T
thinkandmull
Guest
In the beginning of our country only property owners were allowed to vote. Doesn’t this mean some ruled over others? If this was applied to nowadays, would those who owned apartments be allowed to vote?
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
- Status
- Not open for further replies.
T
thinkandmull
Guest
I suppose the idea was that you have to earn the right to vote. But what if you inherit land, or live on someone elses land? And I thought all men are equal? Did the slaves have to earn there right to be free? I thought all men are equal?
Z
Zoltan_Cobalt
Guest
It is true. The Founding Fathers were not very keen on public voting.
If you remember, up until 1913, Senators were elected by their state legislature…not the people. Also, the Electoral College was established to empower States to elect the president rather than the majority of the populace.
Our government was established as a Republic rather than a Democracy because our Founders knew that:
“…if elections were open to all classes of people, the property of landed proprietors would be insecure. … Landholders ought to have a share in the government, to support these invaluable interests, and to balance and check the other. They ought to be so constituted as to protect the minority of the opulent against the majority. The senate, therefore, ought to be this body; and to answer these purposes, they ought to have permanency and stability”. – James Madison
The interesting thing about this was that during the early days of our country, the non-landowners and those without a vote didn’t care. They were content to leave “governing” up to the land owners who had a greater interest and more to lose.
People who did not own property had no concern for a majority of the issues in the political realm, and as a result were often uninformed of the issues, and the various policies of the political leaders. Their votes, if allowed to be offered, would be based on nothing but guessing, limited knowledge, or influence by the popular media of the day. Politicians were aware of this, and in societies where the propertyless could vote, their votes were won by the politicians offering them gifts from the treasury. The practice of buying votes through entitlements was something the Founding Fathers did not want to exist in the American System, therefore unless you were directly influenced by a majority of the policies by the politicians because of your ownership status in society, it was better for society that you did not vote.
As time passed, the cry for adhering to the “will of the people”, which apparently means “all people”, turned the tide, and eventually voting rights became the norm for all persons that had reached the minimum age requirement.
Voting rights for all would have worked if the populace ensured they remained properly informed, considered all of the issues, and the politicians did not try to take advantage of those that really have no stake in the election. However, as human nature dictates, the propertyless have demanded gifts from the treasury in exchange for their vote, and the politicians have been more than happy to acquiesce. What we have as a result is a permanent voting block that cares less about the issues, and votes based on who will continue to issue them government checks, food stamps, free health care, and anything else they can get from the government.
Ben Franklin summed it up the best…:
**“When the people find that they can vote themselves money, that will herald the end of the republic.” **
If you remember, up until 1913, Senators were elected by their state legislature…not the people. Also, the Electoral College was established to empower States to elect the president rather than the majority of the populace.
Our government was established as a Republic rather than a Democracy because our Founders knew that:
“…if elections were open to all classes of people, the property of landed proprietors would be insecure. … Landholders ought to have a share in the government, to support these invaluable interests, and to balance and check the other. They ought to be so constituted as to protect the minority of the opulent against the majority. The senate, therefore, ought to be this body; and to answer these purposes, they ought to have permanency and stability”. – James Madison
The interesting thing about this was that during the early days of our country, the non-landowners and those without a vote didn’t care. They were content to leave “governing” up to the land owners who had a greater interest and more to lose.
People who did not own property had no concern for a majority of the issues in the political realm, and as a result were often uninformed of the issues, and the various policies of the political leaders. Their votes, if allowed to be offered, would be based on nothing but guessing, limited knowledge, or influence by the popular media of the day. Politicians were aware of this, and in societies where the propertyless could vote, their votes were won by the politicians offering them gifts from the treasury. The practice of buying votes through entitlements was something the Founding Fathers did not want to exist in the American System, therefore unless you were directly influenced by a majority of the policies by the politicians because of your ownership status in society, it was better for society that you did not vote.
As time passed, the cry for adhering to the “will of the people”, which apparently means “all people”, turned the tide, and eventually voting rights became the norm for all persons that had reached the minimum age requirement.
