THE CLASH OF POLITICAL PHILOSOPHIES: THE DEBATE OVER UNIVERSAL

SUFFRAGE IN NEW YORK, (1821)

THE PROBLEM

On August 28, 1821, 126 delegates met in the assembly chamber in

Albany to revise New York's state constitution. The state's

original constitution, drafted and ratified in 1777 in the midst of

the War of American Independence, essentially had been left

untouched since that date and contained features that many New

Yorkers found increasingly intolerable, among them the requirement

that only property owners could vote in state elections. The 1777

constitution allowed males who owned real estate (called a

freehold, which was land that had no mortgage on it) and renters

who paid more than 40 shillings in annual rent to cast ballots in

assembly elections, but only those who possessed a freehold worth

100 pounds or more could vote for members of the senate and for the

governor, thus limiting the voters for senators and governor to

less than 40 percent of the adult male population.

Present at the 1821 New York constitutional convention were some

of the most talented figures in the state's political history.

Daniel D. Tompkins, former governor and in 1821 Vice President of

the United States, was chosen as president of the convention.

Remnants of the nearly dead Federalist party were represented by

former U.S. senator Rufus King, New York chief justice Ambrose

Spencer, Peter A. Jay (son of Founding Father John Jay), and

brilliant chancellor James Kent. Peter R. Livingston, an aging and

wealthy Jeffersonian, spoke for the once mighty Livingston faction.

Finally, there were men like the sagacious Martin Van Buren, most

of whose political triumphs still lay ahead.

Although the convention dealt with a number of perceived defects

of the 1777 constitution, it was the issue of universal male

suffrage that elicited the most debate and conflict. Essentially

the suffrage debate centered on two questions: (1) Should all

property qualifications for voting be eliminated? (2) Should the

vote be extended to all adult black males as well as to all adult

white males? In this problem, you will be identifying and analyzing

the principal arguments on both sides of these two questions.

BACKGROUND

Many Americans saw the election of General Andrew Jackson to the

presidency in 1828 as a victory of the people over the forces of

political privilege and vested interests. Although considerably

wealthy by 1828, Jackson began life in humbler circumstances and

achieved his prosperity through hard work and a measure of good

luck; he was truly a "self-made man," Hence, to many Americans,

Jackson was the model of what they too could achieve. Moreover, in

the War of 1812, the Tennessean had given Americans a genuine war

hero and a thrilling victory at New Orleans. Indeed, many Americans

turned even jackson's faults (his legendary stubbornness and hot

temper, his tyrannical behavior at New Orleans and later in

Florida, his lack of cultural refinements) into political assets,

evidence that General Jackson was one of them. The first president

to whom people felt close enough to give a nickname ("Old

Hickory"), Andrew Jackson was viewed by his contemporaries as the

first "people's president."

In many ways, however, Jackson was the heir of important

economic, social, and political forces that he did not create.

Collectively, many of these trends can be described as democratic,

emphasizing social and political equality and the collective wisdom

of the common people. After the War of 1812, the rapid increase in

geographic mobility to western lands and the nation's mushrooming

cities undermined traditional class distinctions and the power of

established elite groups. In the West, particularly, where

expansion had been aided by an 1820 easing of government land sales

policies and a revolution in transportation technology, new

communities and societies were created with new elite groups who

viewed eastern aristocrats with suspicion and distrust. Finally,

the discrediting of the Federalist party struck an ultimately fatal

blow against the major political group advocating rule by the elite

and deference to that elite by people "below" them in the economic

and social hierarchy.

This democratic spirit could be seen in early every aspect of

American life. Deference to one's "betters" was all but eradicated,

as wealthy travelers discovered in inns, taverns, and hotels when

often they were forced to share rooms and dinner tales with

"common" people. Nor could one still tell a member of the "better

sort" by dress because men and women of other classes (aided by the

mass production of inexpensive textiles, apparel, and shoes) began

wearing clothing similar in style - if not, in quality - to their

wealthier and well-born fellow Americans. A generation ago, this

democratization of dress would have shocked Americans, but in the

new egalitarian atmosphere it was commonplace. Indeed, this

democratic impulse permeated American religion, entertainment,

plays, and music, and literature that extolled the virtues of the

common people was immensely popular. Except inside the well-protected drawing rooms and fashionable parlors of the old elite

groups, egalitarianism was a powerful force that reached nearly

every crevice of American life.

But Americans did not believe that all should be equal in wealth

or power. In the message accompanying his veto of the bill

rechartering the Bank of the United States in 1832, Andrew Jackson

himself wrote, "Distinctions in society will always exist under

every just government. Equality of talents, of education, or of

wealth can not be produced by human institutions." What Americans

expected was that every person have an equal opportunity to acquire

wealth and power. In this atmosphere, the self-made man was

society's hero and was accorded almost as much honor as earlier

generations had bestowed on the "well-born," whose wealth and power

was inherited or achieved through connections with the established

elite. Indeed, the self-made man and the "indolent rich boy" of

inherited wealth became powerful images and symbols in American

popular cultures.

This democratic spirit had a profound effect on American

politics. Previously, only the elite sought major offices, and only

those who owned property could vote for the candidates. To people

imbued with the democratic spirit, such a situation was

intolerable. If all men possessed some wisdom, why shouldn't they

be allowed to vote for their political officials? Other traditional

distinctions had been struck down; this one too must be eliminated.

When Thomas Jefferson won the presidency in 1800, most states

still had property qualifications for voting. New Jersey abolished

that restriction in 1807, as did Maryland in 1810. But the big

surge toward universal white male suffrage came with the admission

of six new states (Indiana, Illinois, Mississippi, Alabama,

Missouri, and Maine) between 1816 and 1821, all of whose

constitutions granted all adult white males the right to vote. This

put additional pressure on states whose Revolutionary War

constitutions still withheld the vote from all adult white males.

In those states, ambitious men who hoped to break the

constitutional stranglehold their elites held over state government

saw universal white male suffrage as a means to that end.

Accompanying the rise of this democratic spirit was the

breakdown of America's party system, which had been created in the

political years of the 1790s. The death of Federalism left the

nation with but one political party, the Democratic-Republicans,

yet that party was rent with sectional and ideological factions.

Within the Democratic-Republican party, a group of nationalists,

led principally by Henry Clay and John Quincy Adams, advocated a

strong central government with wide-ranging powers to enhance the

nations economic development. This faction called for the

chartering of a new Bank of the United States (the charter of

Alexander Hamilton's first Bank of the United States had not been

renewed in 1811), federally financed roads and canals, and a

protective tariff to aid new American industries. Opposing this

intraparty faction was a group of Democratic-Republicans (the most

prominent of whom were Martin Van Buren of New York, Thomas Hart

Benton of Missouri, John H. Eaton of Tennessee, and Jackson

himself) who adhered more closely to traditional Jeffersonian ideas

of a limited central government and a strict construction of the

Constitution. As states began to institute universal white male

suffrage, these factions increasingly appealed to the people, thus

giving the voters a greater role than they previously had enjoyed.

