Throughout history, America has undergone numerous changes in its endeavors to become a more democratic country which promotes the progress of all citizens. The American society is founded on the believe that we were all created equal and therefore all the citizens regardless of their race, gender, religion or political affiliation are protected by the constitution. However, this was not the case between the late years of the 18th century and the early years of the 19th century. This was more so during the suffrage expansion when all Americans were not equal and factors such as the property owned, the race or gender were considered before an American was given some basic rights such as the right to vote. This paper discusses how these changes did not create equal opportunities for all especially the minority groups.
New Opportunities in the Early 19th Century
The basic principle of a democracy is the ability of the people to participate actively in the ruling of the nation. The role of the constitution is therefore to unify a country that is made up of diverse personalities and create a sovereign nation. However, the process of accepting the role of all people in governance of a country has taken time in the United States. In the fifteenth amendment of the constitution of the United States, the states were given the right to decide who has the right to vote and who should not be allowed to contribute in general elections. The federal convection on constitution argued that the issue of suffrage was a sensitive issue and the states were better placed as the judge on who among their people should be allowed to vote. This resulted in establishment of different qualification of eligible voters since different states had powers to come up with their own criteria. The federal convention did not establish a uniform qualification because they feared that their suggestions would not satisfy all the states. Lack of uniform decision by the federal convection brings a lot of question on who are the people of America and who qualify to be called an American citizen.
By the time the federal constitution was approved towards the end of the 18th century, almost all the states had rules that required eligible voters to have some specified amount of property to qualify as a voter. In most states, individuals were expected to own a freehold estate to qualify to be voters. The ownership of such properties indicated that the individual was independent and was permanently interested in the community where he lived. It was also assumed that men who did not own property were weak in the heart and therefore could not make an informed judgment.
Society is an association for the protection of property as well as of 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 concerns of the partnership, as he who contributes in thousands, (Kent, p 4).
However, in the beginning of the 19th century, property was not the major factor for qualification as it used to be previously. The ownership of property was no longer viewed as virtue or an indication of independence in many states. Freehold qualification had already been eliminated by most states by the start of the second decade of the 19th century. However, this did not guarantee the basic rights in a democratic nation to all people in the country since the rich merchants as well as well off landowners controlled and hanged on to the political power in all the states. This rich land owners included the wealthy men who owned plantations in Virginia, New York, North Carolina and Connecticut. There were also property rights, which were separate from the personal rights which were intended to protect the wealthy at the expense of the poor. The property owners were given special privileges such as voting for representatives of the two houses. Ownership was also a qualification for holding any office and criteria for legislative apportionment.
According to Cogan, by the early nineteenth century, with a new market society taking shape, the property was not the stable force it once had, (p 477). These changes demonstrated the stake in the community and that any one who was allowed to vote had to earn his vote. Those who did not contribute in the development of the states had no voting rights. Although the privilege was not determined by the property owned, only those who were considered to have positive contributions to the society were allowed to elect their representatives. This came after the revolution that demanded fair representation for those who paid taxes. However, this did not create equality for all people in the United States.
Although it was not clear to many people how funds contribution to the state guaranteed political privileges, paying taxes was instituted in several states constitution as a qualification to participate in the election of a house representative. It was not clear why paying of taxes was a prerequisite for political influence while those who contributed to the society through personalized services such as military operations were not given such privileges. Some suffrage advocates argued that military men devoted their lives and energies to defending the nation and therefore should be accorded similar respect by being allowed to vote. It was argued that those who participated in defending the country and other military duties contribute more than the tax payers in the development of the community. This claim was extended to those who had the ability to be called to defend the society in the military service. The whole logic was that all men contribute to the well being of the society and therefore should be given the right to vote. This led to the development of the theory that the qualities of a person, independence and virtue, that was associated with wealth was inherent in all men. Therefore, the ownership of property and the ability to pay taxes or otherwise did not change the nature of man. Independence was therefore considered to be inbuilt in every mans mind and heart. The theory also suggested that patriotism and intelligence is not developed when one raises the social ladder but it is engulfed in the nature of all men. It was also argued that wealthy impaired the ability of a man to be patriotic that poverty does wealth is the measure of respectability, and the foundation for that spirit of independence absolutely essential to unbiased elections, (Cogan, p 480).
Following this arguments, it was agreed that all men have a natural qualification as voters and political powers lies on all men. Paying taxes and ownership of property become less important as a qualification for voting. By the mid 19th century, mans suffrage was the American norm where it was believed that a man cannot be denied his right to vote under any circumstances. The circumstances under which a man was born made him poor or rich but that did not form the basis under which he could be denied his rights to elect house representative. This move to guarantee all men privilege to vote was a distance away from providing equal opportunities for all American citizens. The African Americans and women were still not allowed to vote.
In the early 19th century, it was assumed that the rights of a woman were conferred to her husband and were not allowed to own property. Even the unmarried women were not given this privilege and it was generally assumed by many that women did not have any desire to vote. It was believed that God created a woman being weaker and therefore placed him under the mans control. In the covenant of marriage, she is compelled to promise obedience to her husband, he becoming, to all intents and purposes, her master- the law giving him power to deprive her of her liberty, and to administer chastisement, (Seneca, para 1). In some states such as North Carolina, black men who were free were allowed to vote but in majority of the states, voting was restricted to white men only. It was assumed that black men did not have the same qualities that guaranteed white men voting rights. Although the blacks were later given the rights to vote, it only existed on paper since other methods of ruling out of the polls.