Voting rights for all would have worked if the populace ensured they remained properly informed, considered all of the issues, and the politicians did not try to take advantage of those that really have no stake in the election. However, as human nature dictates, the propertyless have demanded gifts from the treasury in exchange for their vote, and the politicians have been more than happy to acquiesce. What we have as a result is a permanent voting block that cares less about the issues, and votes based on who will continue to issue them government checks, food stamps, free health care, and anything else they can get from the government.
Ben Franklin summed it up the best…:
**“When the people find that they can vote themselves money, that will herald the end of the republic.” **
Z
Zzyzx_Road
Guest
Need to comment about the removal of state legislatures from the process of electing Senators. (This is the 17th Amendment for anyone who wants to look it up.) This in my opinion is one of the crucial factors in the great expansion of the federal government.
Have to remember the context of the Founding Fathers’ intentions. They understood the threat of increasing power given to the federal government so they sought to give each of the constituencies a seat in Washington, DC. For the people, that was the House of Representatives. For the states, that was the Senate. The Founders drew the distinction between the people themselves and their state governments as separate entities for the purpose of governing. For the justice system, that was the Supreme Court. Since state legislatures had direct access to the Senate, they could and did act on behalf of the state governments, and this was an actively used check on the power of the federal government. But with the passage of the 17th Amendment, state legislatures were effectively cut off from direct access to the federal government, hence one of the major checks that previously inhibited the growth of the federal government was removed.
Also another lesser known factor for the centralization of the federal government: the upward adjustment in the number of citizens per Congressman and its later combination with the freezing of the number of Representatives at 435. In 1789, each Congressman represented around 30,000 citizens. In 2014, a Congressman represents an average of about 760,000 citizens. And one wonders why it’s so hard to get incumbents out, so hard to combat the pernicious effects of money. It’s because the Congressman now represents so many people, he can no longer respond to everyone so he mostly responds to people with money.
There are other major factors with studying, just mentioning these two.
Have to remember the context of the Founding Fathers’ intentions. They understood the threat of increasing power given to the federal government so they sought to give each of the constituencies a seat in Washington, DC. For the people, that was the House of Representatives. For the states, that was the Senate. The Founders drew the distinction between the people themselves and their state governments as separate entities for the purpose of governing. For the justice system, that was the Supreme Court. Since state legislatures had direct access to the Senate, they could and did act on behalf of the state governments, and this was an actively used check on the power of the federal government. But with the passage of the 17th Amendment, state legislatures were effectively cut off from direct access to the federal government, hence one of the major checks that previously inhibited the growth of the federal government was removed.
Also another lesser known factor for the centralization of the federal government: the upward adjustment in the number of citizens per Congressman and its later combination with the freezing of the number of Representatives at 435. In 1789, each Congressman represented around 30,000 citizens. In 2014, a Congressman represents an average of about 760,000 citizens. And one wonders why it’s so hard to get incumbents out, so hard to combat the pernicious effects of money. It’s because the Congressman now represents so many people, he can no longer respond to everyone so he mostly responds to people with money.
There are other major factors with studying, just mentioning these two.
C
cryptoCalvinist
Guest
About 5% of the US population could vote in 1800.In the beginning of our country only property owners were allowed to vote. Doesn’t this mean some ruled over others? If this was applied to nowadays, would those who owned apartments be allowed to vote?
The Founding Fathers were leftists, but they lived in a very right-wing society. So they were still White Supremacists, and while they were Republicans, they supported a very aristocratic Republic.
C
cryptoCalvinist
Guest
The Constitution, which abolished the Articles of Confederation was the largest expansion of the federal government. The next was the end of Federalism, which Abe Lincoln accomplished by terminating any serious independence in state governments.Need to comment about the removal of state legislatures from the process of electing Senators. (This is the 17th Amendment for anyone who wants to look it up.) This in my opinion is one of the crucial factors in the great expansion of the federal government.
T
teeboy
Guest
I believe the types of liberty you are referring to are found in the Bill of Rights.
I’m not aware of a constitutional requirement for state or U.S. legislators to own property.
I’m not aware of a constitutional requirement for state or U.S. legislators to own property.
