>Did anti-universal-sufferage feel they were being accused of having impure intentions when they put forth their reasoned arguments?
Probably, and they probably didn't have impure intentions. Who are you to say no rational argument can be brought against the idea of universal suffrage? Surely our forefathers thought the argument was sufficient for nearly 150 years.
One may agree or disagree, but their ability to express their arguments shouldn't be stigmatized.
Probably, and they probably didn't have impure intentions. Who are you to say no rational argument can be brought against the idea of universal suffrage? Surely our forefathers thought the argument was sufficient for nearly 150 years.
One may agree or disagree, but their ability to express their arguments shouldn't be stigmatized.