Who Should Be Able to Vote?

Bailey Campbell

Prof. Campbell

History 111

October 22, 2017

Who Should be Able to Vote?

        “A vote is like a rifle; its usefulness depends upon the character of the user” (T. Roosevelt).     The question of who could vote has always been an extensive debate.  There were two opposing views.  The Farmers of the United States Constitution who believed that only white males who own land should have the right to vote. Farmers also believed that voting should be limited to citizens that had a stake in government.  But, the poor American citizens had a growing population and more people were calling to end poverty requirements and widening the suffrage.  Universal suffrage means everyone gets to vote, as opposed to only men, or property holders. Although, before Universal suffrage the Colonial American voting had restrictions like, race, religion, wealth, and gender.  Additionally, there was this idea that Representative democracy was a privilege of a few people rather than of many.  The different stances on voting a long with a plethora of other reasons lead to the American Revolution, which created democratic reforms.  Through these democratic reformations the Americans eventually got their way of everyone accept women can vote.  This decision had a group of people upset, including James Kent.

        James Kent was born July 31, 1763 in Fredericksburg, Putnam County, New York.  He attended Yale College, founded Phi Beta Kappa Society, and graduated in 1781.  After graduating, he devoted his life to law, eventually becoming the Supreme Court Justice of New York. (Your Dictionary).  He is most well known for Commentaries on American Law, which contains his lectures about international law, the U.S. constitution and the federal system, law of states, personal laws and the law of property. (Encyclopedia Britannica).  Unfortunately, he dies at the age of seventy-four in 1847.

        HIS STANDPOINT!!

David Buel was born October 22, 1784 in Litchfield, Connecticut.  He attended Williams College and graduated in 1805.  At the office of David Jones is where he began his study of law.  

HIS STANCE!!!

After reading and evaluating the arguments on both sides, I have come to the conclusion that neither Kent nor Buel had a convincing argument.  With or without universal suffrage I still would not have the right to vote because I am a woman.  But, if I had to choose one, I would say that David Buel’s argument was the most effective.  Buel believed in universal suffrage and how it would help America.  Throughout his speech he references Kent’s belief that American capitols are becoming like London.  He stated:

…And that is the inevitable tendency of our rules to descent to divide up our territory into farms of moderate size.  The real property, therefore, will be the hands of many.  But in England, and other European kingdoms, it is the policy of the aristocracy to keep the lands in few hands (Buel).

 He is arguing that the American government is not like the aristocracy that’s in England.  English type of rule was what used to be.  Acknowledging the growth of the population and change in land ownership will be better for the people.  He ends his speech by saying, “Property is one of the incidental rights of the person who possesses it; and, as such, it must be made secure; but it does not follow that it must therefore be represented specifically in any branch of the government” (Buel).