H
Hopalong
Guest
I think the founding fathers were for liberty when it suited them. If all men were created equal and they were bible thumpers, then why slavery? Oh, yes. They applied the scriptures about masters and slaves to their benefit. How can someone claiming to truly know Christ and love the ten commandments sell mothers and their children separately, probably to never see each other again, into slavery? I am very thankful to be living in this country and the liberties we enjoy, but it is changing rapidly, especially since Nobama has been president. Can the chickens be coming home to roost?
T
teeboy
Guest
“All men are created equal” isn’t a law of the United States. Not all people in the United States share in the same rights. Citizens don’t have the same rights as aliens, prisoners don’t have the same rights as the free, the mentally incompetent don’t have the same rights as the competent. Residents of a locality may have a right to government provided running water if they pay their water bill, residents may not have a right to the same water if they don’t pay their water bill.I think the founding fathers were for liberty when it suited them. If all men were created equal and they were bible thumpers, then why slavery? Oh, yes. They applied the scriptures about masters and slaves to their benefit. How can someone claiming to truly know Christ and love the ten commandments sell mothers and their children separately, probably to never see each other again, into slavery? I am very thankful to be living in this country and the liberties we enjoy, but it is changing rapidly, especially since Nobama has been president. Can the chickens be coming home to roost?
In Rome, different levels of citizenship were granted to individuals. Some individuals in Rome had privileges because of their birth that others did not have. Rome was a privileged society much the same as the United States.
H
Hopalong
Guest
A man filled with the Holy Spirit and claiming to know Jesus Christ would never treat another human being the way slaves were treated. Where in the constitution does it say we can savagely beat another human being who is subordinate to us if they didn’t pick cotton fast enough. A child is subordinate to his or her parents and is the property of the parents. Does that give the parent the right to abort or kill a baby? If I’m not mistaken, weren’t Catholics also harassed and persecuted in New England and eventually left to go to the south in Virginia?
T
teeboy
Guest
The problem with slavery is the loss of free will to choose as well as the problems associated with support of the slave trade. I doubt that beatings and hangings were the norm for the enslaved.A man filled with the Holy Spirit and claiming to know Jesus Christ would never treat another human being the way slaves were treated. Where in the constitution does it say we can savagely beat another human being who is subordinate to us if they didn’t pick cotton fast enough. A child is subordinate to his or her parents and is the property of the parents. Does that give the parent the right to abort or kill a baby? If I’m not mistaken, weren’t Catholics also harassed and persecuted in New England and eventually left to go to the south in Virginia?
I have the right to choose to leave my job today and to search for a new employer. However, an employer has a right to not hire me.
Today, if you don’t pick cotton fast enough, they just fire you or replace you.
M
manualman
Guest
I have wondered about this at times. Perhaps the FF had a point in regards to the need for a systemic protection against the masses organizing to vote themselves money. On the other hand, who then protects the masses from the wealthy organizing to vote themselves money?
I’d say that representative government simply cannot survive without a critical mass of moral fiber in the populace.
Perhaps we need some sort of anti-apathy testing in order to be eligible to vote. Maybe each candidate needs to submit a maximum of 20 variants of spelling his/her name and ALL candidates then should be write-ins. No carry-in cheat sheets allowed. Can’t bother to remember the name of the guy you want elected? Go home and stay out of politics until you care enough to learn.
Just spitballing…
I’d say that representative government simply cannot survive without a critical mass of moral fiber in the populace.
Perhaps we need some sort of anti-apathy testing in order to be eligible to vote. Maybe each candidate needs to submit a maximum of 20 variants of spelling his/her name and ALL candidates then should be write-ins. No carry-in cheat sheets allowed. Can’t bother to remember the name of the guy you want elected? Go home and stay out of politics until you care enough to learn.
Just spitballing…
P
Potter
Guest
John Adams favored property requirements for voting because those who owned land had a stake in the consequences of their actions. Their actions, moreover, were free; landowners were self-supporting, and so their votes could be cast without influence. The fear of popular suffrage was that the unpropertied men, those who worked for wages and who were dependent on the wage-givers, would be forced to vote in such and such a way to keep their job by the bosses. There is more to liberty than being free of chains.