In the years since independence, New York had grown more than

any other state. Between 1790 and 1820, the state's population had

quadrupled, and the sixteen counties in 1790 had expanded to fifty-five by 1820. Two-thirds of the population lived in areas of the

state that had been considered the frontier in 1790, and New York

City's population had more than doubled since 1800. Most of the

city's new people owned no real estate, and many of the settlers

who moved into the northern and western regions were not allowed to

vote because properties on which leases and mortgages were paid

were not considered freeholds. Moreover, many people who settled in

the northern and western areas of New York had come from other

states, where suffrage requirements were more lenient. These new

settlers, many of whom were disfranchised because they did not own

their land outright, were outraged that the right to vote had been

taken from them. Together with the people of New York City, they

called for suffrage reform.

New York also had the largest black population of any state

north of the Chesapeake. Slaves from the West Indies had been

brought to New Netherland by the Dutch West India Company in 1626,

a practice that increased under English rule. The slaves were used

primarily as agricultural workers or laborers. By 1749, New York's

slave population numbered 10,592 (out of a total population of

73,348), and one-sixth of New York City's population was black.

During the colonial period, a number of slave plots and one real

uprising (in 1712) had made white settlers extremely distrustful of

blacks. Nevertheless, in 1799, New York approved a plan for the

gradual emancipation of slaves. Even before then, during the party

battles of the 1790s, as evidence shows, some free black renters

were voting in New York City. Hence the issue of whether blacks in

New York should be included in the move toward universal male

suffrage was a real one.

Governor DeWitt Clinton tried to block a constitutional

convention in New York, fearing that the new democratic spirit

would drive a wedge between him and his Federalist allies and oust

him from power. But Clinton could not smother calls for a

constitutional convention that would deal with, among other things,

the franchise. Reluctantly, Clinton allowed New Yorkers to vote on

whether they wanted a constitutional convention. In the vote, New

Yorkers asked for a convention, with the western areas and New York

City providing the strongest support.

As noted, when the New York constitutional convention opened in

August, 1821, there was considerable pressure to approve a new

constitution granting universal adult male suffrage. Yet it must be

remembered that "democracy" was a relatively new concept in 1821.

Concerned about the intelligence and virtue of the people, the

drafters of the original state constitution (and, indeed the

federal Constitution itself) purposely placed checks in those

documents to prevent unbridled rule by the common people. Even in

1821, reformers and conservatives alike looked into a future that

no one could predict. Was former U.S. Supreme Court chief justice

and New York governor John Jay's belief that "those who own the

country ought to govern it" the best approach, or should those who

called for all men to vote be heeded? Most governments in the past

had been run by propertied and educated elites. In 1821, democracy

was an untested and, many believed, dangerous philosophy. Would it

undo all the gains that Americans had won?

THE METHOD

First, you must be able to identify and summarize the principal

arguments on both sides of the two issues concerning the suffrage

(whether to eliminate all property qualifications for voting and

whether to extend the vote to all adult black males as well as to

all adult white males). Then, by analyzing the evidence, you must

determine what the 1821 debate tells us about American political

thought in the Age of the Common Man.

The full transcription of the convention debates is well over

six hundred pages, so the evidence here is but a small fraction of

the total debate. Nevertheless, the major arguments on each side of

the question have been reproduced here. Delegates discussed other

important constitutional reforms - sometimes at length - but the

question of suffrage extension was the most debated issue.

Excerpts from several speeches have been reproduced in the exact

order in which they were delivered at the convention. As you read

each selection, ask yourself the following questions:

1. With which of the two question is the speaker concerned

(universal suffrage for all adult white males or universal suffrage

for white and black males)?

2. What arguments does the speaker offer in support of his

position?

3. Is the speaker replying to an earlier speech? If so, does he

support or oppose the position of the earlier speaker? What

arguments does he offer to support or counter the earlier speaker?

4. How do the arguments made by the speaker help us understand

American political thought at the time.

5. Note in the remarks by James Kent the observation that "this

Convention has already determined to withdraw the watchful eye of

the judicial department from the passage of laws..." What does

this mean?

6. What did the delegates think about human beings (since all

political systems rest on a conception of the nature of human

beings)?

7. What did the delegates think motivated human behavior?

8. Did the delegates believe that "all men are created equal?"

Take notes as you read the selections. Then, having read all the

selections, divide the evidence into two categories: one dealing

with universal suffrage for adult white males and one with

universal suffrage for white and black males. Next, summarize the

main points on both sides of both issues. Submit your summary to

the instructor via E-mail. Be aware however, that Part II of this

assignment will be immediately forthcoming after your submission of

the above.

One curious thing you will discover in the transcript that

follows, is that a number of those delegates who favored universal

adult white male suffrage also opposed black male suffrage, whereas

many of those who opposed lowering voting restrictions for whites

actually favored black male suffrage. Why do you think this was so?

Do the debates offer any clues?

A second curious thing you will discover is the absence of any

mention of extending suffrage to women. Given the arguments

advanced by even those who favor extending the franchise, why is

this so?

You will also note that the English language in America had

changed. It is much easier to understand the rhetoric of

nineteenth-century figures than that of people from earlier eras

(see James Madison, "Federalist No. 10"). The democratic impulse

affected the language. In the democratic tumult of the early

nineteenth century, people were expected to "speak their mind," to

do away with "aristocratic frills" in their speech. If one was

"running" for office, then one would have to speak more like the

voters one courted.

THE EVIDENCE

1. Convention Speeches

Ogden Edwards, New York County

Sir, I came not here to flatter the people. I cam here to serve the

people, by a faithful devoting of my faculties, such as they are,

to a subject which most deeply concerns them and their posterity.

To accomplish the end for which we are sent, we must form a correct

estimate of the character of this people. We have heard much

flattery dealt out to them; and who would imagine from what we have

heard, but that they were all wise, all honest, all, all honourable

men. Sir, this is all folly. It is not true, and the people know

that it is not true. The truth of the matter is, that the people of

this state are like the people of other states. Some of them are

wise and some are foolish; some honest and some are knaves. If the

people are as they have been represented, how does it happen that

your courts of justice are drowned with lawsuits, and your state-prison so filled to overflowing, that it is necessary from time to

time to disgorge their foul contents upon the community? Sir, the

very existence of civil government is a libel upon the human race.

It is enough for us to know, that there is in the people of this,

as well as of other states, a fund of good sense, of integrity, and

of patriotism, which qualifies them in an eminent degree for the

enjoyment of a free government. And it is our business so to

organize the government, as that it will most effectually answer

the end for which it is established, and that is to protect the

virtuous and to punish the vicious; to cast a rampart around the

deserving, and to restrain those who will not respect the laws of

God or man. We must take things as we find them here...

