Tea Party leader desirous of Property requirement for voting

[Cutlass]

Yes it does. The only right that they had restricted was the right to vote. And they still had the opportunity to own property and become a voter. So where was the additional restriction of their rights and freedoms?

Go take American history 101

 

[countrygrl]

Go take American history 101

This sounds like an answer from someone that has no answer. Was the number of US voters static from the founding of the nation until different voting acts were instituted? Did voting rights gradually ease through the progression of history? Was access to land restricted to only the ruling class from the time the constitution was written? Have the rights and freedoms of the people been progressively restricted or progressively grown?

 

[illram]

People weren't restricted from owning property.

Yes they were.

Property was not monopolized by the ruling class.

Yes it was.

And political participation has gradually been eased as our country has moved forward.

Do you think women, blacks, laborers, or any traditionally marginalized population got all their nice rights by waiting around patiently for the ruling elite to hand it to them?

What history book are you reading?

 

[Cutlass]

This sounds like an answer from someone that has no answer. Was the number of US voters static from the founding of the nation until different voting acts were instituted? Did voting rights gradually ease through the progression of history? Was access to land restricted to only the ruling class from the time the constitution was written? Have the rights and freedoms of the people been progressively restricted or progressively grown?

When people got the vote, the government restrictions on what they could do eased.

 

[JollyRoger]

And political participation has gradually been eased as our country has moved forward.

And property ownership has increased as more people got to vote.

 

[The Yankee]

I want someone to support this position, but only do it if said person no longer has a mortgage on said property. Until then, the bank (or the US gov't) gets to vote for you.

 

[countrygrl]

Yes they were.

Yes it was.


Do you think women, blacks, laborers, or any traditionally marginalized population got all their nice rights by waiting around patiently for the ruling elite to hand it to them?

What history book are you reading?

Some were restricted from owning property. But no, it wasn't institutionally monopolized through government legislation. Immigrants, white male citizens above the age of 18 were all encouraged to acquire property.

In some cases blacks, laborers, and traditionally marginalized populations did indeed have their nice rights handed to them. There was no need to riot or protest in all cases. There were times and places where these rights were granted out as a matter of morality. Particularly in the northern half the country. Even in the south there was always a constant debate about getting rid of slavery, particularly at the time of the revolution (this gradually decreased up until the civil war of course). Southern founding fathers played a key roll in banning the importation of slaves to America during this time period. The history book that I'm reading has plenty of quotes by Monroe, Madison, the other Madison, Henry, and Jefferson, all being consciously aware of the inherent contradictions in their ethos and their desire to abolish slavery. There's certainly nothing in there about a diabolical plan to monopolize all the wealth and land to themselves and leave nothing but scraps to everybody else. They wanted widespread success for as many people as possible. And I don't think you could provide evidence otherwise.

I mean, unless you can point out to me an excerpt from YOUR history book that points this out...

 

[JollyRoger]

There's certainly nothing in there about a diabolical plan to monopolize all the wealth and land to themselves and leave nothing but scraps to everybody else.

Of course they weren't going to admit it. We got from the Articles of Confederation to the Constitution in large part because the initiating Framers wanted more centralized power to deal with the riff raff.

 

[GoodGame]

And property ownership has increased as more people got to vote.

I though property ownership increased as we expanded and kicked out more natives?

Sounds like the <Tea Party people> want to kick us out as natives. Oh well they'll need more than diseased blankets this time.

Moderator Action: Inappropriate language edited.
Please read the forum rules: http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=422889

 

[illram]

unless you can point out to me an excerpt from YOUR history book that points this out

I can do one better, I can point to the whole book. Read this young grasshopper.

 

[NYHunter]

No, but I do believe those who never contribute to the country do not deserve a voice.

I am suggesting that people who consistently live on welfare and do not pay taxes should not be able to vote. If none of their money is going into what happens in the country, why should they have a say?

I'd argue that a democratic government should reflect the fact that a certain percentage of the population feels the need to be on welfare. Representatives from rich and middle class districts can still easily outvote the ones from poor districts.

 

[countrygrl]

I can do one better, I can point to the whole book. Read this young grasshopper.

This is a very large book. I've leafed through it and read sections briefly at the bookstore. I don't know if I really have time for something like this at my stage of life. I simply have too much work and schoolwork to read for enjoyment (although maybe I can tackle it this summer!)