T
teeboy
Guest
How can someone force someone’s vote? It can’t be done.John Adams favored property requirements for voting because those who owned land had a stake in the consequences of their actions. Their actions, moreover, were free; landowners were self-supporting, and so their votes could be cast without influence. The fear of popular suffrage was that the unpropertied men, those who worked for wages and who were dependent on the wage-givers, would be forced to vote in such and such a way to keep their job by the bosses. There is more to liberty than being free of chains.
Z
Zoltan_Cobalt
Guest
In those days an evil property owner could round up all his field hands, haul them to the polling place and order them to vote as he instructed.How can someone force someone’s vote? It can’t be done.
That is one of the reasons our founding fathers did not want the non property owners to be able to vote.
If you think it cannot be done today…look at that last SIEU voter registration drive.
R
Rob_Arnzen
Guest
In addition the primary tax was the property tax, the national government getting by on import and export duties and excise taxes.… Our government was established as a Republic rather than a Democracy because our Founders knew that:
“…if elections were open to all classes of people, the property of landed proprietors would be insecure. … Landholders ought to have a share in the government, to support these invaluable interests, and to balance and check the other. They ought to be so constituted as to protect the minority of the opulent against the majority. The senate, therefore, ought to be this body; and to answer these purposes, they ought to have permanency and stability”. – James Madison
The Founders’ model was the Roman Republic at its best. The landowner was the equivalent of the pater familias, the owner of the estate, and the building block of the Roman Republic.
These individuals had both the resources and the time to devote to government and, unlike the majority of rural citizens, could read and write.
From the perspective of the Church’s teachings, there is no requirement of “one man, one vote”, and certain social structures which we would call “slavery” have been completely licit. The requirement is that every person be treated with human dignity and not exploited.
.
T
teeboy
Guest
You are right. In the republic, a landowner who had lost title via adverse possession could regain title via a fiction. There were many benefits of being a citizen of the republic, and the privileges were geared to those who had heritage there, as opposed to the alien.In addition the primary tax was the property tax, the national government getting by on import and export duties and excise taxes.
The Founders’ model was the Roman Republic at its best. The landowner was the equivalent of the pater familias, the owner of the estate, and the building block of the Roman Republic.
These individuals had both the resources and the time to devote to government and, unlike the majority of rural citizens, could read and write.
From the perspective of the Church’s teachings, there is no requirement of “one man, one vote”, and certain social structures which we would call “slavery” have been completely licit. The requirement is that every person be treated with human dignity and not exploited.
.
C
Cone
Guest
The framers believed that only those with a stake in the country should vote. Today, a good percentage of voters are people looking to sustain their government entitlements. I’ll leave it to others to decide which generation produced the greatest leaders.In the beginning of our country only property owners were allowed to vote. Doesn’t this mean some ruled over others? If this was applied to nowadays, would those who owned apartments be allowed to vote?
T
teeboy
Guest
Yes. In the U.S.A., the income tax was unconstitutional until about 1913 or 1933; hence the need for the amendment. Slavery was legitimate until the other amendment was passed. And, combining the two, I understand that an income tax financed the union agenda during the 1860’s. Therefore, the law of the land was busted by the Union, for the Union, during a time of land expansion.In addition the primary tax was the property tax, the national government getting by on import and export duties and excise taxes.
The Founders’ model was the Roman Republic at its best. The landowner was the equivalent of the pater familias, the owner of the estate, and the building block of the Roman Republic.
These individuals had both the resources and the time to devote to government and, unlike the majority of rural citizens, could read and write.
From the perspective of the Church’s teachings, there is no requirement of “one man, one vote”, and certain social structures which we would call “slavery” have been completely licit. The requirement is that every person be treated with human dignity and not exploited.
.
Zoltan, SIEU… What is this? Can you provide a link?
T
teeboy
Guest
Each generation had different struggles, and therefore, different types or forms of leadership were needed during those times.The framers believed that only those with a stake in the country should vote. Today, a good percentage of voters are people looking to sustain their government entitlements. I’ll leave it to others to decide which generation produced the greatest leaders.
One of the key struggles today is the impingement of individual rights. But, this has long been a struggle. The other is agencies with private persons.
- Status
- Not open for further replies.