Nathan Sanford, New York County

The question before us is the right of suffrage - who shall, or who

shall note, have the right to vote. The committee has presented the

scheme they thought best; to abolish all existing distinctions, and

make the right of voting uniform. Is this not right? Where did

these distinctions arise? They arose from British precedents. In

England, they have their three estates, which must always have

their separate interests represented. Here there is but one estate

- the people. To me, the only qualification seems to be, the virtue

and morality of the people; and if they may be safely entrusted to

vote for one class of our rulers, why not for all? In my opinion,

these distinctions are fallacious. We have the experience of almost

all the other states against them. The principle of the scheme now

proposed, is, that those who bear the burdens of the state, should

choose those that rule it. There is no privilege given to property,

as such; but those who contribute to the public support, we

consider as entitled to a share in the election of rulers. The

burthens are annual, and the elections are annual, and this appears

proper. To me, and the majority of the committee, it appeared the

only reasonable scheme that those who are to be affected by the

acts of the government, should be annually entitled to vote for

those who administer it. Our taxes are of two sorts, on real and

personal property. The payment of a tax on either, we thought,

equally entitled a man to a vote, and thus we intend to destroy the

odious distinctions of property which now exist. But we have

considered personal service, in some cases, equivalent to a tx on

personal property, as in work on the high roads. This is a burthen,

and should entitle those subject to it to equivalent privileges.

The road duty is equal to a poll tax on every male citizen of 21

years, of 62 1/2 cents per annum, which is about the value of each

individual's work on the road. This work is a burthen imposed by

the legislature - a duty required by rulers, and which should

entitle those subject to it, to a choice of those rulers. Then,

sir, the militia next presents itself; the idea of personal

service, as applicable to the road duty, is, in like manner,

applicable here; and this criterion has been adopted in other

states. In Mississippi, mere enrolment gives a vote. In

Connecticut, as is proposed here, actual service, and that without

the right of commutation, is required. The duty in the militia is

obligatory and onerous. The militia man must find his arms and

accoutrements, and lose his time. But, after admitting all these

persons, what restrictions, it will be said, are left on the right

of suffrage? 1st. The voter must be a citizen. 2d. The service

required must be performed within the year, on the principle that

taxation is annual, and election annual; so that when the person

ceases to contribute or serve, he ceases to vote....

Now, sir, this scheme will embrace almost the whole male

population of the state. There is perhaps no subject so purely

matter of opinion, as the question of how far the right of suffrage

may be safely carried. We proposed to carry it almost as far as the

male population of the state. The convention may perhaps think this

too broad. On this subject we have much experience; yet there are

respectable citizens who think this extension of suffrage

unfavorable to the rights of property. Certainly this would be a

fatal objection, if well founded; for any government, however

constituted, which does no secure property to its rightful owners,

is a bad government. But how is the extension of the right of

suffrage unfavorable to property? Will not our laws continue the

same? Will not the administration of justice continue the same? And

if so, how is private property to suffer? Unless these are changed,

and upon them rest the rights and security of property, I m unable

to perceive how property is to suffer by the extension of the right

of suffrage. But we have abundant experience eon this point in

other states. Now, sir, in many of the states the right of suffrage

has no restriction; every male inhabitant votes. Yet what harm has

been done in those states? What evil has resulted to them from this

cause/ The course of things in this country is for the extension,

and not the restriction of popular rights. I do not know that in

Ohio or Pennsylvania, where the right of suffrage is universal,

there is not the same security of private rights and private

happiness as elsewhere....

John Ross, Genesse County

That all men are free and equal, according to the usual

declarations, applies to them only in a state of nature, and not

after the institution of civil government; for then many rights,

flowing from a natural equality, are necessarily abridged, with a

view to produce the greatest amount of security and happiness to

the community. On this principle the right of suffrage is extended

to white men only. But why, it will probably be asked, are blacks

to be excluded? I answer, because they are seldom, if ever,

required to share in the common burthens or defence of the state.

There are also additional reasons; they are a peculiar people,

incapable, in my judgment, of exercising that privilege with any

sort of discretion, prudence, or independence. They have no just

conceptions of civil liberty. They know not how to appreciate it,

and are consequently indifferent to its preservation.

Under such circumstances, it would hardly be compatible with the

safety of the state, to entrust such a people with this right. It

is not thought advisable to permit aliens to vote, neither would it

be safe to extend it to the blacks. We deny to minors this right,

and why? Because they are deemed incapable of exercising it

discreetly, and therefore not safely,k for the good of the whole

community. - Even the better part of creation as my honourable

friend from Oneida, (Mr. N. Williams) stiles them, are not

permitted to participate in this right. No sympathies seemed to be

awakened in their behalf, nor in behalf of the aborigines, the

original and only rightful proprietors of our soil - a people

altogether more cute and discerning, and in whose judicious

exercise of the right I should repose far more confidence, than in

the African race. In nearly all the western and southern states,

indeed many others, even in Connecticut, where steady habits and

correct principles prevail, the blacks are excluded. And gentlemen

have been frequently in the habit of citing the precedents of our

sister states for our guide; and would it not be well to listen to

the decisive weight of precedents furnished in this case also?...

Peter A. Jay, Westchester County

The chairman of the select committee has given a fair and candid

exposition of the reasons that induced them to make the report now

under consideration, and on the motives by which they were

governed. He has clearly stated why they were desirous of extending

the right of suffrage t some who did not at present enjoy it, but

he has wholly omitted to explain why they deny it to others who

actually possess it. The omission, however, has been supplied by

one of his colleagues, who informed us that all who were not white

ought to be excluded from political rights, because such persons

were incapable of exercising them discreetly, and because they were

peculiarly liable to be influenced and corrupted...

Why sir, are these men to be excluded from rights which they

possess in common with their countrymen? What crime have they

committed for which they are to be punished? Why are they, who were

born as free as ourselves, natives of the same country, and

deriving from nature and our political institutions, the same

rights and privileges which we have, now to be deprived of all

those rights, and doomed to remain forever as liens among us? We

are told, in reply, that other states have set us the example. It

is true that other states treat this race of men with cruelty and

injustice, and that we have hitherto manifested towards them a

disposition to be just and liberals. Yet even in Virginia and North

Carolina, free people of colour are permitted to vote, and if I am

correctly informed, exercise that privilege. In Pennsylvania, they

are much more numerous than they are here, and there they are not

disfranchised, nor has any inconvenience been felt from extending

to all men the rights which ought to be common to all. In

Connecticut, it is true, they have, for the last three years

adopted a new constitution which prevents people of colour from

acquiring the right of suffrage in future, yet even there they have

preserved the right to all those who previously possessed it....

But we are told by one of the select committee, that people of

colour are incapable of exercising the right of suffrage. I may

have misunderstood that gentleman; but I thought he meant to say,

that they laboured under a physical disability. It is true that

some philosophers have held that the intellect of a black man is

naturally inferior to that of a white one; but this idea has been

so completely refuted, and is now so universally exploded, that I

id not expect to have heard of it in an assembly so enlightened as

this, nor do I now think it necessary to disprove it. That in

general the people of colour are inferior to the whites in

knowledge and in industry, I shall not deny. You made them slaves,

and nothing is more true than the ancient saying, "The day you make

man a slave takes half his worth away." Unaccustomed to provide for

themselves, and habituated to regard labour as an evil, it is no

wonder that when set free, they should be improvident an idle, and

that their children should be brought up without education, and

without prudence or forethought. But will you punish the children

for your own crimes; for the injuries which you have inflicted upon

their parents? Besides, sir, this state of things is fast passing

away. Schools have been opened for them, and it will, I am sure,

give pleasure to this committee to know, that in these schools

there is discovered a thirst for instruction, and a progress in

learning, seldom to be seen in the other schools of the state. They

have also churches of their own, and clergymen of their own colour,

who conduct their public worship with perfect decency and order,

and not without ability....