Several changes in the American laws took place in the beginning of the 19th century which allowed all white men to vote and later the African American men. However, these changes which were meant to give all citizens equal opportunities were discriminative and did not create any opportunities for the minority groups.
New Opportunities in the Early 19th Century
The basic principle of a democracy is the ability of the people to participate actively in the ruling of the nation. The role of the constitution is therefore to unify a country that is made up of diverse personalities and create a sovereign nation. However, the process of accepting the role of all people in governance of a country has taken time in the United States. In the fifteenth amendment of the constitution of the United States, the states were given the right to decide who has the right to vote and who should not be allowed to contribute in general elections. The federal convection on constitution argued that the issue of suffrage was a sensitive issue and the states were better placed as the judge on who among their people should be allowed to vote. This resulted in establishment of different qualification of eligible voters since different states had powers to come up with their own criteria. The federal convention did not establish a uniform qualification because they feared that their suggestions would not satisfy all the states. Lack of uniform decision by the federal convection brings a lot of question on who are the people of America and who qualify to be called an American citizen.
By the time the federal constitution was approved towards the end of the 18th century, almost all the states had rules that required eligible voters to have some specified amount of property to qualify as a voter. In most states, individuals were expected to own a freehold estate to qualify to be voters. The ownership of such properties indicated that the individual was independent and was permanently interested in the community where he lived. It was also assumed that men who did not own property were weak in the heart and therefore could not make an informed judgment.
Society is an association for the protection of property as well as of 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 concerns of the partnership, as he who contributes in thousands, (Kent, p 4).
However, in the beginning of the 19th century, property was not the major factor for qualification as it used to be previously. The ownership of property was no longer viewed as virtue or an indication of independence in many states. Freehold qualification had already been eliminated by most states by the start of the second decade of the 19th century. However, this did not guarantee the basic rights in a democratic nation to all people in the country since the rich merchants as well as well off landowners controlled and hanged on to the political power in all the states. This rich land owners included the wealthy men who owned plantations in Virginia, New York, North Carolina and Connecticut. There were also property rights, which were separate from the personal rights which were intended to protect the wealthy at the expense of the poor. The property owners were given special privileges such as voting for representatives of the two houses. Ownership was also a qualification for holding any office and criteria for legislative apportionment.
According to Cogan, by the early nineteenth century, with a new market society taking shape, the property was not the stable force it once had, (p 477). These changes demonstrated the stake in the community and that any one who was allowed to vote had to earn his vote. Those who did not contribute in the development of the states had no voting rights. Although the privilege was not determined by the property owned, only those who were considered to have positive contributions to the society were allowed to elect their representatives. This came after the revolution that demanded fair representation for those who paid taxes. However, this did not create equality for all people in the United States.
Although it was not clear to many people how funds contribution to the state guaranteed political privileges, paying taxes was instituted in several states constitution as a qualification to participate in the election of a house representative. It was not clear why paying of taxes was a prerequisite for political influence while those who contributed to the society through personalized services such as military operations were not given such privileges. Some suffrage advocates argued that military men devoted their lives and energies to defending the nation and therefore should be accorded similar respect by being allowed to vote. It was argued that those who participated in defending the country and other military duties contribute more than the tax payers in the development of the community. This claim was extended to those who had the ability to be called to defend the society in the military service. The whole logic was that all men contribute to the well being of the society and therefore should be given the right to vote. This led to the development of the theory that the qualities of a person, independence and virtue, that was associated with wealth was inherent in all men. Therefore, the ownership of property and the ability to pay taxes or otherwise did not change the nature of man. Independence was therefore considered to be inbuilt in every mans mind and heart. The theory also suggested that patriotism and intelligence is not developed when one raises the social ladder but it is engulfed in the nature of all men. It was also argued that wealthy impaired the ability of a man to be patriotic that poverty does wealth is the measure of respectability, and the foundation for that spirit of independence absolutely essential to unbiased elections, (Cogan, p 480).
Following this arguments, it was agreed that all men have a natural qualification as voters and political powers lies on all men. Paying taxes and ownership of property become less important as a qualification for voting. By the mid 19th century, mans suffrage was the American norm where it was believed that a man cannot be denied his right to vote under any circumstances. The circumstances under which a man was born made him poor or rich but that did not form the basis under which he could be denied his rights to elect house representative. This move to guarantee all men privilege to vote was a distance away from providing equal opportunities for all American citizens. The African Americans and women were still not allowed to vote.
In the early 19th century, it was assumed that the rights of a woman were conferred to her husband and were not allowed to own property. Even the unmarried women were not given this privilege and it was generally assumed by many that women did not have any desire to vote. It was believed that God created a woman being weaker and therefore placed him under the mans control. In the covenant of marriage, she is compelled to promise obedience to her husband, he becoming, to all intents and purposes, her master- the law giving him power to deprive her of her liberty, and to administer chastisement, (Seneca, para 1). In some states such as North Carolina, black men who were free were allowed to vote but in majority of the states, voting was restricted to white men only. It was assumed that black men did not have the same qualities that guaranteed white men voting rights. Although the blacks were later given the rights to vote, it only existed on paper since other methods of ruling out of the polls.
Several changes in the American laws took place in the beginning of the 19th century which allowed all white men to vote and later the African American men. However, these changes which were meant to give all citizens equal opportunities were discriminative and did not create any opportunities for the minority groups.
Categories:
0 comments:
Post a Comment