Topic: [<< First] [< Prev] [Next >] [Last >>]
Author: [<< First] [< Prev] [Next >] [Last >>]

Print Reply
Subject:
From:
[log in to unmask] (John Womack)
Date:
Fri Mar 31 17:19:11 2006
Content-Type:
text/plain
Parts/Attachments:
text/plain (20 lines)
----------------- HES POSTING ----------------- 
We need to ask a US Southern historian about this. Until we get a ruling from C. Vann
Woodward's successor, I still think the exemption went the other way, relatively late,
which is why the Supreme Court's first (so far as I know) Grandfather Clause case, 1915!,
went the way it did. The question, I suspect, is who started the talk about "grandfathered
in," i.e., whose "thought" was it originally. No expert on the history of suffrage, but a
born and bred Oklahoman, I always heard it was certain favored or lucky Afro-American men,
especially if they had Indian head rights to trade, whose claim to being "grandfathered,"
like any white man's claim, won acceptance, and they explained it to others as being
"grandfathered in." And in short order, like lots of black slang, it entered white lingo.
But all this may simply be another instance of independent evolution.
 
Anyway I certainly agree it has nothing to do with a formalized he, until Law and
Economics.
 
John Womack  
 
------------ FOOTER TO HES POSTING ------------ 
For information, send the message "info HES" to [log in to unmask] 

ATOM RSS1 RSS2