Robert Clarke, Delaware County

My honourable colleague has told us, "that these people are not

liable to do military duty, and that they are not required to

contribute to the protection or defence of the state, that they are

not entitled to an equal participation in the privileges of its

citizens." But, sir, whose fault is this? Have they ever refused to

do military duty when called upon? It is haughtily asked, who will

stand in the ranks, shoulder to shoulder, with a negro? I answer,

no one in time of peace; no one when your musters and trainings are

looked upon as mere pastimes; no one when your militia will

shoulder their muskets and march to their trainings with as much

unconcern as they would go to a sumptuous entertainment, or a

splendid ball. But, sir, when the hour of danger approaches, your

"white" militia are just as willing that the man of colour should

be set up as a mark to be shot at by the enemy, as to be up

themselves. In the war of the revolution, these people helped to

fight your battles by land and by sea. Some of your states were

glad to turn out corps of coloured men, and to stand "shoulder to

shoulder" with them. In your late war they contributed largely

towards some of your most splendid victories. On Lakes Erie and

Champlain, where your fleets triumphed over a foe superior in

numbers, and engines of death, they were manned in a large

proportion with men of colour. And in this very house, in the fall

of 1814, a bill passed receiving the approbation of all the

branches of your government, authorizing the governor to accept the

services of a corps of 2000 free people of colour. Sir these were

times which tried men's souls. In these times it was no sporting

matter to bear arms. These were times when a man who shouldered his

musket, did not know but he bared his bosom to receive a death

wound from the enemy ere he laid it aside; and in these times these

people were found as ready and as willing to volunteer in your

service as any other. They were not compelled to go, they were not

drafted. No, your pride had placed them beyond your compulsory

power. But there was no necessity for this exercise; they were

volunteers; yes, sir, volunteers to defend that very country from

the inroads and ravages of a ruthless and vindictive foe, which had

treated them with insult, degradation, and slavery. Volunteers are

the best of soldiers; give me the men, whatever be their

complexion, that willingly volunteer, and not those who are

compelled to turn out; such men do not fight from necessity, nor

from mercenary motives, but from principle. Such men formed the

most efficient corps for your country's defence in the late war;

and of such consisted the crews of your squadrons on Erie and

Champlain, who largely contributed to the safety and peace of your

country, and the renown of her arms. Yet, strange to tell, such are

the men whom you seek to degrade and oppress.

There is another consideration which I think important. Our

government is a government of the people, supported and upheld by

public sentiment; and to support and perpetuate our free

institutions, it is our duty and our interests to attach to it all

the different classes of the community. Indeed there should be but

one class. Then, sir, is it wise, is it prudent, is it consistent

with sound policy, to compel a large portion of your people and

their posterity, forever to become your enemies, and to view you

and your political institutions with distrust, jealousy, and

hatred, to the latest posterity; to alienate one portion of the

community from the rest, and from their own political institutions?

I grant you, sir, that in times of profound peace, their numbers

are so small that in their resentment could make no serious

impression. But, sir, are we sure; can we calculate that we are

always to remain in a state of peace? That our tranquility is never

again to be disturbed by invasion or insurrection? And, sir, when

that unhappy period arrives, if they, justly incensed by the

cumulated wrongs which you heap upon them, should throw their

weight in the scale of your enemies, it might, and most assuredly

would, be severely felt. Then your gayest and proudest militiamen

that now stand in your ranks, would rather be seen "shoulder to

shoulder" with a negro, than have him added to the number of his

enemies, and meet him in the field of battle....

But it is said these people are incapable of exercising the

right of suffrage judiciously; that they will become the tools and

engines of aristocracy, and set themselves up in market, and give

their votes to the highest bidder; that they have no will or

judgment of their own, but will follow implicitly the dictates of

the purse-proud aristocrats of the day, on whom they depend for

bread. This may be true to a certain extent; but, sir, they are not

the only ones who abuse this privilege: and if this be a sufficient

reason for depriving any of your citizens of their just rights, go

on and exclude also the many thousands of white fawning, cringing

sycophants, who look up to their more wealthy and more ambitious

neighbors for direction at the polls, s they look to them for

bread. But although most of this unfortunate class of men may at

present be in this dependent state, both in body and mind, yet we

ought to remember, that we are making our constitution, not for a

day, nor a year, but I hope for many generations; and there is a

redeeming spirit in liberty, which I have no doubt will eventually

raise these poor, abused, unfortunate people, from their present

degraded state, to equal intelligence with their more fortunate and

enlightened neighbors....

Col. Samuel Young, Saratoga County

The gentleman who had just sat down had adverted to the declaration

of independence to prove that the blacks are possessed of "certain

unalienable rights." But is the right of voting a natural right? If

so, our laws are oppressive and unjust. A natural right is one that

is born with us. No man is born twenty-one years old, and of course

all restraint upon the natural right of voting during the period of

nonage, is usurpation and tyranny. This confusion arises from

mixing natural with acquired rights. The right of voting is

adventitious. It is resorted to only as a means of securing our

natural rights.

In forming a constitution, we should have reference to the

feelings, habits, and modes of thinking of the people. The

gentleman last up has alluded to the importance of regarding public

sentiment. And what is the public sentiment in relation to this

subject? Are the negroes permitted to a participation in social

intercourse with the whites? Are they elevated to public office.

No, sir - public sentiment forbids it. This they know; and hence

they are prepared to sell their votes to the highest bidder. In

this manner you introduce corruption into the very vitals of the

government.

A few years ago a law was made requiring the clerks of the

respective counties to make out a list of jurymen. Was a negro ever

returned upon that list? If he were, no jury would sit with him.

Was a constable ever known to summon a negro as a juror,k even

before a justice of the peace in a matter of five dollars amount?

Never, - but gentlemen who would shrink from such an association,

would now propose to associate with him in the important act of

electing a governor of the state.

This distinction of colour is well understood. It is unnecessary

to disguise it, and we ought to shape our constitution so as to

meet the public sentiment. If that sentiment should alter - if the

time should ever arrive when the African shall e raised to the

level of the white man - when the distinctions that now prevail

shall be done away - when the colours shall intermarry - when

negroes shall be invited to your tables - to sit in your pew, or

ride in your coach, it may then be proper to institute a new

Convention, and remodel the constitution so as to conform to that

state of society....

The minds of the blacks are not competent to vote. They are too

much degraded to estimate the value, or exercise with fidelity and

discretion that important right. It would be unsafe in their hands.

Their vote would be at the call of the richest purchaser. If this

class of people should hereafter arrive at such a degree of

intelligence and virtue, as to inspire confidence, then it will be

proper to confer this privilege upon them. At present emancipate

and protect them; but withhold that privilege which they will

inevitably abuse. Look to your jails and penitentiaries. By whom

are they filled? By the very race, whom it is now proposed to cloth

with the power of deciding upon your political rights....

