In 1815 Napoleon’s loss at Waterloo began a series of economic and political turmoil that negatively impacted the lives of workers and impacted national income. This along with the emergence of new states and westward expansion arose the topic of suffrage and whether it should be universal or reserved for land-owners. In New York, 1821 the debate on suffrage was divided between all white tax-paying males and land owners and farmers. The historical debate arises when the consequences of universal suffrage would permanently impact the future of New York and inevitably the entire nation.
One on side of the argument, some believed that suffrage should be reserved for all males who participate, even in the most minimal, in paying copious forms of taxes or sharing burdens such as personal service and militia enrollment. In Suffrage Should Not be Based on Property (1821) by Nathan Sanford, Sanford expresses his ideal that “the only qualifications seem to be the virtue and morality of the people”. However, one weakness of this argument is that it might sound perfect theoretically but is not always proven to be the most efficient form of setting precedent as there are way too many copious forms of the definitions of morality. Sanford’s views are logical in the form that everyone in the state is under the vote of land owners, but they do not represent fully the voice of the majority. Land owners provided a good portion of the GDP and therefore thought to have the superior right of the commoners of voting for rulers to move their own agendas.
However, “where did [those] distinctions arise? The arose from British Precedents” (Sanford) but “here there is but one estate – the people” (Sanford). Sanford also proceeded to elaborate with the idea that “those who bear the burdens of the state should choose those that rule it” (Sanford). Laws affect the lives of all who live under them, therefore making it ethically logical to give a voice to the people that will have to bend to the law of the land despite the economic influence they provide to it. “For Democracy the demand for universal white adult male suffrage required a recasting of the representative principle; for capitalism, the free market demanded the sanctity of contracts as a barrier against government interference with private economic arrangements” (Bodenhamer). The Revolution granted the independence from Britain, and gave America an identity of Independence, “the course of things in this country is for the extension and not the restriction of popular rights” (Sanford).
127 our experts are availableright now
On the other hand, some argued that universal suffrage was a horror-provoking subject and that suffrage should be reserved for the elite. In Suffrage should be Limited to Property Holders (1821) by James Kent, Kent’s wish to annihilate the movement was prompted by the idea that “the great leading and governing interest of the state [was], at present, the agricultural, and what madness would it be to commit that interest to the winds” (Kent). Kent believed that by having suffrage reserved for land owners would keep the nation safer by eliminating “internal fraud or violence” (Kent) that would threaten the people’s liberties. He believed property owners to be “the safest guardians of property and the laws” (Kent). A weakness of this argument is that he fails to realize the true representation of commoners that die under the prevailing interest of the rich. How would everyone have ““virtual representation” in parliament even though they could not choose its members” (Allen)? Although the belief was of a “paternalistic responsibility for the well-being of the poor, they did not tolerate royal interference in the management of their affairs, and used their parliamentary power to advance their interests” (Allen). Kent’s horror of universal suffrage arises from the fear that the commoners would not “have the same inducement to care, and the diligence, and fidelity [for the governing interest]” (Kent). However, do Kent’s worries to “care” stem from the side of democracy or from purely the care to the already prevailing agenda of the land owners?
Today, suffrage has been expanded not only to all males but to all females as well. What differentiates America is the voice it gives to all people and the ruling under democracy doctrines. However, this opens the floor to various opinions and can be a source for conflicts amidst the nation. Despite the fact, the mere ability of universal suffrage is honored as it is what makes America the Land of the free – free to think despite social class, free to speak, free to vote, free to make change.
- Allen, Robert C. “The Industrial Revolution: A Very Short Introduction.” Very Short Introductions, 2017, doi:10.1093/actrade/9780198706786.001.0001.
- Bodenhamer, David J. “The U.S. Constitution: A Very Short Introduction.” Very Short Introductions, 2018, doi:10.1093/actrade/9780195378320.001.0001.
- Kent, James. “Suffrage Should be Limited to Property Holders.” 1821.
- Sanford, Nathan. “Suffrage Should not be Based on Property.” 1821.
