In the mid-nineteenth century America, the concept of liberty and the significance of property feuded among expanding male voting rights. In 1821, at the New York constitutional convention, arguments were made between liberty and the rights of the American people and the importance of land ownership (Hewitt, Lawson 289-90). Liberty, in American society, is summarized as the rights and freedoms of each citizen. The liberty of the people gave each man the right to vote, however, the ownership of property restricted some men from practicing their rights in the mid-nineteenth century. The importance of owning property in the 1820s was highly important because at that time it was a way for men to vote (Hewitt, Lawson 289-90). In documents 9.8 and …show more content…
9.9, in Exploring American Histories: A Brief Survey with Sources, conflicting arguments are made against expanding the voting rights of men. Debates over voting rights arose immensely with the implication of universal suffrage at the 1821 New York constitutional convention (Hewitt, Lawson 289). Universal suffrage meant that all white men had the right to vote regardless of their land ownership or amount of wealth (Hewitt, Lawson 289). As with any argument, there are those who support the cause and those who are against it. In document 9.8, James Kent, the New York Chancellor and Chief Justice, debated in support of certain restrictions for voting (Hewitt, Lawson 289). James Kent’s main argument could be summarized in a single cliché: Life’s not fair. In the Report of the Proceedings and Debate of the Convention of 1821, James Kent presents the issues with removing the requirement of owning property for voting. He claims that only those who own land should be allowed to vote because if all [white] men were able to vote, the nation would split upon “the principles of agrarian law [to ensure a more equal distribution of land to all classes]” (James Kent – “Arguments against Expanding Male Voting Rights, 1821”). In 1820, Daniel Webster argued, “political power naturally and necessarily goes into the hands which hold property” (Hewitt, Lawson 273). James Kent’s main argument agrees with Webster’s statement in which political power should be given to those who own land and not the common man (Hewitt, Lawson 289). He believed the common man should not be able to have political control. This argument is shown in document 9.8, “Society is an association for the protection of property as well as life, and the individual who contributes only one cent to the common stock ought not to have the same power and influence in directing the property and concerns of the inducements to care, and diligence, and fidelity” (James Kent – “Arguments against Expanding Male Voting Rights, 1821”). James Kent argued that universal suffrage threatens the concept of liberty and importance of property (James Kent – “Arguments against Expanding Male Voting Rights, 1821”). However, in document 9.9, Nathan Sanford’s arguments show a rebuttal to the argument presented by Kent. Examining the arguments made in document 9.8, document 9.9 provides a counterpoint for expanding male voting rights.
The former senator and New York delegate, Nathan Sanford debated in support of universal suffrage and eradicating property requirements [for white males] (Hewitt, Lawson 290). Sanford, in the Report of the Proceedings and Debate of the Convention of 1821, expresses his views on universal suffrage and the reasons for removing property qualifications (Hewitt, Lawson 290-91). He stated, “The questions before us is the right of suffrage – who shall, or who shall not, have the right to vote … to me, the only qualifications seem to be the virtue and morality of the people” (Nathan Sanford – “Arguments for Expanding Male Voting Rights, 1821”). Sanford claims that all men should be given the right to vote; the ownership of land should not be the factor in deciding who can vote. He fought for universal suffrage because it meant that the right to vote would be given to all [white] men. (Hewitt, Lawson 289-90). Nathan Sanford believed that American government should protect, grant, and expand the rights of the American people; this included expanding the popular rights to all men (Hewitt, Lawson 298-291). “The course of things in this country is for the extension and not the restriction of popular rights” (Nathan Sanford – “Arguments for Expanding Male Voting Rights, 1821”). Sanford claimed that if voting rights were expanded to all men, property would not suffer …show more content…
(Hewitt, Lawson 290-91). He stated that private property would be still protected with the establishment of universal suffrage (Hewitt, Lawson 291). “I am unable to perceive how property is to suffer by the extension of the right of suffrage” (Nathan Sanford – “Arguments for Expanding Male Voting Rights, 1821”). Unlike Kent, Sanford did not believe that land ownership should decide who has the right to vote. The arguments presented at the New York constitutional convention of 1821 were opposing views on universal suffrage. James Kent debated that voting should be reserved for men who own land. Alternatively, Nathan Sanford claimed that owning land should have nothing to do with voting rights of the common man. Sanford ultimately won the debate and the restrictions on land ownership in order to vote were lifted for all white men (Hewitt, Lawson 290). Because of the lift of property qualifications, the common man gained more liberty by being given the right to vote. Nathan Sanford helped spread liberty among the American public by arguing in favor of universal suffrage. However, land qualifications still remained in effect for black males raising the question of liberty (Hewitt, Lawson 290). Sanford stated that the common man shouldn’t have to own property to vote (Nathan Sanford – “Arguments for Expanding Male Voting Rights, 1821”), so why is it that African American males are still required to own land in order to vote? How can liberty be granted to some men but not all? Word Count: 990 Words Works Cited Hewitt, Nancy A., and Steven F.