Chief Justice Ambrose Spencer, Albany County

He said he would explain what he believed to be the origin of this

sentiment in favour of extending the elective franchise. The

western part of this state has increased with an almost unexampled

rapidity, with a virtuous and intelligent people - I speak of those

who hold lands by virtue of contracts. They have gone on improving

their estates, and paying as far as they could; but in very few

cases have they completed their payments, and merely for the want

of a form of a deed, they have been excluded from the right of

voting. A short time since, attempts had been made in the

legislature to invest them with the privilege of voting, as being

equitable freeholders, but the attempt did not succeed; and their

condition certainly does appear to call for some relief.

I have believed, and do still believe, said Mr. S. that we are

called on to extend the right of suffrage, as far as the interests

of the community will permit; but I do think we cannot contemplate

carrying it to the full extent recommended in the report, without

knowing that we are not giving it to those people who will

nominally enjoy the right, but to those who feed ad clothe them. I

shall vote against striking out the word white, on the ground that

it is necessary for securing our own happiness. I cannot say I

would deprive those people, who have acquired property, of the

privilege of voting; but I cannot consent to extend it to others,

in whose hands it will be as much abused as by these coloured

people. I am willing to extend the right of suffrage as far as my

conscience will admit; but I never can agree to extend it so far,

as to deprive the agricultural interests of this state of the

rights which they ought to enjoy. I never can consent to extend

this right, and make an aristocracy by giving the man who has the

longest purse, the power to control the most votes....

(Ambrose Spencer introduced an amendment restoring property

requirements to voters for state senators.)

Chancellor James Kent, Albany County

Let us recall our attention, for a moment, to our past history.

This state has existed for forty-four years under our present

constitution, which was formed by those illustrious sages and

patriots who adorned the revolution. It has wonderfully fulfilled

all the great ends of civil government. During that long period, we

have enjoyed in an eminent degree, the blessings of civil and

religious liberty. We have had a succession of wise and temperate

legislatures. The code of our statute law has been again and again

revised and corrected, and it may proudly bear a comparison with

that of ny other people. We have had, during that period, (though

I am, perhaps, not the fittest person to say it) a regular, stable,

honest, and enlightened administration of justice. All the

peaceable pursuits of industry, and all the important interests of

education and science, have been fostered and encouraged. We have

trebled our numbers within the last twenty-five years, have

displayed mighty resources, and have made unexampled progress in

the career of prosperity and greatness.

Our financial credit stands at an enviable height; and we are

now successfully engaged in connecting the great lakes with the

ocean by stupendous canals, which excite the admiration of our

neighbors, and will make a conspicuous figure even upon the map of

the United States.

These are some of the fruits of our present government; and yet

we seem to be dissatisfied with out condition, and we are engaged

in the bold and hazardous experiment of remodelling the

constitution. Is it not fit and discreet: I speak as to wise men;

is it not fit and proper that we should pause in our career, and

reflect well on the immensity of the innovation in contemplation?

Discontent in the midst of so much prosperity, and with such

abundant means of happiness, looks like ingratitude, and as if we

were disposed to arraign the goodness of Providence. Do we not

expose ourselves to the danger of being deprived of the blessings

we have enjoyed?...

The senate has hitherto been elected by the farmers of the state

- by the free and independent lords of the soil, worth at least

$250 in freehold estate, over and above all debts charged thereon.

The governor has been chosen by the same electors, and we have

hitherto elected citizens of elevated rank and character. Our

assembly has been chosen by freeholders, possessing a freehold of

the value of $50, or by persons renting a tenement of the yearly

value of $5, and who have been rated and actually paid taxes to the

state. By the report before us, we propose to annihilate, at one

stroke, all those property distinctions and to bow before the idol

of universal suffrage. That extreme democratic principle, when

applied to the legislative and executive departments of government,

has been regarded with terror, by the wise men of every age,

because in every European republic, ancient and modern, in which it

has been tried, it has terminated disastrously, and been productive

of corruption, injustice, violence, and tyranny. And dare we

flatter ourselves that we ar a peculiar people, who can run the

career of history, exempted from the passions which have disturbed

and corrupted the rest of mankind? If we are like other races of

men, with similar follies and vices, then I greatly fear that our

posterity will have reason to deplore in sackcloth and ashes, the

delusion of the day.

It is not my purpose at present to interfere with the report of

the committee, so far as respects the qualifications of electors

for governor and members of the assembly. I shall feel grateful if

we may be permitted to retain the stability and security of a

senate, bottomed upon the freehold property of the state. Such a

body, so constituted, may prove a sheet anchor amidst the future

factions and storms of the republic. The great leading and

governing interest of this state, is, at present, the agricultural;

and what madness would it be to commit that interest to the winds.

The great body of the people are now the owners and actual

cultivators of the soil. With that wholesome population we always

expect to find moderation, frugality, order, honesty, and a due

sense of independence, liberty, and justice. It is impossible that

any people can lose their liberties by internal fraud or violence,

so long as the country is parcelled out among freeholders of

moderate possessions, and those freeholders have a sure and

efficient control in the affairs of the government. Their habits,

sympathies, and employments, necessarily inspire them with a

correct spirit of freedom and justice; they are the safest

guardians of property and the laws: We certainly cannot too highly

appreciate the value of the agricultural interest: It is the

foundation of national wealth and power. According to the opinion

of her ablest political economists, it is the surplus produce of

the agriculture of England, that enables her to support her bast

body of manufacturers, her formidable fleets and armies, and the

crows of persons engaged in the liberal professions, and the

cultivation of the various arts.

Now, sir, I wish to preserve our senate as the representative of

the landed interest. I wish those who have an interest in the soil,

to retain the exclusive possession of a branch in the legislature,

as a strong hold in which they may find safety through all the

vicissitudes which the state may be destined, in the course of

Providence, to experience. I wish them to be always enabled to say

that their freeholds cannot be taxed without their consent. The men

of no property, together with the crowds of dependents connected

with great manufacturing and commercial establishments, and the

motley and undefinable population of crowded ports, may, perhaps,

at some future day, under skilful management, predominate in the

assembly, and yet we should be perfectly safe if no laws could pass

without the free consent of the owners of the soil. That security

we ate present enjoy; and it is that security which I wish to

retain.

The apprehended danger from the experiment of universal suffrage

applied to the whole legislative department, is no dream of the

imagination. It is too mighty an excitement for the moral

constitution of men to endure. The tendency of universal suffrage,

is to jeopardize the rights of property, and the principles of

liberty. There is a constant tendency in human society,k and the

history of every age proves it; there is a tendency in the poor to

covet and to share the plunder of the rich; in the debtor to relax

or avoid the obligation of contacts; in the majority to tyrannize

over the minority, and trample down their rights; in the indolent

and the profligate, to cast the whole burthens of society upon the

industrious and the virtuous; and there is a tendency in ambitious

and wicked men, to inflame these combustible materials. It requires

a vigilant government, and a firm administration of justice, to

counteract that tendency. Thou shalt not covet; thou shalt not

steal; are divine injunctions induced by this miserable depravity

of our nature. Who can undertake to calculate with any precision,

how many millions of people, this great state will contain in the

course of this and the next century, and who can estimate the

future extent and magnitude of our commercial ports? The

disproportion between the men of property, and the men of no

property, will be in every society in a ratio to its commerce,

wealth and population. We are no longer to remain plain and simple

republics of farmers, like the New England colonists, or the Dutch

settlements on the Hudson. We are fast becoming a great nation,

with great commerce, manufactures, population, wealth, luxuries,

and with the vices and miseries that they engender. One seventh of

the population of the city of Paris at this day subsists on

charity, and one third of the inhabitants of that city die in the

hospitals; what would become of such a city with universal

suffrage? France has upwards of four, and England upwards of five

millions of manufacturing and commercial labourers without

property. Could these kingdoms sustain the weight of universal

suffrage? The radicals in England, with the force of that mighty

engine, would at once weep away the property, the laws, and the

liberties of that island like a deluge.

The growth of the city of New Your is enough to startle and

awaken those who are pursuing the ignis fatuus of universal

suffrage....

It is rapidly swelling into the unwieldy population, and with

the burdensome pauperism, of an European metropolis. New York is

destined to become the future London of America; and in less than

a century, that city, with the operation of universal suffrage, and

under skilful direction, will govern this state.

The notion that every man that works a day on the road, or

serves an idle hour in the militia, is entitled as of right to an

equal participation in the whole power of the government, is most

unreasonable, and has no foundation in justice. We had better at

once discard from the report such a nominal test of merit. If such

persons have an equal share in one branch of the legislature, it is

surely as much as they can in justice or policy demand. 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 his

thousands. He will not have the same inducements to care, and

diligence, and fidelity. His inducements and his temptation would

be to divide the whole capital upon the principles of an agrarian

law.

Liberty, rightly understood, is an inestimable blessing, but

liberty without wisdom, and without justice, is no better than wild

and savage licentiousness. The danger which we have hereafter to

apprehend, is not the want, but the abuse, of liberty. We have to

apprehend the oppression of minorities, and a disposition to

encroach on private right - to disturb chartered privileges - and

to weaken, degrade, and overawe the administration of justice; we

have to apprehend the establishment of unequal, and consequently,

unjust systems of taxation, and all the mischiefs of a crude and

mutable legislation. A stable senate, exempted from the influence

of universal suffrage, will powerfully check these dangerous

propensities, and such a check becomes the more necessary, since

this Convention has already determined to withdraw the watchful eye

of the judicial department from the passage of laws....

I hope, sir, we shall not carry desolation through all the

departments of the fabric erected by our fathers. I hope we shall

not put forward to the world a new constitution, as will meet with

the scorn of the wise, and the tears of the patriot.

Peter R. Livinston, Dutchess County

Allusions had been made to the formation of the constitution

under which we live; and what was the first feature in our

remonstrance against the usurpations of Britain? Was it not that

taxation and representation were reciprocal; and that no imposition

could be laid upon us without our consent? Was it the paltry tax on

tea that led to the revolution? No, sir; it was the principle, for

which we contended; and the same principle, in my judgment,

requires a rejection of the proposition now on your table. But we

are asked, what evidence we have that the people want this

extension of suffrage? Sir, 74,000 witnesses testified, last

spring, that they wanted it. Meetings and resolutions, public

prints, and conversation have united to require it.

It is concluded, however, that the measure proposed by the

original amendment jeopardizes the landed interest. Sir, it is the

landed interest, in common with others, that have demanded this

measure at our hands; and will they resort to projects which are

calculated to injure ourselves? France has been alluded to. The

French revolution, sir, has produced incalculable blessings to that

country. Before that revolution one third of the property of the

kingdom was in the hands of the clergy; the rest in the hands of

the nobility. Where the interest of one individual has been

sacrificed, the interests of thousands have been promoted. After

dining with that friend of universal liberty, the patriotic La

Fayette, he once invited me to a walk upon the top of his house,

that commanded a view of all the surrounding country. Before the

revolution, said he, all the farms and hamlets you can see were

mine. I am now reduced to a thousand acres, and I exult in the

diminution, since the happiness of others is promoted by

participation.

This, sir is the language of true patriotism; the language of

one whose heart, larger than his possessions, embraced the whole

family of man in the circuit of its beneficence. And shall we, with

less ample domains, refuse to our poorer neighbors the common

privileges of freemen?

But, sir, we are told and warned of the rotten boroughs of

England. By whom are they owned? By men of wealth. They confer the

right of representation on the few, to the exclusion of the many.

They are always found in the views of the monarch; and while

aristocracy is supported by the house of lords, the house of

commons is borne down by the boroughs.

It is said that wealth builds our churches, establishes our

schools, endows our colleges, and erects our hospitals. But have

these institutions been raised without the hand of labour? No, sir;

and it is the same hand that has levelled the sturdy oak, the lofty

pine, and the towering hemlock, and subdued your forests to a

garden. It is not the fact, in this country, that money controls

labour; but labour controls money. When the farmer cradles his

wheat and harvests his hay,k he does not find the labourer on his

knees before him at the close of the day, solicitous for further

employment; bit it is the farmer who takes off his hat, pays him

his wages, and requests his return on the morrow...

Abraham Van Vechten, Albany County

Some of the opposers of the amendment before us, object to it,

because, as they allege, it is founded in aristocratic principles.

I must confess, sir, that this objection has at least the merit of

novelty. A landed aristocracy composed of the great body of yeomen

of this state, is, I apprehend, an anomaly. I have sometimes heard

the holders of overgrown estates in lands, called aristocrats, but

until now, I never heard tat the prescribed freehold qualification

of $250 for electors of the senate, was considered an aristocratic

feature in our constitution. What! the common farmers - the stable

pillars of the state, a body of aristocrats? If the ownership of

fifty, or an hundred, or two hundred acres of our soil, converts

the owner into an aristocrat, then, according to the estimate of

the gentleman from Dutchess (Mr. Livingston) two-thirds of the

present electors of this state are aristocrats - and hence

proceeds, I presume, the solicitude of the remaining one-third,

that the right of suffrage may be extended, so as to countervail

the aristocratic influence of the farmers, by a class of voters,

who, for the want of real property, are more democratic, and of

course more independent.

Daniel D. Tompkins Richmond County

Property, sir, when compared with our other essential rights, is

insignificant and trifling. "Life, liberty, and the pursuit of

happiness" - not of property - are set forth in the declaration of

independence as cardinal objects. Property is not even named....

David Buel, Jr., Rensselaer County

A man who is possessed of a piece of land worth $250 for his own

life, or the life of another person, is a freeholder, and has the

right to vote for governor and senators. But one who has an estate

in ever so valuable a farm, for 9999 years, or any other definite

term, however long, is not a freeholder and cannot vote. The

absurdity of the distinction, at this day, is so glaring as to

require no comment. Yet there are numerous farmers, in different

parts of the state, who are excluded from the right of suffrage on

this absurd distinction between freehold and leasehold estates. No

person will now pretend that a farmer who holds his land by a

thousand years lease is less attached to the soil, or less likely

to exercise the privilege of freemen discreetly, than a freeholder.

