OPINIONATED AND RELENTLESSLY INQUISITIVE readers have pulled me into an examination of the universal franchise without allowing time to offer useful background and perspective. Fortunately, another reader has come to the rescue with this very short primer on the subject and comments have been added to his remarks.

Robert B. writes:

Perhaps a little history will help your readership here.

The Ancient Greeks invented the idea and philosophy of Democracy, this is a given. But the reasoning behind it is not. The Greeks came to understand that if a man was to support the “State” through his labor (taxes) and with his life (military service) then he should, by all moral rights, have say in the matters at hand–thus the idea of voting and of suffrage were born. The term “suffrage” means, literally, to suffer the pain of the right to vote–that is, one must pay taxes and one must bear military service when called upon. Thus was the idea of a Republican Democracy born. Those who did not suffer the pain, could not vote, even if they were citizens.

The Founding Fathers knew of the travails of Greek Democracy–in particular, that of Athens versus the other Greek city-states. During the long and arduous Peloponnesian War, the states that sided with Sparta (Republican Democracies) versus the Athenian League, faired better and eventually triumphed though they had many major setbacks. The Athenians lost, in the end, because their vaunted version of democracy failed–it quickly turned into “mobocracy” and it became impossible for anyone to rule the state or command the navies/armies for any length of time. Any time an Athenian fleet or army met with defeat, the mob demanded new admirals, generals and government authority. Politicians used the masses to overturn existing leadership time and time again, in order to gain power temporarily. In the end, Athens fell due to its own inability to govern itself. The original Roman Republic also followed along the same lines as the original Greek Republics–there was nothing even close to “Universal Suffrage” since only those with a vested interest were deemed to have the right, and the moral standing to have a vote.

Later, after the French Revolution, Jefferson and his compatriots agreed that, mobocracy had led to great and grave injustices and eventually tyranny so great that no Western monarchy had ever gone so far. It is the reason why America not only refused to aid the French in their war with Great Britain, but ended in declaring war on the French themselves and fighting a purely sea war with France. The Founders understood that only those with a vested interest, i.e. those who suffered the pain, should be allowed to vote. They knew fully that there could never be anything such as “Universal Suffrage” because not everyone would pay taxes and not everyone would be able to fight in a war. Thus, only land owning men (land was the basis for taxation) would be allowed to vote, i.e., a “vested interest”.

What the Founders saw and understood would later be fully explained by De Tocqueville in his landmark study of the newly formed United States–“Democracy In America”. Wherein, in 1835, Tocqueville stated that “The American Republic will endure until the day Congress discovers that it can bribe the public with the public’s money. ” He also said “In other words, a democratic government is the only one in which those who vote for a tax can escape the obligation to pay it. “

Once “Universal Suffrage” was granted to the American people, it began devolving in short order into an increasingly socialist state that we now see before us. Thus, the idea of a “Poll Tax” is necessary for us to regain and maintain our Republican Democracy. A Poll Tax can consist of many things–money is the obvious, but also intelligence tests, knowledge of the constitution as well as proof of having a vested interest.

Incidentally, it was the Democratic Party that sought every wider definitions of suffrage–culminating in giving women the right to vote. It did so, time and time again in order to maintain its power in Washington and in the highly populated states of the East Coast.

                                 — Comments —

Lawrence Auster writes:

What Robert B. says about the real meaning of “suffrage,” and about the unruly democracy of Athens is interesting and useful. However, he makes several errors in passing that weaken his presentation and need to be addressed.

He writes:

The original Roman Republic also followed along the same lines as the original Greek Republics–there was nothing even close to “Universal Suffrage” since only those with a vested interest were deemed to have the right, and the moral standing to have a vote.

This is incorrect. All male citizens of the Roman Republic were members of the People’s Assembly. In fact, there was no “voting” at all in Rome in our sense of voting for representatives, because Rome had no elected representative bodies. Every male Roman was himself a voting member of the People’s Assembly (though, because of distance of residency from Rome, only a small number would actually show up at any one time).

It’s also the case that all male citizens of Rome were liable to military service. Thus they all had the “vested interest” of which Robert speaks.

To repeat: all Roman men were liable to military service, and all Roman men were members of the People’s Assembly.

… America not only refused to aid the French in their war with Great Britain, but ended in declaring war on the French themselves and fighting a purely sea war with France.

The U.S. has never declared war on France. There was a quasi, undeclared war with France for a few months in, I think, 1798, and it blew over.

The Founders understood that only those with a vested interest, i.e. those who suffered the pain, should be allowed to vote. They knew fully that there could never be anything such as “Universal Suffrage” because not everyone would pay taxes and not everyone would be able to fight in a war. Thus, only land owning men (land was the basis for taxation) would be allowed to vote, i.e., a “vested interest”.

This presents an incorrect picture. The franchise was not mentioned in the 1787 Constitution. Voter requirements in the United States were purely a state and local matter until after the Civil War.

Once “Universal Suffrage” was granted to the American people, it began devolving in short order into an increasingly socialist state that we now see before us.

What I’m about to say may seem like a quibble, but it’s worth saying. Universal suffrage has never been granted to the American people as such, for the simple reason that the franchise has been a state, not a federal matter. With the important exceptions of the 15th and 19th Amendments to the Constitution. which say that the right to vote shall not be denied to citizens on account of race or previous condition of servitude (15th), or sex (19th), the franchise has always been purely a state matter. Yes, universal suffrage exists in effect, because each of the several states moved in that direction over time, sometimes of their own choice, sometimes under federal court requirements (such as the elimination of the poll tax and literacy requirements in the South). Furthermore, the 14th Amendment, particularly the equal protection clause, would probably make it impossible for any state to institute property, literacy, poll tax, or other restrictions on the franchise today. However, notwithstanding the qualifications I’ve just mentioned, it remains the case that there is no federal law or constitutional provision that creates a universal franchise per se in the United States. If there is one, I’d like to know about it.

Incidentally, it was the Democratic Party that sought every wider definitions of suffrage–culminating in giving women the right to vote. It did so, time and time again in order to maintain its power in Washington and in the highly populated states of the East Coast.

Of course it was the victorious and dominant Republican Party which was the major force behind the 15th amendment which provided that former slaves and blacks could not be denied the right to vote, not the Democrats, who were powerless at that point and had been fiercely opposed (including in the North) to abolition and to Negro citizenship.

Jim B. writes:

 I too must quibble with your correspondent’s narrative on the history of suffrage. First, “suffrage” does not have it’s it’s root in “suffering,” but in the the Latin “suffragium”, which referred to the bone that was used in the voting process.

Second, his characterization of Athenian democracy is flawed.  Male citizens only acquired the right to vote after completing military training.[Laura writes: Robert B. did note that military service was mandatory.]  He (and his heirs, as status was inheritable) could also be disenfranchised for failure to pay a debt to the state.

An interesting side note on how such debts could be incurred:  Athens had no regular taxes as such; instead, they “democratized” the practice (common in the ancient world) of “liturgies” (from where we get our word for religious services)  A liturgy, in most places, was a service performed for the public by a rich man (it might be a festival, or a public building) in order to win honers from the common man.  In Athens, the assembly could compel anyone to perform a liturgy, and if he didn’t (or couldn’t) pay, he was excluded from politics.  One could plead poverty, but if it was discovered you in fact could afford it when you had claimed not to, the amount could be doubled or tripled.  One effect of this was that it didn’t pay to appear too rich in Athens, since your neighbors could vote you a liturgy at any time.

So as you pay your income taxes today, just think: it could be worse – imagine all your neighbors having a say in how much they thought you should pay!

Please follow and like us: