Wait a second!
More handpicked essays just for you.
More handpicked essays just for you.
The history of voting rights essay
The history of voting rights essay
The evolution of the party in the united states
Don’t take our word for it - see why 10 million students trust us with their essay needs.
Recommended: The history of voting rights essay
Prior to the 1790 Pennsylvania Constitution the only citizens of Pennsylvania that were aloud to vote were wealthy men. Wealthy men, not just wealthy white men, all men with a significant amount of money and land were permitted to vote. When poor citizens began to have the right to vote as well is when the shift from class based discrimination changed to racial discrimination. In the 1790 Pennsylvania Constitution Article three stated “In elections by the citizens, every freeman of the age of twenty-one years, having resided in the state two years next before the election, and within that time paid a state or county tax, which shall have been assessed at least six months before the election, shall enjoy the rights of an elector…” Depending …show more content…
The Whigs and the Democrats were competing for county commissioner. The Democrats were defeated and blamed their loss of the fact that blacks were allowed to vote in Bucks county. They tried to reverse the results by making African American votes illegal. Democrats claimed blacks who went to the voting polls used guns and threatened to shoot, their accusations had no detail and no proof(****). Benjamin Lundy, an anislave publisher noted that voting day was held on the first day of hunting season so many blacks and whites were seen with their guns at the voting polls(****). Many disregarded what Lundy wrote and accepted the fake story. The democrats gained more support and with more support comes more power. Once they had the support the democrats took it to court. Judge John Fox declared that blacks did not have the right to vote in Bucks county anymore. But that wasn't good enough freed slaves still had to much influence. The issue then moved to the Supreme Court. Chief Justice John B. Gibson reached the same conclusion. African Americans were “inferior” and thus didn't deserve the right to vote. Yet again so called “free” Africans Americans denied political …show more content…
African Americans continue to fight and object at several more conventions and public meetings. In January of 1838 John R. Ross argued that giving freed slaves the right to vote could affect the security and the happiness of everyday life. He thought that african americans could not and should not vote because they had no concept of civil liberty. The black community supporter Peter A. Jay emphasised that african americans have committed no crime. They are being persecuted just on the color of their skin. He also made the point that both Virginia and North Carolina allowed free people of color to vote. Another advocate Robert Purvis created a document discussing why people of color have the same voting rights as their white counterparts. He appealed in March of 1838. Claiming african americans were proud to be pennsylian and should be able to contribute to its democracy. At this time 18,768 people of color lived in Pennsylvania. They contribute over 1,350,000 in taxes, they are stimulating the economy with home ownership and renting. Though these acts don't bring immediate success they are steps towards political
Throughout the 1830-1840’s the opposing governmental parties, the Jacksonian Democrats and the Whigs, undertook many issues. The Whigs were a party born out of their hatred for President Andrew Jackson, and dubbed his harsh military ways as “executive usurpation,” and generally detested everything he did while he was in office. This party was one that attracted many other groups alienated by President Jackson, and was mainly popular among urban industrial aristocrats in the North. On the other hand, the Jacksonian Democrats were a party born out of President Andrew Jackson’s anti-federalistic ideals that was extremely popular among southern agrarians. A major economic issue that the two parties disagreed on was whether or not the United States should have a National Bank. Along with the National Bank, the two parties also disagreed on the issue of the Protective tariff that was enforced to grow Northern industry. Politically, the two parties disagreed on the issues of Manifest Destiny, or expansion, and ultimately Slavery. While the two parties essentially disagreed on most issues, there are also similarities within these issues that the two parties somewhat agree on.
Since the turn of the twenty first century, in Canada voter turnout has made a significant and consecutive decline. In the last five federal elections on average only sixty-one per cent of eligible voters voted. If each eligible citizen voted in an election the government would be on par with the primary interests of the people. The easiest way to achieve this objective is by implementing a compulsory voting system. Mandatory voting systems are appealing because all citizens are affected by decisions made by the government, so it makes sense to have all those affected apart of the election process. As a result, the voting results would be more representative of the country and that would lead to an increase of stability and legitimacy. It would also be beneficial to Canadians because would cause political parties to address and focus on the needs of every socio-economic level. However, one of biggest problems that accompanies mandatory voting laws is that the choice to exercise the right to vote is taken away. Another primary concern about compulsory voting is that a large number of uninterested and uninformed voters are brought to the polls. Conversely, uninformed voters will become familiar with and learn the polling procedures and electoral system over time and uninterested voters are not forced to mark a name on the ballot. Compulsory voting laws would only make registration and attendance at the polls mandatory, not voting itself. Therefore the freedom to exercise the right to vote or not is still intact. A greater emphasis on alternate voting practices may be established such as electronic or online voting. Positive changes would not only be evident in the policies of political parties but also in the voting procedure. Th...
Their voting rights were restricted by them having to pass difficult literacy tests, pay a large poll tax, own property or were threatened with violence as according to Document #4. African Americans had been separated and had their voice in politics taken away from them by these racial and discriminatory laws. The north was a much better place for African Americans because they would have more of a voice and not have to deal with the intensity of laws such as Jim Crow or deal with poll tax. In document #4 it states “Not having a voice in government was one of the reasons Eddie McDonald migrated to Chicago, Illinois”. African Americans were going to the north to have a voice in government as well as the other benefits of the
In the “Dreed Scott and John Brown” lesson. I learned the democrats ran a politician by the name of James Buchan for president, he believed that popular sovereignty was the best thing to use in the west to help win the election. His presidency had started off on a bad note where on his inauguration the U.S. Supreme Court informed him on their decision on the Scott V. Stanford case. The case dealt with a slave by the name Dred Scott who served most of his life as a personal servant for a U.S. Army surgeon, who later moved across to the Free states and took Scott with him giving him his freedom rights. But he was still legally bound to his master. I also learned that Abraham Lincoln challenged Stephen Douglas to a series of Debates in 1858.
When it was time to elect a representative, each colony had their own requirements. For all thirteen colonies, each voter had to be white, christian and a male(Doc #2). Depending on the colony, each person also had to have a certain amount of land in their possession to qualify as a voter. Any person who did not meet these qualifications such as black men or women could not vote. Up until the Civil Rights Movement, white men were the only people who were able to vote during election time.
Mandatory voting should not be enforced in the United States because it would contradict democracy by limiting the basic rights stated in the constitution. Though compulsory voting would increases voter participation, there is no guarantee that it would actually legitimize democracy because the votes cast by the uneducated, indifferent voters would not accurately display the public.
Many white southerners did not believe the African Americans should vote because they were not equally equivalent to the white male. They believe that the right to vote was not in an African Americans nature and it should never be. In Document 1 we learn of a Virginian man stating ‘’ Southern people won’t stand if the North put the Negro and White man as equals.”
After many years of British bombardment, constant wars, and cons in America's government, America finally is the independent country it is today. Although, America was not always free and independent. During the 1600's through the 1800's, America was merely striving for a democracy in which a democracy meant that the people had a voice and were entitled to equal rights. In the 1600's, the mother country Britain took control of America. Britain angered the colonists with silly taxes that the colonists did not want to pay for much like the Sugar Act, the Stamp Act, the Townshend Acts, and the Tea Act. The British caused many wars and conflicts and angered many but by the 1700's, one wise man by the name of Thomas Jefferson wrote the Declaration
African Americans fought for the Union against their opressors in hopes that they would be granted more freedom. In the Petition from American citizens of African descent to the Union convention of Tennessee it states that, “If we are called on to do military duty against rebel armies in the field, why should we be denied the privelage of voting against rebel citizens at the ballot-box?” It was a big step for African Americans to order and petition the government for voting rights, they were expected to take a bullet for the union but werent even allowed the small freedom of voting. Not only were blacks still not able to vote but they were also denied the right to purchase
The Constitution of the United States of America is seen as a vastly democratic document, allowing democracy to flourish here. But is it truly as democratic as believed? Was a democracy even the intended goal of the writers? Well we’ll just have to figure that out. Starting with, who the writers of the Constitution were. Then what a pure democracy even is. Followed by four separate parts of the Constitution and the extent to which that they are democratic. Ending with the answer to our question.
Initially in U.S. the right to vote was limited to white male property owners or taxpayers in many states.
"After 1815 Americans transformed the republic of the Founding Fathers into a democracy. State after state revoked property qualifications for voting and holding officethus transforming Jefferson's republic of property holders into Andrew Jackson's mass democracy. Democracy, however, was not for everyone. While states extended political rights to all white men, they often withdrew or limited such rights for blacks. As part of the same trend, the state of New Jersey took the vote away from propertied women, who formerly had possessed that right. Thus the democratization of citizenship applied exclusively to white men. In the mid19th century, these men went to the polls in record numbers. The election of 1828 attracted 1.2 million voters; that number jumped to 1.5 million in 1836 and to 2.4 million in 1840. Turnout of eligible voters by 1840 was well over 60 percenthigher than it had ever been, and much higher than it is now." (Remini, 1998)
The rights of those of African or Native American heritage were not something that many respected or even thought of. Many Americans did not have the rights that were expressed in the constitution, as people saw those as only pertaining to white men. This meant
In the 1600’s and 1700’s Europe had much going on when it came to government. France along with Russia had absolute monarchs who had a vast amount of power and wealth. However England was doing the opposite by trying to limit royal power, they also protected the rights of some of their people. No government is perfect though, seeing as there are advantages and disadvantages to both absolutism and democracy. Nonetheless, the 17th and 18th century enlightened European nations would be most successful with a democracy. The freedoms of people, which many well-like philosophe of this time expanded upon, would be protected in this type of government. Revolts would also be prevented without the use of fear in a democracy. This too allows powers to be spread out, so a head alone doesn’t make all the decisions. Following the enlightenment European nations would strongly benefit from a Democracy compared to Absolutism.
During this time there were countless white individuals that were leaving the Democratic Party to go towards the Republican Party. The reasoning behind this shift is that African Americans were fighting for their civil rights. In turn, politically, there was a correlation formed between race and crime. This was a turning point in the relationship that the federal and state level shared. The state level thought that it was the civil rights protestor who were to blame for the higher crime. However, on a federal level, these individuals thought that integration would be dangerous, as well as increasing the crime. The Presidential candidates during this time frame were extremely focused on a tough on crime stance, and began to fully support and blame African Americans for this issue. There was most certainly tension between the Republicans running on this platform and the African American citizens (Campbell and Schoenfeld,