We shall not, I trust, be accused of want of respect to settled

institutions if we expunge such glaring absurdities from our

constitution. It is supposed, however, by the honourable member

before me (Chancellor Kent) that landed property will become

insecure under the proposed extension of the right of suffrage, b

the influx of a more dangerous population. That gentleman has drawn

a picture from the existing state of society in European kingdoms,

which would be indeed appalling, if we could suppose such a state

of society could exist here. But are arguments, drawn from the

state of society in Europe, applicable to our situation? I think

the concessions of my honourable friend from Albany, who last

addressed the committee, (Mr. Van Vechten) greatly weaken the force

of the arguments of his honour the Chancellor.

There are in my judgment, many circumstances which will forever

preserve the people of this state from the vices and the

degradation of European population, beside those which I have

already taken notice of. The provision already made for the

establishment of common schools, will, in a very few years, extend

the benefit of education to all our citizens. The universal

diffusion of information will forever distinguish our population

from that of Europe. Virtue and intelligence are the true basis on

which every republican government must rest. When these are lost,

freedom will no longer exist. The diffusion of education is the

only sure means of establishing these pillars of freedom. I rejoice

in this view of the subject, that our common school fund will (if

the report on the legislative department be adopted,) be

consecrated by a constitutional provision; and I feel no

apprehension, for myself, or my posterity, in confiding the right

of suffrage to the great mass of such a population as I believe

ours will always be. The farmers in this country will always out

number all other portions of our population. Admitting that the

increase of our cities, and especially of our commercial

metropolis, will be as great as it has been hitherto; it is not to

be doubted that the agricultural population will increase in the

same proportion. The city population will never be able to depress

that of the country. New York has always contained about a tenth

part of the population of the state, and will probably always bear

a similar proportion. Can she, with such a population, under any

circumstances, render the property of the bast population of the

country insecure? It may be that mobs will occasionally be

collected, and commit depredations in a great city; but, can the

mobs traverse our immense territory, and invade the farms, and

despoil the property of the landholders? And if such a state of

things were possible, would a senate, elected by freeholders,

afford any security? It is the regular administration of the laws

by an independent judiciary, that renders property secure against

private acts of violence. And there will always be a vast majority

of our citizens interested in preventing legislative injustice....

Our community is an association of persons - of human beings -

not a partnership founded on property. The declared object of the

people of this state in associating, was, to "establish such a

government as they deemed best calculated to secure the rights and

liberties of the good people of the state, and most conducive to

their happiness and safety." Property, it is admitted, is one of

the rights to be protected and secured; and although the

protection of life and liberty is the highest object of attention,

it is certainly true, that the security of property is a most

interesting and important object in every free government. Property

is essential to our temporal happiness; and is necessarily one of

the most interesting subjects of legislation. The desire of

acquiring property is a universal passion. I readily give to

property the important place which has been assigned to it by the

honourable members from Albany (Chancellor Kent.) To property we

are indebted for most of our comforts, and for much of our temporal

happiness. The numerous religious, moral, and benevolent

institutions which are every where established, owe their existence

to wealth; and it is wealth which enables us to make those great

internal improvements which we have undertaken. Property is only

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....

Elisha Williams, Columbia County

The gentleman from New York, (Mr. Radcliff,) has contended that, by

nature, all were endowed with the right of suffrage; and he calls

upon us to show that universal suffrage would be dangerous to the

best interests of the state. Sir, the burden of proof rests upon

the gentleman himself, not on us; the constitution on this

occasion, holds the negative; and I call upon him to point out the

danger to be apprehended from the exercise of this elective power

by the yeomanry of the country. Have the freeholders exercised it

tyrannically? Let their wide liberality - their expanded charities

- give the answer....

Who are they who will protect the landed interest of this state,

better than its owners; or better determine when a direct tax is

necessary and proper to be imposed on their farms; and better

judges what laws are calculated to advance the agricultural

interests of the state? Sir, they are the ring streaked and

speckled population of our large towns and cities, comprising

people of every kindred and tongue. They bring with them the

habits, vices, political creeds, and nationalities of every section

of the globe; they have fled from oppression, f you please, and

have habitually regarded sovereignty and tyranny as identified;

they are men, whose wants, if not whose vices, have sent them from

other states and countries, to seek bread by service, if not by

plunder; whose means and habits, whose best kind of ambition and

only sort of industry, all forbid their purchasing in the country

and tilling the soil. Would the state be better governed - would

the landed interest be better protected by the suffrages of such

men, than by the ballots of freeholders? Mr. Jefferson has said,

sir, that great cities were upon the body politic great sores. In

intoning the name of this illustrious statesman with commendation,

I am aware that I may fall under the lash of the honourable

gentleman from Richmond, for most certainly I have never been an

admirer of the gun-boat system. But, however that may be, his old

adherents and universal admirers, cannot object to his authority,

because he may be cited by one, who has not assented to all his

views; and adopting his sentiment as already expressed, I would

not, certainly I would not, if I could prevent it, carry, by

absorption, the contents of those sores through the whole political

body. These cities are filled with men too rich, or too poor to

fraternize with the yeomen of the country; and I warn my fellow

freeholders of the dangers which must attend the surrender of this

most inestimable of privileges - this attribute of sovereignty. On

whom do the burthens of government fall, in peace and in war? On

you. Your freeholds cannot escape taxation - they cannot elude the

vigilance of the assessor, and though encumbered to their whole

value, they must pay on their entire amount. When danger threatens,

to whom must you look for support? Is your militia called for, he

who has no interest in your soil, swings his pack, and is away,

leaving the farmer and the farmer's son, to abide the draft, and

defend the life, liberty, and property of themselves and the

community. They are identified with the interest of the state. I

wold to heaven, the entire mass of the freeholders of this state

were here present, to decide upon this all-important question - to

determine whether they would wantonly cast away this saving power -

this long-enjoyed attribute of sovereignty, granted to them, at

first, by the whole population, and which would constitute the

richest inheritance they could transmit to posterity. Among the

blessings which a moderate portion of property confers, the right

of suffrage is conspicuous; and the attainment of this right, holds

out a strong inducement to that industry and economy, which are the

life of society. If you bestow on the idle and profligate, the

privileges which should be purchased only by industry, frugality,

and character, will they ever be at the trouble and pains to earn

those privileges? No, sir; and the prodigal waste of this

invaluable privilege - this attribute of sovereignty - like

indiscriminate and misguided charity, will multiply the evils which

it professes to remedy. Give the people, to the extent contended

for, one department of the government, as a means of security from

possible oppression; but preserve, I conjure you, to the faithful

citizen, as his best recompense - as the richest gem he can hoard -

and as the sheet-anchor of the republic, the freehold right of

suffrage for the senate. If the time shall ever come, when the

poverty shall be arrayed in hostility against the wealth of the

state; when the needy shall be excited to ask for a division of

your property, as they now ask for the right of governing it, I

wold then have a senate composed of men, each selected from a

district where he should be known, by the yeomanry of the country -

by the men who, if I may venture upon the exquisite figure of the

eloquent gentleman from Dutchess, "wake their own ploughs with the

dawn, and rouse their harrows with the lark."