Any chance you could copy some damning passages in it?

I am very familiar that there were always undercurrents that prevented better development of this nation. I know that. All I'm saying is that this was a minority that held powerful sway over the majority when the country was formed. And I'm also saying that the most influential players were not evil people who wanted to centralize their wealth and power and keep the rest out of the picture.

And Jolly Roger, let's not denigrate the Articles of Confederation and the Constitution down to property ownership and dealing with "riff raff."

 

[JollyRoger]

And Jolly Roger, let's not denigrate the Articles of Confederation and the Constitution down to property ownership and dealing with "riff raff."

So I should be a solid citizen and ignore the influence that Shay's Rebellion had on the initiating Framers?

Ultimately, however, the uprising was the climax of a series of events of the 1780s that convinced a powerful group of Americans that the national government needed to be stronger so that it could create uniform economic policies and protect property owners from infringements on their rights by local majorities.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shays%27_Rebellion

 

[countrygrl]

So I should be a solid citizen and ignore the influence that Shay's Rebellion had on the initiating Framers?

Of course not! But many of the founding fathers did not consider the rebels to be riff-raff.

 

[JollyRoger]

Of course not! But many of the founding fathers did not consider the rebels to be riff-raff.

You talk, my good sir, of employing influence to appease the present tumults in Massachusetts. I know not where that influence is to be found, or, if attainable, that it would be a proper remedy for the disorders. Influence is not government. Let us have a government by which our lives, liberties, and properties will be secured, or let us know the worst at once.

Now what did the Framers pretty much all agree on? That this man should be the leader after the more perfect power grab was complete.

 

[GhostWriter16]

I'd argue that a democratic government should reflect the fact that a certain percentage of the population feels the need to be on welfare. Representatives from rich and middle class districts can still easily outvote the ones from poor districts.

So a person living off welfare should be able to leech off my money and then vote to ensure I continually have to pay them?

Now, the Working Poor is another matter. Which is why I think they should be able to vote, because they are contributing in proportion to what they earn. I don't consider the actual dollar amount contributed to be as important as the percentage of their income. Those who make no money at all pay 0, in fact they pay negative since they get welfare.

 

[kiwitt]

So a person living off welfare should be able to leech off my money and then vote to ensure I continually have to pay them?

Spoiler :

Compassion for people in all levels of society is critical to ensure it continues to function well.

Everyone has rights and in many cases, the poor go on to become significant members of society, while others who were significant members, but due to circumstances beyond their control are no longer.

Life can throw things at you from left-field when you least expect it. As you grow older you'll come to understand this.

 

[countrygrl]

Now what did the Framers pretty much all agree on? That this man should be the leader after the more perfect power grab was complete.

I'm not enthralled by Washington. This is more my style

"God forbid we should ever be twenty years without such a rebellion.
The people cannot be all, and always, well informed. The part which is
wrong will be discontented, in proportion to the importance of the facts
they misconceive. If they remain quiet under such misconceptions,
it is lethargy, the forerunner of death to the public liberty. ...
And what country can preserve its liberties, if its rulers are not
warned from time to time, that this people preserve the spirit of
resistance? Let them take arms. The remedy is to set them right as
to the facts, pardon and pacify them. What signify a few lives lost
in a century or two? The tree of liberty must be refreshed from
time to time, with the blood of patriots and tyrants.
It is its natural manure."

 

[JollyRoger]

Of course Jefferson loved the Rebellion. It gave the opening for the federal power grab. The riff raff getting agitated can be easily manipulated by those in power.

 

[.Shane.]

"God forbid we should ever be twenty years without such a rebellion. The people cannot be all, and always, well informed. The part which is
wrong will be discontented, in proportion to the importance of the facts
they misconceive. If they remain quiet under such misconceptions,
it is lethargy, the forerunner of death to the public liberty. ...
And what country can preserve its liberties, if its rulers are not
warned from time to time, that this people preserve the spirit of
resistance? Let them take arms. The remedy is to set them right as
to the facts, pardon and pacify them. What signify a few lives lost
in a century or two? The tree of liberty must be refreshed from
time to time, with the blood of patriots and tyrants.
It is its natural manure."

Talk is cheap. When he had the keys he governed in almost the opposite fashion of these words.

That said, I"m enjoying reading the back and forth between you all (how often do you get to say that in OT?).