Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member Latest Breaking News General Discussion The DU Lounge All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search

JDPriestly

(57,936 posts)
50. About who had the right to vote:
Tue Apr 22, 2014, 12:23 PM
Apr 2014

After declaring independence on July 4, 1776, each former English colony wrote a state constitution. About half the states attempted to reform their voting procedures. The trend in these states was to do away with the freehold requirement in favor of granting all taxpaying, free, adult males the right to vote. Since few men escaped paying taxes of some sort, suffrage (the right to vote) expanded in these states. Vermont's constitution went even further in 1777 when it became the first state to grant universal manhood suffrage (i.e., all adult males could vote). Some states also abolished religious tests for voting. It was in New Jersey that an apparently accidental phrase in the new state constitution permitted women to vote in substantial numbers for the first time in American history.

"Of Government in Petticoats!!!"

The provision on suffrage in the New Jersey state constitution of 1776 granted the right to vote to "all inhabitants" who were of legal age (21), owned property worth 50 English pounds (not necessarily a freehold), and resided in a county for at least one year. No one is sure what was meant by "all inhabitants" since the New Jersey constitutional convention was held in secret. But it appears that no agitation for woman suffrage occurred at the convention.

After the state constitution was ratified by the voters (presumably only men voted), little comment on the possibility of women voting took place in the state for 20 years. Even so, one state election law passed in 1790 included the words "he or she." It is unclear how many, or if any, women actually voted during this time.

In 1797, a bitter contest for a seat in the New Jersey state legislature erupted between John Condict, a Jeffersonian Republican from Newark, and William Crane, a Federalist from Elizabeth. Condict won the election, but only by a narrow margin after Federalists from Elizabeth turned out a large number of women to vote for Crane. This was probably the first election in U.S. history in which a substantial group of women went to the polls.

http://www.crf-usa.org/bill-of-rights-in-action/bria-8-1-b-who-voted-in-early-america

There is a movement afoot to limit voting to property owners. It's a stupid, conservative idea.

And they are misrepresenting historical facts. The early colonists were British and adopted the British criteria for voting eligibility. But gradually over time once we had won the Revolution, we expanded voting rights to include more and more people. Religious restrictions were dropped pretty early.

Property ownership was not that much of an impediment to early Americans. Granted, slaves and most women and indentured servants did not have the ability to buy property. But property was pretty commonly owned beyond those groups. We were a nation of farmers.

There is inaccurate information, exaggerated claims. Let's watch for this. It is a right-wing effort to disenfranchise voters.