But we are told this distinction is odious, aristocratic, and

perpetuating a privileged order. Has it come to this? Does the

possession of a small farm, or a modest house and lot in town,

render the owner odious in the eyes of the people? Who ever before

heard of a privileged order of all the freeholders of the state -

of an aristocracy of two-thirds of the whole body of the people -

of 250 dollar aristocrats? the idea admits not of a serious

refutation.

One argument which has been pressed upon this committee, I

confess I never expected to hear in this hall; it is, that "the

people demand this right;" that is to say, in point of fact, those

who will not exercise their faculties and industry so as to make

themselves owners of a real estate of $250 dollars, demand that you

surrender to them rights which are now, and have been for more than

forty years, attached to freeholds. Sir, if it be just and safe to

confer this right, it should be bestowed gratuitously; nothing

should be yielded to this menacing demand. If this demand were

presented in a different shape - if you were called upon to bestow

so much of your freeholds upon these unqualified demandant as would

enable them to vote against you, would you advocate that claim -

would you yield to it? I know sir, that one honourable gentleman

has pointed out the blessings which would flow from yielding this

boon to our brethren in distress. He has witnessed the exultation

of the patriot La Fayette, in the victory of republicanism over his

own property. The honourable gentleman was taken, by the noble

marquis, to the terrace of the splendid chateau of Le Grange.

Before him, as far as the eye could stretch, lay the rich domain.

"But yesterday," exclaimed the imperial republican, "but yesterday

this vast territory was my property, it was dotted with cottages

filled with my vassals: Mark the blessings of la grande revolution;

those who were then hewers of wood and drawers of water, the

vassals of my estate, are now the legitimate sovereigns of

republican France - the lords of their own soil." How long, Mr.

Chairman, if we yield to this demand, will it be, in all human

probability, before those, who now modestly ask no more than a

right to govern our property - they having none themselves to

engross their attention, or require their care - will appear armed

with the elective power of the state, to consummate to us, the rich

blessings conferred on the vassals of Le Grange by the French

revolution? If this surrender be now made, how long before a demand

of the property itself may be expected? Never, Mr. Chairman, never,

til now, have I understood that our dearest rights were at the

disposal of those who might think proper to demand them....

Jonas Platt, Oneida County

Mr. Platt moved to expunge the proviso in the first section, which

declares that no person, "other than a white man," shall vote,

unless he have a freehold estate of the value of $250. He said, I

am not disposed sir, to turn knight-errant in favour of the men of

colour. But the obligations of justice are eternal and

indispensable: and this proviso involves a principle which, upon

reflection, I cannot concede, or compromise as a matter of

expediency. I am aware of the intrinsic difficulty of this subject.

The evils of negro slavery are deep rooted, and admit of no sudden

and effectual remedy. In the act of doing justice, we are bound to

consider consequences. With such a population as that of Virginia,

or the Carolinas, a sudden emancipation, and permission to the

negroes to vote, would be incompatible with the public safety: and

necessity creates a law for itself. But, sir i this state there is

no grounds for such a plea. I admit, that most of the free negroes

in our state, are unfit to be entrusted wit the right of suffrage;

they have neither sufficient intelligence, nor a sufficient degree

of independence, to exercise that right in a safe and proper

manner. I would exclude the great mass of them, but not by this

unjust and odious discrimination of colour We are under no

necessity of adopting such a principle, in laying the foundation of

our government. Let us attain this object of exclusion, by fixing

such a uniform standard of qualification, as would not only exclude

the great body of free men of colour, but also a large portion of

ignorant and depraved white men, who are as unfit to exercise the

power of voting as the men of colour. By adopting the principle of

universal suffrage in regard to white men, we create the necessity,

which is now pleaded as an excuse for this unjust discrimination.

Our republican text is, that all men are born equal, in civil and

political rights; and if this proviso be ingrafted into our

constitution, the practical commentary will be, that a portion of

our free citizens shall not enjoy equal rights with their fellow

citizens....

We say to this unfortunate race of men, purchase a freehold

estate of $250 value, and you shall then be equal to the white man,

who parades one day in the militia, or performs a day's work on the

highway. Sir, it is adding mockery to injustice. We know that, with

rare exceptions, they have not the means of purchasing a freehold;

and it would be unworthy of this grave Convention to do,

indirectly, an act of injustice, which we are unwilling openly to

avow. The real object is, to exclude the oppressed and degraded

sons of Africa; and, in my humble judgment, it would better comport

with the dignity of this Convention to speak out, and to pronounce

the sentence of perpetual degradation, on negroes and their

posterity for ever, than to establish a test, which e know they

cannot comply with, and which we do not require of others....

But, sir, we owe to that innocent and unfortunate race of men,

much more than mere emancipatio. We owe to them our patient and

persevering exertions, to elevate their condition and character, by

means of moral and religious instruction. And I rejoice that by the

instrumentality of Sunday schools and other benevolent

institutions, many of them promise fair to become intelligent,

virtuous, and useful citizens. Judging from our experience of the

last fifty years what may we not reasonably expect, in the next

half century? Sir, if we adopted the principle of this proviso, I

hope and believe, that our posterity will blush, when they see the

names recorded in favour of such a discrimination.

I beseech gentlemen to consider the enlightened age in which we

live!

2. Article Dealing with the Suffrage, Approved by the 1821

Constitutional Convention.

Article Second

Sec. I. Every male citizen, of the age of twenty-one years, who

shall have been an inhabitant of this state one year preceding any

election, and for the last six months a resident of the town or

county where he may offer his vote; and shall have within the year

next preceding the election, paid a tax to the state or county,

assessed upon his real or personal property; or shall by law be

exempted from taxation;p or being armed or equipped accordig to law

shall have performed within that year, military duty in the militia

of this state; or who shall be exempted from performing military

duty in consequence of being a fireman in any city, town, or

village in this state; and also, every male citizen of the age of

twenty-one years, who shall have been, for three years next

preceding such eletion, an inhabitant of this state; and for the

last year, a resident in th town or county, where he may offer his

vote; and shall have been within the last year, assessed to labour

upon the highways, and shall hae performed the labour, or paid an

equivalent therefor, according to law; shall be entitled to vote in

the town or ward where he actually resides, and not elsewhere, for

all officers that now are, or hereafter may e, elective by the

people: But no man of colour, unless he shall have been for three

years a citizen of this state, and for one year next preceding any

election, shall be seized and possessed of a freehold estate of the

value of two hundred and fifty dollars, over and above all debts

and incumbrances charged thereon; and shall have been actually

rated, and paid a tax thereon, shall be entitled to vote at such

election. And no person of colour shall be subject to direct

taxation, unless he shall be seized and possessed of such real

estate as aforesaid.