Lawson. "Defending and Redefining the Nation." Exploring American Histories: A Brief Survey with Sources. Boston: Bedford/St. Martin's, 2012. 273-291. Print. Kent, James. "Document 9.8: Arguments against Expanding Male Voting Rights, 1821." Exploring American Histories: A Brief Survey with Sources. By Nancy A. Hewitt and Steven F. Lawson. Boston: Bedford/St. Martin's, 2012. 289. Print. Report of the Proceedings and Debates of the Convention of 1821 (Albany, 1821), 219, 221-22. Sanford, Nathan. "Document 9.9: Arguments for Expanding Male Voting Rights, 1821." Exploring American Histories: A Brief Survey with Sources. By Nancy A. Hewitt and Steven F. Lawson. Boston: Bedford/St. Martin's, 2012. 290-91.
Print.
During the 1820’s - 1830’s America went through some would call a political revolution when government issues were diverted from being only for the elite to now they would include the common man as well. This change of power brought a lot of power to the people contributing to the Jacksonian democratic belief of guarding the Constitution. Yet, many of the people under Jackson still saw no change in their liberties, as they did not meet the Jacksonians target audience of white males. Despite expanding the political conversation, Jacksonian Democrats used the Constitution to limit individual liberty and political democracy by only protecting the rights of only a select few of people and seeking to fulfill their goal of obtaining their own gain and maintenance of the then status quo lifestyle therefore not truly guarding the Constitution.
George Browm Tindall, David Emory Shi. American History: 5th Brief edition, W. W. Norton & Company; November 1999
Correspondence of John C. Calhoun. J. Franklin Jameson, ed. Annual Report of the American Historical Association 1899. II. 1900.
Edward, Rebecca and Henretta, James and Self, Robert. America A Concise History. 5th ed. Boston: Bedford/ St. Martin’s, 2012.
Divine, Robert A. America past and Present. 10th ed. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson Education/Longman, 2013. 245. Print.
Henretta, James A., and David Brody. America: A Concise History. Vol. 1. Boston/New York: Bedford/St. Martin's, 2009.
Should America have compulsory voting? In my opinion, compulsory voting is a good way to increase the voting turnout. People currently don't like to vote because they don't have the time, or are just too lazy. If the government gives them an incentive then they will be happy to take time off to vote. Also, a reason to fear not to vote should be installed, like an annoying fine. When only a few people vote, the voter satisfaction is low. But when everyone puts their idea in, the satisfaction rises because the actual majority will win.
Henretta, James A and David* Brody. America: A concise History . Boston: Bedford/St. Martin's, 2010. Document.
To enforce voting to be mandatory , this will prompt more Americans to pay attention to the choices for their representatives. Mandating would stimulate the demand side, motivating voters to understand and acknowledge who they are voting for. Therefore , voting is to be a responsibility than a option.
As white males continually gained suffrage in the United States’ “democratic” system, both African Americans and women were still denied the right to vote. The white males who could vote, were intensely against the two groups being able to have a say in the political processes. In the 1830s, many white males were now able to vote, either with or without property, while African Americans constantly lost this right as many states adopted laws that prevented the free black people from voting. Some states even went so far as to reinstate property laws that hadn’t been used in years. Women were seen as “inferior to the white race”, just as being African American was, so they, therefore, had an “incapacity to exercise political power”. This was seen as a natural position of women, just as they were supposed to be the home-makers, “cloistered in the private realm of the family”. In antithesis to this, women soon began to participate in reform movements, making themselves in the middle of the public eye. However, the ability to vote was soon seen as the right of the person who was the dominate figure, or head of the household, automatically striking out women from that position since they could only be a wife, daughter, or sister to that figure.
As Jackson once said, “Democracy shows not only its power in reforming governments but in regenerating a race of men.” Jackson shows by this that he was a large supporter of his nation’s government and wished to preserve and strengthen democracy. Starting with his campaign for presidency, Jackson encouraged men to take active roles in their governing politics; Jackson’s impact was seen in 1828 when voter turnout doubled for his election. As president, one of Jackson’s major projects during his presidency was to provide universal manhood suffrage, now extending voting rights non-property owning males. Jackson also protected the interests of farmers, mechanics and laborers who had been otherwise neglected when it came to political decisions. Overall, Jackson established a growing sense of political democracy, including a larger demographic in decision makings for their nation. This sense of democracy is reflected upon in a report made by a British author, Harriet Martineau, on her 1834 visit to the United States. As Martineau wrote of her observations of the states she detailed, “I had witnessed the controversies between candidates for office on some difficult subjects, of which the people were to be the judges” (Doc D). By including this information, Martineau shows
During a time of oppression that the African Americans had to endure in the 18th century, progress had started to climb its way out of gutters to aid them in securing their rights to vote. One of many ways to see how the 15th Amendment came to be is to get a look at the two previous Amendments before it. There were obstacles African Americans had to overcome and that was to be free from slavery and to be protected as a citizen. In the contents of the 13th, 14th and 15th amendment, this paper will discuss when and how the “Negro Suffrage” began and how long the progress had to be.
Anthony, Susan Brownwell; Harper, Ida Husted; Gage, Matilda Joslyn (1922). History of Woman Suffrage: 1900–1920. New York: Little &
“The Right to Vote.” Civil Rights in America: 1500 to the present. Ed. Jay A. Sigler. Detroit: Gale, 1998. U.S. History in Context. Web. 5 Mar. 2014.
Meta: Candy is the theme of the moment within the world of slots, with Mobilots jumping on the trend with its latest release. Promising to deliver a taste worth savouring, is this game as sugary sweet as it proclaims?