+1,000. blkmusclmachine Apr 2014 #1
I must admit... KansDem Apr 2014 #2
The more things change.... wcollar Apr 2014 #3
That is reminiscent of the Supreme Ct. ruling -- Both rich and poor are free to contribute Arugula Latte Apr 2014 #14
If so few are capable of governing themselves how fewer still are capable of governing others? Nuclear Unicorn Apr 2014 #4
Yep. DeSwiss Apr 2014 #5
Freedom's just another word for nothing left to lose. zeemike Apr 2014 #48
About who had the right to vote: JDPriestly Apr 2014 #50
Thank you. Facts are in short supply even on Dem forums these days. Short, dismissive sabrina 1 Apr 2014 #65
shining post BelgianMadCow Apr 2014 #6
The ending of John le Carre's "Our Kind of Traitor" .. 2banon Apr 2014 #7
Than you for the information. Dragonfli Apr 2014 #19
I just deleted the ending summary short version from my post 2banon Apr 2014 #32
All I remember is sweat dreams, and flying machines, and pieces on the ground. Dragonfli Apr 2014 #34
Thanks. xfundy Apr 2014 #35
Kick,kick,kicked&Recommended! butterfly77 Apr 2014 #8
If we could rob banks obxhead Apr 2014 #9
+1 daleanime Apr 2014 #55
Men with guns can rob... discntnt_irny_srcsm Sep 2014 #66
However, once those armed robbers are caught, they face serious time. obxhead Sep 2014 #67
Agreed discntnt_irny_srcsm Sep 2014 #68
I don't much care for rhetoric that intimates the neccesity of revolution. MohRokTah Apr 2014 #10
LOl! Yes, Must be the Gate Keepers of the Status Quo, come hell or high water! 2banon Apr 2014 #11
I am fine with working within the system to change things. MohRokTah Apr 2014 #13
Your dying breath will be spent obxhead Apr 2014 #16
Yes, I would have. MohRokTah Apr 2014 #17
Again, who's talking about "violent overthrow" anyway? This isn't the Teajahdist discussion board. 2banon Apr 2014 #18
Thank you for attempting to point out that posters fiction regarding me that was just that, fiction. Dragonfli Apr 2014 #22
.... 2banon Apr 2014 #33
Realy? xfundy Apr 2014 #37
WTF are you talking about? MohRokTah Apr 2014 #39
The OP points out injustice, and does not recommend a course of action. Ergo, you're wrong. DisgustipatedinCA Apr 2014 #57
Read it again. Revolution is in there. eom MohRokTah Apr 2014 #58
Let's just go to the source. Dragonfli, pardon me, but were you suggesting a revolution in the US? DisgustipatedinCA Apr 2014 #59
The same rhetoric of revolution is used by the right wing CONSTANTLY MohRokTah Apr 2014 #60
Point out the part pushing revolution, and you may have a point. DisgustipatedinCA Apr 2014 #61
I was not advocating armed revolution else I would have stated plainly I believed such Dragonfli Apr 2014 #62
Thanks. I knew you had already answered, and that you weren't advocating revolution DisgustipatedinCA Apr 2014 #63
The new DU differs in many ways from the one I joined. Dragonfli Apr 2014 #64
Did you have an argument on the content? TheKentuckian Apr 2014 #26
Exactly. This poster is the saddest Aerows Apr 2014 #29
I really do not care for you imposing motives or conclusions on my behalf, Dragonfli Apr 2014 #20
I've read your explanation before. MohRokTah Apr 2014 #21
How could you have read a previous explanation that I had not written? Dragonfli Apr 2014 #23
Because its nearly word for word what I read from wingnuts defending their veiled calls... MohRokTah Apr 2014 #24
Do you understand the English language and the words I actually write? Dragonfli Apr 2014 #25
Dragonfli, thank you for a very honest (bleak though it may be) dotymed Apr 2014 #49
We need a revolution, and quick MannyGoldstein Apr 2014 #41
Revolutions are bloody affairs. eom MohRokTah Apr 2014 #42
Not necessarily. MannyGoldstein Apr 2014 #43
1933? MohRokTah Apr 2014 #44
This message was self-deleted by its author MannyGoldstein Apr 2014 #45
I'm with you. We don't need to follow the historical pattern. Revolutions are very, very JDPriestly Apr 2014 #52
Yes, the American Revolution was the exception, not the rule. MohRokTah Apr 2014 #54
K&R marions ghost Apr 2014 #12
We do not. Aerows Apr 2014 #28
That is my opinion as well, at the very least we deserve a fair share of the fruits of our labor Dragonfli Apr 2014 #30
A fair share marions ghost Apr 2014 #38
Such is republic and oligarchy BlindTiresias Apr 2014 #15
We do not Aerows Apr 2014 #27
There are different laws depending on who you are. Rex Apr 2014 #31
Kicked and recommended a whole bunch! Enthusiast Apr 2014 #36
All the justice money can buy. 99Forever Apr 2014 #40
K&R. Spot on. MannyGoldstein Apr 2014 #46
Excellent post malaise Apr 2014 #47
You are SOOOOO Wrong! Jackpine Radical Apr 2014 #51
Recommend. KoKo Apr 2014 #53
Complete agreement, Dragonfli. Feral Child Apr 2014 #56
Latest Discussions»General Discussion»We no longer have the rul...»Reply #50