Yes, Alexander Hamilton favored a limited electorate, primarily consisting of landowners, believing that property ownership was a sign of stability and responsibility. He thought that those with a stake in society would make more informed and prudent decisions in governance. This perspective was part of his broader vision for a strong central government and a balanced approach to democracy.
There are no land owners of Antarctica.
This is how my world history teacher put it: It was bad for land owners because land owners would have people work the land- like the peasants. The land owner would tell the workers how much pay they got for working. But because of the Black death, everyone was dying. So, when the land owners tried to hire someone, and they didn't like the pay, they could pretty much say that you could either pay them higher, or wait for the next guy- oops, the next guys dead. So the land owners ended up paying the workers who wanted more.
at first only married men could. Then land owners could vote when the colony grew. BUt Roman Catholics couldn't vote either way.
yes they were in favor
only land owners could vote
Landowners are people who own land. With regard to antiquity and the Middle Ages this term refers to the owners of large landed estates, as opposed to peasants who owned small family farms with plots of land which were not bigger than what the family's labour could till.
The statement is true as plantation owners in the South during the antebellum period held significant economic and political power due to their ownership of vast amounts of land and slaves. This allowed them to influence local and state governments, shaping policies in their favor and reinforcing the institution of slavery.
1. 21 years or older2. Filing a small fee and farming land for 5 years3. Staking out a claim4. Purchase from other land owners
Tsar Alexander II "freed" the serfs. He didn't free them entirely though. Serfs were bound to the land they worked on rather to the owners of the land. Alexander II had the Russian government buy some land from the owners and gave the land to the "freed" serfs in collective in each village. The serf remained bond to the land until he repaid the government the money it had paid to the owners over a 49 year period of time. A serf could leave the land but would have no land to work.
so the native Indians could not eat and would have to surrender their land to the Americans i think
Full owners owned the land they operated; part owners operated part of their own land and rented the remaining land; tenants rented the land they worked.
The man most in favor of seizing land from mexico was Jame k. polk